Parallel Perceptions and the Representation of the Environment – How the Reality Gains it Shape
Due to the indirect perception of the environment after the content generative cycle, such factors as cultural heritage, personal history and responses that define the characteristics of personality, the reality as is perceived has a vast variety of differences, although the origins of the perception of the environment is relatively the same.
Consider that we were both watching a black feather pointing up from a piece of gum. The feather itself is hardly inside our brains, as but the photons that have originated from it have resulted to a relatively the same portrait of it to appear in our conscious mind. The feather has not also been duplicated in the manner that there were suddenly two feathers, but the image we are both witnessing is a parallel perception of the same phenomenon.
As it turns out, I do not know the name of the bird the feather has been de-attached, but instead somewhere in your childhood you had learned to recognize it, and now intuitively know as it associates to your mind from this type of stimulus that it is a crow’s feather. Thus, although we were watching the same feather, the semantic content of it was relatively different even at this point, as the content generative cycle had lead to different type of information to be attached to it. And of course after you have told me that it is a crow’s feather, I will then be able to recognize it as such in the future, and thus a meme that carry the units of cultural information was passed on to my sub-conscious, developing my intuition and condition me to know that in reality such a feather is a crow’s feather.
People in developed nations have mostly abandoned the worship of the sun as a god, but rewind couple of millennia and somewhere on this world you would have been insane to suggest otherwise. The observance of the same phenomenon, the sun, is a parallel perception between us and them, but the contents conditioned for our brains to be associated in this manner have radically altered since the Maya.
Words and sentences in themselves discriminate the described phenomena by outlining them to have these and these properties. Although we are observing the same phenomena, the semantic contents of them can be distinctively different between persons. No matter how you or I say it, the formation of absolute knowledge is most of the time utterly impossible for our kind since we have extremely limited and subjective capacity in our brains. But as we are usually speaking on parallel perceptions on phenomenal matters, whether fully representational or having an origin in the cosmos, are the ways how you or I discriminate the phenomena to outline different properties worth fighting over, must we say that something has to be perceived as such and such, or are we just spending time over furious babbles. When perceiving the same feather, which is the correct one?
The author of The Art of Perception: An Introduction to Information Reality (2008), Path of the Eternal Truth: The Practical Science and Contemporary Philosophy of What Buddha Himself Taught of the Path of the Enlightened in Dhammapada (2009), Enlightened Life of Buddhism: A Workbook for Interpreting the 423 Teachings of Enlightenment in Dhammapada (2009), The Transcendental Awareness of Buddha: A Workbook for Interpreting the Teachings in Lankavatara Sutra and Diamond Sutra (2010), The Divine Krishna: A Workbook for Interpreting the Teachings in the Bhagavad Gita (2010), The Undivided Wisdom of Confucius: A Workbook for Interpreting the Teachings in the Analects of Confucius (2010), My Tao Te Ching: A Workbook for Interpreting the Teachings and Poems in Tao Te Ching (2010), Divinity: A Portrait of Human Spirituality (2010). You can find my published works from b&n: Henry M. Piironen