Brave as long as mettle is unprobed
By Prof
Dr Sohail Ansari “Who is
then more unjust than he who utters a lie against Allah and (he who) gives the
lie to the truth when it comes to him; is there not in hell an abode for the
unbelievers? And he who brings the truth and (he who) accepts it as the truth… these
are they that guard (against evil). (Surah Zumar 39: 32-33)
A
perception is more important than reality
· I am not afraid of
anyone and everyone except me knows it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is perception more important than reality?
Kendrick VanZant, Fundamental isolation; embedded in a
finite spacetime; must make decisions.
In a social context you could say yes. In a
plurality of contemporary human social context, perception is hard askance (with an attitude or
look of suspicion or disapproval, doubt) from reality. Social perceptions are often grossly
irrational, but they are acted on. The witch on the pyre is not really a
witch, but ask her whether that reality is more important than the social
perception. The perceptions of others may not be realistic, but they are
a part of your practical reality. You must deal with them.
While we imposed intellectually-based value judgment (an assessment of something as good or bad in terms of one's standards or priorities) on unrealistic perceptions, we should note that they have a function. The human emotional system is optimized for survival, not science class. Reality is populated by imminent, veridical (truthful) threats. Humans cannot function constantly in the activation state of threat response. When physiological states supporting brief intense effort are maintained indefinitely they damage the body. Epigenetic and intrapsychic effects damage mental functioning. Perceiving reality in full is like being a gymnast. It takes training, it can be dangerous, not everyone can do it, and even a gymnast does not spend all of life on a tightrope.
All you have are your perceptions. You may train yourself to keep your perceptions aligned with the empirical, but they are still the same class of mental object that the wildest crackpot possesses. Realistic perceptions are special because they correlate with data and statistics, but they are not magic. They do note convey moral worth. They are only survival-positive when correctly used.
While we imposed intellectually-based value judgment (an assessment of something as good or bad in terms of one's standards or priorities) on unrealistic perceptions, we should note that they have a function. The human emotional system is optimized for survival, not science class. Reality is populated by imminent, veridical (truthful) threats. Humans cannot function constantly in the activation state of threat response. When physiological states supporting brief intense effort are maintained indefinitely they damage the body. Epigenetic and intrapsychic effects damage mental functioning. Perceiving reality in full is like being a gymnast. It takes training, it can be dangerous, not everyone can do it, and even a gymnast does not spend all of life on a tightrope.
All you have are your perceptions. You may train yourself to keep your perceptions aligned with the empirical, but they are still the same class of mental object that the wildest crackpot possesses. Realistic perceptions are special because they correlate with data and statistics, but they are not magic. They do note convey moral worth. They are only survival-positive when correctly used.
(unless the environmental information reaching them through the various
sense organs offered a perception of space that corresponds to their
physical “reality.” Such perception is called veridical perception—the direct perception of stimuli as they exist.)
TRUTH VS PERCEPTION
Truth vs Perception: Which is more important — the truth of
reality, or what is perceived to be reality? Looked at at another way, the
questions could also be seen as between “absolute truth” and “relative truth”
respectively.
I believe perception is, practically speaking, more important
than truth.
When we perceive something, it is done with our senses: sight,
sound, smell etc,. This input is put through our mind (like a blender, *click*
*grrrrr* *ding*). So we come up with a mix of those sensed perceptions, blended
with our mind, which gives the final result.
To change a perception, we can add filters to our senses (e.g.
spectacles, hearing aid, thick gloves etc,.) that will instantly change reality
for the person sensing it. Or, we might change how our mind “blends” the
information together, (e.g. reading books on philosophy will change how we
perceive the words “Plato” and “Socrates”, from “Great Philosopher” to “clown”
if we don’t agree with his philosophies).
However,
when we have to deal with truth,
it becomes a whole different matter. You can’t really change the truth without
making it into a whole new truth altogether.
Take
for example an orange. The truth is that an orange is an orange. With
perception, if you’re wearing “green glasses”, an orange will appear green. In
reality, the orange is not green, but orange [in colour] still. But if you
decide to paint the orange green, then the truth is that the orange is green.
Truth vs Perception In
Advertising
In advertising, a lot of things are sold not on truth, but on
perception. If you’ve ever heard of the brand “Rolex”, you’ll know that it’s
priced way higher than other watches. But still people buy it. People don’t buy
a “Rolex” simply because it tells time better or more accurately, but because
of the perceived quality of it.
People perceive person with a Rolex as a person with success,
prestige and class. In truth, it is nothing but a watch that tells time, isn’t
it?
Truth vs Perception In Motivation
Perhaps one of the most documented things about perception in
the self-help industry is the way self-perceptions (the perception of the
self,) tends to be so limiting. One of the most famous stories on self-limiting
perceptions is the story of Roger Bannister, the man of the four minute mile.
For
years, the belief was that running a mile in four minutes was physically
impossible. No one could ever do it, they (the critics) said. But
they were wrong. In 1954, Bannister broke that long held belief with a time of
3 minutes 59.4 seconds — the world was stunned. Now, high-school students break
that record for fun (gifted high-school students no doubt).
If
you want, you can read about the story, complete with pictures: The Four Minute Mile.
In conclusion:
Perception’s probably more important than Truth
In our daily lives, I would say our perception of reality is
infinitely more important than reality itself. It isn’t that reality/absolute
truth is not important, since reality is what we base our perceptions on. But
that perceptions are the ones that can make reality real.
When we don’t believe in something, how can it be real? Until we
start believing we can, we can’t.
We perceive the sun as rising from the east and setting in the
west.
The reality is sun never rises or sets, it is the earth that
moves that gives us a perception of sun rising.
For a kindergarden kid, the sun rising from the east is true. As
the intellect matures, the child starts questing its own perception and digs
further to know what is real. So perception and reality are the same but at
different levels of intellect/ different levels of understanding.
When we question what we perceive from the five senses, the
perception falls off and reality sets in
Life is about dissolving the perception as we mature and
understanding reality. This is what science does and this is exactly what
spirituality does.
Is the Glass Half Full or Half Empty?
John’s perception is Half Full. Mo’s perception is Half Empty.
Let say two people witness an accident
1. John was standing beside the car which got hit
2. Mo was watching from a distance.
1. John was standing beside the car which got hit
2. Mo was watching from a distance.
John’s description of events will be different than Mo’s because
John almost got killed. John’s senses pereceived the reality differently than
Mo’s as it is through our senses that we make meaning of the reality.
We all live in our own realities by virute of how we perceive
and understand things.
Todd Green, Student of Buddhism, I pay attention as
best I can
Well, it’s not a true statement, or
at least not a complete statement. It should say “perception is a big part of
how we model reality.” Clearly, our perception is greatly limited! The other
answers cover relative perception, but I don’t think that’s the whole answer.
Sure, everyone sees things from a different perspective, and this can provide
apparently conflicting descriptions of reality. But in the end, we model the
world we live in based on our perceptions (including historic perceptions), and
we interact based on that model. Since we know its a model, it makes sense that
we’d want to keep that model updated and as accurate as possible, to help stack
the odds in our favor when we deal with it! So maybe “perception is reality” is
actually more an admonishment to beware of fixation and clinging to a specific
model, and a reminder to continually check your perceptions, with awareness of
what may be influencing them.
It also opens up an opportunity to explore different
perspectives, increasing the depth of our perceptions, and thus increasing the
depth of our experience of reality.
It
might also be helpful to explore what it does not mean. This kind of statement
is easy to over interpret, lending it meanings that were never intended. People
are capable of delusion, after all. So while our perception provides the raw
material for our model of reality, we wouldn’t want to make the mistake of thinking
that it is always correct! Certainty is the enemy of inquiry!
Colin Hankin, A meditator with sixty years experience.
I will attempt to answer your
question from a Zen [or Buddhist] perspective.
In the writings about those subjects you will find a constant
thread running through them to the effect that the world we see so clearly
around us is in fact an illusion.
The view that perception is illusory was an abortive attempt to
support the assertion [held by many adherents of those systems] that thinking
about anything was a mistake. That is true in meditation but not true in real
life, where solving the problems life consistently confronts us with is
mandatory.
The statement “perception is reality” quite properly refutes
that view. We do, in general, see the world as it really is. [Assuming normal
conditions apply for seeing anything.]
If
you want to look at my attempt at explaining why meditation works, look up
“21st Century Zen” on my website: Introduction
Jeff Wright, Life is a Mixed Metaphor
This is a slogan sometimes used in the advertising
industry, politics and public relations. It means that appearance and opinion
is more influential than objective fact for influencing and communicating with
people.
This is an important principle of communication but can also be used cynically to justify making empty promises and offering appearance rather than substance.
This is an important principle of communication but can also be used cynically to justify making empty promises and offering appearance rather than substance.
Sohail Ahmed, Became philosopher the moment realized
that I existed!
Perception is the time-space visualization through our
senses. Reality is a very tricky issue. It may be true or it may have different
connotation. From that angle, I hesitate to accept the statement as such, at
the outset.
Let me be specific with an example. I see a table made of wood. From a particular distance and seeing with my naked eyes I agree that it is table. As I peep deeper into it, through microscope, my perception changes. Further deeper the whole mess of different molecules and motions of atomic and subatomic particles make my head whirl and I am unable to agree that I am seeing a table, unless I recall that I started the experiment with a table and ensure that no one has fiddled with the object under microscope.
Having written that, let me appreciate Jeff Wright for a wonderful answer to the question.
Let me be specific with an example. I see a table made of wood. From a particular distance and seeing with my naked eyes I agree that it is table. As I peep deeper into it, through microscope, my perception changes. Further deeper the whole mess of different molecules and motions of atomic and subatomic particles make my head whirl and I am unable to agree that I am seeing a table, unless I recall that I started the experiment with a table and ensure that no one has fiddled with the object under microscope.
Having written that, let me appreciate Jeff Wright for a wonderful answer to the question.
Robert Half, God showed me Hell. Twice. Really. He did.
Consider the current American political quandary. Certain
liberal factions are so consumed by the irrational need for a woman to be
president that a proven liar and de facto criminal is suspended from
prosecution by collaborative federal agencies whose sole goal is to make her
president. It is absolutely astounding, but there you have it. Perception of
her invulnerability to prosecution of crimes like (a) obstruction of justice,
(b) destruction of evidence, (c) bribe attempts, and (d) clear plans for the destruction
of the American way of life are stringently ignored or dismissed as important
in the least. That is a clear example of the self delusion American voters will
subject themselves to in order to achieve a social goal that is more important
than the survival of the last hope for a world in continuing social decay.
Ahil Noori, Learning
It means you see everything based on
you’r perception.
And that influences our reality of who we are.
But the reality is not defined by our definition of it there is
the truth and also you’r truth … People ages before belived the world was flat
and you fall down once you reach it’s end point that was their perception of
reality but today everyone knows earth’s shape is round
Mostly
we belive things how we see them.
Whatever people
perceive to be real, is real to them... Whether it is real or not.
Nation
branding aims to measure, build and manage the reputation of countries (closely
related to place branding). ... Some approaches
applied, such as an increasing importance on the symbolic value of products,
have led countries to emphasise their distinctive characteristics.
Nation branding
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nation
branding aims to measure, build and manage
the reputation of countries (closely related to place branding). In the book Diplomacy in a Globalizing World:
Theories and Practices, the authors define nation branding as “the
application of corporate marketing concepts and techniques to countries, in the
interests of enhancing their reputation in international relations.”[1] Many nations try to make brands in
order to build relationships between different actors that are not restricted
to nations. It extends to public and private sectors in a nation and helps with
nationalism. States also want to participate in multilateral projects.[2] Some approaches applied, such as an
increasing importance on the symbolic value of products, have led countries to emphasise their distinctive
characteristics. The branding and image of a nation-state "and the successful
transference of this image to its exports - is just as important as what they
actually produce and sell."[3]This is also referred to as country-of-origin effect.
Nation
branding is a developing field in which scholars continue their search for a
unified theoretical framework. Many governments have resource dedicated to nation
branding. Their aim is to improve their country's standing, as the image and
reputation of a nation can dramatically influence its success in attracting
tourism receipts and investment capital, in exports, in attracting a talented
and creative workforce, and in its cultural and political influence in the
world. Different ways that nation project their nation brand include export,
foreign direct investment, and tourism. One example of exporting products is
that the country Germany is known for their motor industry because famous car
companies like Mercedes, Audi, and BMW are German companies. An example of
foreign direct investments that help the nation brand are US companies building maquiladoras and other European countries having
factories in different countries.[4]
In practice[edit]
Nation
branding appears to be practiced by many countries, including the United
States, Canada, France, United Kingdom (where it is officially referred to as public
diplomacy), Taiwan,
Malaysia, Japan, China, South Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Australia, New
Zealand, Israel and most Western European countries. An early example of this
was the Cool Britannia approach of the early days of the New Labour government (following the Britain (TM) pamphlet by Demos's Mark Leonard), though this has since been replaced
by a more credible Public
Diplomacy Board. There is increasing interest in the concept from poorer states on
the grounds that an enhanced image might create more favorable conditions for foreign direct investment, tourism, trade and even political relations with
other states. Developing nations such as Tanzania and Colombia are
creating smaller nation branding programs aimed at increased overall image and
with the case of Colombia, changing international perception. Nation branding
is seen as a part of Sweden's public diplomacy, especially with Brand Sweden.
Sweden uses two main institutions, called the Utrikesdepartementet and the
Swedish Institute, to study their nation branding. They wanted to present a
good image through the press and also collect different reports on Sweden’s
representations abroad. Different events and campaigns were also made to
promote Brand Sweden, one example being the House of Sweden which was an
embassy in the US. Another campaign was the Second House of Sweden which used
the internet to introduce Sweden’s embassy virtually. Researchers in Sweden
also studied the Nation Brand Index (NBI) results to collect data.[5]
In academia[edit]
Nation
branding can be approached in academics as a field in social sciences,
political sciences, humanities, communication, marketing and international relations. Scholars such as Evan H. Potter
at the University of Ottawa have conceptualized nation brands
as a form of national soft power. All efforts by government (at any
level) to support the nation brand - either directly or indirectly - becomes
public diplomacy.
Anti-globalisation proponents often claim that globalisation diminishes and threatens local
diversity, but there is evidence that in order to compete against the backdrop
of global cultural homogeneity, nations strive to accentuate and promote local
distinctiveness as a competitive advantage.[6]
Indexing[edit]
Nation Brands Index[edit]
The concept of
measuring global perceptions of countries across several dimensions (culture,
governance, people, exports, tourism, investment and immigration) was developed
by Simon Anholt. His original survey, the Anholt Nation
Brands Index, was launched in 2005 and fielded four times a year. Today it is
fielded and published once a year in partnership with GfK, named the Anholt-GfK Nation
Brands Index. [7][8][9][10][11]
Brand Finance Nation Brands[edit]
Brand Finance produces an annual Brand Finance
Nation Brands table, in which 100 brands are ranked according to national brand
value. This is based on the royalty relief methodology and takes into account
the brand strength of individual countries.
Futurebrand Country Brand Index[edit]
Futurebrand
publishes the Country Brand Index every year, which includes an overall ranking
of the 75 countries, rankings by dimension, complete perception dashboards for
the top five country brands, regional leaders and averages and 'ones to watch'
for the future.[12]
Comments
Post a Comment