Navigating reality: It’s all about perspective | Daniel Schmachtenberger

Navigating reality: It’s all about perspective | Daniel Schmachtenberger

Imagine that we have a cylinder. A cylinder is a very simple, three-dimensional
object but imagine that we have two-dimensional creatures trying to make sense of a cylinder. It’s like the flatland conversation. So two-dimensional creature intersects the
cylinder this way and they see a circle. And in a two-dimensional world a circle is
a very clear object, makes perfect sense. They can describe the mathematics of it. And they can verify that empirically they
really did see a circle. Of course a two-dimensional create that happens
to be in another plane could bisect the cylinder like this and see a rectangle. And they could be very clear on that also
and they’re both partially true but they’re also both totally wrong in that rectangle
and circle are both two-dimensional objects and the thing they’re encountering is a
three-dimensional object that actually can’t be understood in the dimensionality that they’re
in. So then we can see that a debate ensues between
the two-dimensional creatures in orthogonal planes, the circlers and the rectanglers,
who are both utterly sure that the thing that they’re seeing is what they think it is
and obviously rectangle and circle are mutually exclusive descriptions of reality. One has no corners and straight lines. One is define exclusively by corners and straight
lines. So it’s easy to see how one can hold a kind
of reductive fundamentalist perspective without even thinking that it is that. It’s just what I’m observing. An so then they can debate. Let’s imagine that one of the two-dimensional
creatures was able to switch planes and see the other one and see that there was some
truth in both of them. Then they could flip flop between perspectives
at different times or they could say we just need to hold paradox. It’s both and neither which mostly means
give up on making sense of reality. Or they say it’s a middle path that’s
somewhere between the two. And a middle path in two dimensions is like
a rounded rectangle where you kind of do something that’s a little bit circle-ish and a little
bit rectangle-ish which isn’t even any true part of what a cylinder is. And the thing is that they’re just at too
low of a dimensional perspective to properly understand the nature of cylinder which is
actually a very simple thing. It doesn’t require holding paradox. It doesn’t require a middle path in that
way. And it’s because when we think of middle
path oftentimes we’re thinking of extremes on left or right in a gradient. But sometimes the two different perspectives
aren’t on a gradient on a single axis. They’re orthogonal to each other. And the reason why this is kind of actually
an interesting example is because perception itself, a perspective on something defined
by perception is inherently a reduction of information of the thing. My perspective of it is going to be a lot
less total information than the actual thing is. So I can look at the object from the east
side or the west side or the top or the north side or the inside, microscopically, telescopically. They’ll all give me different information. None will give me the entirety of the information
about the situation. And so there is no all encompassing perspective
that gives me all of the information about really almost any situation. And so what this means is that reality itself
is trans perspectival. It can’t be captured in any perspective. So multiple perspectives have to be taken,
all of which will have some part of the reality, some signal. There may also be distortion. I may be looking at the thing through a fisheye
lens or through a colored lens that creates some distortion. But then let’s say I’m looking at a building
and the picture, the 2D picture from the east side and from the west side and from inside
a particular room and the aerial view are all obviously very different pictures and
it’s because the 3D complex building actually can’t be seen in a 2D process. So I could take a lot of pictures and I could
seam them together into a kind of video that moves through the building. Now by having a video I added the dimension
of time and I got back to kind of the right dimensionality to be able to understand the
thing. But that’s not a perspective. That’s a lot of perspectives that we’re
able to put together. So why does this matter. Well, when we’re looking at political processes
and we think about classically political left kind of perspectives that have more to do
with the orientation of the collective and the whole and political right that have more
to do with the individual and sovereignty. On the right do we want people who are more
self-responsible and who are more sovereign and who are more empowered. And do we want to give more power to people
who are doing a better job. All of that makes perfect sense. Left perspective. Do we want to create situations that actually
influence the individuals in the situation to do better – social systems, education,
healthcare. Does the environment affect the individual. You can really think of it as does the environment
affect the individual while understanding evolutionary theory that individuals are really
formed by their environment, of course. With humans that are niche creators do the
individuals effect their environment. Of course. If you hold either of those as the only perspective
obviously you’re just missing so much which is that the individual is affecting the whole. The whole is, in turn affecting the individuals
and how do we create systems that have virtuous cycles between empowering individuals and
creating better social systems that have the effect of creating humans that are not dependent
on the social systems but that are more sovereign and can, in turn, create better social systems. And whether we’re thinking about a political
issue like that or we’re looking at a psychologic issue like the orientation of being and enjoying
reality as is and accepting ourselves and others as is and doing and becoming which
is adding to life, adding to ourselves, seeking to improve ourselves. How do we hold these together. They don’t just have to be held as paradox
or holding one or flip flopping. There’s a way that when understanding how
they relate to each other – so in that example if I understand the nature of a person as
a noun that is static then it seems like accepting them the way they are unconditionally, removes
the basis for growth. But if I understand that the person is a dynamic
process, that they’re actually a verb that intrinsic to what they are in the moment is
desire and impulse to grow and become. And like that loving someone unconditionally
involves wanting for them their own self-actualization and there’s no dichotomy between accepting
someone ourselves as is or the world and seeking to help it grow, advance, express. So it’s a very simple process of saying
the ability to take multiple perspectives, to see the partial truth in them and then
to be able to seam them together into something that isn’t a perspective. It’s a trans perspective capacity to hold
the relationships between many perspectives in a way that can inform our choice-making
is fundamental to navigating reality.

42 thoughts on “Navigating reality: It’s all about perspective | Daniel Schmachtenberger

  1. everything is going from start to end, not other way around, the process is natural, so you dont need government to build the fucking roads…less evil is STILL evil, there is no good evil, no good rape, or no good cancer…

  2. so if I understand correctly, given that I perceive you as 2d picture on my screen, you exist simultaneaslouly on an alternate 3d youtube page being perceived by 2d cylinders who have different perspective of reality than mine, which can only lead to me to conclude that epstein didn't kill himself

  3. I think it's very possible our observable universe is a shadow of higher dimensions we can never access. The quantum world seems to be our first glimpse at that.

  4. Fantastic! Clear, concise, well defined scope. Daniel did a wonderful job explaining this inherently complex and fraught topic in an incredibly deft way.

  5. People at the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs be like. But seriously: this is a wise approach to interpersonal communication



  8. When we try to define things, we loose hold of reality.
    Definations are fragment of our imagination, it always exclude something that's why differs according to perception.

  9. Poor religions people don't know this Hindu dharma teaches us this in a example of a elphent!!! Its in the vadas.but when we think we know everything taking advantage of the weeknes and sabotage anciant civilisations ,so we can gain by capitalistic greedy civilisation will only bring chaos ….originally all non catholic Christian and Islamic civilisation were based on the vadic principals…we all worshiped the sun god and mother earth ….now we worship gastly entities like demon of hypocrisy Jesus Christ.he is plundering the earth with hypocrisy….all this information passed on from generation to generation in a class men is lost in the west.I learned about this from my grand fother when I was less than 9 years of age.

  10. in before flat earthers use this talk to say "look this guy is talking about flat earth its all about perspective!" ….

  11. Guess I am just too darn stupid to make much sense out of this. Soccer, circle, square, sphere, cube, cylinder, building, video, political left, political right…did he touch on gender as well? Doesn't matter I'm not watching it again.

  12. Excellent video. Accepting things the way they are means accepting that things change. After all, we live in a world that's constantly changing and that we have to constantly adapt to in order to survive. We're also each both at once individuals and members of our communities – local, provincial, national, and, yes, even global. And we need to be personally responsible for how what we do affects others all around the globe and on down through time, just as we're affected by what others all around the globe have done.

    But beneath any individual person's conflict in accepting that we're both at once individuals and members of our community are the conflicting desires to "stand out" and "fit in". We don't often enough realize that the ways in which we fail to "stand out" are really just the ways in which we "fit in", while the ways in which we fail to "fit in" are really just the ways in which we "stand out". So there's no need for us to be as driven by social and status anxieties as people today often are. Call me a "bleeding heart liberal" if you want to… I just think it's a good thing to care more about other people than we do about what other people think about us.

  13. Reality is independent of perspective. Perspective is literally the separation of your inner self from reality. The entire premise here is delusional and wrong.

  14. If thoughts are multidimensional & timeless than maybe the human brain can comprehend a truer perspective on something. If a person can be in 'contact' with oneself from birth 2 death & ones 'karmic' connections (others)/ mass consciousness than a truer perspective on certain parts of 'reality' might be possible. In a group of people, all capable of developing a 'truer' perspective, the possibilities for understanding, in depth, the past present & future of humanity could be possible and actions could be taken, in goodwill, that would promote humanity / humanness on Earth & beyond (up, down, over, sideways)🍻

  15. How can you see a circle in a 2D world..? It would look like 1D, wouldn't it? Like how a sphere in our 3D world looks like a circle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *