Most of the time we are so fanatical with our thinking (in such a ubiquitous manner) that we fail to realize our relentless thinking. Nearly all of our perceptions are contaminated by our beliefs, expectations, inclinations, and biases. At times, this perceptual contamination prevents us from interacting with the world as it is in itself. More often than not, we struggle to perceive our environment without infecting the objective reality with our naive attributions. 

s

Evolutionary theories suggest that we rely on inherent biases and stereotypes to interact more efficiently with our daily encounters. Piaget’s assimilation model as well as Le Châtelier’s principle in chemistry may be stretched to encompass this philosophical dimension: When met by a novel experience, our mind will endeavor to alleviate the stress via ‘experience-integration’ under pre-existing categories. In addition, Piaget suggests that when impressions do not fit into an ideological meadow, we begin to accommodate the data by fostering a new cognitive faction. However, note that accommodation will evidently stem from our concealed prejudice, beliefs, upbringing, desire, and inclinations of the world.

exorbitant over-analysis of the world causes objectivity to suffocate in a sea of biased subjectivity; successively, tainting the authenticity of the world as it presents itself to us. Furthermore, overlaying the manifestations of the world with ‘biased’ attributions contributes to an aberrant imagination.

We ought to change the ideas in our mind to unveil the true realities of the world

 

32 thoughts on “Life is Mostly Imagined”

      • My friend, you are surely a philosopher and I am but a brawler and scribbler of ill repute.

        However, my experience with my fellow man certainly makes me dubious of any claims of divinity, whether collective or individual.

        That said, your words do transport me back to the 70’s, a rather happy time for me. And if you post further thoughts on this subject, I solemnly swear to read them.

        Liked by 3 people

  2. I really appreciate what you are saying and like the other comment so far – agree you have correctness here – but I just did not fully accept words like “contaminated” and “Tainted” – this implies yuck – and well – bias and experience and exposure – and the life we encode that shapes our world is not a tainting in a negative contaminating way; instead – it can be a beautiful subjective thing that is our experience – which is why we educate and stretch and grow to sharpen this narrow focus and broaden its stop.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. So true, we see the world through lens of our experience so that shapes our perception and expectations.
    I had a rescue dog once who would cower in fear every time I raised my hand near him, indicating that his last owner had beaten him regularly. So when he see’s a hand raised, he thinks beating based on his prior experiences.
    I’ts hard to rewire those patterns.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Stereotypes can be so limiting. limits our thinking and our perception – not always a good thing. I get it that we need to understand and there is a process -the theory you propose- is a plausible way to – interpret and make sense of. I just don’t think it is creative enough…..

    Liked by 3 people

    • Thank you for your feedback!
      There are many factors that contribute to subjectivity (genetics, environment, culture, peer pressure, past experiences, previous encounters, generalization, personality, preference, and expectations)
      My hopes were to depict the dark side of accepting our subjective outlook of the world with no further investigations

      Liked by 1 person

  7. There is no objective reality, according to me. Our capacity for imagination gives rise to angels and demons alike, as well as our perceptions of the material plane.

    If you are standing facing another person, and that person is standing facing you, each will see a different picture. Whose picture is right?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Is there not that betwixt angelic and demonic: a third option Choice which to be composite?

      Some are called “different” and some are differing. But who is willing to be called both at the same time or to be called neither at the same time?

      Liked by 3 people

      • I think in terms of patterns rather than continuum (or linear progression.) The Oriental concept of qi appeals to me because it is pattern-based. We exist in a dynamic equilibrium of energy, in which all the roles exist to support and reinforce each other. The difference between “angelic” and “demonic,” is still subjective, depending on your point of view.

        The “composite” you refer to may be likened to Freud’s “id” or the “universal archetypes” Carl Jung believed in. It is a composite of human symbolism, mythology, dreams, and all the possible permutations.

        So yes, symbolism is a composite, but when it comes to individual action, we have to choose a path between what we perceive is “good” and “bad.” In my experience there are few easy choices, and I have to hope my “pure intent” (such as it is), will lead to life-enhancing outcomes for all involved.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. I have to agree with you on this line of reasoning also. Our behaviors are much more to what we think about rather than much of anything caused by someone else. Thanks for following my blog, BTW. I hope you will enjoy my new one as well, Just Write – marshajustwrites.com. 🙂 I do love a good philosophical discussion. 🙂 Thanks again. You have a great blog here from what I’ve seen so far. I’m definitely following 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a reply to Alok Singhal Cancel reply