Today, I read Daniel Sanderson’s article about the Bowman-Hanna debate between conceptualism and non-conceptualism. In the article, he briefly explains that conceptualism suggests innate concepts shape human perception, while non-conceptualism argues for perception without concepts—essentially, raw experiences that provide a more immediate connection to reality. Daniel’s beautifully written piece prompted me to pause and reflect more on this debate, and my morning journal was filled with the following thoughts.
Non-Conceptual Theory and Its Alignment with Archetypal Research
Hanna’s non-conceptual theory, inspired by Kant’s philosophy, aligns closely with my research on direct encounters with Platonic archetypes—universal, timeless principles that underlie reality. Additionally, Kastrup’s philosophy on perception complements this. He describes perception as a re-representation of the external world, which is inherently mental. Kastrup also discusses the idea of dissociative boundaries, which refer to the perceptual or cognitive limits that separate one’s subjective experience from a broader, underlying reality. According to Kastrup, these boundaries are not impenetrable; under certain conditions, they can provide glimpses into a deeper mental or metaphysical structure of existence.
Beyond the Debate: Contexts and Conditions of Perception
Perhaps the issue is not simply an either/or debate, but rather a question of when, under what conditions, and how we perceive the world through pre-existing concepts without being influenced by them.
In “The Republic,” Plato proposed different levels of understanding the world, organizing them in a hierarchical order to represent one’s cognitive development in relation to the nature of reality. But what if these levels coexist within us and are activated under certain conditions or states of mind? If that’s the case, the questions we consider may extend beyond how we perceive and structure the world to encompass how it presents itself to us when we perceive it with or without those concepts.
I understand that my question may not make sense if one possibility does not exist. However, many thinkers have argued for one possibility, the other, or even both. Therefore, my focus is not on whether one is true but rather on my curiosity to learn more about the world, my perceptions, and myself as I navigate both possibilities.
Tangled Hierarchy of Memory and Perception
Dr. Amit Goswami introduces the concept of the tangled hierarchy to explain the mutual influence of memory and perception. He asserts that their relationship is not simply a cause-and-effect interaction but rather a complex interplay where each one affects the other reciprocally. Memory is essential for perception, yet new perceptions are also necessary to form new memories. This dynamic creates a loop between memory and perception that is not destined to be closed. Instead, it serves as a foundation for cognitive stability and the integration of new learning.
Therefore, new perceptions would be nearly impossible without pre-existing concepts ingrained in our memory. If everything relied solely on those existing concepts, we would struggle to progress and acquire new knowledge.
Plato on Illusions and Deeper Understanding
This interplay between memory and perception mirrors Plato’s warning against confusing appearances with reality, reminding us that the knowledge we build can often reflect the shadows of truth rather than its essence. From Plato, we learn that some of our knowledge can be mere illusions when we confuse knowing and understanding with the reflections and shadows of real knowledge. A simple but valid example is when someone reads something online and accepts it without questioning, examining it further, or checking its sources. When a sentence begins with “scientists say that…” or “science has proven that…” many accept it without exploring its validity and nuances.
Beliefs and Higher Cognitive Functions
Another source of perception is the beliefs one holds. These may come from valid experiences and thus have a solid reality base; however, they are still beliefs that might not be accurate or valid in broader contexts. According to Plato, using our higher cognitive functions—such as logical and abstract thinking—allows us to go beyond mere appearances and conditioning, leading to a deeper understanding and more accurate discoveries.
Direct (Noetic) Knowledge and Intuition
I believe countless examples from science and our personal lives have shown that we can always go beyond even the most thoroughly researched or reasoned knowledge. Reality is consistently more than we can comprehend.
I learned from the cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman that the brain’s function is not to perceive reality but to work in favor of survival. Thus, it acts as an interface rather than a window to objective reality, filtering and simplifying the complexities of the world into forms and concepts that enhance our chances of survival rather than revealing the truth.
So, can we ever perceive reality without the aforementioned ways of knowing? Plato argues that we do.
While my opinion may not resonate with everyone, it matters to me. I believe we receive glimpses into the broader nature of reality—what exists beyond our current understanding or description with words. Plato refers to this as direct (noetic) knowledge or intuitive knowledge. Noetic knowledge refers to a direct, intuitive understanding that transcends rational analysis and sensory perception.
How do we grasp the concepts of real love, justice, goodness, or beauty? We can build our understanding on the first three components, but I posit that the continual search for the “real thing” doesn’t arise from the aforementioned ways of knowing. Rather, it emerges from insights into what exists beyond us within the nature of reality. Often, these insights arrive through intuition—a feeling, a sense, or a conviction—without the ability to articulate them or provide rational evidence.
In my Ph.D. research, I refer to this form of knowing as a direct encounter with the archetypes, representing nature’s inherent properties. If you have ever felt an indescribable sense of unconditional love, been captivated by beauty in nature or art, or been profoundly moved by a piece of music, then you know what I mean.
Sri Aurobindo, the Indian philosopher, referred to this method of understanding as supramental intelligence. He described it as a level of consciousness that goes beyond rational thinking and intellectual analysis, enabling access to holistic awareness and the essence of things as they truly are. According to him, without this type of intelligence, the creative force would not exist, and we wouldn’t have the irrational desire to pursue and seek something unexplainable—often unnecessary from a rational perspective—but which transforms and uplifts individuals and larger communities.
The Role of Intuition in Creation and Forces of Transcendence
Consider artists and young children who are always searching for something, guided by their intuition and curiosity. Consider Steve Jobs, who envisioned the appearance of a perfectly beautiful device and sought ways to bring that imagined sense of beauty to life.
These direct encounters with what lies beyond description and concept are forces of transcendence—or, in quantum terms, the means to collapse potentiality into actuality.
These forces of transcendence remind us that, beyond the filters of concepts and survival-driven perception, lies an infinite potential to connect with reality’s deeper truths—glimpses that inspire, transform, and expand our understanding of existence.