Suan Lu Zaw wrote:

>I agree with the following quote:

>"In any act of perception the matter that is percept or object is

commonly outside the organism of the percipient." 1964 M. CRITCHLEY"
****
I think you need to improve your reading skills. The quote of which you
approve is actually: 1880 SIDGWICK in 19th Cent. VII. 355. You are also
being rather selective in your choice of quote -- I assume you agree with
the quote because it reinforces your own preconceptions in contrast to the
majority of those listed which you presumably do not like..

> It is my opinion that how the term 'percept' is used by the

speculative ideologists like Stephen Hodge is very limited and
personal and outside the common understanding. Even idiosyncratic!
****
If that is your opinion, you are welcome to it -- though I have generally
oberved that people who indulge in such pathetic ad hominen attacks merely
display the poverty of their own thought and their inability to engage in
informed debate, often subconsciously projecting their own defects upon
others. I use the term in *exactly* the same way as it is defined by eg.
Oxford English Reference Dic (one of their most recent works): "a mental
concept resulting from perceiving". I hope you will be contacting the
editors of that dictionary as a matter of urgency and reprimand them for
their limited, personal and idiosyncratic definition which you in your great
wisdom say is outside the common understanding.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge