Perspective. Is there such a thing as a perspective-less perspective? Is there such a thing as a Truth that exists beyond the realm of human understanding? The short answer is "no," and even if there were realities beyond human interpretation, by definition, such realities would be beyond the domain of human comprehension and therefore could not be articulated through human thought, human speech, or through any other means of human communication. In other words, reality exists as a function of human perspective -- of each person's own unique perspective on the world. No person can rightly claim to see the "Truth Beyond Truth" -- to have God's perspective on life, the universe, and everything else.
God's word is mediated through human interaction; God's word has been translated into the human tongue; God's story has been told by human beings and passed down through generations before being written down. The Truths of religion have come into focus through human teachers, through human reflection, and through human thought. It is not as if God visits each person and bestows insight to them individually. I wish this were the case! If God did visit each person individually and taught each person the same material in such a manner that each person would walk away with similar understandings, then there would be no contradictions among those claiming to do God's will! But this is not the world we find ourselves in. Each person and indeed each religious branch of Christianity seems to contradict the teachings found in other branches and sects of Christianity. Is it God who plants the seeds of division among His flock?
Back to the point at hand; so often, in so many speeches and teachings about "God" people reference the Bible. People LOVE referencing the Bible when finding evidence for just about any position imaginable. But missing from the equation is the act of interpretation! Human beings -- sinful and "fallen" human beings -- are the ones who interpret the teachings found in the Bible. And at times it seems that two people can read the same passage and walk away with different and even contradictory meanings. Therefore, quoting the Bible and relying on the Bible to justify a particular point of view seems to suggest that such behavior is more of an indicator of the one doing the quoting rather than on the "Truth" of the particular quoted material.
The lesson here is that our subjectivity influences our perception of the Truths found in Biblical teachings. There is no such thing as a pure objective reality, and the person who claims that there is a pure objective reality must know such a concept as a function of their subjective perspective on the objective reality. Unless someone can demonstrate to me (in my subjective reality) from their subjective reality the proof of an objective reality that exists beyond both of our subjective points of view, then I must assert that "Bible Thumping" or rather "Bible throwing" is more about bending God's word to meet the demands of a particular situation rather than to illuminate a "Truth Beyond Truth."
Showing posts with label Perception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Perception. Show all posts
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
You are a function of how I perceive you to be
Everyone believes that they are right and justified in what they do. And this is no surprise. What person would live their life believing that all their choices are wrong? Who would perpetually second-guess themselves to the point of immobility? There comes a time when action must be taken, when the lesser of two evils must be chosen -- and we make this choice based upon what we consider to have the most profitable result. For who makes a deliberate choice knowing and hoping that the outcome will prove the most negative, unless of course, a negative outcome was the initial desired result? The one who lives their life believing that all their choices are wrong, the one who second-guesses themselves to the point of immobility are doing so because it aligns with some other larger goal. One thing seems to be certain: the choices we make reflect the desires we have, whether for bliss or woe.
Therefore, as we perceive our fellow human beings, the behavior we see signifies a context -- their context. And it must be mentioned that the perceptions of the observer also filter through the lens of their own preconceptions as well; there is no such thing as a perception-less perceiver. The behavior of the perceived occurs as the embodiment of their intention and purpose, while the observer's framework of interpretation, too, is the embodiment of intention and purpose. Such is the harmony between perceiver and perceived, each full with a world of intention and purpose.
Can we draw clear and divisive lines between the intentions and perceptions of the observer and the intentions and perceptions of the perceived? How much of what we see is function of our own perceptions, biases, and pre-conceptions? How much of what we know of other people stems from the self-fulling prophecy of our own experiences and person-hood? We cannot know the depths of our own mind, heart, and soul because the instruments of perception are not perfect themselves; we stand less of a chance knowing what moves in the depths of another person's heart. Yet at the same time, that which we perceive reflect choices and desires; how we perceive it also reflects choices and desires.
Consider misunderstanding: how often are we misunderstood? How often do we misunderstand? Words leave the mouth of the talker and are heard by the ears of the listener -- if biases and preconceptions did not exist, then there would be no further complications because the words would be understood in the same manner in which they were spoken. There would be no need to filter intentions or ask for clarification because listening and understanding would exist as a 1:1 ratio. But this is not the case. The moment words leave the mouth of the speaker, or in this case, the moment that words are written on the computer screen, and the words become fodder for others, the potential for misunderstanding is born in the self-same moment. In other words, I write or I speak and you interpret.
This is the chasm between people that will always prevent people from truly understanding one another. There might be moments where the intention of the speaker and the intention of the listener align closer together, however, to be perfectly aligned with one another is a fantasy. This fantasy of "oneness" perhaps has roots in the harmony experienced between fetus and mother while developing in the womb. At the moment of birth, at the moment of separation, such "oneness" is never to be experienced again, except perhaps by the religious who commune with God who they believe is in all places, even within their own hearts and minds.
Therefore, as we perceive our fellow human beings, the behavior we see signifies a context -- their context. And it must be mentioned that the perceptions of the observer also filter through the lens of their own preconceptions as well; there is no such thing as a perception-less perceiver. The behavior of the perceived occurs as the embodiment of their intention and purpose, while the observer's framework of interpretation, too, is the embodiment of intention and purpose. Such is the harmony between perceiver and perceived, each full with a world of intention and purpose.
Can we draw clear and divisive lines between the intentions and perceptions of the observer and the intentions and perceptions of the perceived? How much of what we see is function of our own perceptions, biases, and pre-conceptions? How much of what we know of other people stems from the self-fulling prophecy of our own experiences and person-hood? We cannot know the depths of our own mind, heart, and soul because the instruments of perception are not perfect themselves; we stand less of a chance knowing what moves in the depths of another person's heart. Yet at the same time, that which we perceive reflect choices and desires; how we perceive it also reflects choices and desires.
Consider misunderstanding: how often are we misunderstood? How often do we misunderstand? Words leave the mouth of the talker and are heard by the ears of the listener -- if biases and preconceptions did not exist, then there would be no further complications because the words would be understood in the same manner in which they were spoken. There would be no need to filter intentions or ask for clarification because listening and understanding would exist as a 1:1 ratio. But this is not the case. The moment words leave the mouth of the speaker, or in this case, the moment that words are written on the computer screen, and the words become fodder for others, the potential for misunderstanding is born in the self-same moment. In other words, I write or I speak and you interpret.
This is the chasm between people that will always prevent people from truly understanding one another. There might be moments where the intention of the speaker and the intention of the listener align closer together, however, to be perfectly aligned with one another is a fantasy. This fantasy of "oneness" perhaps has roots in the harmony experienced between fetus and mother while developing in the womb. At the moment of birth, at the moment of separation, such "oneness" is never to be experienced again, except perhaps by the religious who commune with God who they believe is in all places, even within their own hearts and minds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
