| |
The human visual processing system is, unfortunately,
unlike a photograph or a film image. What we see
with our eyes is mostly distorted by the time it
reaches the processing system and appears in consciousness.
The distortion is created by character armor in
the brain and in the musculature surrounding and
connected with the ocular system. Unlike a photo
or film image, we interpret everything we take in
through our ocular system.
Our egocentric consciousness is such that all our
apperceptions are believed, by us, to actually be
a direct representation of reality. All our apperceptions
are not reality, at all. They are just that, apperceptions.
Jung defines apperception (in the Undiscovered Self)
as:
A psychic process by which a new conscious content
is articulated with similar, already existing contents
in such a way that it is understood. In active apperception,
the ego grabs hold of something new and comes to
grips with it. In passive apperception, the new
content forces itself upon consciousness, either
from outside (through the senses) or from within
(the unconscious).
Thus the image we "see" is, unlike a
photographic image, in essence, a distortion of
what-is. It is not what we think it is. Like these
pelicans. Upon viewing the picture one might have
all sorts of hypotheses and judgments: It's a lousy
photograph! It's a great photograph! It's a mediocre
photograph! How could the photographer get so close,
especially since the pelicans appear to be at an
altitude and not near the water? Was it shot at
sun down or sun up, given the colors? As an exercise,
permit your mind to stop reading here, take a few
moments and actually contemplate on the images.
Imagine the position of the photographer, the time
of day, etc., until you arrive at a belief as to
how the shot was made. You might even write down
your conclusions and judgments. Then read on, below.
Actually it was shot with a relatively short 200mm
lens at 1:43 PM, from the 19th floor of our hotel
balcony in Miami, last December. I noticed we were
just about the level of their flight path, and waited
for about an hour, on the balcony, for some of these
great birds (one of my favorites) to reward me by
providing an opportunity to get a good shot. And
the photo was edited in Photoshop.
Apperceptions, as in this instance with our pelicans,
are relatively benign. Someone who knows about photography
can probably figure out how this photo was composed.
Someone who knows relatively little might be puzzled.
Apperceptions relative to humans in intimate relationships,
so very frequently create toxic, destructive, and
hurtful reactions in our partners. What we "see"
isn't reality, regardless of how convinced we are
that it is, including the consensus of agreement
from other armored neurotic characters who would
agree with our understanding that what we have 'seen'
is reality. What we believe our partners are "causing"
in the relationship, is frequently our own unconscious
projections of our own toxicity that we are wont
to acknowledge and take responsibility for in ourselves.
Hard science, e.g., physics, has, since the last
century, been providing evidence that what we see
is only a manifestation of what-is, distorted by
our interpsychic processes and belief systems. Yet
we continue to believe in the validity of our own
apperceptions and thoughts.
These beliefs, filtered through the armored neurotic
character structure are the primary source of conflict
among intimate partners, corporations and nations.
|
|
