by Andrea Elizabeth
The video in my previous post is Donald Hoffman’s somewhat struggled-for explanation of What Reality Is, or more descriptively, isn’t; as he was really having to pull the interviewer kicking and screaming along.
His premise is that we see icons of reality, and not reality itself. This is evidenced by the different ways other species “see” things with additional or lesser frequencies than humans. It is also based on the idea that our way of seeing reality evolved in a survival of the fittest way to be the best way so far. I find evolution models so impoverished. I understand what he is saying in that the information retrieved from radio telescopes, for example, have to be interpreted into a visual language to “show” us heavenly bodies. Even sound recordings have to be interpreted for us. But if you believe we are made in God’s image, that our coming on to the scene was the reason for the universe, and that God chose to become man, not animal, then you can see that human perception is the best way to see the universe. To be Godlike is to see objects as we see them rather than through sonar reflections like bats. I believe there are deeper ways to understand the nature of things, but these enhance what infants perceive, not replace them. Well, maybe infants have it better than us in some ways, like Matthew 18:3 says. I’m not like the interviewer who can’t get passed that there are other ways to see or experience things, I just don’t feel as disconnected from the way I see things. I do interface with nature differently now that I’m aware of the processes that built mountains, for example. I see them as wounded shallow sea beds, but they are still pretty and moving, though not in the exact same aesthetic-only way that an abracadabra young earth person thinks. Great things are gotten through much work, patience and pain rather than instant gratification, and so seeing the price paid adds another layer to the experience. But mountains can still be measured from sea level and their rocks can be differentiated like all humans, and animals to some extent can do. And though gravity affects climbers differently based on their size and fitness, going up is still harder than going down for any climber, be they animal, vegetable, or mineral. But apparently the sun is a stronger force for plant branches than gravity, but not for their seeds.
I believe if one were in theosis one would see the uncreated light emitting from objects, but they would not cease to be what they are, and I believe what we know them to be. (this could use a lot of nuance that I’ll not go into now) Except for the evolutionist. He sees things as spontaneously random and luckily strong enough to persist. He may admire the energy it took for it to get this far, but it is a fluke, not an intended ingredient. The creationist sees everything as fearfully and wonderfully made as God’s best way to express Himself and to be most thoroughly understood by humans in the fullness of time.
I am learning, however, that our interactions are more complicated and less obvious than it may seem. There is a lot of memory and spacial intelligence involved with placement rather than just eye/hand coordination. And our brains are very selective in what they deem worthy of our attention. We have a lot of subconscious, inherited prioritization. Prioritization is what I’d rather talk about. How much is in our control and can be taught? Like organization over spontaneity and such. People talk about the trained eye. We’re watching the series, “Psych” right now, where Shawn’s ex-police father trained him to observe his surroundings more than most people do. I’ve been meaning to recommend this witty, quirky show – it’s probably PG-13, which I’d actually change to 17 if it were up to me.