Human beings, for the most part, perceive things by looking through (and from) a screen that they’ve been taught to look through, that they’ve been instructed to exist as. This screen consists of accumulated knowledge, accumulated symbols, bundled memories, and learned images. We recognize what we were taught to recognize; most of us believe what we were taught to believe. It’s all rather regimented, robotic, structured, and prearranged. And we think that we are free, even as the way in which we perceive is very mechanized, predetermined, limited, and shaped by society.
We see what we were programmed to see, and this “seeing” is usually fragmentary, limited, symbolic, and secondhand. It may be, in a big way, like clinging to shadows. Stepping out of this quagmire may not be easy. It (i.e., this hand-me-down perception) often occurs unconsciously and it is deeply ingrained in (and “as”) us. Additionally, society does not want you to step out of this… for doing so might be a danger to all that is false.
Self-critical awareness may be necessary. And often looking without one’s accumulation may be prudent, whole, and what is beyond fear. Looking without accumulation may make one vulnerable (and we are so terribly afraid to be vulnerable); we cling to the known out of deep fear and cowardice. Too many of us became used to being told what to do, what to see, what to believe, and how to act. It’s so childish! But secondhand isn’t living. Merely looking at everything through learned, fragmentary symbols, and separative labels, may not be bona fide living.

Right on, brother! It’s always encouraging to hear voices like yours crying out in our social and cultural wilderness….
Thank you, Paul!… means a lot! š
Oh yes! Many of us avoid being vulnerable at all costs. For fear of taking a closer look at ourselves maybe? We are our latest book, our latest conversation, our latest contact, in many respects. Our voices are those of other people.
Great post thank you.
Iām a new follower by the way. š
Yes, Margaret, a lot of us regurgitate what was spoon-fed into us. Thanks for you comment and thanks for following! š
Yes I agree Tom. Also in this scientific age we live in, it’s sometimes difficult to get out of an ultra-logical and mechanistic view of nature. For example, to even begin to think that trees could be sentient beings …?
Yes, Denzil, being logical isn’t always what approaches the depth of clarity. Science, these days, still looks at things with too much fragmentation, analysis, and separation. Thanks much for commenting! š
Reblogged this on MARY CALVO .
Very appreciative of the reblogging. Thank you! š
š
thanks Tom. blessings.
Whoa, Tom this is right on time. I love your enlightenment of “this hand-me-down perception.” And I agree that society does not want you to step out of this conditioning because it is a lose-lose situation for them when they can no longer control the controlled. š±
Yes, Kym, they don’t want to lose control over us, and, of course, they themselves are heavily controlled. š
WOW, now you nailed that one on the head Tom. Right on my friend. š¤šš
š
I am reluctant to show my vulnerability around others, preferring to keep it to myself. I am happy to lose myself in nature where I see my furry and feathered friends and walk away with a clear mind in a cloudy world. I live in a state where we had a mass shooting at a college campus – I don’t always weep for strangers, but the account by the professor today after seeing two of his students die and coming face to face with the killer was brutal to listen to. Then, as I began a slow scroll down to reach this post, because I am a week behind, I paused to read a post by a blogger who essentially wrote to say goodbye to her followers as she has Stage 4 COPD and has begun to arrange for hospice, funeral plans and a permanent caretaker for her beloved pet cat. She lives alone. I think of myself as strong, but reading that post, I guess I just put up a brave front as tears slid down my cheeks. On a happier note, Tom … I love frog peeking out of the water as it looks for lunch!