On Understanding Human Perception

A Treatise on the Understanding of Human Perception
In reading this the following truths must be held to be absolutely true:

That which is – is.
That which is not – is not.
The unreal never is.
The real never is not.

Is man, as the other lowly animals, simply the collection of bones and guts? Or only a vessel for a permanently transmigrating consciousness? Empirical knowledge can be felt by the senses, as all things are, since they are permanent in the interpretation of the perception, but it is that which willfully pervades that validates the veracity of incoming senses. Things are; simply, with no other meaning, that which they are without the prejudice of word-thought association or institutionalized truth. A bit of knowledge is subjected to a test, as a miner would sift through rocks pursuing gold, so that the clumpy bits of non-value can be filtered out and discarded. If verified, the mind puts the piece of gold in the pocket and then regards it as gold thence forward. Things are what they are before we perceive them; and it is only in our perception that we find delusion and misrepresentation of atomic structures. An atomic structure simply is and nothing more: the only error is in the perception of which, not the perceived image. The projected structure, as perceived by the senses, is never wrong. It is the filtering process that makes falsity and not nature itself. There is no disharmony in nature: only disharmony in the perception and explanation of assumed, on inclination, harmony being filtered by minds that are in chaos. It is a mind that turns harmony into disharmony, fiction into truth, and black into white. That which is perceived, physical matter or anything that acts on the senses, still remains as it always has been. The only difference in stage one of the growth of matter is the change of the impression given off and then interpreted by the senses and then subject to the faltering perception of the conscious mind.

I am me because of association ascribed to senses, not because I am really me; rather a systematic deduction of perceptions ciphered by that which my moral imperative uses in order to filter the real and the fake, the truth, and the lie. So, perception is correct and is given off and it doesn’t change until perceived and then deciphered by the conscious mind. A cup is only a cup because of the filtering process by which the real and unreal are filtered and deciphered; not because the cup is a cup, but because of our validated perception of an impression upon the senses. Being is simply the product given after the perception is filtered into the meat grinder, so to speak, with that which is not being shoved to the side. But so often, as it may, bits of falsity may appear inside the beef, and vice versa. I am not a person because I’m a person; I am a person because of a systematic deduction regarding perception of the senses, validated by that pervasive element, and justified by a learned mode of prejudice regarding being and non being. If a child sees a duck and calls the duck an apple, is the child wrong in this assertion? No, for the child has accepted, and perceived, the projected structure of the duck into his mind, filtered it, and concluded a word association for the structure. The child’s error is not in his perception, because he perceives it as everyone does, rather his error is not an error of the empirical knowledge of that which is, rather an error of deduction, association, and his error can be ascribed to a learned prejudice regarding the perceived element. It is the systematic prejudice that is in err; the child is not perceiving the duck any differently than anyone else. The only difference is the interpretation of the imposing truth. That which is remains that which is in its atomic structure. The error is the incorrect cipher of impressions printed on the senses, and not an error in the inability to perceive things.

There is an ultimate state, or ultimate imperative, wherein all things exist as they are without association or filtration. Nothing ever changes; only the way in which information is filtered and put through the grinder. The ultimate state always is: and from this state emerges black and white, right and wrong, and disharmony and conflict. The ultimate, the state which encompasses the other two, is nature as it is without any sort of misrepresentation of impressions given off and perceived. There is one side of a perceived opinion, form I, and then here is the other side, which is form II: and there, in this, encompassing both sides, exists the state of the ultimate. Man, in conscious perception, has images before him distorted not because of the ultimate, but because of dueling states inside emerging; bringing chaos and disharmony into existence. The ultimate is a state of total harmony, or clarity, and each side is in dueling discord. The ultimate is the perception given off before interpretation, out of interpretation the two forms are given birth, but due to conflict of association the perceived element, or atomic structure, is not changed: it exists still, as it did, as the ultimate state. While both sides maintain an interpreted version of the perceived phenomenon, the interpretation of it does not change the encompassing state beyond conflict and disorder in simple existence. Regardless of interpretation of perception, the ultimate does not change; that which changes is a mere interpretation and has two sides. That which is infinite, unchanging, unyielding, and ultimate, is a perception without filtration, systematic and learned deduction and prejudice, is revealed only to one who, even in the chaos of his inner torment, can step aside and see the structuring of the forms under that which exists as partiality and that which exists as infinite.
Truth is merely deductive reasoning regarding interpretations of impressions given to the senses, deciphered by the pervasive element, and then assigned an association to coincide with an inability to see things as they are. But as small truth, personal, relative, interpretations of facts that could be relying on false interpretations of signals being received and then no-less than distorted by a inflicted chaotic. If one were to suggest that a cat, as we perceive it based on deciphered interpretations, was an alligator – where would the error be? It is not an error of perception; rather an error in the deduction regarding perceived impressions. A cat is not a cat: it is only what we rationalize the projected impression as. A chair is not a chair; merely a structure by which we associate the word “chair” with. It is only a chair because of the logical deduction corresponding to the initial perception. A word is not a word; rather the sound by which thought is associated. My chest hurts not because my chest hurts, but because of the interpretation of the significant perceptions, which then leads to logical deduction and reason, and the discernment of sensory perceptions. Things are as they are: not as you perceive them. Real truth exists in one state, as real truth, and the real state is the state of the ultimate truth. The validation of a thought regarded as true by your moral imperative is not an ultimate truth. It is a relative and self justifying truth that relies on perception, interpretation, and systematic deduction. Real truth, or the ultimate, is something which has no sides that encompasses each personal and relative truth. It is something that shows no bias, agenda or need for justification. Ultimate truth has no personal agenda and does not act. It simply is, and nothing more. Empirical knowledge is knowledge before filtered after perception. The initial impression leaves the imprint of truth like a boot in the mud and, as it is filtered, the flesh of it is sent through the meat grinder, filtering out that which is by moral justification and, that which is not. In this same process, the filter can err and filter out the real and replace it with the false. Interpretation is controlled by bias, assumption, learned processes of supposed logical deduction, and in this respect can use moral justification to take out the real and soften it by a happier falsity. Or a self occlusion designed consciously, or even unconsciously, by a mind wanting to find happiness in delusion.
Truth is therefore reached after deduction and bias; and the ultimate, in this case, is lost due to biased interpretation, reliance on other modes of systematic prejudice, and the inability of human beings to look beyond the moral inclination of those around them to see the ultimate in each situation and in every supposed truth derived from interpretation of the consciously perceived senses on which atomic structure imposes nothing but that which is. That which is exists beyond contradiction, learned bias, and prejudicial derivation of perceived impressions. Wood is wood not because it’s wood but because of the systematic deduction and interpretation of its projected impression. It is not wood; it is merely rationalized as wood. I am a man because of the interpretation of a given impression. Not because the associated word is man, but because of this deduction.
Words are merely indicative of abstract ideas used to structure thoughts that are inherently without structure. Through words ideas become tangible, concrete, and at length likely to be rationalized or even validated. The veracity of a claim is weighed by an individual based on experience, debated immediately by a subconscious moral imperative, and then justified as right by the perceiving consciousness. So in light of this: things, as perceived, cease to be what we perceive them as and start being what they are beyond bias of this prejudicial perception. There is something that fundamentally exists beyond right and wrong, opinion, and bias: this is the ultimate, transcendental idea, or indication of a universal mind. To understand a universal right one must first consider a universal wrong that is wrong to all regardless of perception. Beyond good, ‘good’ becomes a verification of opinion based on opposing morality, and evil, ‘evil’ becomes the embodiment of the opposed by the opposition. Good and evil cease to be concrete structures and turn into biased interpretations of an act. To find a universal evil, or universal good, would be to find a situation that all that perceive rationalize as evil. The collected consciousness of all that perceive is the only structure that can separate opinion from fact. To trace truth to documents, or verification in words or ideas of others, will lead you to one document after another into a situation where something simply came into existence. Good and evil, then, turn into one act with two interpretations where the universal ultimate ceases to dictate an inherent good or inherent evil. Evil, seems to, to be a manmade concept that reaches not beyond humanity. Why does no one dress as human on Halloween? They are, after all, the most vile of all monsters.
In the most basic of all thoughts there is an underlying denouncement of inexistence. Descartes described the most basic of all thoughts with ‘Cogito ergo sum.’ This means, of course, I think therefore I am. This is a raison d’etre. Existence becomes that which is and inexistence becomes that which isn’t. All of this comes from an external rationalization of ideas, thoughts, and moral inclinations. Moral inclination is like a grid of underlying ideas of accepted behavior. Accepted behavior is that which someone can, based on his moral inclination, tolerate. There is no universal morality, then, so this becomes a moot point in which things turn into only what they’re perceived as and interpretation turns into the most likely of reasons for the existence of an external impression. So there is no error in perception since things are perceived as they are by all that perceive; the error lies only in interpretation. To perceive that which is as that which isn’t would be no error in perception since perception is based on understanding sensory inputs; so, if one perceives something erroneously it would be an error of interpretation of inputs. If the senses begin to falter the interpretation of reality falters; but as long as the self can rationalize existence or inexistence, verify it, and attempt to understand it, there is no error to the perceiving entity. Meaning then becomes an interpretation of the perception too, since there is opposition to the idea. And when there is opposition to an idea it ceases to be a universal truth or ultimate truth.
An ultimate truth is to see something as it is without interpretation, by a conscious and deducing mind, and without ascribing to it a quality of existence or inexistence or word to signify its given impression. A universal element doesn’t need truth to verify its own veracity because its existence is proof enough of its veracity. The only universal element becomes differentiating between is and isn’t. To say I am is proof enough of the veracity of my own existence. But ascribed elements to a person or perceiving entity are not universal because they can contain contrary interpretations of perceptions. To say that I am is a universal. To say that I am a handsome person is not a universal because there could be opinions to the contrary. But as long as it is personally verified, by the inherent moral inclination, it can exist as a personal ultimate of interpretations but this truth can never encompass differing opinions regarding the perceived element. An element of perception is that which is. There are images, transmitted by the eyes, sounds understood and deciphered by the ears, tastes by the mouth, smells by the nose, etc, etc. These alone form the agents of perception. And these agents can falter, and when an agent falters the unreal can be perceived as real because the sensory impressions are interpreted incorrectly based on incorrect perceptions.
Through a fault in visual perception – something unreal can become real. This runs contrary to the theory that ‘that which is, is’ because when one ceases to be able to differentiate that which is from that which isn’t this law of perception becomes moot. Because if the real can be described, verified, and validated as unreal the senses are in error. And if the senses can trick a perceiving mind into perceiving incorrectly then the basic structure of that which is becomes a transient element. Interlocked like Form I and Form II, coming and going, transient properties of existence and inexistence based on tangibility. Tangibility alone can not sustain true existence because tangibility is verified as tangible by an intangible perceiving agent. By agent, of course, I mean the inherently non-physical element of a human body. A human body is an incidental physical element that houses a fundamentally non-physical element. The human body is physical and is verified as physical by an element, or agent, that is not physical. So in this case tangibility is not the underlying necessity of establishing the real or falsity of an existing element.
A human body is no more important than the body of a bug or small ant; but the house, or body, holds onto a transmigrating consciousness. In my other novels I’ve explained, or rationalized, the existence of a human being, a capable human being of abstract thoughts and high understanding, as a bottle of soda with smoke in it. The physical body, or bottle, holds something in that is not physical and not tangible. To die, metaphorically, would simply be a matter of allowing the smoke to come out of the bottle and make its way into another house, or a new set of clothes so to speak. This is called eternal return. Eternal return is a theory of an invading consciousness finding housing in a physical structure. Like smoke being capped up in a bottle, so to speak. And the death of the physical is no death of the invading consciousness, or smoke, and it does not simply cease to be. It simply passes out of vision, like the smoke does when the cap comes off. This is the only way to put this eternal return into a theory that can be understood by everyone. The universal elements of this proposal are only the elements that can have no contrary idea or contrary or conflicting sides or interpretations. So, this becomes a personal truth, verified by a personal moral inclination, and becomes only the truth of the agent in control of deciphering perception.
There is no empirical philosophy because of moral inclination. Different people perceive certain elements in different ways. To define what is human to someone that is not human would be akin to asking someone where one could find the definition of the word ‘dictionary.’ It relies on inherent understanding. If someone doesn’t know the definition of dictionary then this same agent cannot find the meaning of a word that is proof of itself and itself alone.
There is an understanding of all perception to be found; and it is for that I search. But it is an element of my personal agent that leads me to understand this perception. I seek this in the same manner as a cat naturally seeks a mouse to play with. It is an invading nature in my personal agent that leads me to attempt this understanding. I perceive as all others do; I interpret differently however. This, essentially, is just a basic understanding of something infinitely grand and unable to decipher. A cat knows only to search for a mouse and to destroy it. A cat knows this in the same manner a philosopher knows they must attempt understanding something endemically human. Philosophy for a cat would be to understand and know they need a mouse to kill; the philosophy itself would seek to explain the reason for their own search. It leads back to a Kantian understanding of individual instinct and individual perception. We know that we do things out of instinct; philosophy is more or less an instruction manual to understanding why we kill the rats. And the reason is interpreted differently each time it’s received because each invading consciousness is different because of prejudicial understanding. Prejudicial understanding is seeing something a certain way because it’s been always implemented in the perceiving agent. But it’s as though we seek a definition of dictionary without knowing what a dictionary is. It’s a self defeating process to attempt to understand something that is beyond understanding in its very nature.
There is an understanding of all perception to be found; and it is for that I search. But it is an element of my personal agent that leads me to understand this perception. I seek this in the same manner as a cat naturally seeks a mouse to play with. It is an invading nature in my personal agent that leads me to attempt this understanding. I perceive as all others do; I interpret differently however. This, essentially, is just a basic understanding of something infinitely grand and unable to decipher. A cat knows only to search for a mouse and to destroy it. A cat knows this in the same manner a philosopher knows they must attempt understanding something endemically human. Philosophy for a cat would be to understand and know they need a mouse to kill; the philosophy itself would seek to explain the reason for their own search. It leads back to a Kantian understanding of individual instinct and individual perception. We know that we do things out of instinct; philosophy is more or less an instruction manual to understanding why we kill the rats. And the reason is interpreted differently each time it’s received because each invading consciousness is different because of prejudicial understanding. Prejudicial understanding is seeing something a certain way because it’s been always implemented in the perceiving agent. But it’s as though we seek a definition of dictionary without knowing what a dictionary is. It’s a self defeating process to attempt to understand something that is beyond understanding in its very nature.

It is our nature to seek to explain our nature. An earth-born paradox of being. It is our nature to wish to make everything as easy as one plus one; though in this everything would cease to be important. Like figuring out at last what a piece of art means, it would ruin the whole thing. Who wants to know the ending? It’ll give a way the surprise. Death is just the ending of the movie we call life that we’ve waited our entire life to see. Our tragedy, however, is that we fall asleep before we get to see the end. And each day and day we fritter, in the sands, forests, woods, everywhere; looking for some clue to understand ourselves. Maybe this is the condition of the entire universe. To seek to understand itself. We were created and don’t know how or why. Perhaps God feels this way too, and created us to offer him an explanation. As though we were children, or little people, tiny like all of science, inhabiting the mental landscape of a God; helping him debate the origins of his own peculiar emergence, washed ashore on the dark seas of eternity and left there like a rat to find a way out of his own created maze. I remember God; and perhaps he’ll remember me. But I don’t want a reward for being good. I would never even ask he who takes and gives for anything. For if he is just – then I should not insult him in prayer asking him for more and thus implying that his enormous generosity thus far isn’t enough for me.

Maybe that’s how it all goes. If only we had some sort of clue, some noise, some little sliver of something to keep us going. We’re such terribly sad creatures, and for what? We all feel like orphans. Abandoned by our one true father without any sort of explanation or letter or even birthday cards. Abandoned like a kid in a galactic orphanage wondering if his creator will ever come to take him home again and show him love at last. And then the misery piles up even higher; murders for food, for funds, for money, for pleasure! There is no more dignity here. None. And why would I cry for these people? That would not make me human. To cry for someone that suffers is not humanity. To suffer yourself so that someone, lost out in the woods, may not cry – that is humanity. To suffer; to walk long up that desolate hill and give away the only chance you’ll ever have to exist on some sort of whim, instinct, or natural sort of reflex. Programmed from birth! What choice do we have them? We choose within predefined guidelines and may choose what we will, but not how we will. This is it; we turn into mere skeletal puppets walking around with a crank in our backs, buzzing as the little song plays. And then you see it on the horizon – far off in the past. The light goes out, the sun goes back to sleep, and we’re left alone again to wonder.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s