How awareness and the perception-operator changes with time, and you “see the world through different eyes.”
5/6/2020 7:35 a.m.
Sitting outside, bright and sunny with a morning chill. I mean, it is exceptionally beautiful this morning.
So yesterday, I was thinking more about our dialogue, and I got this insight:
“Seeing the world through different eyes,”
*[I look up the word “to perceive:” from Latin percipere “obtain, gather,” literally “to take entirely,” from per- thoroughly + capere grasp, from IE *kap, to grasp ]
OK, after this little side trip, back to our scheduled program…. Tuning in.
The Club: No need, we are here
[Some side-thoughts] Let’s get on the topic: seeing the world with different eyes.
It is true, as you go through life, your perception slightly changes. You see things differently. You still see them, your awareness is not different, but your perception, your interpretation of them is different.
So here, really, is another aspect of the process, the outgoing weighting into an interpretation, an impression of the data.
OK, so we hit upon something new?
Not new, as so much a different aspect.
Yes, it is all a weighting. And it all flows together, the scene, the memory, the base-tuning, the awareness-operator, and it brings to awareness AS this or that.
So the example was: to see the world through different eyes. YOU explain a bit about this.
Well, as I go through life, I notice that today I see things differently than when I was younger. This goes into how a self changes over the years.
When I say “I see things differently,” that may be literally regarding a thing, an object, or some more abstract idea. Take for example, smiling, “partying.” Clearly, the younger me, such as back in college, this was a big thing. Today, I yawn at the idea, or “my idea” of partying has changed. Of course. Same thing with looking at a pretty girl – having been married for 30+ years to the same wonderful woman, another girl is still pretty, but it has a different connotation than when I was a young hormonal teen.
That word stands out, “connotation.” [ I look it up, not in the book; obviously it has con+ notation, probably related to the “note” and noting. ]
Anyways, so yes, I see the word through different eyes. I assign different credence to things. I choose differently than when I was younger. As a matter of fact, if I was to meet my younger self (big smile now), I probably would slap him, and he would probably say in horror “what have I become!?” – laughing.
Well, laughing too, you realize you meet your younger self all the time, you are intimately connected to all of your variants, and through bleed-through feed into them and vice versa, but you are just weighted differently.
So, good explanation. However, you have one more further thing, state it!
Oh, these changes in perception, or interpretation, don’t always need to be subtle, and over time.
But they can be instantaneous.
A good example is a paradigm shift. [I looked it up, related to “teaching”]
It is when a single new piece of information makes you see a thing or person in a completely new light.
For example, to find out that a friend betrayed you (or your lover cheated on you) may turn that relationship from friendship to hate in an instance.
So here is where new knowledge changes the interpretation instantly: “new eyes.”
The other is more a gradual drift over a long time; where knowledge, experience of memory accumulates over time, and makes you see it gradually different: “new eyes.”
Good. Either way it is a weighting. You weigh the same input differently – may it be a physical thing or some abstract idea – and your interpretation of it is thus different than before.
So we are back to this concept of weighting: “The weights are everything.”
And sometimes they get changed gradually, sometimes quicker.
Now, note again how this is one fluent motion, a bunch of inputs into this perception-operator, and a slight change in weighting, and out comes a different answer to the same question: how do I behold (=perceive) this world ?
So again, you cannot see the memory, experiences, base-moods as something different from the perception operator. They ARE the same, they are all setting the weights of the operator itself.
That is the part you still struggle with.
Still [struggle] with the fact that the operator changes.
Because you see it as separate. OK, try a different idea [approach]: the operator is but a different grouping or membrane around your memory? Take it as a weighting as well?
OK, so at birth, the memory is clean, and the operator is preset to its pure noting [compare yesterday].
Well, not quite clean, because you still spent nine months in the womb, so there are memories of that time as well. That’s why babies like to be swaddled, because it reminds them of being in the womb. Or adults sometimes go into the fetal position [during times of stress] – it is all in our initial memory. So after the first cell is formed, it all grows itself together. The perception operator is never separate from memory, and memory is never quite empty. It starts in the womb.
Interesting. Yet, the perception-operator (and I just noticed that it switched from the “awareness-operator” to the “perception operator”)….
Same thing, different label. Smiling.
… has some sort of structure.
Of course. It has to have some structure, some base weighting of the inputs. In QM, or math, that is the matrix itself, that transforms the input, like
| 1 2 |
| 0 -i |
Yes, I see. The concept of infinities between two “adjacent” numbers [integers or natural numbers].
Good. The idea of infinitely small changes. Yet, there IS a slight change in the weight, and the perception changes.
So earlier we said a different aspect.
Yes, because now it is not just noticing, but interpreting something AS some thing, giving it a quality, assigning credence.
You had that in the notion of assigning credence to the various alternatives that are perceived.
That is the same process, interpreting AS, you might say.
And it is instantaneous. Given the operator, weighted by memory, out comes the awareness interpreted.
Trying to pin down awareness vs. perception.
Not really versus. Awareness means “to raise up,” out of the ground, into a figure. So it already is a sort of assigning weights, credence.
The next step, the same step, is to perceive that figure AS some quality, as weighted by past experiences.
One fluent motion, instantaneous. Just “breaking it down” into aspects, which are really not there; they only server your “understanding,” which is basically your perception of things.
I see another topic here about understanding.
All linked. It is a different way of seeing things, seeing connections.
OK, that could be big discussion. I feel, we have enough for today. I see “the world through slightly different eyes.”
You have an expanded “understanding,” you see? Smiling.
Yes, you are bating me, but let’s stop.
Have a good day choosing.
Namaste — I and the Divine in me bow to You and the Divine in You.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr