Sentences with phrase «object they saw which»

Lorenz found goslings imprinted on the first moving object they saw which suggest attachment is innate and not learnt.

Not exact matches

It cites numerous instances in which chickens were forcefully hit over the head with various objects, including a metal scraper tool and a broomstick, and details how they mishandled the hens by «roughly grabbing them by a single wing and violently shoving them into garbage cans» — which can be seen in the video.

The Detroit Institute of Arts is also experimenting with augmented reality technology and is partnering with Google for an Ancient Egypt exhibit in which visitors can use the museum's smartphones to see special digital graphics and information overlaid on certain objects, like a mummy's sarcophagus.

Instead of putting objects in a blender, the video would show a Windows 7 phone, an iPhone 4, and an Android phone being grilled, to see which one would last longest.

7 What Lynch objects to is two kinds of imagination, the univocal and the equivocal, the one which flattens out all the density and variety of historical complexity through the imposition of an idea (the allegorical and didactic mentalities) and the other which sees everything as completely diverse and unrelated to anything else (the fideistic and the autonomous mentalities).

We see that the miracle of which he was the object leads to his conversion.

Can't you see the parallels here and the rhetoric that Reema is supporting which her fellow Muslim women feminists would immediately object to???

In these quotations we can see that the envisagement of the eternal objects, which was referred, in the first Lowell lectures, to the underlying substantial activity, (see earlier in this ch.)

(1) The concrete universal as the individual seen in conjunction with the thought structure implied in it, that which makes it an intelligible unity, is neither a naively conceived sense - object, nor an abstract logical universal.

He then utilized terminology that for decades informed the basic stance of process theology on the nature of true power, though, as we shall see, that is open to challenge: God «persuades the world by an act of suffering with the kind of power which leaves its object free to respond in humility and love.»

The value of faith stems not from the irrationality of its object but from the humility that is required to see the truth which is accepted, and the courage required to act upon it.

As Ambrose, the fourth - century bishop of Milan, told the recently initiated: «You must not trust, then, wholly to your bodily eyes; that which is not seen is more really seen, for the object of sight is temporal, but that other eternal, which is not apprehended by the eye, but is discerned by the mind and spirit» (Ambrose of Milan, De mysteriis, III, 15).

What I «see» are physical, tangible objects in my world which I interact with.

I can therefore see an object in so far as objects form a system or a world, and in so far as each one treats the others round it as spectators of its hidden aspects which guarantee the permanence of those aspects by their presence.

Of course a Catholic who looks eastward finds nothing to which he objects, because what he sees is the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (but» here's the rub» for him, this means the first seven of twenty - one).

(You can see this from the way in which the light waves from the whole object come into each part of the hologram.)

See, for example, the quotation already cited in which James indicates that relations of objects are known through our feelings of relations.

Now, with that in view — which I think is a reasonable objection to a document which wants to be seen as, above all things, «reasonable» — why would I object to the whole thing as «obscuring the Gospel»?

As we shall see in the next section, Whitehead's principal version of symbolic reference becomes his means of relating images or sensa as directly perceived to the objects which cause them.

On the face of it Santayana rejects all three of these departures from the tradition, since (1) he makes no very explicit move from a continuant to an event ontology, (2) regards the inherent nature of an object as a matter of the individual eternal essence which it actualizes and (3) regards the distinction between matter and form as at least a virtually inevitable way of expressing the obscure manner in which one state of things takes over from another (see RB 278 - 284).

As we have seen, what the examination of perception brings to light for Whitehead is an occasion of experience which is a self - creative process, a subject synthesizing past objects into a novel unity.

Seen in the light of Buber's dialogical philosophy, this is nothing other than the attempt of subject - object, or I - It, knowledge to dismiss the ontological reality of the I - Thou knowing from which it derives its own existence.

«The «primordial nature» of God is the concrescence of a unity of conceptual feelings» (PR 134), which «achieves, in its unity of satisfaction, the complete conceptual valuation of all eternal objects» (PR 48) or pure forms, thereby generating the entire structuring of pure possibility.4 Seen in terms of his everlasting aspect or consequent nature, however, the only way God is directly related to the World, the converse is true.

He is, rather, a very complex structured society which sustains, among many other societies, a regnant, personally ordered, subordinate society (an enduring object) which Whitehead refers to as «the soul of which Plato spoke» (Adventures of Ideas 267 — see also pp. 263 - 264 for a clear statement of the distinction between «the ordinary meaning of the term «man,» which includes the total bodily man, and the narrow sense of «man,» where «man» is considered a person in Whitehead's technical sense, i.e., as the regnant, personally ordered society which he identifies as his equivalent of Descartes» thinking substance and Plato's soul).

Galileo saw a swinging pendulum as an object with inertia, which almost repeats its oscillating motion; his predecessors, inheriting the Aristotelian interest in progress towards — final ends, had seen a pendulum as a constrained falling object, which slowly attains its final state of rest.

One final comment: The assumption of protopsychic matter is no more revolutionary than our epistemological knowledge that all objects which we see have no color, because color only arises in sense cells and brain.

Rather than being seen as a subject with its own set of rights, the child has become an object whose parents get to determine which set of rights it has.

This is because eternal objects can not convey a sense of the individuality of the past actual entities which are being objectified by a new actual entity (see PR 229f.

It is that experience which is identical when we see a collection of objects reflected in a mirror and a corresponding collection through an open window frame.

Other creation myths have their object formed out of created things (i.e. they are made of physical matter known to man) where as God has never been seen which is true to this day.

See ibid., Appendix C, «Objects and Events,» pp. 456 - 69, which explores Thornton's appropriation of Whitehead's categories.

«The best view is by no means the closest view... we consciously stand back and create distance in order to look at the world, i.e., at objects as parts of the world: and also to be unembarrassed by the closeness of that which we wish only to see; to have the full liberty of our scanning attention.»

Such different ways of conceiving it ought of themselves to arouse doubt as to whether it possibly can be one specific thing; and the moment we are willing to treat the term «religious sentiment» as a collective name for the many sentiments which religious objects may arouse in alternation, we see that it probably contains nothing whatever of a psychologically specific nature.

For whoever so judges either sees in prayer merely a psychological phenomenon, which can become the object of interesting analysis, or he arrogates to himself God's own right.

Understanding that emotions take objects and are dependent on beliefs allows us to see that we can to a large extent pattern and form our emotional lives, and that we can — and should — choose between those emotions which the world encourages and those to which the Holy Spirit leads us.

There you see the way in which a life which may have been disorganized, self - centered, thoughtless, and indifferent to others finds a center in which it can discover the meaning of existence, presented in the object of affection.

But given their unification in this manner, along with the guiding interest in numbering the objects concerned, the totality of objects does in fact appear to us as one intuitive whole in which the unifying relations («collective combinations») may be seen to be exactly what they are.

Hence, I will only point out very briefly some of the ways in which Whitehead's metaphysical ideas, and his related understanding of the objects of physics, form a foundation for seeing inorganic, living, and conscious organisms within one scheme of thought.

You take pleasure in seeing objects which do not raise your mind to God: refuse yourself this pleasure, and turn away your eyes.

What frightens all reasonable people is the fact that we see about us, in our own neighborhoods, some of the same factors which, existing in greater degree, made that object lesson actual.

It embraces all media and even includes «objects» which may be seen as expressive of an idea or political position.

Similarly, when we look into the depths of the clear sky, what we actually see is an unspecifiable total ground of movement, from which objects emerge.

Thus it is hard to see that the inexhaustibility could lie in the impossibility of physically producing something which can be thought of; rather, it must lie in the nature of the object which is being thought of or instantiated.

Whenever we perceive physical objects, we can be certain of one thing: we are seeing that which God is not.

Any presence which the spiritual in art evokes is something which we are unable to see in its entirety, something we are unable to make into an immediate object of our knowledge.

For the third group, who take symbolism seriously, religion is seen as a system of symbols which is neither simply objective nor simply subjective, but which links subject and object in a way that transfigures reality or even, in a sense, creates reality.

People's conditionning in consumerism in subtle ways is changing the theological concept of faith, so that in certain theologies God is seen not so much as the object of service and obedience but as a convenient device by which one's religious needs are met.

One advantage that a broader duration will have over the briefer durations with which it is contemporaneous is its capacity to sum up successive briefer duration; making them simultaneous.22 We have already seen that this is Bergson's explanation of the manner in which the successive «vibrations» of objects around us are transformed by us into stable, unchanging surfaces.

Now in chapter 27 we are in the court before the sanctuary, in which the dominant object is the great altar (see 40:29).

It sees the truth of any sort of object (say an apple) not as that object itself, in its strange and lovely transience, passing through its various moments of existence (seed, tree, ripened fruit hanging on the bough, fruit eaten or moldering away) but as the unchanging form on which it is modeled (the apple that never shines forth in the beauty of its own color, that has no flavor or fragrance, that has never lived).