If so then I do believe that the intrinsic qualities of a person mediates the reaction you have to the stimulus.
Intrinsic qualities cannot communicate with you, only you can observe them; you can observe intrinsic qualities only in the way you know how. In other words, you dictate (even if unintentionally) how you see the person. “How you see” is largely predetermined by your own way of perception.
This way, you’re not able to observe the person on its merit (as if you were them) even if you wanted to. Basically, to observe the person if you were them is possible only if you become them — give up your conscious/unconscious self.
Imagine you see a lizard, you don’t know what it feels while passing you; It can bite you and you will feel it. You might reasonably see it as aggression. At no point you can get into its skin and understand what this bite actually meant. Even if you could talk with the lizard and it would try to explain itself, chances are you wouldn’t be able to give up your human perspective on the matter.
The fact that there is a translation in between doesn’t necessarely mean that there is an original message and that message isn’t true, does it?
Translation here means that there’s communication happening with outside world, while in this opinion piece, it’s so muddied up by unreliable narrator “self” that it’s basically just ever expanding confirmation bias
Yeah I understand the connection. The only thing that doesn’t resonate with me is that this opinion takes for granted the fact that any form of communication between human beings is faulty on every level.
While it might be right that there are some things that cannot be talked about, abstract concepts as love, fear, faith and such, I think it’s a little forced IMHO to presume that NOTHING, EVER can get through the Veil.
Intrinsic qualities cannot communicate with you, only you can observe them; you can observe intrinsic qualities only in the way you know how. In other words, you dictate (even if unintentionally) how you see the person. “How you see” is largely predetermined by your own way of perception.
This way, you’re not able to observe the person on its merit (as if you were them) even if you wanted to. Basically, to observe the person if you were them is possible only if you become them — give up your conscious/unconscious self.
Imagine you see a lizard, you don’t know what it feels while passing you; It can bite you and you will feel it. You might reasonably see it as aggression. At no point you can get into its skin and understand what this bite actually meant. Even if you could talk with the lizard and it would try to explain itself, chances are you wouldn’t be able to give up your human perspective on the matter.
Translation here means that there’s communication happening with outside world, while in this opinion piece, it’s so muddied up by unreliable narrator “self” that it’s basically just ever expanding confirmation bias
Yeah I understand the connection. The only thing that doesn’t resonate with me is that this opinion takes for granted the fact that any form of communication between human beings is faulty on every level. While it might be right that there are some things that cannot be talked about, abstract concepts as love, fear, faith and such, I think it’s a little forced IMHO to presume that NOTHING, EVER can get through the Veil.