Below the cut is a small blurb I wrote about how I feel about life and opportunity, titled 'The Revolving Door'.
It's a stream of consciousness piece but I've been thinking about the core ideas on and off for a little while.
Didn't sit well with just keeping it in my notes app.
👇
In the grand scheme of everything that is; which is to say, all that is apparent in this life, whether it be abstract feelings tied to perceived social slights or concrete damage to the physical body, we are tied to the lives of others all around us by invisible chains we can never remove.
The revolving door of opportunity never closes.
When one man dies a baby is born in his place. And when that man dies, he pulls the chain ever forward. One generation gets closer to death as the next generation comes into its own. The baby learns to walk as the elder becomes incapable. The revolving door drags everyone through it. We are all bound forward by this invisible chain.
As one opportunity ends, another begins. There will never be a shortage of opportunities. The social bonds that bind us are mute but immutable. You are to your father as your son will be to you; and, his son to him.
The causal link is bound to all of us, not individual but uniquely affecting all individuals. A high tide raises all boats. The revolving door pushes all people through it. I, you, me, and we are all bound to those both dead & yet to be born.
This link is causal, familial, ever reaching.
As one train leaves the station, another arrives. This revolving door never closes.
I believe in a few 'radical' (read: not popular) ideas regarding the self, the nature of being, reality, and consciousness. One such idea I hold in high regard is that reality is constructed by the senses, but what does that actually mean? What, in abstract, am I really getting at? Am I saying that we make up reality as we go along and that everything is fake? No, not quite.
(cont.)
To elaborate in a semi-reductive way: imagine the brain and its functions while putting a pin in the above text. In my view, the brain acts as a reality interpreter.
Think of your eyes and vision. You might say, "I can confirm with someone else that we're seeing the same thing." (i.e; a 'red' apple)
And that's true, relatively speaking. You and an outside observer can correspond and compare truths to reach a shared truth: we both perceive the apple as being red. (This concept, generally, is known as the correspondence theory of truth)
But what happens when you look at an optical illusion? Let's say that you're on your phone and see a post regarding a dress that asks what color(s) the dress is: black and blue or gold and white?
My friend might say the dress is blue and black whilst at the same time I perceive it and whole heartedly believe that it's gold and white. Some of the more clever among you might respond to this by saying we can check the hexadecimal color value(s) of the image, which is true. But consider that hexadecimal color is based upon the visible spectrum of light that we (you, I, others) are able to perceive. Is someone who is wholly colorblind wrong if they point out that the dress is actually gray and black? Because they can't perceive the same colors that you and I can?
"Yes!" I can hear the contrarians among you say. Well, alright, let's play that game.
Hypothetically, what if everyone were varying levels of colorblind, and only you and a minuscule percentage of people could see the light spectrum that non-colorblind people can see?
What if they used your logic there and said, "Actually, a majority of people see that it's gray. If we check with hexadecimal color, we can see that it's #00FFFF; objectively extremely gray!"
I hope you see the problem here and where the correspondence theory of truth falls apart.
This line of reasoning is known as The Knowledge Argument, which is often synonymous in conversation with Mary's Room. You can read more about it here (link to Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Digressing back to my earlier point about the senses and how the brain constructs reality:
By empirical comparisons of this manner on this matter, we can come to realize that what we perceive is not how reality appears, but rather how it appears relative to us. (And our senses.)
Back to optical illusions: surely you've seen a few. Take for example The Checker Shadow illusion (Wikipedia link)
The two squares are the same color. Yes, your eyes and brain are fooling you. Why is this? Well, to put it simply, your brain (the aforementioned reality interpreter) unconsciously takes the qualia (the subjective experience/phenomenon of viewing the illusion) and fills in the gaps based upon contextual information available to you. Thus, resulting in your perception of the squares being different colors.
The brain does this constantly in our day to day lives. And it isn't limited to optical illusions. Olfactory, tactile, auditory, and gustatory illusions all exist. Getting a little spooky, isn't it?
So, we've arrived at a point where we can agree at a minimum that the brain constructs reality based upon our senses. But what about the truth? Before I open that can of worms, let me posit another question to you:
When you perceive daylight and your friend in Australia perceives nightlight, which one of you is correct? And which one of you is lying?
If you believe in an objective truth, then this question will stump you. You'll tell me that I'm being fallacious in my reasoning, but that's not the case. You're encountering a problem here where you're inducting objectivity onto a problem with no objective answer.
The truth in this case, and pertaining to the question, is both dynamic and relative. Your friend isn't lying, and neither of you are incorrect. The truth relative to you is that it's daytime. The truth relative to your friend in Australia is that it's nighttime. The truth is dynamic in that it will eventually shift; you will eventually experience nighttime after experiencing daytime, and your friend will experience daytime after nighttime. Neither of you will experience them at the same time unless one of you moves elsewhere to the same time zone.
Again, neither lying or incorrect.
This is the essence of what I'm getting at. Your reality and how you experience it is just as valid as any other person's, even if you have fundamental disagreements as to the nature of reality and your contrasting perceptions.
In closing: I believe that this posits many questions about the very nature of being and consciousness, and that the world as we experience it is not as black and white as various figures claim it to be. Your experience of the world is just as valid as anyone else's and vice versa.
"There are no facts, only interpretations" —Friedrich Nietzsche.
(If you made it this far, thank you very much for reading. Any and all feedback is appreciated! 🖤🦝)
We (I, you) are perceived in the social context(s) we appear in rather than how we truly are. That is to say, other people's perceptions of you are shaped by the social contexts they understand and how they fit you into that understanding. (Rather than social context being a fixed, static thing that can be understood once; it's constantly evolving.)
Photo description: a pastel ocean horizon. The text is in peach, and begins in large bold letters, “DON’T FORGET TO REST” followed by “and remind yourself that you are worthy of guilt free rest, regardless of what you did or did not do today, yesterday, this week, or this month”
