Perception - a subtle yet influential force

Perception is a very challenging concept to completely understand, for starters most individuals have their own in-built perceptions of the world and those around them, from the macro level when one contemplates reality at large, to the micro when one observes their daily lives and interactions.

In order to even comprehend what it truly is, one must be able to control their perception like any other sense, however, perception is tied intrinsically with our personal thoughts and beliefs, as it is generally something that we have been conditioned with and also something that many cannot imagine being any different.

To control perception is to see it as a form of "illusion" and to do this one must be able to control thier mind to perceive the same object in different ways, and observe how the perception of the object influences your intentions towards it. Thus, when we perceive an object in a specified pattern, we experience corresponding feelings that tempt us into making "perception-specific" choices, and indeed, those that are able control the perceptions of others, those that function on a specifically high level, can control the populace.

As a side note, a perception will not cause an involuntary act, that is, we can choose, though, most are generally "tempted" and choose to change thier behaviours in-line with thier perceptions. It is at this point that I must highlight an obvious example - a man that was previously neutral towards domestic cats, having no fear of them and behaving in a calm manner around them, is attacked by a wild cat in the forest. He develops a "phobia" towards cats and now whenever he sees even a kitten he chooses to avoid them. Such an example is a very obvious perceptual difference that has altered behaviour. However, and obviously, we know how complex the human brain is, and indeed how complex our perceptions really are, right down to a pencil-eraser, a tea-cup, a car, a brand name, clothing, mannerisms including body language, speech patterns, colours, day and night...

The list goes on...

So, if we see perception as a function of the brain, then, what is controlling how this function develops? The answer is what I want to coin as "perceptual control" - when we observe objects in repeated fashions and learn to associate them with certain attributes - one could look at a Ferrari as simply a large piece of metal, however, most are conditioned to associate them with fame and success, and all of a sudden a machine turns into a statement, an object of desire, an extension of ones self and also when possessed, influential on self-perception - which is the other side of the coin, and also amazingly complex and intriguing.

We now turn our attention to the facets of perceptual control in our environment - the most obvious is television, day in day out, we watch, and we are all trained in the same way because we are all watching the same collection of channels, in the macro sense, it is a large scale control over perception, and, to the controllers, they know how it works, and it is not something that you can just read in a book, it is an intuitive skill, being able to design advertisements, propaganda, imagery, even buildings and landscapes to capture certain perceptual "bandwidths" or perceptual "flavours".

These "controllers" can thus observe the fruits of their efforts, can see how, for example, thier "consumers" behave when they release new advertisements, and also can see on a global level how entire populations are coralled into certain peceptual domains that generate homogeneous behaviours.

Ask yourself, how "accute" is your perception, do you see the world in "plain vanilla" where most things appear to "look the same" or are you in a world of "colours" where all objects illicit different feelings and appear to have different "characters" and "tones" - or are you highly developed, can you look at people and assess them right down to the finest details?

The control over perception is a huge issue in my mind, and I know that, they know, that, it is something that can be changed and does have influences over the choices people make, and thus, the direction of civilisation itself!

Although a bit "conspiracy" I postulate that the "elites" are able to perceive the control itself, they can perceive how perceptions are manufactured by certain designs and configurations, for example, a building with certain interior design facets will create different "moods" for the inhabitants, an thus an interior designer can alter how things appear perceptually within a certain space, and if my theory is correct, they can affect the way that people behave in said space.

Perception is something that can be "shared" for certain individuals, as mentioned, individuals can be "corralled" and thus form certain "cliques" where they share the same outlook of the world, and thus collective perceptions create collective behaviors, and these perceptions themselves most likely are "controlled" by methodologies that create aversions to certain objects (fears) and attractions to other objects (desires).

An obvious example is a religion, when ingrained, a "follower" sees the world with a certain pair of specs, and this affects his choices, if the religious leaders understand how the influence of certain beliefs affect the collective outlook of their "peoples" they can thus predict and even plan the direction of the behaviours of their "followers".

Encouraging congruous perceptions and "training" them into people from a young age will create collective states of mind, and collectives are by far substantially easier to control than individuals whom possess their own unique states of mind - something that only occurs when one has the mental capacity and persistence to challenge the direction that the "flock" is moving in.

How would one "free" themselves of these "controls" - it requires a mastery over ones senses, to comprehend how thoughts themselves are manufactured by environmental variables, one can realise that they are being "swayed" in certain directions, and choose to opt for their own path as a matter of independence.

Why would you choose to be isolated from collective perceptions and thus collective mind sets? Because, you can see the element of slavery that is involved, and because you do not trust the "controllers" and their agendas.

originally posted by: SystemResistor

How would one "free" themselves of these "controls" - it requires a mastery over ones senses, to comprehend how thoughts themselves are manufactured by environmental variables, one can realise that they are being "swayed" in certain directions, and choose to opt for their own path as a matter of independence.

I have the perfect answer for you, something that has helped me tremendously(not joking), it's General Semantics. It's a large subject that talks about many aspects of what it is to be human. To summarize, there is a practical side to it and it talks about being conscious of our mechanisms of evaluation and of abstraction. It is about injecting the scientific method into our everyday way of thinking, by using thoughts devices to help us live in the now. And living in the now means realizing that every moment is a new moment, that every situation is a new situation, that every actor is a new actor, that every event is a new event, and that even myself is a new self at every moment. It forces us to look at ourselves and the world around like if we had the eyes of a newborn who sees everything for the first time, leaving all prejudices and biases behind. It really is about adapting the scientific method to our everyday way of thinking. It talks about a "cortico-thalamic pause", a conscious pause in our thought processes when an event occurs to prevent us to react emotionally instead of intellectually, and the goal is to practice that pause until it becomes an automated reflex. For example, if I have been bitten by a dog at some point in my life, I might react emotionally when I see a dog, but if I do this cortico-thalamic pause, I will give time to my brain to process things intellectually and not only emotionally (because emotional reaction normally has the priority). Thus I will understand that dog1 is not dog2 nor dog3 etc.. The ultimate goal would be to be able to experiment or discard the emotions of our choice. I have done this pause so many times that sometimes I have the impression that things that happen to me don't actually happen to me ! I have this habit now of watching myself, making funny comments about myself in my head when an event occurs. I have become very sensitive to prejudices and biases, not only in myself but also those of others, I see them like big elephants in a small room. Anyway, there is so much to say about General Semantics that it is better for you to make your own research.

originally posted by: SystemResistor
Perception is a very challenging concept to completely understand, for starters most individuals have their own in-built perceptions of the world and those around them, from the macro level when one contemplates reality at large, to the micro when one observes their daily lives and interactions.

I agree that you don't use the word "I" to denote yourself once in you whole text, but you start off marking everyone else as "...most individuals...." We can take that to mean you exclude yourself. If that were not so, you would have written "...we....

I take away the perception that your perception is that you are above the common herd as you preach down to us.

a reply to: SystemResistor
That is a very well-stated consideration. I agree with much of what you write relative to how we are limited and controlled via perception, and would like to add a bit more about the "illusion" of perception.

We never experience anything except as a perceptual event that occurs in the psyche. To experience anything, the senses first receive input that is processed by the nervous system-brain-mind to create an image, sound, sensation, etc., and that is then what is perceived.

So yes, our pre-conceived notions, beliefs, moods, sensory capacities, likes and dislikes, relationships, etc., can and do affect our perceptions. However, perceptions are not what any of the perceived objects and others actually are and also perceptions take time to create - albeit, usually a short amount of time.

Therefore, perceptions are never direct knowledge of what anything actually is in reality, nor are perceptions even an experience of any object as it actually is in the present moment - because, again, it takes the nervous system-brain-mind time to create the image, sensation, etc., and the object itself could have changed in that amount of time. (Think of perceiving a very distant star - it could be gone by the time we see its light.)

So not only do we never know what anything actually is via perception, but we are not even experiencing the object as it is in the current moment because of the time it takes to develop the perception. In other words, we are always experiencing a memory of anything we perceive.

To equate any perception with what is actually the case in reality, is the illusion that must be transcended. No matter how many ways we can look at an object, from even every potential point-of-view, we will still never know what that object actually is in reality.

Perception at best gives us an approximation of objects and others in our current so-called reality mainly for survival and other relational purposes - but is never what those objects and others actually are.

So to understand what our actual Reality is, we must go beyond all perception, not just learn how to control it, or de-condition ourselves to somehow perceive differently, or try to cut it away, etc.

We need to notice what is beyond the mechanism of attention, point-of-view, and the perceptual construct of mind (of the seer vs. the seen) - and be that which we inherently are. This will allow us to be free of the negative influences attempting to control us via manipulating our perceptions, and provide us the true intelligence for discriminating between what is inherently real and what is just bs.

Thanks for the very interesting thread - I hope your opening post gets the consideration it deserves! S+F

a reply to: Aliensun

I do not really want to be involved in the world of perceptual "differences" because, in "their" world, every perception has an associated "meaning" - one might look at another individual's appearance and already maintain a thought that dictates what that person "is" or categorise them according to what I see as pre-conceptualised "brands" - things that will affect how people are treated.

These "brands" or categories seem to be controlled by some kind of "program" however I won't get into that now.

To reiterate, something subjective (changeable) that affects objective (factual) reality is evidently dangerous because it represents a kind of delusion, albeit, a mass delusion.

I perceive relatively little "subjective" difference between objects and I am often unaware of how others perceive me, if I were to know, as a state of mind, the manner in which others see me, I would be burdened and I would become stuck in "their" world.

I would be deriving specific patterns of "meaning" from various perceptual aspects, tones, qualities, or attributes.

I remember being on a train, and someone was attempting to talk to the other commuters, saying "Hi, how are you", "Whats your name", and so on. For some strange reason, people seemed to generally be ignoring her, walking past her or acting like she was not even there.

I always thought that it is just common decency to acknowledge somebody that is greeting you, so, I had to deliberate with myself, and "peer" into their world, and what I discovered was a window into a collective perception, that was, quite confronting.

Her tone of voice was perceived to be incongruous to the tones that "normal" people use, it seemed to have an intimidating effect, despite the obvious evidence that she was being friendly, her mannerisms and use of eye contact estranged her in such a manner that she was ignored, and most would pass her by and immediately form the perception that she was some kind of "nobody" or even socially "inferior".

When I saw a bit through their "eyes" there was some strange kind of "silence" associated with her - some kind of inner "non-reactivity" that she seemed to illicit in others, that created an invisible, "perceptual" barrier to communication - a stigma.

If she were to appear "normal" and use "common" mannerisms and speech patterns, she would have likely been talked to...

In simple terms, she looked too "different".

Their world evidently bars certain individuals and promotes others according to some kind of "consensus reality".

You can see how I despise it, and how I like to differentiate myself from them as a matter of principle.

a reply to: gosseyn

I understand exactly what you mean, when a feeling occurs in the nervous system, it is an electrical impulse that reaches the brain, generally, if you have the capacity to interpret your feelings, and override them by the application of your own principles of behaviour, you can resist the urges to act which are generated by these nervous impulses.

For example, you might suddenly feel the "waveform" of anger, that is a confusing signal that usually creates an aggressive response externally, however, when you recognise what it is, mentally, you can say "that is an electrical impulse" and knowing that anger is not constructive, even to an extent being opposed to it or even resenting the very fact that you felt it in the first place, you can subvert it and prevent any of your choices or actions being controlled by it.

Self-control and self-direction are very important, you can do what you truly want to, what you think is the correct way to be, and generally, as with anger for example, you prevent yourself from doing things that you later regret - something that leads to depressive emotional states.

a reply to: SystemResistor

I completely agree with you. And there is more to it. I spoke of injecting the scientific method to our everyday way of thinking. And by that I mean that we have to realise that in a given situation there are many things that escape our senses, that we are not aware of, also things that are not meant to be picked up by our senses and there are also categories of things that we are used to give attention to due to our past experiences and other categories of things that we are used to ignore. Then with this incomplete information we start to form inferences in our mind, and there are things that we no longer question, things that we have abstracted, that we have conceptualized etc, and after all that comes the reaction. But through all those processes we have moved away from what really happened, from reality, and in the end we base our reaction on a fiction, not on reality. This is why the scientific method is important because it is the best tool we have invented to form a model of reality that is as close as possible to reality.

Here is a pic that explains :

1. In a given situation we can never know everything that happens
2. What our senses pick up is not what has happened, it is of different nature
3. Then we start to describe what our senses have picked up but what we describe is of different nature than what our senses have picked up
4. Then we give meaning to our descriptions, and here also the meaning that we give is of different nature, is it abstract, conceptual
And at the end of the process, we are to react based on something that is very partial and subjective.

Here is a great online course of General Semantics thisisnotthat.com...