Vera Nova

Director Research Analysis, NOVA Town Futuristic Development

This conversation is closed.

People who can see only what is near their noses are actually blind and deaf. Why are they so sure of that flat screen of their reality?

One may try to share his or her personal experience with others, but there is always someone who denies it, moreover, having absolutely no doubts about whatever may happen to others is always a bluff. He or she knows "better". At the same time the junk that this denying sarcastic person sees on a flat screen of his TV means the world for him/her.

By saying being Blind and Deaf I mean having problems in sensing at least slightly beyond what is "obvious". One may hear every instrument in the orchestra but the rest cannot - this does not mean that the instruments do not exist.

  • thumb
    Jul 11 2012: Meditation is proven scientifically to expand the mind... Over 5 thousand year old consideration (I dare say paradigm) - only recently proven to be a fact empirically.

    We never know until we question - rather than assume.

    I hope my answer wasn't to over barring. I tend to do that. It's difficult, I find words to not intrinsically have meaning. A thousand arguments can suggest how good and open this question creates for conversation. Every argument would be metaphysical and can be brought down into categorical subjects. Mine being religious interpretation.

    Math, art, science, are just secondary ways in which to create expressions of nature in order to communicate. Need human in the nature in order to have how we behave naturally and our potential to conquer that behavior. Mere interpretations of nature. what is important are the primary values in which the secondary are installed.
    • thumb
      Jul 11 2012: My dear Nicholas,
      You did that on purpose didn't you...
      I gave you a thumbs up for a delightful short comment ending with "We never know until we question - rather than assume"...then you edited, added!!! It's ok...I still love you and I am smiling...very amusing:>)
      • thumb
        Jul 11 2012: I am just over-barring... Thank you Colleen.
        • thumb
          Jul 11 2012: I don't perceive you to be over-barring Nicholas...sometimes just on the "wordy" side. I LOVE your verbal explorations, and sometimes have difficulty wading through to try to understand your meaning.

          You are one person I never perceive as staying in the box, or "so sure of that flat screen of their reality"... as Vera puts it. That is a gift to yourself, and to all of us my friend...in my humble perception:>)
  • thumb
    Jul 11 2012: It's quite fascinating to live in a reality that is in many ways is unique and created by one's own unconscious. The truth of it is that we all have different experiences, memories that have become prime moments in shaping who we are. Therefore its conclusive that with these individual experiences we associate the every day with different symbols. Interpret life in way that others may not agree with. Hence our reality cannot be a shared reality. Since as you mention we constantly compare what we see in attempt to perceive it with what we know. However it is sad to know that within these comparisons logic seems to emerge. this idea of "misoneism" the fear of what is new and unknown drives many to shut off any reality that doesn't seem to fit. it may not be so much that they are sure of their flat screen reality that lies right in front of them but that they rather not confront the notion of their being something else. for that very observation threatens to turmoil everything they thought they knew, question everything they've accumulated, and essentially that fear leads them to a one perspective reality. i then believe that the true question arises, where does the capability of believing things that may not be completely defined and the one who thinks that anything out of visibility is untrue and therefore non existent. it's kind of a psychological barrier that prevents us from facing something new.

    the half shut eye.
    • thumb
      Jul 11 2012: Grateful for your post, Carolina. Not only individuals who are not able to use their talent and intuition to create a better world within and without, but also our stiff man-made systems are designed to fight new, denying new knowledge and old wisdom as well. Since I was a very young student of my life I wondered how come that our civilization has been "developed" based on no-go ideas of the old politician Plato, while ignoring the meaning of Heraclitus' Change and Protagoras' unavoidable Limitations of our perceptions? People follow not wisdom that demands thinking but dogmatic, ready-to-go concepts. Even sciences in our days still use the same mentality of proving "reality" based on what they "see" on the surface!! The most great ideas and works are still demolishing along with their authors. In our unique times of non-stop screaming madness the best of the best is still doomed - because real wisdom or grace cannot scream, they cannot be loud. IS this possible to see people learning to respect original and unique as something that can be turned into their own salvation? A physically blind person may "see" in the dark, while we, sighted creatures do not see what is happening in front of our eyes. Will people ever learn to learn?
  • thumb
    Jul 11 2012: Hi Vera...nice to connect again....have not seen you for awhile:>)

    I believe some folks get "stuck" in their own beliefs to the point of excluding everything else, for the simple reason that it is comfortable. To move outside our comfort zone and what we think we "know" is often perceived as a risk. It is sometimes easier to stay in the little, structured reality we have created for ourselves, rather than explore "outside the box".

    I LOVE exploring EVERYTHING, and have been accused here on TED of being on the fence because I do not "fall in line" with one perception or the other! LOL :>)
    • thumb
      Jul 11 2012: Happy to hear from you, dear Colleen! It is a hard job to stay independent even just to think differently...
      Yes, it SEEMS "easier to stay in the little, structured reality we have created for ourselves, rather than explore "outside the box" but it is not really easy because everyone has a hard work to adjust to the brainless rules and people always break these rules however knowing nothing else. It seems to me that people commonly create their very stiff rules for to break them! It gives more comfort to follow my rules which are usually very harmless to others. Best Regards!
      • thumb
        Jul 11 2012: Vera,
        Perhaps whatever we get used to, and comfortable with is easier? Remaining "in a box" with certain thoughts, feelings, ideas, opinions and beliefs seems difficult to me. I believe the life experience is a wonderful exploration. Once we are "in the box", the exploration ends, and we think we "know". I simply LOVE exploring life with curiosity, and would never deny myself that opportunity, because exploring with an open mind and heart seems so much more natural to me:>)
        • thumb
          Jul 11 2012: Well, I love to be challenged, even if I have to constantly challenge myself when life spares me for some short period of time.
  • thumb
    Jul 11 2012: - I believe you are suggesting the philosophical practice behind the 'third eye' - the strive for higher consciousness.

    + An interpretation of Jesus is that the 'kingdom of heaven' is a degree of 'overman' consciousness - the kingdom of heaven is potentially a real place but it requires higher orders of thinking for that existence to occur. That higher order is morality questioning, life/death interpretation, the idea of God (oneness, pure knowledge, void)... these metaphysical concerns, I find now are the basis for leading one into a more open pursuit of knowledge...

    --There are methods/systems of thinking in which can establish multiculturalism (which is how I interpret the analysis behind your question, the lack of multiculturalism we seem to practice naturally). Ignosticism - the idea of not knowing and questioning the nature of beliefs. Religious naturalism - realizing science is a tool for interpretation and that religious attitudes are instinctual to mankind, constant reflection on both and overall nature. Gandhism - self explanatory.

    Explanation: All of the metaphysical concerns I have listed I believe are just apart of our religious-like nature of conscious in which we revert back to explore to the universe.

    So when A Christian dictates 'God' - ask "what is God?" - I find that many Christians are pantheistic in their interpretation and then we can create a basis for conversation. When a neo/militant atheist suggest "No God" - I believe that satisfies the same desire of knowing there is a 'God' to either extreme of the fundamental belief; God is a deity.

    When expanding the idea of God - if anyone truly believes in absolute knowing and bliss, but is spiteful and rude to others for not believing what they believe - that automatically is you denying who you are - God, and human nature/the holy spirit, the people who you mime(tic)

    - I believe the 1st rule of psychology should be "it takes one to know one"

    We don't know a lot, but we can understand.
  • thumb
    Jul 11 2012: Good to hear from you! Thank you so much for your great post! I believe that no living form has the same reality as others. Years ago as a little art student, I came to this conclusion: no one can sense a thing unless one constantly compares his sensations, images, thoughts etc., in order to create a composition of "things" we have to Select from what we perceive into a group of "things" or details. Then we focus our emotional/mental attention on whatever attracts us the most. We must Frame what we observe in our own order, putting everything else on a vague background, just like we do in classical paintings. In order to apply our logic and see some connections we have to limit our observations, Frame them, or otherwise our logic would disappear in the endless ocean of everything, like a tiny fish.... .

    This is what I think about reality in general - we are creators of our realities. Whether we are good, fantastic or very poor artist, we are all given Our Perceptions as artist's "tools".

    I trust that we have superb Primary subconscious perceptions and very limited Secondary, "physical" perceptions. These Secondary perceptions additionally digest our reality through our physical bodies. This process limits our subconscious perceptions and create what we call our "physical" reality. It is a poor secondary reality. I rendered a picture of a mind and my sketch showed how I explained a mind's "geography" and I also pointed why some blockage from bodily corporeal perceptions can Not open for us different, more augmented perception of reality . I understand that some drugs can do some little job toning down crude physical perceptions, releasing our deep very powerful subconscious sensations.


    Sorry, This conversation will be closed in a few hours. We can open a similar one.

    I like this provocative quote by Glenn Gould: "In the best of all possible worlds, art would be unnecessary...The audience would be the artist and their life would be art." OK
    • thumb
      Jul 11 2012: Hmm, I would probably fail big time in Glenn Gould's perfect world scenario, as art does not reveal itself to me today. On the contrary. Art always leaves me even more uncertain about it's 'message' than any other form of communication I am able to access. Especially modern art is coded in a way I do not decipher at all, as it tends to avoid any symbol I might grasp. A red suare on white canvas just doesn't resonate in me. As it can mean anything it reduces itself to nothing in my perception. And if it makes a sting vibrate in my mind the chances of knowing that this very string was meant by the artist equals to zero. This way no message reaches me whatsoever.

      I am an art illiterate because the number of options are blurring any initial intention, which makes the compass needle spinning for all times.

      In such a world I would constantly bump into things and would finally diffuse into nothingness. If this was the purpose, I would ask for exile.

      So my antenna is either to plain or to twisted to receive anything useful to me out of this pink-noise of art, that's why I prefer conversation and reading to get a better understanding of another mind.
  • thumb

    Lejan .

    • +1
    Jul 10 2012: Hello Vera,

    as this question ties up to your last one, I like to continue our conversation till its next closing... :o)

    I don't know if there is a saying in English such as 'stupidity never runs short' yet if there is it was already proven right throughout history a long, long time ago. We have to take this as a given and constant part within our human nature and makes us therfore just to hope for exceptions. But complexity doesn't stop there, as what may seems stupid to me, may make perfect sense to others, so the spiral of perception and reaction keeps spinning that way.

    So 'obvious' is nothing more than a matter of 'comparison' which is related to a 'scale', which was formed per 'definition' which is based on 'reasoning' or 'copying' which differ from one another due to the variety of 'realities'.
    This is the propulsion of that spiral and the only fuel I know which creates itself out of 'nothing'.

    So how to pinpoint reality? The reality? Is there such thing? I have not found it yet and even though someone may have, how would I ever be able to recognize it as what it then was?

    Regarding to your orchestra example I once had an interesting sensation during the influence of marihuana, in which it appeard to me, that I could locate the source of a sound behind me much more accurately than I was used to. But even though I consider this ability quite useful, I wasn't able to sharpen my senses the same way in my regular state.
    So as blind people are forced to sharpen other senses in order to compensate for their lost in sight, they would never have done or reached that level of perfection if they would have kept their sight. So this tendency of 'taking the easy way' is juman, and it takes much effort for many to reflect and to question their realities in comparison with this sheer number of all the others.

    And what is the incentive to get out of the 'comfort zone' of ignorance? Usually it leads to an wider view on absurdities which at times does not serve useful.
  • thumb
    Jul 11 2012: Well, I'm with you in terms of seeing lots of nonsense, repetitive tricks and ideas, and just simply loud junk in arts, as the majority understands Arts. Funny as it is - I am an artist myself. I stay intentionally away from those "arts". I call Glenn's quot controversial.

    I trust that Glenn Gould means that only creative ways is the best form to communicate and coexist. However, this is only possible for the most rare great artists in arts, sciences, philosophy and in all sorts of sound craftsmanship .

    I do mean that in order to be great in any filed one has to be a daring, authentically creative artist. The arts we know is so slaving for "historical" "important" descriptions and stupid fame that it is degraded to the point O, in innovation and meaningful creativity. I have been working on human perceptions since I remember myself....

    I have come to the point NO MATTER HOW GOOD OR BAD WE ARE IN CREATING OUR REALITIES WE MUST BE ARTISTIC for the sake of survival in the endless turmoils of Change. Our only way to somehow survive and evolve is to use our abilities in adjusting in our ever changing environment. It is this quint essential art, no living creature can avoid as long as it lives. Well, I understand Art differently, not as commonly as many people do. We are already a society of artists and loots of us are horrifically bad artists.