Perception, Deception?
Cano's The Vision of St. Bernard
Professor Nelson's lecture went into great detail talking about how we perceive the world around us via sight. I was really interested in how, as with the other senses we've talked about, it's up to the brain and the individual to translate a sense into what it means in relation to a person's place in the world around them.
I feel like a lot of religious experiences people write about in history concern visions--either of religious deities or of symbols. We did touch upon this briefly in class, but I think it's a topic people are a bit wary to discuss in-depth. But it's something very prominent in many world religions. Kings rode into battle in the middle ages after the symbol of the cross appeared to them. People today, regardless of their religious denomination, experience "spiritual" visions in near-death experiences. But how "accurate" are these visions people claim to have? Professor Nelson stated that visual perception is an attempt to see reality, but doesn't actually represent reality at all--and his evidence against the claim is that people see visual illusions--or, objects or images that aren't really there. Who is to say that these "visions" aren't optical illusions? As Professor Nelson also pointed out, how much does context have to do with what we see? When we played charades in class today, a lot of the guesses of what we saw were made based on the context--this is a religion class and thus people were more apt to assume the correct guesses of what people were acting out had to do with religion. We can choose what we want to focus on, or in what we want to "zone" our senses.
I like to think I believe in religious visions and ghosts. My family has had personal experiences with both. But especially after talking about vision the last few days, even in the context of Indian culture, I wonder how very subjective vision--outside of its biological function--actually is.
Context is crucial to how we interpret visions, or any sort of paranormal activity. Jeffrey Kripal, our Religion dept. Martin Lecturer this past fall, makes much of this point. If there isn't a category in our cultural context for what we see to register against, we may not even "see" it, or easily dismiss it as an impossibility, or an optical illusion. Who is to say that the "visions" we and others see are _not_ optical illusions of neural misfirings? Those for whom those visions have no meaning, relevance, or precedents. On the other hand, those with expectations, especially religious expectations, for visionary experiences are more likely to look for them, see them, and recognize them as such. this just goes to show how even "paying attention" is culturally influenced. How do we know what's _pertinent_ to see, hear, smell, taste, or touch?
ReplyDeleteI have always wondered what someone would see during a near death experience if they had never before in their lives been exposed to any religion or religious symbols. It is possible to see what you do not know? Is this not exactly what religion is suppose to be? But how can we ever know for sure when it would be inhumane to keep someone sheltered from any religious influence just to induce a near death experience later on in that persons life.
ReplyDelete