When ten people encounter an event
together, why does each person recall a different story about it? One’s point of view can obstruct what
is seen. By point of view, I’m
referring to mental, not physical.
With that question, it makes you wonder: Do we really experience what we say we experience?
The day we are born, we have no
language. Therefore, we have no
way of distinguishing the objects in our environment. On that day, we don’t distinguish people from doors or dogs
from chairs. In fact, we have no
distinction for love or hate.
However, the adults around us go to work immediately to change that.
From the day we are born, we are taught language. We are told that
we have fingers and a face. With
language, we are told the difference between a dog and a chair. We are even given constant
demonstrations for what love is and how to respond to it through a reward and
penal system.
By the time we are old enough to
reason, we have already been indoctrinated with the facts of life. When we experience people and events,
we experience them through the stored information we, thus far, were given by
our parents and others. And we are
expected to adhere to that information.
If we call something out of the name we were given, we are
corrected. If we make that error
in school, we are penalized with bad grades, even if we attempted to express
our authentic experience of something.
From another perspective, perhaps a
human’s true experience of life, events, people and objects occurs before we
have language. Except, science has
not been able to validate that.
Without language, we will encounter something as an ‘occurring’, not as
a dog or chair. When we engage it
as something occurring (I use occurring for lack of another way to express it
in language), we don’t experience it as the thing we were told it was. As an example, an infant has the
possibility of experiencing something, as it is ‘there’ or occurring. The infant’s experience would not be
tainted by language.
On the other hand, an adult would have a predetermined experience for the same occurring. Their experience would be a direct
correlate of what their environment gave them. If one person’s environment gave them the belief that
problems are bad and you should get rid of them, that individual would have one
response to an uncomfortable situation.
If another person’s environment gave them the belief that problems are
great opportunities to see what you are made of, that person may have a
different response to the same event as the above person. Neither is correct or wrong in their
response and neither actually experienced the situation. They viewed it through the conversations
they inherited.
This can be proved through an infant
learning to walk. When a healthy
person first learns to walk, they fall over and over again. For an intelligent adult, common sense
may tell them that if you continue to fail at something, especially if it
causes embarrassment, you quit.
The infant has not learned about failure, embarrassment or
quitting. The infant has an
intention, to get from point A to point B.
With that said, adults are less
likely to persist with something that may end in failure. It is not because they experienced
failure. They have inherited the
meaning or representation of failure.
If failure means incompetence, it is something to avoid. If it means to become tough and
relentless, it is appropriate to persevere. Those are not the result of experiences of the
occurring. They are indoctrinated
conversations that are inherited through your environment.
As you can see, this is what makes innovation so difficult
in organizations. Up to now, our society has relied on a few individuals to breakthrough the mindset given to them about reality.
For those who surmise they will
change their belief or opinion, they will most likely change it within the
confines of the preexisting reality that was already given to them. That equals improvement. Infants produce breakthroughs when they
learn to walk. Learning to walk is
so complex that the child literally has to invent it. The brain is not programmed to walk. The infant has to write the
program. Then implement it with no
past experience. That’s brilliance
and experience.
For the rest of us intelligent
adults, we don’t experience what’s occurring. We experience our experiences through our experiences. And that experience was already
formulated in the language we inherited.
To experience, you have to let go of language and all belief systems –
unlearn – and allow whatever is occurring to happen. There is power in the pure innocence of a child encountering
life.
What do you
think? I would love to hear your feedback. And I’m open to ideas. Or if you
want to write me about a specific topic, let me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment