There would be no sensory experience recognized as such if there were no thought, hence you can argue thought is prior to experience. This is an essentially Kantian position. The categories of experience are prior to the content of experience.
>>> JBCM2@xxxxxxx 02/01/01 13:35 PM >>>
In a message dated 01/31/2001 11:40:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
<<
The answer is that thought is primary. Our senses are merely a faculty
for the inspiration of thoughts. It is possible that there are other
unknown faculties greared to the same purpose.
>>
what does this actually mean? this is a serious question. do you mean that
thought is prior to sensory experience, or do you mean that thought
supersedes sensory experience? do you think that thought is itself sensory
experience, or something different? would you agree with Roethke, that "We
think by feeling. What else is there to know? -- or would you say "we feel
by thinking"?
joe brennan....
>>> JBCM2@xxxxxxx 02/01/01 13:35 PM >>>
In a message dated 01/31/2001 11:40:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
<<
The answer is that thought is primary. Our senses are merely a faculty
for the inspiration of thoughts. It is possible that there are other
unknown faculties greared to the same purpose.
>>
what does this actually mean? this is a serious question. do you mean that
thought is prior to sensory experience, or do you mean that thought
supersedes sensory experience? do you think that thought is itself sensory
experience, or something different? would you agree with Roethke, that "We
think by feeling. What else is there to know? -- or would you say "we feel
by thinking"?
joe brennan....