Webster defines “seem” as “to present the appearance of being” or “to be only in appearance but not reality”. Everything here seems, and nothing here is as it seems. The ego seems. Forgiveness seems. Even our favorite blue book seems. Remember, everything we perceive has the purpose that we give it. It neither is reality nor points to reality. It merely reflects our will.
“Seem” is the difference between freedom and prison. As we walk along our path, we often begin to recognize the illusory nature of the world, our perceptions, and even time and space. This is often useful freeing us from pain and unhappiness, and it is also often terrifying imprisoning us to a dream of attack and guilt. Like everything else in our experience, the power of decision is ours – heaven or hell, forgiveness or attack, crucifixion or redemption – and how easily we can make one seem like the other.
“Seem” is the power that turns the heavy burden of guilt into the freedom of forgiveness. “Seem” is the change of purpose that turns attack into a call for help, a call for Love. “Seem” is the reminder that truth can have no opposite - that a little bit of falsity is impossible if truth is true. “Seem” is the teacher that demonstrates that not only is the dream not what we think it is but even the motivation behind the dream is impossible. “Seem” is the peace that surrenders form to changed content. “Seem” is a door taking us beyond itself.
Spend some time with “seem” today. It will seem to take you home; it will remind you that you never left.
Showing posts with label perception. Show all posts
Showing posts with label perception. Show all posts
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Tofu or not tofu? That is the question!
Ever had hot dog tofu? Me either. Who knew it even existed? I mean, wow. Little did I expect the lesson that it conceals.
Recently, our good friend Bob shared how working with ACIM has been leading him to see the sameness of all of our problems and the sameness of his personal daily experiences. He has started seeing beyond varying forms to the singular content behind them all. It was a moving description. Then, he hit us with it….tofu. Bob turned bean curd into an unforgettable lesson in forgiveness. For this, we clearly owe our gratitude.
You see, it seems that tofu is not our Father’s tofu anymore. Some of us crazy kids have taken it to new levels. Apparently, there are flavors of tofu for every occasion and need….or seeming need. There are all manners of fruit flavors, meat flavors, and of course, the old standby - stinky tofu. There’s spicy Thai flavored tofu, portabella ham, spinach jalapeño, and shitake garlic flavored tofu. And yes, even hot dog tofu. As Bob so passionately exclaimed, “But it is all still tofu!”
Indeed it is. And such is the world. Nothing here is as it seems. Everything here is a cover, an interpretation, and interpretation is never reality. We are so lost in our myriad flavors that we’re no longer aware of their source. As such, we never respond to anything directly. We respond to what we think it is, and we justify our response based on something other than reality. We eat the hot dog flavored tofu and believe it is a hot dog.
Our judgment of each other is the means by which we keep this unreality in our awareness. We never see each other as we are, but rather as we need each other to be. We need each other to be the myriad flavors when in reality, the flavors are but a mask pulled over who we really are. We gladly don the masks terrified by what they obscure.
When we identify with our little buddy, the ego, (and we all do), we spend most every hour of every day analyzing our own distorted perceptions (the masks) in an attempt to demonstrate that we understand what we see, hear, and experience, never realizing that we are analyzing nothing but a flimsy veil, a trick-or-treaters masquerade .
T.12.I.3.3-5 Every loving thought is true (read: tofu). Everything else (read: flavors) is an appeal for healing and help, regardless of the form it takes. Can anyone be justified in responding with anger to a brother’s plea for help?
Our call is but to recognize the flavors as what they are - our brother’s plea to remind him that he isn’t a hot dog. He, too, is tofu, just like you.
I gotta go eat.
Recently, our good friend Bob shared how working with ACIM has been leading him to see the sameness of all of our problems and the sameness of his personal daily experiences. He has started seeing beyond varying forms to the singular content behind them all. It was a moving description. Then, he hit us with it….tofu. Bob turned bean curd into an unforgettable lesson in forgiveness. For this, we clearly owe our gratitude.
You see, it seems that tofu is not our Father’s tofu anymore. Some of us crazy kids have taken it to new levels. Apparently, there are flavors of tofu for every occasion and need….or seeming need. There are all manners of fruit flavors, meat flavors, and of course, the old standby - stinky tofu. There’s spicy Thai flavored tofu, portabella ham, spinach jalapeño, and shitake garlic flavored tofu. And yes, even hot dog tofu. As Bob so passionately exclaimed, “But it is all still tofu!”
Indeed it is. And such is the world. Nothing here is as it seems. Everything here is a cover, an interpretation, and interpretation is never reality. We are so lost in our myriad flavors that we’re no longer aware of their source. As such, we never respond to anything directly. We respond to what we think it is, and we justify our response based on something other than reality. We eat the hot dog flavored tofu and believe it is a hot dog.
Our judgment of each other is the means by which we keep this unreality in our awareness. We never see each other as we are, but rather as we need each other to be. We need each other to be the myriad flavors when in reality, the flavors are but a mask pulled over who we really are. We gladly don the masks terrified by what they obscure.
When we identify with our little buddy, the ego, (and we all do), we spend most every hour of every day analyzing our own distorted perceptions (the masks) in an attempt to demonstrate that we understand what we see, hear, and experience, never realizing that we are analyzing nothing but a flimsy veil, a trick-or-treaters masquerade .
T.12.I.3.3-5 Every loving thought is true (read: tofu). Everything else (read: flavors) is an appeal for healing and help, regardless of the form it takes. Can anyone be justified in responding with anger to a brother’s plea for help?
Our call is but to recognize the flavors as what they are - our brother’s plea to remind him that he isn’t a hot dog. He, too, is tofu, just like you.
I gotta go eat.
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Problem with Perception (Part 6 of 6)
Merrily Merrily Merrily
Life is but a dream. I am certainly not the first to recognize the usefulness of the metaphor of the dream. From children’s songs to Shakespeare, Plato, and the Gnostics, we find references to life being a dream. When we think about our journey here, many of us speak of it as an awakening, at a minimum implying that we are asleep. When asked by his followers who he was, the Buddha said, “I am none of these things, what I am is awake.” The Bible suggests that “a deep sleep fell upon Adam”; there is no reference to him waking up. History is replete with these references. Why? Let’s start with our sleeping dreams.
Think about your sleeping dreams for a moment. When you are asleep, do you not believe that what is happening is real? Unless you are having a lucid dream, a dream during which you recognize that you are dreaming, you do. We all do. We all believe that what happens in the dream is actually happening to us. Adhering to the “reality” set up in the mind, the body often reacts accordingly. Our heart beats faster when we’re running or frightened in the dream. We can be observed talking, screaming, or laughing while fast asleep. As a student recently pointed out during a class, sometimes our bodies react to the seemingly specific physical stimulation in the dream by responding with a particularly pleasurable experience! Convincing things, these dreams.
When we awaken from a sleeping dream, we recognize that all of the people in the dream are gone. Everything that seemed to happen didn’t actually happen, and with few exceptions (most notably those referenced by the aforementioned student!), the dreams had no real effect. Think about who you are in the dream. Typically, you are not the person lying in bed having the dream. In fact, often times, you are not even you. You may be a younger version of you, a superhero version of you, etc. The people in your waking life who show up in your dreams rarely look like themselves either. You know it is you and you know it is them, because of the content that you ascribe to them in the dream. We may not recognize the form once we awaken, but in the dream, these changed forms point to familiar content.
Our sleeping dreams are another useful example of the denial, projection, and identification dynamic. When we’re asleep and dreaming, we deny the reality of our body in the bed, and we project a new story, a new reality, which includes those who are not us and the one with whom we identify. When we wake up, we recognize that we were the dreamer of the dream, not the figure in the dream with whom we had identified. We recognize that all of the figures were within our mind. There was no external reality to our dream. Everything in it was representative of something in our mind. That’s why so many therapists and psychologist spend so much time analyzing dreams; they often reveal what is actually going on in the depths of our minds. In general, we have become fairly comfortable with the notion that our sleeping dreams are symbolic and provide insight into what is in our mind. Rarely, do we consider that the same dynamic may play out in our seeming waking state.
So, as a symbol, what does the dream mean? What is the purpose of the dream? Freud offered some brilliant insight into our sleeping dreams. Freud said that there is one wish that every dream is intended to fulfill. Although the wish assumes various forms, the wish is always to stay asleep. We dream to avoid having to wake up, because we want to sleep. That is the purpose of the dream. Think about your sleeping dreams. Have you ever noticed that when the phone rings in the house or we have to go to the bathroom that we will work the sound or the discomfort into our dream? The purpose? To keep us asleep. The mind recognizes that in a conscious state we would pick up the phone or go to the bathroom, so it keeps us unconscious by working those stimuli into the dream. Dreaming is a defense against waking up. At some point in the dream, the desire to wake up overtakes the desire to sleep, and we wake up.
Mindful perception uses the metaphor of our sleeping dream to inform our waking experience. We are not saying that our waking experience and our sleeping experience are the same. Obviously, the forms are different, but as we’ve established, form is too variable, too subjective to be useful in this context. Purpose is what is important. What we are saying is that our everyday waking experience has the same purpose as our sleeping dreams. The purpose of both is to stay asleep. That’s the problem with perception.
Life is but a dream. I am certainly not the first to recognize the usefulness of the metaphor of the dream. From children’s songs to Shakespeare, Plato, and the Gnostics, we find references to life being a dream. When we think about our journey here, many of us speak of it as an awakening, at a minimum implying that we are asleep. When asked by his followers who he was, the Buddha said, “I am none of these things, what I am is awake.” The Bible suggests that “a deep sleep fell upon Adam”; there is no reference to him waking up. History is replete with these references. Why? Let’s start with our sleeping dreams.
Think about your sleeping dreams for a moment. When you are asleep, do you not believe that what is happening is real? Unless you are having a lucid dream, a dream during which you recognize that you are dreaming, you do. We all do. We all believe that what happens in the dream is actually happening to us. Adhering to the “reality” set up in the mind, the body often reacts accordingly. Our heart beats faster when we’re running or frightened in the dream. We can be observed talking, screaming, or laughing while fast asleep. As a student recently pointed out during a class, sometimes our bodies react to the seemingly specific physical stimulation in the dream by responding with a particularly pleasurable experience! Convincing things, these dreams.
When we awaken from a sleeping dream, we recognize that all of the people in the dream are gone. Everything that seemed to happen didn’t actually happen, and with few exceptions (most notably those referenced by the aforementioned student!), the dreams had no real effect. Think about who you are in the dream. Typically, you are not the person lying in bed having the dream. In fact, often times, you are not even you. You may be a younger version of you, a superhero version of you, etc. The people in your waking life who show up in your dreams rarely look like themselves either. You know it is you and you know it is them, because of the content that you ascribe to them in the dream. We may not recognize the form once we awaken, but in the dream, these changed forms point to familiar content.
Our sleeping dreams are another useful example of the denial, projection, and identification dynamic. When we’re asleep and dreaming, we deny the reality of our body in the bed, and we project a new story, a new reality, which includes those who are not us and the one with whom we identify. When we wake up, we recognize that we were the dreamer of the dream, not the figure in the dream with whom we had identified. We recognize that all of the figures were within our mind. There was no external reality to our dream. Everything in it was representative of something in our mind. That’s why so many therapists and psychologist spend so much time analyzing dreams; they often reveal what is actually going on in the depths of our minds. In general, we have become fairly comfortable with the notion that our sleeping dreams are symbolic and provide insight into what is in our mind. Rarely, do we consider that the same dynamic may play out in our seeming waking state.
So, as a symbol, what does the dream mean? What is the purpose of the dream? Freud offered some brilliant insight into our sleeping dreams. Freud said that there is one wish that every dream is intended to fulfill. Although the wish assumes various forms, the wish is always to stay asleep. We dream to avoid having to wake up, because we want to sleep. That is the purpose of the dream. Think about your sleeping dreams. Have you ever noticed that when the phone rings in the house or we have to go to the bathroom that we will work the sound or the discomfort into our dream? The purpose? To keep us asleep. The mind recognizes that in a conscious state we would pick up the phone or go to the bathroom, so it keeps us unconscious by working those stimuli into the dream. Dreaming is a defense against waking up. At some point in the dream, the desire to wake up overtakes the desire to sleep, and we wake up.
Mindful perception uses the metaphor of our sleeping dream to inform our waking experience. We are not saying that our waking experience and our sleeping experience are the same. Obviously, the forms are different, but as we’ve established, form is too variable, too subjective to be useful in this context. Purpose is what is important. What we are saying is that our everyday waking experience has the same purpose as our sleeping dreams. The purpose of both is to stay asleep. That’s the problem with perception.
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Problem with Perception (Part 5 of 6)
Just Another Day at the Movies
Mindful perception is the idea that all of perception, everything we see and everything we experience, is the projected result of what we wish to be. Just like we project the guilt of the broken candy dish on a neighbor, we project the guilt of a broken identity on to the world. Mindful perception differs from Webster’s definition in one very important way. Mindful perception does not merely take cognizance of objects outside of the mind, but rather recognizes that we use perception to fulfill a goal. Mindful perception recognizes perception’s primary purpose: witnessing differences. Everything that I think is outside of my mind is really a reflection of what is inside. The world that we perceive is but a projection of our thought about the world and therefore our thought about ourselves. Mindful perception, then, recognizes that it is projection. All of it, everything I see, hear, smell, touch or taste, is a projection; again, a projection based on what I want myself to be.
Imagine your life as a big 3D movie – without the stylish glasses. There’s a beginning, an end, characters, plots, etc. In this movie, this one that we’ve dubbed “life,” we see no projector. Oh, it is there, but we’re not aware of it at all. With projector denied, we have no conscious memory of it, no memory that in fact we chose the film and flipped the “on” switch. This movie is our one “reality” and the only means by which we know ourselves. With no awareness that the movie is a projection, we seem to have little choice but to identify with it. We identify with what we split off to, what is left, and we deny what we split off from. The movie now seems to be where all the action is. It is our “life.” We look to the screen to inform us of who we are not - thereby establishing who we are. We interact with the characters and the images that we perceive, and we recognize ourselves as one of the characters in the film. Remember, we’re actually back there in the projection booth, but we’ve denied, projected, and identified ourselves out of the booth and on to the screen. We could simply change the film or turn off the projector, if we had the faintest hint that we had a choice.
Now, remember our definition of perception from part 1: perception is an illusion of reality based on our own interpretation of sensory data filtered through the lens of our own awareness. In our movie house, that lens of awareness is the lens of the movie projector. Whatever film is selected for the projector, your film, my film, etc. is filtered by this lens. If there is a smudge or a fly on the lens, it shows up on the screen. If it is blurry or out of focus, we don’t even know until somebody suggests that there might be another way to look at the screen and we whip out those smart glasses. Most of us are simply resigned to a blurry world. As for the fly? Knowing that there is a fly on the lens, most of us would agree that trying to kill the fly on the screen would be more than just a little insane; however, with no awareness of anything but the images on the screen, we continue to swat at the shadows.
Mindful perception changes the world immediately, because we experience the world differently. Instead of being a character in the movie, we begin to recognize that we are indeed the one in the projection booth running the projector playing the film of our choosing with the means to clean the lens or don the cool shades. We change the world by changing our orientation to the world. Mindful perception illuminates the causal relationship between one’s awareness (the lens) and what one perceives (the images on the screen). Mindful perception is not a physical experience but rather a psychological experience, an experience of meaning. The world that we perceive is a projection of our thought about the world. If we want to know what is in our mind, the film in the projector, mindful perception says that we simply need to look at the world, the movie. It is all there. It is all there, because we put it there. We put it there, because we need it there. Who we want to be depends on it.
Mindful perception is the idea that all of perception, everything we see and everything we experience, is the projected result of what we wish to be. Just like we project the guilt of the broken candy dish on a neighbor, we project the guilt of a broken identity on to the world. Mindful perception differs from Webster’s definition in one very important way. Mindful perception does not merely take cognizance of objects outside of the mind, but rather recognizes that we use perception to fulfill a goal. Mindful perception recognizes perception’s primary purpose: witnessing differences. Everything that I think is outside of my mind is really a reflection of what is inside. The world that we perceive is but a projection of our thought about the world and therefore our thought about ourselves. Mindful perception, then, recognizes that it is projection. All of it, everything I see, hear, smell, touch or taste, is a projection; again, a projection based on what I want myself to be.
Imagine your life as a big 3D movie – without the stylish glasses. There’s a beginning, an end, characters, plots, etc. In this movie, this one that we’ve dubbed “life,” we see no projector. Oh, it is there, but we’re not aware of it at all. With projector denied, we have no conscious memory of it, no memory that in fact we chose the film and flipped the “on” switch. This movie is our one “reality” and the only means by which we know ourselves. With no awareness that the movie is a projection, we seem to have little choice but to identify with it. We identify with what we split off to, what is left, and we deny what we split off from. The movie now seems to be where all the action is. It is our “life.” We look to the screen to inform us of who we are not - thereby establishing who we are. We interact with the characters and the images that we perceive, and we recognize ourselves as one of the characters in the film. Remember, we’re actually back there in the projection booth, but we’ve denied, projected, and identified ourselves out of the booth and on to the screen. We could simply change the film or turn off the projector, if we had the faintest hint that we had a choice.
Now, remember our definition of perception from part 1: perception is an illusion of reality based on our own interpretation of sensory data filtered through the lens of our own awareness. In our movie house, that lens of awareness is the lens of the movie projector. Whatever film is selected for the projector, your film, my film, etc. is filtered by this lens. If there is a smudge or a fly on the lens, it shows up on the screen. If it is blurry or out of focus, we don’t even know until somebody suggests that there might be another way to look at the screen and we whip out those smart glasses. Most of us are simply resigned to a blurry world. As for the fly? Knowing that there is a fly on the lens, most of us would agree that trying to kill the fly on the screen would be more than just a little insane; however, with no awareness of anything but the images on the screen, we continue to swat at the shadows.
Mindful perception changes the world immediately, because we experience the world differently. Instead of being a character in the movie, we begin to recognize that we are indeed the one in the projection booth running the projector playing the film of our choosing with the means to clean the lens or don the cool shades. We change the world by changing our orientation to the world. Mindful perception illuminates the causal relationship between one’s awareness (the lens) and what one perceives (the images on the screen). Mindful perception is not a physical experience but rather a psychological experience, an experience of meaning. The world that we perceive is a projection of our thought about the world. If we want to know what is in our mind, the film in the projector, mindful perception says that we simply need to look at the world, the movie. It is all there. It is all there, because we put it there. We put it there, because we need it there. Who we want to be depends on it.
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Problem with Perception (Part 4 of 6)
The Candy Dish
Now, let’s talk about our favorite defense mechanisms - denial, projection, and identification. Do you remember that antique dish that Mom used to fill with butter mints for guests? It was the one in the living room that you weren’t supposed to touch. (If it wasn’t a candy dish, substitute your own “do not touch” memory here.) Imagine a time when you had all of your friends over for a round of your favorite board game: Monopoly, Clue, Risk, Scrabble, Life, Which Witch. (Anybody else remember that last one? Sorry, unintentional rabbit hole…) Imagine for a moment that your friends discover said candy dish, and as kids are wont to do, sample the fare. Your best bud unfortunately knocks the dish to the floor, and it breaks. Of course, fear would likely be the first response, but as we so often do, we cover over the fear with a plan. Super glue! The broken pieces are painstakingly reassembled, and the candy is returned to the mended dish. All seems well until Mom gets home.
Mom sees the muddy footprints near the table where the dish is, inspects the dish, and calls you over, front and center. You have to cop to the broken dish, but you instantaneously come up with a new plan. Believing that your best bud may not be welcome in the house if you tell the truth, you tell Mom that the neighbor kid, the one that she made you invite over, was the one that knocked off the dish. You try so hard to convince Mom that it was the neighbor that you even start to believe it yourself. At some point, perhaps weeks later, maybe years later, you may even forget that your best friend actually knocked off the dish.
What’s happened is an example of how we defend ourselves, how we make ourselves what we want to be, through denial, projection, and identification. Not wanting to experience the consequences of a circumstance, you deny the truth about it and project the responsibility of what happened onto somebody else. You (and your friend) now identify yourselves as innocents, and you attempt to get rid of the guilt by placing it outside of yourselves on your neighbor. The truth of the circumstance didn’t change. What you believe about it did; what you want to believe about it changed.
The same dynamic that plays out in childhood continues as we mature - at work, at home, in traffic, and even on the world stage. We can find example after example of denial, projection, and identification just about anywhere we choose to look. Few of us want to be the guilty one, the bad guy. Even more importantly, none of us want to be responsible for the whole of our circumstance. We always need somebody to shoulder at least some of the blame. Doesn’t matter if it is a person, a thing, a country, our body, the universe, even God, as long as we’re not responsible. Projection, again, is the defense mechanism that we employ to get rid of the responsibility of our guilt and the fear of its consequence. Sometimes it is overtly conscious, as in the example of the candy dish. More often than not, projection occurs unconsciously, as we so deeply identify with what projection left behind that we have no conscious memory of what the truth was before projection. Projection is a defense against the truth.
Now, let’s talk about our favorite defense mechanisms - denial, projection, and identification. Do you remember that antique dish that Mom used to fill with butter mints for guests? It was the one in the living room that you weren’t supposed to touch. (If it wasn’t a candy dish, substitute your own “do not touch” memory here.) Imagine a time when you had all of your friends over for a round of your favorite board game: Monopoly, Clue, Risk, Scrabble, Life, Which Witch. (Anybody else remember that last one? Sorry, unintentional rabbit hole…) Imagine for a moment that your friends discover said candy dish, and as kids are wont to do, sample the fare. Your best bud unfortunately knocks the dish to the floor, and it breaks. Of course, fear would likely be the first response, but as we so often do, we cover over the fear with a plan. Super glue! The broken pieces are painstakingly reassembled, and the candy is returned to the mended dish. All seems well until Mom gets home.
Mom sees the muddy footprints near the table where the dish is, inspects the dish, and calls you over, front and center. You have to cop to the broken dish, but you instantaneously come up with a new plan. Believing that your best bud may not be welcome in the house if you tell the truth, you tell Mom that the neighbor kid, the one that she made you invite over, was the one that knocked off the dish. You try so hard to convince Mom that it was the neighbor that you even start to believe it yourself. At some point, perhaps weeks later, maybe years later, you may even forget that your best friend actually knocked off the dish.
What’s happened is an example of how we defend ourselves, how we make ourselves what we want to be, through denial, projection, and identification. Not wanting to experience the consequences of a circumstance, you deny the truth about it and project the responsibility of what happened onto somebody else. You (and your friend) now identify yourselves as innocents, and you attempt to get rid of the guilt by placing it outside of yourselves on your neighbor. The truth of the circumstance didn’t change. What you believe about it did; what you want to believe about it changed.
The same dynamic that plays out in childhood continues as we mature - at work, at home, in traffic, and even on the world stage. We can find example after example of denial, projection, and identification just about anywhere we choose to look. Few of us want to be the guilty one, the bad guy. Even more importantly, none of us want to be responsible for the whole of our circumstance. We always need somebody to shoulder at least some of the blame. Doesn’t matter if it is a person, a thing, a country, our body, the universe, even God, as long as we’re not responsible. Projection, again, is the defense mechanism that we employ to get rid of the responsibility of our guilt and the fear of its consequence. Sometimes it is overtly conscious, as in the example of the candy dish. More often than not, projection occurs unconsciously, as we so deeply identify with what projection left behind that we have no conscious memory of what the truth was before projection. Projection is a defense against the truth.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Prerequisite for Part 4
Denial, Projection and Identification
Most of you have likely had some exposure to these three concepts, but for those of you who may not and happen to be following The Problem with Perception posts, this quick primer may be useful.
Denial is a term used in psychology referring to a largely unconscious defense mechanism employed to manage thoughts and events that are too painful or too frightening to handle consciously. Ostensibly, defense mechanisms such as denial protect our psychological well-being from trauma, anxiety, and conflict. Many of us are familiar with the concept of denial via the language of twelve-step programs. Denial is a key component of an addict’s ability to continue destructive behaviors even when confronted with the devastating consequences of those same behaviors. Psychologists typically refer to three general types of denial: simple denial in which we deny the reality of the traumatic event altogether, minimization in which we admit the reality of the trauma but deny the seriousness or the impact, transference in which we admit both the reality and seriousness of the trauma but deny responsibility. We utilize the last as the primary means by which we keep the root of our problems hidden and our attention focused solely on where it is not.
Another term borrowed from psychology, projection, is also a largely unconscious defense mechanism in which one’s undesirable characteristics, motives, or thoughts are attributed to other people or externals. An individual perceives in others the attributes denied in one’s self. The concept was developed initially by Freud, further refined by his daughter, and formed the basis of Jung’s concept of the “shadow.” Projection seemingly reduces pain and anxiety by attempting to give them away with no conscious awareness or responsibility. Think about the people at work who always seem to be complaining about the mistakes of others. Instead of dealing with the undesirability of their own mistakes, they unconsciously project their flaws onto others, seeing mistakes in everyone else. This example also elucidates a fundamental relationship between denial and projection. Those who project are unconsciously denying a part of themselves that they are unwilling to recognize. In an attempt to rid themselves of this undesirable part, they project it externally. The old adage “It takes one to know one” or the newer “You spot it you got it” describe this process succinctly. What we see within our mind determines what we think is outside our mind.
Identification is the opposite defense mechanism to projection. Identification is what’s left, the other side of the coin, perhaps the other edge of the sword. Identification is who I believe I am: “me.” Every second of every minute of every hour of every day, we are making judgments, decisions, and choices about who we are. If I’ve projected my undesirable characteristics, my guilt, my laziness, my anger, etc. onto the world, I’m often left to identify with their opposites in me. For example, you are the bad guy; I am the good guy. You are the lazy one; I am the hard worker. We identify with what we believe to be or want to be true about ourselves, and we project that which we find undesirable, painful, or fearful onto others. Now, note that sometimes what we want to be true about ourselves may appear to be undesirable to others, but the dynamic works the same. Identification, then, is a wish fulfilled of what I would have myself be. I split off from what I deny, and move toward what I wish to be.
Hope that will help. Part 4 will follow early next week.
Most of you have likely had some exposure to these three concepts, but for those of you who may not and happen to be following The Problem with Perception posts, this quick primer may be useful.
Denial is a term used in psychology referring to a largely unconscious defense mechanism employed to manage thoughts and events that are too painful or too frightening to handle consciously. Ostensibly, defense mechanisms such as denial protect our psychological well-being from trauma, anxiety, and conflict. Many of us are familiar with the concept of denial via the language of twelve-step programs. Denial is a key component of an addict’s ability to continue destructive behaviors even when confronted with the devastating consequences of those same behaviors. Psychologists typically refer to three general types of denial: simple denial in which we deny the reality of the traumatic event altogether, minimization in which we admit the reality of the trauma but deny the seriousness or the impact, transference in which we admit both the reality and seriousness of the trauma but deny responsibility. We utilize the last as the primary means by which we keep the root of our problems hidden and our attention focused solely on where it is not.
Another term borrowed from psychology, projection, is also a largely unconscious defense mechanism in which one’s undesirable characteristics, motives, or thoughts are attributed to other people or externals. An individual perceives in others the attributes denied in one’s self. The concept was developed initially by Freud, further refined by his daughter, and formed the basis of Jung’s concept of the “shadow.” Projection seemingly reduces pain and anxiety by attempting to give them away with no conscious awareness or responsibility. Think about the people at work who always seem to be complaining about the mistakes of others. Instead of dealing with the undesirability of their own mistakes, they unconsciously project their flaws onto others, seeing mistakes in everyone else. This example also elucidates a fundamental relationship between denial and projection. Those who project are unconsciously denying a part of themselves that they are unwilling to recognize. In an attempt to rid themselves of this undesirable part, they project it externally. The old adage “It takes one to know one” or the newer “You spot it you got it” describe this process succinctly. What we see within our mind determines what we think is outside our mind.
Identification is the opposite defense mechanism to projection. Identification is what’s left, the other side of the coin, perhaps the other edge of the sword. Identification is who I believe I am: “me.” Every second of every minute of every hour of every day, we are making judgments, decisions, and choices about who we are. If I’ve projected my undesirable characteristics, my guilt, my laziness, my anger, etc. onto the world, I’m often left to identify with their opposites in me. For example, you are the bad guy; I am the good guy. You are the lazy one; I am the hard worker. We identify with what we believe to be or want to be true about ourselves, and we project that which we find undesirable, painful, or fearful onto others. Now, note that sometimes what we want to be true about ourselves may appear to be undesirable to others, but the dynamic works the same. Identification, then, is a wish fulfilled of what I would have myself be. I split off from what I deny, and move toward what I wish to be.
Hope that will help. Part 4 will follow early next week.
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Problem with Perception (Part 3 of 6)
Hats, Saws, and Ticket Stubs
Remember the magician that we mentioned in part 1, the one that sawed her assistant in half? As we all know, sometimes rabbits go down holes, but at magic shows, rabbits are pulled out of hats. Now in real life we might be intrigued if somebody pulled a rabbit from a hat. We might think “Oh, what a cute bunny” or “What the heck is that guy doing with a rabbit in his hat?”, but pulling a bunny rabbit from a hat is a relatively innocuous event. If we actually witnessed somebody being sawed in half, however, we would be horrified, terrified, and disturbed. What’s the difference between our real life situation and the magic show? The difference is that at the magic show we recognize that an illusion is an illusion. What we perceive is not what our body’s eyes tell us it is. There is no difference between these tricks at the magic show, because they share the same content, i.e. they are both unreal. A decision was made right up front, probably when we saw the word “magic show” on our ticket stub, that nothing we were about to see would have any real effect. In the real life example there was no such notice, and we were quickly able to judge the bunny in the hat as harmless and the murder of the assistant as horrifying.
So, where are we going with this? Yep, we’re headed to our biggest rabbit hole so far. We have been taught that an illusion is an illusion, period. It is not what it seems to be. Something is either an illusion or it is real. There is no compromise. Seems pretty clear on paper. As I’m sure you’ve already recognized, our everyday life isn’t quite so easily categorized. Most of us are relatively comfortable with the idea that what we perceive is illusory, because it changes or because it is an interpretation. None of us are comfortable with the idea that pulling a rabbit from a hat and sawing a person in half are the same in this “reality,” even if they are both illusions. We are much more comfortable with a hierarchy of illusions, in which we place different values, different interpretations and different meanings on different illusions. For us, all illusions are not created equally; they are definitely not the same.
Go as far down that rabbit hole as you are willing. Are the magic tricks the same? Is a rock the same as a flower? Is a picture of an apple the same as the word “apple?” Is a cold the same as cancer? Is Mother Theresa the same as Osama bin Laden? Are spiritual people the same as the non-spiritual people? Are the Baptists the same as the Buddhists? What about the Bible and A Course in Miracles? The child and the child molester? I’m going to go way out on a limb here and say that if you are reading this post, these things are not the same for you. Just be aware. Be aware of your hierarchy of illusions. We all have one. Sure, the lines blur, our judgments change, but we all have one.
So, can we identify any characteristic which would make all of these seemingly different ideas the same? Well, we can identify one fairly readily: they are all different. Each one of these symbols at its most basic level tells us that it is different from the other symbols. Of course, we add layer upon layer to our symbols, but again, at their most basic level, the content of each of these says, “I’m different. I’m separate. I’m not like everything else.” We can argue about how different and jump right back into our “hierarchy of illusions,” but consider that at their most basic level these symbols all say, “I’m not like the others.”
Mindful perception recognizes that even though people, places, things, times, etc. are illusory and should be the same, they are not the same to us. We value the differences, and those differences are of utmost importance here. They are the things that keep the mutilated lady from being treated like a rabbit in a hat. So, everything here is different in form, but the primary content, the primary purpose, is to first establish the differences. Perception is the seemng witness to these differences. It is then our interpretation of the symbol, our interpretation of the differences, that determines how we feel about it, react to it, etc. There is no objective reality here. This is an extraordinarily important awareness, and we haven’t even made it to part 4 yet…
Remember the magician that we mentioned in part 1, the one that sawed her assistant in half? As we all know, sometimes rabbits go down holes, but at magic shows, rabbits are pulled out of hats. Now in real life we might be intrigued if somebody pulled a rabbit from a hat. We might think “Oh, what a cute bunny” or “What the heck is that guy doing with a rabbit in his hat?”, but pulling a bunny rabbit from a hat is a relatively innocuous event. If we actually witnessed somebody being sawed in half, however, we would be horrified, terrified, and disturbed. What’s the difference between our real life situation and the magic show? The difference is that at the magic show we recognize that an illusion is an illusion. What we perceive is not what our body’s eyes tell us it is. There is no difference between these tricks at the magic show, because they share the same content, i.e. they are both unreal. A decision was made right up front, probably when we saw the word “magic show” on our ticket stub, that nothing we were about to see would have any real effect. In the real life example there was no such notice, and we were quickly able to judge the bunny in the hat as harmless and the murder of the assistant as horrifying.
So, where are we going with this? Yep, we’re headed to our biggest rabbit hole so far. We have been taught that an illusion is an illusion, period. It is not what it seems to be. Something is either an illusion or it is real. There is no compromise. Seems pretty clear on paper. As I’m sure you’ve already recognized, our everyday life isn’t quite so easily categorized. Most of us are relatively comfortable with the idea that what we perceive is illusory, because it changes or because it is an interpretation. None of us are comfortable with the idea that pulling a rabbit from a hat and sawing a person in half are the same in this “reality,” even if they are both illusions. We are much more comfortable with a hierarchy of illusions, in which we place different values, different interpretations and different meanings on different illusions. For us, all illusions are not created equally; they are definitely not the same.
Go as far down that rabbit hole as you are willing. Are the magic tricks the same? Is a rock the same as a flower? Is a picture of an apple the same as the word “apple?” Is a cold the same as cancer? Is Mother Theresa the same as Osama bin Laden? Are spiritual people the same as the non-spiritual people? Are the Baptists the same as the Buddhists? What about the Bible and A Course in Miracles? The child and the child molester? I’m going to go way out on a limb here and say that if you are reading this post, these things are not the same for you. Just be aware. Be aware of your hierarchy of illusions. We all have one. Sure, the lines blur, our judgments change, but we all have one.
So, can we identify any characteristic which would make all of these seemingly different ideas the same? Well, we can identify one fairly readily: they are all different. Each one of these symbols at its most basic level tells us that it is different from the other symbols. Of course, we add layer upon layer to our symbols, but again, at their most basic level, the content of each of these says, “I’m different. I’m separate. I’m not like everything else.” We can argue about how different and jump right back into our “hierarchy of illusions,” but consider that at their most basic level these symbols all say, “I’m not like the others.”
Mindful perception recognizes that even though people, places, things, times, etc. are illusory and should be the same, they are not the same to us. We value the differences, and those differences are of utmost importance here. They are the things that keep the mutilated lady from being treated like a rabbit in a hat. So, everything here is different in form, but the primary content, the primary purpose, is to first establish the differences. Perception is the seemng witness to these differences. It is then our interpretation of the symbol, our interpretation of the differences, that determines how we feel about it, react to it, etc. There is no objective reality here. This is an extraordinarily important awareness, and we haven’t even made it to part 4 yet…
Monday, January 19, 2009
The Problem with Perception (Part 2 of 6)
Apples, Flowers, and Rocks
If I were to ask you right now what your problem is, most likely you would tell me, and you would use words to do it. The words in and of themselves are not the problem. They’re symbols, nothing more and nothing less. As symbols they are the means by which you attempt to share an idea. Communication is sharing. Effective communication is the joining of minds. It is the sharing beyond the symbol that unites minds in one thought. The problem lies in the link, the connection, between minds. When you share your problem with me, what is shared is dependent on the definition of the words in your mind, the definition of the words in my mind and whatever commonality may exist between the two. It isn’t exact. In fact, it is quite faulty. (Ask any lawyer or politician.) Not only are the words symbols but the ideas that they represent are symbols. The sounds of the letters that make the word “bird” are not a bird. Neither the idea of the bird in your mind nor the idea of the bird in my mind is the bird. The bird is at least twice removed from the symbol leaving plenty of room for error. Communication, as we experience it, is problematic right from the get-go.
Just as words are symbols, so are the things, concepts, and actions that they symbolize. Think of an apple. The image is a symbol. It carries with it all that you think about apples, the texture, taste, color, etc. It carries all of the experiences that you’ve had with an apple, the cool crisp ones, the mushy bland ones, the sour green ones, etc. I like apples. My mom liked apples. Adam ate from the apple. We could go on and on. In fact, symbols carry an infinite amount of information. How so? Think about what the apple is not. Every symbol carries that information as well.
Now think about a beautiful still life painting of an apple. Any difference? Again, this is a symbol, and all of the same thoughts apply. Think of a child’s drawing of an apple. Is it any less a symbol, because some of us may not recognize it as an apple? Is your thought of the child’s painting any different from an actual child’s painting? As a symbol of an apple, no. If a symbol says “apple” to the perceiver, that’s what it is. A symbol is a symbol, nothing more and nothing less. We decide the meaning. The meaning is the content of the symbol. This is what it represents to us, what its purpose is in our mind.
Now, think about a beautiful bouquet of flowers. Each of us will likely picture a different form. Some will imagine roses, while others will imagine tulips or a mixed spring bouquet. For many, the content of this symbol is romance, a gesture of thanks, etc. I have a girlfriend for whom the symbol carries a very different content. While married, her husband would bring her flowers after he cheated on her or abused her in some way. She really dislikes flowers. Same symbol; different content. She happens to like rocks, so a gesture of romance or thanks for her might be a cool piece of petrified wood or a fossil of some sort.
So, how do we determine what these symbols mean? Well, to start with, we always rely on the past. My girlfriend’s relationship with flowers depends solely on what happened in the past. For that matter, so does everybody else’s relationship with flowers. We know that flowers are beautiful or special, because we’ve learned these things in the past. The majority of our lives is spent analyzing and categorizing symbol after symbol after symbol. We reinforce these symbols every time we use them, adding layer upon layer upon layer.
Now, try to imagine for a moment that you can’t rely on your past learning to inform this present moment. Close your eyes for a second. When you open them, imagine that you have no idea what anything you see is or means. None of it. Everything is new. How does that feel? Frightening? Peaceful? Powerful? How would my friend react to a flower now? Do you think she would believe it beautiful? How would she know? If she couldn’t rely on her past learning, would she even know if a flower was beautiful or repulsive? Spend a little time today in that rabbit hole.
We can’t depend on the body’s eyes to tell us what we see. The body’s eyes always stop at form. It is the mind that decides what they see, and the mind’s judgment is always based on the past. Everything we perceive is a symbol with a meaning that we decide, a form with a content of our choosing. There isn’t a thing, concept, experience, etc. that isn’t a symbol of a thought in our mind. Mindful perception is the awareness that we supply content. We give purpose. Now, we’re playing with real power.
If I were to ask you right now what your problem is, most likely you would tell me, and you would use words to do it. The words in and of themselves are not the problem. They’re symbols, nothing more and nothing less. As symbols they are the means by which you attempt to share an idea. Communication is sharing. Effective communication is the joining of minds. It is the sharing beyond the symbol that unites minds in one thought. The problem lies in the link, the connection, between minds. When you share your problem with me, what is shared is dependent on the definition of the words in your mind, the definition of the words in my mind and whatever commonality may exist between the two. It isn’t exact. In fact, it is quite faulty. (Ask any lawyer or politician.) Not only are the words symbols but the ideas that they represent are symbols. The sounds of the letters that make the word “bird” are not a bird. Neither the idea of the bird in your mind nor the idea of the bird in my mind is the bird. The bird is at least twice removed from the symbol leaving plenty of room for error. Communication, as we experience it, is problematic right from the get-go.
Just as words are symbols, so are the things, concepts, and actions that they symbolize. Think of an apple. The image is a symbol. It carries with it all that you think about apples, the texture, taste, color, etc. It carries all of the experiences that you’ve had with an apple, the cool crisp ones, the mushy bland ones, the sour green ones, etc. I like apples. My mom liked apples. Adam ate from the apple. We could go on and on. In fact, symbols carry an infinite amount of information. How so? Think about what the apple is not. Every symbol carries that information as well.
Now think about a beautiful still life painting of an apple. Any difference? Again, this is a symbol, and all of the same thoughts apply. Think of a child’s drawing of an apple. Is it any less a symbol, because some of us may not recognize it as an apple? Is your thought of the child’s painting any different from an actual child’s painting? As a symbol of an apple, no. If a symbol says “apple” to the perceiver, that’s what it is. A symbol is a symbol, nothing more and nothing less. We decide the meaning. The meaning is the content of the symbol. This is what it represents to us, what its purpose is in our mind.
Now, think about a beautiful bouquet of flowers. Each of us will likely picture a different form. Some will imagine roses, while others will imagine tulips or a mixed spring bouquet. For many, the content of this symbol is romance, a gesture of thanks, etc. I have a girlfriend for whom the symbol carries a very different content. While married, her husband would bring her flowers after he cheated on her or abused her in some way. She really dislikes flowers. Same symbol; different content. She happens to like rocks, so a gesture of romance or thanks for her might be a cool piece of petrified wood or a fossil of some sort.
So, how do we determine what these symbols mean? Well, to start with, we always rely on the past. My girlfriend’s relationship with flowers depends solely on what happened in the past. For that matter, so does everybody else’s relationship with flowers. We know that flowers are beautiful or special, because we’ve learned these things in the past. The majority of our lives is spent analyzing and categorizing symbol after symbol after symbol. We reinforce these symbols every time we use them, adding layer upon layer upon layer.
Now, try to imagine for a moment that you can’t rely on your past learning to inform this present moment. Close your eyes for a second. When you open them, imagine that you have no idea what anything you see is or means. None of it. Everything is new. How does that feel? Frightening? Peaceful? Powerful? How would my friend react to a flower now? Do you think she would believe it beautiful? How would she know? If she couldn’t rely on her past learning, would she even know if a flower was beautiful or repulsive? Spend a little time today in that rabbit hole.
We can’t depend on the body’s eyes to tell us what we see. The body’s eyes always stop at form. It is the mind that decides what they see, and the mind’s judgment is always based on the past. Everything we perceive is a symbol with a meaning that we decide, a form with a content of our choosing. There isn’t a thing, concept, experience, etc. that isn’t a symbol of a thought in our mind. Mindful perception is the awareness that we supply content. We give purpose. Now, we’re playing with real power.
Friday, January 16, 2009
The Problem with Perception (Part 1 of 6)
Every problem in your life, every one, is a perception problem. Think about this for a minute. Think about the problems that confronted you today. Think about your health, bank account, relationships, work, laundry, or drive home. Whatever it is, how do you know you have it? The answer, of course, is simple. We see the pile of work on our desk. We feel the pain in our stomach. We hear the creditor’s phone call. We smell the motor burning up in our car. From this perspective, perception’s link to our problems is relatively clear. Perception is the medium of our problems, the medium of all experience. We’ll start there.
Webster defines perception as “the faculty by which man holds communication with the external world or takes cognizance of objects outside the mind.” Ostensibly, our senses, the seeming agents of our perception, bring data to the brain in the form of light waves, sound waves, nerve impulses, etc. As many of us know, or have heard, the brain then filters out most of what it deems unimportant, and we perceive what we unconsciously “think” is important. This is helpful, since interpreting some 400 billion bits of information per second is a little cumbersome when driving down the road!
Not only are we not seeing the whole of reality, but we all see what we see differently. Many of us have been in a psychology class or a criminology class during which an individual enters the room, usually in a hooded garment, accosts the professor, and takes his or her wallet or purse. Nobody in the class knows that it is a set-up except for the professor, who then asks the class to describe the perp. Inevitably, there are almost as many descriptions of the intruder and what happened as there are students in the class. Some say male; some say female. Some say he had a gun; some say she had a stapler. Some say the hoodie was black; some say the intruder was wearing a hat! Perception is faulty. It is not exact. It is never reality.
Science echoes the same. Nothing is as it seems. First, we recognize ourselves with our basic senses. We see our reflection in the mirror. We feel our legs, our arms, or our fingers. Quickly, science shows us that there is more to the story than meets the eye, as we discover that we are actually made up of countless cells, which we quickly realize are made up of an ever- enlarging number of smaller units, molecules, atoms, etc. Quantum physics comes along and says that when we look closer still, the distinction between our body and the chair upon which we sit begins to blur. Closer still, and there is nothing but infinite space, infinite possibilities. Similarly, what we experience evolves as our perceiving devices evolve. In the not-so-distant past, x-rays, ultrasound, and DNA didn’t exist for us, because we didn’t have the ability to perceive them. Were they there prior? Where does the image rendered by x-rays exist? Where is the sound which we label “ultra”? All of which may beg the age-old question, “If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?” Simply: of course not. Sound depends on a perceiver. Sound, like all perception, is an interpretation of the brain, which is designed to receive the sound waves, transform them into a mental image, and give that image a name. Without the interpretation device, there is no sound. How could there be? Where would it be? A rabbit hole? Depends on if you perceive one.
Perception, then, is simply what we think we see, hear, feel, smell, or taste. Again, perception is never the whole picture; it is an interpretation of reality, a substitute for reality. Lau Tzu once opined, “That is real which never changes.” Perception depends on change. There must be a subject observing or experiencing an object or sensation that is different or changed in time, space, or even memory. Everything we perceive will change. Was it real before it changed? Is it real now? Perceptions are unreal, because they change.
So, if perception isn’t reality, then what is it? If something isn’t reality, by definition, it has to be an illusion. Illusions seem real, but they aren’t. When a magician saws her assistant in half, it seems real, but we know it isn’t. Perception is an illusion of reality based on our own interpretation of sensory data filtered through the lens of our own awareness. In other words, none of us look at the same situation or the same thing in exactly the same way. We all bring our own past experiences, thoughts, and beliefs to the table thus altering “reality” to fit our own understanding of what we have seen, heard, etc. Therefore, what I hear you say, or see you do, cannot help but be influenced by my own notions of the words that you have used, the tone in your voice, past experience, etc. There is no objective reality here. Whatever I see, it is I who determine what it means. Whatever I hear, it is I who determine what it is I’ve heard. Sure, we may collectively agree on some things, but I still choose. What we begin to realize as we bounce further down our current rabbit hole is that everything we perceive is actually a symbol for our own belief, our own thoughts, and our own awareness. Our belief then, actually determines what we perceive. Stay with me here. Since perception is the medium of our experience, and what we perceive is really our choice, it is only a bunny hop at most to conclude that what we experience is but our choice. What we experience is our choice. Read the last sentence one more time. Ponder it. Let it sink in. Depending on how far you are willing to go, there will likely be some pain, some resistance. It will pass.
Webster defines perception as “the faculty by which man holds communication with the external world or takes cognizance of objects outside the mind.” Ostensibly, our senses, the seeming agents of our perception, bring data to the brain in the form of light waves, sound waves, nerve impulses, etc. As many of us know, or have heard, the brain then filters out most of what it deems unimportant, and we perceive what we unconsciously “think” is important. This is helpful, since interpreting some 400 billion bits of information per second is a little cumbersome when driving down the road!
Not only are we not seeing the whole of reality, but we all see what we see differently. Many of us have been in a psychology class or a criminology class during which an individual enters the room, usually in a hooded garment, accosts the professor, and takes his or her wallet or purse. Nobody in the class knows that it is a set-up except for the professor, who then asks the class to describe the perp. Inevitably, there are almost as many descriptions of the intruder and what happened as there are students in the class. Some say male; some say female. Some say he had a gun; some say she had a stapler. Some say the hoodie was black; some say the intruder was wearing a hat! Perception is faulty. It is not exact. It is never reality.
Science echoes the same. Nothing is as it seems. First, we recognize ourselves with our basic senses. We see our reflection in the mirror. We feel our legs, our arms, or our fingers. Quickly, science shows us that there is more to the story than meets the eye, as we discover that we are actually made up of countless cells, which we quickly realize are made up of an ever- enlarging number of smaller units, molecules, atoms, etc. Quantum physics comes along and says that when we look closer still, the distinction between our body and the chair upon which we sit begins to blur. Closer still, and there is nothing but infinite space, infinite possibilities. Similarly, what we experience evolves as our perceiving devices evolve. In the not-so-distant past, x-rays, ultrasound, and DNA didn’t exist for us, because we didn’t have the ability to perceive them. Were they there prior? Where does the image rendered by x-rays exist? Where is the sound which we label “ultra”? All of which may beg the age-old question, “If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?” Simply: of course not. Sound depends on a perceiver. Sound, like all perception, is an interpretation of the brain, which is designed to receive the sound waves, transform them into a mental image, and give that image a name. Without the interpretation device, there is no sound. How could there be? Where would it be? A rabbit hole? Depends on if you perceive one.
Perception, then, is simply what we think we see, hear, feel, smell, or taste. Again, perception is never the whole picture; it is an interpretation of reality, a substitute for reality. Lau Tzu once opined, “That is real which never changes.” Perception depends on change. There must be a subject observing or experiencing an object or sensation that is different or changed in time, space, or even memory. Everything we perceive will change. Was it real before it changed? Is it real now? Perceptions are unreal, because they change.
So, if perception isn’t reality, then what is it? If something isn’t reality, by definition, it has to be an illusion. Illusions seem real, but they aren’t. When a magician saws her assistant in half, it seems real, but we know it isn’t. Perception is an illusion of reality based on our own interpretation of sensory data filtered through the lens of our own awareness. In other words, none of us look at the same situation or the same thing in exactly the same way. We all bring our own past experiences, thoughts, and beliefs to the table thus altering “reality” to fit our own understanding of what we have seen, heard, etc. Therefore, what I hear you say, or see you do, cannot help but be influenced by my own notions of the words that you have used, the tone in your voice, past experience, etc. There is no objective reality here. Whatever I see, it is I who determine what it means. Whatever I hear, it is I who determine what it is I’ve heard. Sure, we may collectively agree on some things, but I still choose. What we begin to realize as we bounce further down our current rabbit hole is that everything we perceive is actually a symbol for our own belief, our own thoughts, and our own awareness. Our belief then, actually determines what we perceive. Stay with me here. Since perception is the medium of our experience, and what we perceive is really our choice, it is only a bunny hop at most to conclude that what we experience is but our choice. What we experience is our choice. Read the last sentence one more time. Ponder it. Let it sink in. Depending on how far you are willing to go, there will likely be some pain, some resistance. It will pass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
