I find it odd that our actions, reactions, judgments and thoughts all tend to revolve around our perception necessarily precipitated from our perspective. Objectivity free from bias occurs about as frequently as Keynesian economics overlap with rationality. It is honestly just a very inefficient way to function when the existence must exist sans perception (obligatory "tree falls in the forest" reference). If we are to be able to have a common foundation on which to examine existence we have to agree that it is by definition always there (obligatory nihilist pun). So if your falling trees are silent and/or you have a dilapidated understanding of Heisenberg, this will not make for a good read, nor good subject matter for conversation. I don't pander to relativists. It is necessary to have an understanding of the motives and definitions of perspective in order to discuss why it is a barrier to grasping anything's true nature. This is an understanding that I will probably not be able to convey very well, but I am going to try to at least spur the horse while it's pointing the right direction. In some respects this will seem like a circular definition because I am going to define perspective with respect to nature and then nature with respect to perspective, but I will maintain and develop the idea that the two are both mutually exclusive and mutually dependent.
Our identities and existences with respect to our environment (the world and everyone/thing in it) are predicated on our perspectives. This is perhaps best illustrated by psychological development from childhood to adulthood. From the point in time that we as humans begin to have opinions, there is a source of those opinions. The progression is well-documented elsewhere, but we normally begin by holding our parents' points of view then gradually shifting to conform to that of our peers. Hopefully from there we form independent identities and avoid the pitfalls of person-dependent identity, but regardless the phenomena I am observing can be thought of relatively accurately as a lens. People (in general) have use of five senses with which to process their environments, but I believe that what we call first-hand perception is in reality a pseudo-first-hand perception. This slight difference is due to our perspectives which are realized as barriers between us and our environment (not physical obviously as this occurs within our minds, but it is helpful to visualize it thus). The result is some form of distortion of reality. Within certain bounds it is possible to predict the results of this distortion; there is not however a commonality of distortion, or even interpretation of the same distortion between individuals. [when all else fails, jump and link].
Excuse the coding joke. Learning seems to be infringing on my consciousness.
I know that that was an incomplete examination and I promise, again, that I will write about perspective at some point. Hopefully I at least made clear a kind of chain illustrating the source-to-result path of it. As an aside, I would argue that most of the negative results come from sources of selfishness or apathy, neither of which are conducive to a functional society as the definition of society implies relational existence. </digression>
Why would it be better to have an understanding of the nature of a given entity (abstract, not necessarily physical) without relying on one's perception of it? There are two parts to the answer. In reality I think one is a byproduct of the other, but since it is easier to understand the byproduct I am including it. In practical terms, I previously alluded (stated flat out) that society is necessarily relational. I will take the following generality as my elementary state: There exist two parties, an entity which provokes the interest of both and the channel of communication between the two parties. Given this state, the effect of different distortions or interpretations of these distortions with respect to the nature of the entity is applied to the channel between the involved parties. The reaction to this problem is often to say, "One must see X from the other's point of view." While this is likely a good first step on a personal, it is likewise insufficient should the state change. Suppose both parties are able to see the entity from the other's point of view. They may now agree on the nature of the entity, but should any third party become involved, a new distortion is introduced. This also has a new effect on the environment; the third party now faces a majority. I don't want to delve to deeply into the theory of communication, but I think this example is sufficiently extrapolative (best word I could think of). That was the byproduct in case you were wondering.
The real disadvantage to letting perception distort the nature of anything is illustrated well by the math classes we have all taken, as far back as elementary school. An incomplete answer is not a correct answer, nor is a partially correct answer entirely correct. Three apples subtracted from seven apples does not yield a result of four, but of four apples. Unfortunately for all of us, this is not just arguing semantics...well, it is, but semantics are important. While I think that we are unable to truly remove perception from our understanding of anything, I believe that the pursuit is important. At every possible point, we should seek to expand the understanding that we have by observing others' perceptions and trying to find and remove the anchor points of our own perceptions based on the comparison.
Okay, that's it. Chew away.
No comments:
Post a Comment