Perception, Truth, and Reality - Is Perception Ever Either?

In order for something to be a "truth" it must be a "fact" or "real".

It is a truth that time ages everyone and everything in the Universe, even if the effects of that aging process are different, depending on who or what has aged. It's also a truth that I happen to be wearing brown sandals as I write this. Another truth is that nobody who reads this Hub can see that I'm wearing those sandals. Still, it's a truth; and failure to see it doesn't change it.

Many people will alter this question and ask, instead, if reality is perception. Here again, however, that's not necessarily the case. A common situation is when a grown son or daughter has lived his life feeling as if his parent never quite valued him enough. The reality may be that parent absolutely valued and treasured his child, but wasn't skilled at showing it. Another possibility is that the same parent may be absolutely great at showing it, provided the son or daughter has the kind of personality/thinking that will be able to recognize it. People are different. One person's attempt to communicate will sometimes fail if he's using the wrong method of trying to communicate for the person in question. In other words, the reality may be that the parent loves, treasures, and values his son or daughter more than anyone would ever know. Whether or not that has been perceived by the son or daughter, however, is another thing. If the grown child had formed his "emotional picture" (or suffered emotional scars) as a result of his own perception, his feelings may be very valid and "legitimate", even if his idea of "reality" has not been accurate.

Then, too, there are truths and realities that none of us are ever likely to know/see while we are here on Earth. Since none of us can ever see/know for sure what such truths/realities are, these are the matters that require all of us to use care when it comes to being sure of reality, and to recognize that any conclusions we draw have been formed on insufficient information, rather than actual perception.

Perception is generally about the way we "take in" our experiences in the world, and the world, itself, as presents itself to us. Perception, even when others share similar perceptions about any one given thing/person, is a very unique thing. While perceiving some simple, isolated, things/people in the most basic of ways can be fairly accurate; most of the time perception is but one part of any "story" and is further complicated by all our other perceptions/experiences that color even the simplest of perceptions.

Someone on a website once asked how we all know that we are real and that anything is true. I couldn't resist replying with an account of the fact that I was eating saltine crackers from the usual "row" in which they're wrapped. I pointed out that I knew it was a "reality" because I could see the number of available crackers going down as I ate each one. The reality/truth in that instance was that, no matter how much I may have tried to imagine having more saltines left, there would be no making those same saltines show up, back in their original wrapping. Something that is a "simple" or "small" truth or reality can always been seen by humans (even if not by all humans, as in the case of my wearing sandals). Something that is a "larger" or "more complicated" truth will not reveal itself to any humans. Sometimes, too, there are "in-between" truths/realities that have only been experienced by more knowledgeable, more experienced, people.

I could give you my take on the "truth" about, say, US politics; but the fact is, as one citizen who has never worked a day in my life anywhere near Washington D.C., I can tell you that my version of a "truth" would be a fairly uneducated opinion. Seeing any truth when it comes to a complicated matter like politics would require an awful lot of talking/writing/mind-reading flies on the walls. In other words, even though there is an "Earthly truth" to a situation like this, it is unlikely to ever be completely seen/understood by any one individual (even regardless of how involved or uninvolved he is in the process).

Those of us who want to feel grounded in this world need to approach thinking/experiencing life as if we were a judge in a court hearing. First, we should not accept heresay. Second, we should base conclusions based on "rules of evidence". If new evidence shows up we may want to re-think previous conclusions. We make sure we look to the best "witnesses" for their testimony, and we use our judgment when a "witness" comes across as not credible. If we feel we don't have enough information we should ask for more information. When we don't know if we can believe information we need to expect someone to back it up with solid research.

If we approach our day-to-day realities/truths this way we can generally feel quite grounded a good part of, if not all of, the time. If we process the day-to-day, simpler, truths/realities this way that does leave the larger truths/realities to be understood. Again, though, in view of the fact that such truths/realities do not - if we're honest - offer solid evidence; it is up to each of us with regard to whether we want to leave our "court hearing" thinking, put on our "private eye" or
"philosopher" hat, and ponder the truths that no living being will ever perceive while on Earth.

Perception is something that is often misunderstood as a skill, as well as misunderstood in terms of how accurate perceptions may or may not be. When someone does not fully understand all the required "court-hearing principles" for good perception there can be the tendency to think along the lines of, "I like pink. You like blue. It's all a matter of opinion/perception". Perception is a skill that requires first taking in information and then knowing how to process it.

If I meet Fred, and Fred happens to be person who could stand to lose a few pounds, I need to be careful to limit my perceptions to the simple fact that Fred's physical description would include "heavy set". That's the only "evidence" I have, so I should not "imagine onto" my "perception" that Fred eats desserts and drinks beer all day long. Fred may have gained his weight some other, less "going-wild", way. Not long ago I ran into a server at a bar who asked whether she should have denied alcohol to the "horrible" pregnant woman who asked for wine. The server's automatic "perception" was "pregnant woman, drinking, not good for the baby". Having known someone who has gone through the following situation, I couldn't help but see how inaccurate poor perception "skill" can be: A woman I know discovered, late in her pregnancy, that her unborn baby had died. She had to schedule a procedure to have the baby delivered. Suppose this woman and her husband had decided to go out for dinner and some calming wine after such news. Imagine all the "perceptions" that could surround this one, isolated, incident. Imagine how only the most cautious of "perceivers" would even leave room for the idea that the woman was not doing something horrible. In this case, reality is the one person may have witnessed another, who appeared to be late in pregnancy, drinking. The person who is skilled at knowing how to separate what his eyes and ears tell him from all the "extra perceptions" he's pulling out of his own head will generally be a better "perceiver" of reality.

One truth (and I mean this seriously and not just to be "cute" in my writing) is that there is a range of abilities when it comes to perceiving the world/experiences appropriately, and without "over-perceiving" (aka, "inaccurately perceiving). Being very young, or being someone for whom that area of thinking just didn't develop very well, can make the difference in how confident we are in what we perceive.

I suspect that many young people, as part of their stage in life, spend a lot of time "pondering the larger truths". After all, it is a normal stage of development to become mature enough to reach a stage of thinking philosphically. Maturing goes well beyond reaching the college years, though, and those of us who have passed through the "philosophical stage", formed our own philosophies/beliefs, and reached a stage in life when we have learned to use all those thinking skills we developed when we were younger; have often reached a point in life where we no longer feel the need to ponder "what it's all about" (at least as much as we did when we were college age). Although I am not, in any way, underestimating the importance of the kid of pondering that many young (or younger-thinking) people do, I think that one drawback to it can be coming to believe that his is the "highest form" of thinking (and thereby valuing it more than one values "practical" approaches to thinking). As a result, sometimes people have a tendency to see perception as that "I-like-pink/you-like-blue" matter of uncertainty, individuality, and opinion more than it really is.

So, in answer to the question about whether perception is either truth or reality, I think the answer is that when perception comes from the skilled ability to know how to process incoming information, and knowing what to "screen out" as "inadmissible evidence", perception can often be an accurate picture of reality (provided we recognized, too, its limitations in terms of whether there can ever exist truly "admissible" evidence).

Our job, I believe, is to do our best to seek out as much "admissible evidence" as possible before allowing our perceptions to enter than "reality file" in our mind. In other words, I tend to think it's best to spend our "mental energies" on seeking out provable, well established, realities - best only then, I think, can we feel grounded enough to be able to safely (and without threat to our sureness) venture out into that "higher thinking".

(By the way, I'll be changing my shoes later, so it's always good to keep in mind that reality changes - with our with changes in what can be perceived.)