"Jenn" wrote in message
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
Take a person who is overwhelmed with hysteria, and
mouths pre-programmed sayings from various high end
ragazines and authors. Obviously, this person is out of
touch with their real perceptions. A person with insight
to the situation may better understand that person's
unhinged perceptions better than that person themselves.
Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of
perception. A person can't be "out of touch with their
real perceptions".
Here Jenn denies the existence of illusions.
Their perception is their perception.
Here Jenn asserts that a given set of stimuli can cause only one response.
Then, it seems that a light dawns, and she admits that other, better founded
perceptions might be possible.
Their perception may be misguided, against the norm,
influenced by confounding factors, etc. but it is STILL
their perception.
I never said it wasn't. What I was trying to communicate is that were the
poor guidance and confounding factors removed, that different perceptions
would result. I called those unconfounded, properly guided perceptions "true
perceptions".
But Jenn, in her typical hysterical rush to judgment, starts mouthing off
with cheap accusations like:
"Here you show a lack of even basic understanding of perception."
Kind of you Jenn to so quickly contradict yourself.
Your post nets out to a logical zero, so there's no need to address its
content, other than to observe that it cancelled itself out.