I often hear people talk about how they believe that they create their own reality but don't see how they create what they think of as the negative things.
Perhaps they think when their body gets sick, somehow they did not make it so.
That when they stub their toe, somehow it was the object's fault or they simply didn't see it.
It's not that these things are created in their reality. Or that they ...create their reality. Nothing is really created. But everything is perceived.
Creation doesn't exist. We use these terms to reference some other process.
If we write a poem, for example, we're not creating something new. We're simply exploring relationships. The words were already there but it becomes relevant to us because we are creating a poem for ourselves.
When something new happens, it is the same thing. You are exploring a relationship. The elements were there already but you are in a way "seeing what happens" when you combine one thing with another thing.
It doesn't actually matter what you perceive, as long as you perceive something.
The idea is to "form relationships". However, the value of each relationship is not the same as the perception of it.
In this sense, at times it may be "better" to perceive of something you consider very bad than something very good.
You're looking at the shape of the relationship, not what your brain interprets the relationship to look like today.
What do we perceive? We perceive of things most relative to us in the here/now. Things not as relative to us are more distant in time/space.
So, your body is most relative to your perspective. So it seems that it's always following you around. Your toes are not as relative to your perspective as your nose and mouth are, and are further away in distance.
Your watch is sometimes relative to your perspective so you may only wear it sometimes.
Your workplace is less relative to your perspective, so it is even more distant.
And so on...
However, it is about the value rather than the perception. The place you grew up or went to school may be very relative to your current perspective but be distant in time space. But what you don't see is that the "shape" of your school or hometown is still around you in a different form.
So, actually, when we are reading a scientific article about how we perceive we must ask ourselves, "What is it that we're doing?"
Are we reading an article or exploring our own values?
When we perceive of a distant object, is it that the photons from the object are hitting the cells in our eyes or that the distant object is us; a less-relative value in our perspective and we only interpret distance in such a way?
Perhaps they think when their body gets sick, somehow they did not make it so.
That when they stub their toe, somehow it was the object's fault or they simply didn't see it.
It's not that these things are created in their reality. Or that they ...create their reality. Nothing is really created. But everything is perceived.
Creation doesn't exist. We use these terms to reference some other process.
If we write a poem, for example, we're not creating something new. We're simply exploring relationships. The words were already there but it becomes relevant to us because we are creating a poem for ourselves.
When something new happens, it is the same thing. You are exploring a relationship. The elements were there already but you are in a way "seeing what happens" when you combine one thing with another thing.
It doesn't actually matter what you perceive, as long as you perceive something.
The idea is to "form relationships". However, the value of each relationship is not the same as the perception of it.
In this sense, at times it may be "better" to perceive of something you consider very bad than something very good.
You're looking at the shape of the relationship, not what your brain interprets the relationship to look like today.
What do we perceive? We perceive of things most relative to us in the here/now. Things not as relative to us are more distant in time/space.
So, your body is most relative to your perspective. So it seems that it's always following you around. Your toes are not as relative to your perspective as your nose and mouth are, and are further away in distance.
Your watch is sometimes relative to your perspective so you may only wear it sometimes.
Your workplace is less relative to your perspective, so it is even more distant.
And so on...
However, it is about the value rather than the perception. The place you grew up or went to school may be very relative to your current perspective but be distant in time space. But what you don't see is that the "shape" of your school or hometown is still around you in a different form.
So, actually, when we are reading a scientific article about how we perceive we must ask ourselves, "What is it that we're doing?"
Are we reading an article or exploring our own values?
When we perceive of a distant object, is it that the photons from the object are hitting the cells in our eyes or that the distant object is us; a less-relative value in our perspective and we only interpret distance in such a way?
No comments:
Post a Comment