I think there's an interesting mechanism to explore on how our perception influences how we see reality.
What's more interesting to me is what influences the perception itself, going back to the idea of finding the source of mechanisms, in this regard.
Is it that this perception is crafted from reality itself? And reality is this multi layered phenomena that directs back more or less what we project into it, depending on our level of understanding and attunement?
I'm not sure. For myself, there's always an internal conflict between viewing reality as it is versus viewing reality as my mind or whatever instrument makes it to be.
A noticeable example is how others perceive and treat us shapes our self-image and behavior, which in turn influences how others see us - creating a feedback loop between perception and "reality."
For instance, being perceived as confident often leads to more successful interactions, which in itself reinforces confident behavior.
The opposite is usually true also. Being perceived as unconfident paves the way for more unsuccessful interactions and could reinforce unconfident behaviour.
So there may necessarily not be a right or wrong, good or bad way with this, despite the direction usually converging into two possibilities.
I think our sense of good or bad stems from our individual personal lens of needs, fears, culturally inherited metaphors etc. These labels are more like human projections and are based less on inherent truths.
And reality, for the most part is impersonal.
Logical Fallacy
Then logic tells me in order to view reality as it is, I need to be as impersonal as I can, or to be objective on how I interpret things as much as possible.
But this is like trying to see a mirror without a reflection. To observe reality “impersonally,” I must first confront the paradox that I am the instrument doing the observing.
This mirrors quantum physics’ observer effect: the act of observing changes the observed.
Even detachment is a choice filtered through biology and bias.
As in take the placebo effect as an example, where two patients receive sugar pills labeled as painkillers.
The believer feels relief(their perception rewires their physiology) while the skeptic notices no change.
It is possible that subjective belief bends reality, yet the impersonal laws of biochemistry remain untouched. The pill is inert, but the mind isn’t.
On a broader sense, what we call reality is or could be a combination of objective facts and subjective interpretations. And conflict arises when trying to discern where one ends and the other begins.
As that is what I often try to do, it makes the pursuit of “objectivity” seem like chasing a horizon.
Granted, we can calibrate our lens(e.g testing assumptions, questioning cultural defaults, etc) but against that backdrop, we’ll always be both the painter and the canvas.
This leaves little to no room for absolute certainty, with regards to determining where our subjective interpretations end and objective truth begins, since the tools we use for this discernment are themselves products of our consciousness.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.