Here's to a good time, a good life, and a good death.
So, if you have been reading my posts, you may have noticed that I seem quite the advocate of moral relativity. The theme has consistently been threaded throughout my posts. Now, this isn’t too far from the common trend among my generation within Western cultures. It is certainly one that is propagated by liberal institutions such as many public universities, as well as globalization through technological developments that promote social integration.
Let me clarify that while I largely advocate moral relativity, I am advocating that it only holds within some context of objectivity. Essentially, I argue that the objective frame surrounds the interpersonal elements of PSIC, rather than religious texts. Although, I will also agree that religious texts, like the Bible, can be highly useful for individuals in discovering appropriate applications of their moral beliefs. They are like a ladder, a way of climbing to higher levels (or down to lower levels).
But still, you might ask why all the relativity? Why make so many things context-specific? Why adopt a convoluted framework that requires you to analyze religious beliefs/activities in seemingly unconventional ways?
To answer in words, the way that people naturally see the world is naturally in a dichotomous framework, which is detrimental to “good” thinking. This is outlined in some of my first blogs. Thus, a better way to study something is to look at it from more than two dimensions. Adding the third dimension introduces the idea of a level of context-specific thinking, which is, by nature, more relative.
Further, relativity always closely relates to it’s cousin concept, perception is reality. This phrase, credited to Lee Atwater, a political scientist for George Bush in the 1980s, was describing a way of appealing to people. The phrase, while not necessarily factually true, demonstrates the important concept behind what I call factual truth. It is that it does not really matter whether or not something is true, but rather that a person believes it is true. For example, God may or may not exist, we simply do not know. However, millions of people live their lives everyday as if He does, and thus they behave accordingly as if it was factually true. This is all part of the building blocks that give rise to functional truth.
I think a good way to illustrate these concepts is through optical illusions. After all, the name of my blog is Hyperoptivity. It would be a horrendous injustice not to at least consider some optical illusions and some accompanying relevant meanings.
Is it a duck or a rabbit? One of my favorite optical illusions.
So which object do you see first? Do you see a duck or a rabbit?
So, here we have a picture, that is an answer that most people would probably agree with. But, it is pretty fascinating to see that while the picture can be a “rabbit” to some people, it can also be a “duck” to others, and visa versa. The point is that the truth of “this is a picture of a duck” or “this is a picture of a rabbit” is relative to the perception of the individual. In actuality, the picture can be either or both.
Another optical illusion.
Which way is the man facing? Is he facing towards the viewer? Or to the right of the viewer?
This picture almost hurts my brain to process. But again, we reach a point where it can actually be either, and does not have to be one or the other. While the two ideas of where he is facing seem contradictory in nature, they are not.
To reference a popular mental game, the Rubik’s Cube, we have another image.
Yellow Tile or Blue Tile?
So it turns out that neither of these squares are any different. They are both the same shade of grey. The blue squares on the left Rubik’s cube and the yellow ones on the right cube are actually the same shade of gray.
What’s going on with this checkerboard?
So here we have what appears to be a half-warped checkerboard. But, in actuality, it is simply a set of dots on half of the squares. All the squares on the checkerboard are identical in dimensions. This image doesn’t necessarily advocate relativity because all people will see the same thing, a “warped checkerboard”, but rather to argue towards the idea that perception is reality, a key idea to understanding the significance in studying functional truth.
Wow. Now, that video is ridiculous. This really has nothing to do with relativity because everyone will see it the same way, but rather illustrates the perception is reality phrase again.
Here is another fascinating video on the McGurk Effect.
Another example of how perception is reality.
The black and white spinning balls rotate in a counter-clockwise direction, but once you focus your eyes on either the red or yellow circle, it’ll appear as if the black and white balls rotating around the other circle are moving in the opposite direction.
So which is the dress color? Blue or Gold?
Yes, I know that the incessant controversy around this dress really irritated many people, but it still illustrates the perception is reality point too well.
Officially, it’s black and blue, but many people perceive it to be gold and white due to the lighting (and possibly age).
So now you have it. The visual representations of relativity and perception is reality concepts. Now, a good deal of this content came from one source, Facebook used these optical illusions to explain why virtual reality is really just reality, but Quartz is a reputable site and there’s not too much need for robust intellectual rigor regarding images.
“The difference between average people and achieving people is their perception of and response to failure.”