The Inherent Rationale Of Perception

Perception is one of the most important factors affecting our day to day lives as human beings.  I believe it is one of the most underrated aspects of society in general.  The way events, acts and people are seen and from whose viewpoint is the proverbial thin line between one extreme to the other.  How do we define poor?  Poor can be defined by having devout understanding for wealth.  The same can be said for many contrasting positions such as good and evil, fast and slow, guilty and innocent, light and dark et cetera.  We determine what the extremes are, the outermost regions, and whatever falls in between is still up to the better parts of discretion.  We take time to make accurate discernments about what allows someone to have a certain title and then immediately define everyone else against that standard.  But how do we identify the standard?  Is it the first instance of something or is it when we happenstance the theoretical difference that challenges all that we thought we knew previously?  Is there wisdom in taking a position supported with an evidentiary credence or is one just ahead of the curve to have a radical point of view that will be fully realized at a later time?  Why is this important?  Why is it done?  And what are the criteria used for such classifications?  Again this is all in line with perception.  Many times the people who are designated to assert such distinctions are in neither the uppermost or lowermost divisions.  What would be the motive for being involved?   Can this be done completely from a neutral and nonpartisan position or will it be demonstratively biased in glorifying self-assurance or denigrating in self-destruction?  How we view things, the assertions we make, the judgments we conclude and the resulting consequences are as varying as we are, as fluid as we are and as strange as we can be but at any given point and time it can be the most apropos choice that enables a life or death outcome to which if it were left to the opinion of another person, had occurred in another venue or happened at another time everything could be colossally changed.   

Why would I question perception as being the critical agent?  Let me present a recent example.  There have been a few cases of law enforcement taking the lives of minority youth.  The topics to debate are always race relations and the responsibility of authorities in our communities.  Without getting into specifics of the cases and how they transpired, let me dissect the opposing sides here.  As for the minority’s perspective, the plight of the African-American in this country is as controversial a subject as any to deliberate.  We can talk about how men and women were taken from their homeland to become embattled thralls in a land where their humanity was trivial to the new purveyors.  We can start there.  We can then go to the civil rights period, several years later, where the progenies having achieved freedom and developed rudimentary abilities, no longer feel that being segregated to the lowest rungs of American society is tolerable.  We can grow from there.  We can look at today where we celebrate each minority accomplishment of significant equality to what has been consistently done by other races as the moment of truth.  There are now minority millionaires and billionaires, minority politicians, minority influence on culture and there is a persistent continuance towards more progress of the sort.  The subsidiary issues of the hidden ire from only being able to reach someone else’s past as your pinnacle is agonizingly demoralizing.  To admit the sense of beatitude for meeting the granted ceiling of glass that another has allowed has a disposition of its own.  See a breakthrough for one group is the settlement of another in that circumstance.  Where they were is now apparent to you but you cannot fathom where they are going.  There is still great separation moving forward into the future.  To deal with that and have it placed in your face every day can be insolent and haughty.  The resentment and animosity of the past is sedentary and immobile in people whom did not directly experience such heinous acts.  Now what is the story behind the police officer who is usually of a different race?  The Caucasian of today has the state of mind of an inherited appanage of superiority that may or may not be accompanied with feelings of remorse.  Remorse felt possibly for what was done to the other inhabitants of that time or the fact of how things are now as a result of those efforts.  History can tell the story of their people constructing the country through not only what means were necessary but could only be done by specimens with such fertile ambitions.  Other races should be grateful for being spectators to what we have available to us now from their most arrogant vantage point.  Couple that mentality with the role of law enforcement.  Individuals pledge their life to servitude for the protection and safety of others as a way of earning income.  Some from privileged backgrounds with a desire to perform a sworn duty and some from troubled pasts including abuses or offenses against them for which they now want to be on the other side of that matter.  Add to that being assigned to areas where their prerogative to uphold the rules and regulations of a fair and just culture could be questioned at every turn.  

What happens when the sides meet and there is conflict?  How does it start?  Well the claim of harassment from law enforcement against young men of color is rampant.  The pertinent inquiry for this conversation should be whether it is also misguided.  For every time there is provocation, how many times was a suspect fitting of the depiction of the alleged criminal?  How many times are there accusations of crime where a minority is involved or accompanying someone charged of wrongdoing?  To provide descriptive statistics would not be conducive to the argument because one case where the report is accurate provides for the instances where each must be seen through for the entitlement of the victim and the obligation of the officer.  So in most occasions, law enforcement is only trying to execute their assigned job.  The alleged perpetrator, remembering history, would be upset with the actuality of the essence of this confrontation even if fitting the supposed characteristics.  The challenge is endangering to both parties.  Law enforcement can only act on the information they were provided and the faculties of one’s own judgment.  The citizen’s innocence is highly dubitable to say the least.  The citizen now feels a sense of jeopardy from an entity that is not required to be threatening.  The ways of which the events evolve from this extends from approach and reactions.  One could or could not say that law enforcement is erroneous for getting the suspect’s attention.  Is there ever a right way to proceed in a direction that you cannot confirm until it is resolved?  The suspect’s response to these allegations could be accepting as in the wrong or argumentative over such disrespect.  The officer can respond calmly and assert the reasoning of his presence or becoming aggressive instantaneously to apprehend and stop a nuisance.  With disregard for the guilt or innocence at the highest point of escalation, when should deadly force be applied?  For every heartbreaking case of law enforcement overstepping its bounds in ceasing the existence of a person’s life, are there equivocal stories of the situation being reversed?  Would there be extensive reaction and outrage if an officer died in the line of duty for not acting fast enough?  An instance where there was every attempt to reach out to a disorderly criminal and bring them into custody moderately.  The result of that method was death by the aforementioned assailant or a witness in the area.  And furthermore, the felon is able to escape and never correctly identified again.  Do we just bury the person in an honorable service or do we impose that they did not dare to do what’s needed to merit the uniform they wore?  Is it written off as a rare occurrence or do sanctions get modified to ensure that this isolated incident is inauspicious?  You cannot have a protest to force officers to have tougher stance against criminals, right?  And after all the debate and all of the fallout, what happens to the person who started the altercation.  Not the officer or the suspect but the one who placed the 911 call or spoke with law enforcement.  Going in sequential order, you could not probe into the morality of the informant or victim because the report was justified with police action.  Or could you?  The central point of perception is always debatable based on the significance of the foundation of its perspective.  Did they see the right person, were the features of the person given properly and does it really require police intervention?  When lives are lost as the result of a purported exertion, is that the sort of justice that was sought or did you just want the person frightened and punished?  So when that occurred, do you regret the incident or thankful that people know not to bother your place of residence or business anymore?  What are the expected results from contacting authorities nowadays and do we now use that resource knowing what is at stake?  The ethical position, or lack thereof, of having someone else act from your behest gives a sense of fulfillment of purpose and power of aptness.  There is no direct correlation to the committing of murder but being the cause of it has repercussions that can only be addressed at one’s own latitude of sentiments.  

Law enforcement versus the population it has sworn protect is poignant to determine why things happen and how it could all be different.  Let me now turn the focus towards religion to once again reveal how perception creates so many different lanes for the world we live in.  With no offense meant for anyone’s beliefs, I will distinguish the major religions of today as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Sikhism.  My sincerest apologies to the believers of faiths that were not named in the previous statement, my perception of awareness would be to blame.  Now this will not be to determine which religion is paramount.  Nor will it be to put one against the other and challenge the tenets and origins of any set of beliefs.  I will go through the facets of each to try to recognize how each divides itself from the rest and persuasively uses perception to craft institutional conformity for the majority of its followers.  Hopefully I can do that successfully while minimizing the controversy that could stimulate.  How do we differentiate the six named?  Some would say the chief partition components are region, time and core beliefs.  Hinduism and Buddhism are supposedly derived from the Vedas text from the southern Asian regions.  Judaism, Christianity and Islam are said to be derived from the ways of Abraham or Abram, depends, with each using a different resource as its principled figure.  These are taught to have originated in the western Asian and eastern European regions.  If we were to accept the belief that Judaism begins from Abraham, it would be the eldest of this list.  If we were to acquiesce to the time of Moses and the writings of the Torah, this would place it second to Hinduism which has not pinpointed an individual as its founder.   Hinduism has tenets of freedom where each person has the capability to determine their purpose for living.  This is very open to interpretation for followers to define themselves.  It is characterized by concepts of righteousness, love, livelihood and karma.  These are all very good things to adhere to.  From my understanding, it does not directly condemn evil and immorality however.  How events involving those devious actions should be addressed seems to be ambiguous.  Could it be that they were not seen during that time?  Or were they just taken as part of one’s choices?  Next we move to Judaism who introduces a divine doctrine for how to behave within the religion.  Were the early recipients of Jewish teachings even aware of the presence of Hinduism during that period?  If they were, was this presumed to be more suitable for its people as it decrees control?  If they were not, did Hindus stay confined to a certain area and passed acumen to their descendants preventing the spread to other areas of the planet?  Giving specific details on what is good and what is bad has come to be a favored position of religion since Judaism.  Define the roles of plausible protagonists and antagonists for all to be aware of.  Here there is disparity for the genders of believers, observance of holy days, esteemed places of worship and religious laws.  Jewish practices that must be obeyed and rules for people who desire to become new converts.  There is a perceptible difference in one being all encompassing and one being restrictively inclusionary with what it holds dear.  See the privilege of being part of this religion was part of its appeal.  Buddhism then begins with the birth of Buddha.  With Buddhism, we see a religion that is established with a person.  The “enlightened one”, as he was called, taught people personal lessons that would lead to a holier life.  The truths of negativity, how it came about and how to get through it were his canons to alleviate ignorance and discover divine insight.  For one to really find inner peace, you must be able to refrain from all realities nonadjacent from that precept.  Jesus Christ and Christianity are noticeably the prima facie deity and transcendent religion that will be mentioned in this paper or any other forum.  After being born to a virgin mother, his life was chronicled and mainly mesmerized ever since.  He was as generous and honest as we have ever seen.  His touch could heal but his words could equally scorn.  He was the ultimate dividing force at which even our concept of time accedes to the before and after of his stint here.  Beginning from Judaism, he seemingly embodied its concepts and improved their teachings to how to behave at every step.  He gained disciples and confidants by the way he carried himself not by how it was taught to them.  It was his ways and how he interacted with those that needed him that ultimately stood the test of time.  His belief in being the direct descendant of a Holy Father produced the invincible spirit that far outlived his flesh.  In the similar region of western Asia and eastern Europe, his namesake was adopted and proliferated with the spread of the Church and the Romans.  You cannot question its relevance today as it is extant in nearly every segment of this Earth.  Even with all this to support it, there are still other beliefs and others that are thought to be equally significant.  Many religions revere Christ but think he was a piece to the puzzle and not the entire picture as Christians do.  Now let us encounter the penults of Islam and Muhammad.  Islam has a slightly different view of its symbolic figure Muhammad.  Muhammad is not directly seen as the person to worship.  He is more of a prophet of God’s message to humanity.  For Muslims, this incarnation is similar to that of Adam, Abraham and Jesus.  The contrast let those people be manifestations of God’s plan but not the emphasis of your adulation.  Unification with the most high is the only goal.  Lastly, we can see Sikhism.  Sikhism was founded by Guru Nanak whom reemerged to denounce two religions after his own suspected death.  Sikhism values revealing truth and living in the most honest way constantly.

From this timeline, one could inadvertently assume an order of descent being evident.  If that were to be true, then what creates a new set of beliefs?  When something is formed and sculpted, there may not be room for modification.  We do not see amendments to religion as seen in law.  Rather than contesting the past, we see examples of very high level entities presenting themselves with great favor through the juxtaposition of both sincere benevolence and self-indulgence.  With that being true, once it is proven we do not conform to anyone who tries to replicate the pious deeds of the deified leader.   That endeavor can be interpreted as blasphemous impersonations that can seriously impede or end one’s life.  When faced with that reality, you can question whether the future of a group of people is ever worth a single person’s present.  We usually see this as a noble sacrifice for the betterment of generations ahead of one’s time.  And contemporaneously burden ourselves not to be identical due to the fact that our perception does not permit another try at having the same triumph.  We usually adhere to the premise that there can only be one.  Everyone who observes that truth falls in line under the designed umbrella.  Religion seldom agrees with the position of any assemblage that does not fit the material accordance of its best disciples.  The commonplace orientation is regularly to edify its own concepts to maintain and enable supporters.  While some are respectful of other sects, the point that more than one exists means choice and competition among the world’s population.  As we evolved the appearance of sundering among each’s own ranks become palpable.  The denominations of Christianity, bifurcation of Islam and fractioning of Judaism are just the epitome of this topic.  Though all are different, there was instantiation from a singular point.  After many iterations of ideology from progressively unique perspectives, the inaugural summon for unity gets disintegrated by deviating angles on how much zeal is appropriate for having fervent passions.  Could there be a lesson learned from the internal partitioning that provides for dissolution of external faiths?  Or is it just illustrations of dissension for supplemental plotting?  Can everything be reverted to the idea of one god and humans being inherently good or do we require each case of divinity to have a private ensuing retinue of its own?  

Our perceptions are not just grounded in what is pellucid to our five or more senses.  We interlace personal experiences of the past, tactful sagaciousness and cognitive dissonance or lack thereof.  This does not just apply to the most creditable persons we have but also the inept.  So the heft that we place in it could be both the shining archetype and ignominious fallacy considering the temperament of the supplier.  Even then the conclusion we come to is explicated by all that advocates for our side and everything else that disaffirms can be nullified with the insulation of what is perceptible to each one of us.