At a certain level, our brains are equal part
sensory receptor and equal part filter.
At a given moment, we are being inundated with sensory inputs. We may, for example, hear the sound of a
television, or a song on the radio, while at the same time picking up the
whistle of wind at the nearest open window and the voices of people around us. Concurrently, we might find ourselves rubbing
at a persistent pain in our back and feeling a light breeze silking across our
cheeks. The breeze may carry the
delicate fragrance of freshly-mown grass mixed with light smoke from a nearby
barbeque. Finally, our eyes might be continually
adjusting to light that is rapidly modulating in intensity as clouds roll
across the face of the sun.
These are the inputs we capture and process.
But what about the other inputs?
What about the light reaching us at wavelengths,
such as infrared, that we cannot perceive?
What about the motions of an insect’s wing beats that occur so rapidly
we see nothing as the insect streaks by?
What about the sounds beyond the range of our hearing—the sounds that
send our cats scampering to hide but leave us calmly sipping our wine in what
we consider perfect silence? What is the
dog sniffing at when he first puts his nose to our shoe when we first greet?
Simply put, we cannot process all of the sensory
inputs provided to us at a given instant or even those spread over a long
period of time. Our brain and sensory
receptors must, by design, filter out the sensory feeds we do not critically
require. We must glean through the
entire heap to gather only that which matters to us—this, to avoid overload and
confusion.
Truly, we see only part of the second to second and
day to day world in which we reside. We
do not perceive some of the gears that are turning directly in front of us.
Consider our vision as compared to the humble
butterfly. Where we see a plain red flower
of a single color, a butterfly may (with a wider range of the light spectrum
available to them) see multiple colors and a striking pattern that is
imperceptible to us on the petals.
Compare our sense of smell to that of a
bloodhound. A bloodhound is capable of
following the scantest trail of scent where a person did no more that walk
away.
All of this leads me to one simple question: are we
defined by the inputs we perceive or are we more aptly defined by all that we
exclude? If that sounds silly, stop and
think about how the social inputs we exclude define us.
--Mitchell
Hegman
What are we defined by?
ReplyDeleteI see possible answers from at least 3 different angles:
1.Selective perception – we define ourselves only by what we see/know of ourselves and the world – much like taking a depth-of-field photo.
2.Johari window – I see this as one step above selective perception. We realize that others may define us differently from how we define ourselves. We are aware that we have blind spots and that there are things about us that we don’t see but that others know of. We acknowledge the unknown about us that neither others nor we see.
3.ACIM – A Course in Miracles, among other things, posits that nothing is real except love and that what we think of as reality is merely our own concoction, a dream. An attempt therefore to define ourselves as other than love is an exercise in futility.
Don't think #1 will work. We cannot fully define ourselves and make the entire selection ourselves. #2 is close but does not account for the fact that others have our same severely limited perceptions. #3 lacks gravity which is most certainly real.
ReplyDeleteBut we are still in such pretty light!