Return to Question

I'm wondering in a way, if choosing between different equally valid perspectives, and deciding which of simultaneous perspectives to adopt, is a bit like something we all sometimes do. For example:

• Simultaneous validity of potential outcomes: Joe breaks a favourite valued object in a serious accident, and is deeply upset, and then reasons that the outcome could have been much worse, and it's not that bad really compared to breaking his neck. There's a choice between "valued precious thing I'll never have again" and "Could have been worse, accidents happen, not too bad really". Both are valid views. We probably all know some people who can't get over an incident and dwell on it, and others who move on without much looking back. Both views are valid and can be chosen between. So was the loss major or minor? The answer you'll get depends which view was adopted by the person. What can we say about a person give who sees both views simultaneously and believes that both are valid? Which answer would they give?

• Simultaneous validity of multiple temporal viewpoints: Claire is running a marathon. About 16 miles in, it's so tough, but at the same time she isn't really thinking about that. Her focus is squarely on the idea that there will be a future time in about 45 minutes where the pain will be a distant past memory. In a way, she's mentally already living there, and waiting for reality to catch up. But she could choose otherwise. Both her present pain and her future lack of pain, the current reality and its transient nature, are equally valid perspectives she could choose, even if it's pragmatically more beneficial to focus on one of them as a way to reach her personal goal.

• Simultaneous validity of multiple value-scales: Bob is a champion footballer playing in the World Cup/Superbowl (take your pick). Clearly to him, its serious, important, crucial. Abruptly he is told his house is on fire and one of his kids may be trapped. Suddenly the sport activity is trivial, unimportant, just a game. But what it is now, is in a way what it always was, and what it was, remains what it is. Seen from different perspectives, the game is crucially important and also the game is totally trivial. The game itself hasn't changed, but the lens through which Bob sees it has been changed. The capacity to see it both ways was always there, and the capacity for both/either perceptions to be adopted always silently coexisted in and for Bob. When he hears the news, Bob becomes aware of the two perspectives coexisting in him, and consciously decides which of them (if either) he wishes to adopt. If he has any humanity he probably adopts the view that it's trivial. But he need not.

I'm wondering in a way, if choosing between different equally valid perspectives, and deciding which of simultaneous perspectives to adopt, is a bit like something we all sometimes do. It's hard to describe without trivialising and being trite, but here are a few examples of how we all seem to.do.similar:

• Simultaneous validity of multiple potential outcomes: Joe breaks a favourite valued object in a serious accident, and is deeply upset, and then reasons that the outcome could have been much worse, and it's not that bad really compared to breaking his neck. There's a choice between "valued precious thing I'll never have again" and "Could have been worse, accidents happen, not too bad really". Both are valid views. We probably all know some people who can't get over an incident and dwell on it, and others who move on without much looking back. Both views are valid and can be chosen between. So was the loss major or minor? The answer you'll get depends which view was adopted by the person. What can we say about a person give who sees both views simultaneously and believes that both are valid? Which answer would they give?

• Simultaneous validity of multiple temporal viewpoints: Claire is running a marathon. About 16 miles in, it's so tough, but at the same time she isn't really thinking about that. Her focus is squarely on the idea that there will be a future time in about 45 minutes where the pain will be a distant past memory. In a way, she's mentally already living there, and waiting for reality to catch up. But she could choose otherwise. Both her present pain and her future lack of pain, the current reality and its transient nature, are equally valid perspectives she could choose, even if it's pragmatically more beneficial to focus on one of them as a way to reach her personal goal.

• Simultaneous validity of multiple value-scales: Bob is a champion footballer playing in the World Cup/Superbowl (take your pick). Clearly to him, its serious, important, crucial. Abruptly he is told his house is on fire and one of his kids may be trapped. Suddenly the sport activity is trivial, unimportant, just a game. But what it is now, is in a way what it always was, and what it was, remains what it is. Seen from different perspectives, the game is crucially important and also the game is totally trivial. The game itself hasn't changed, but the lens through which Bob sees it has been changed. The capacity to see it both ways was always there, and the capacity for both/either perceptions to be adopted always silently coexisted in and for Bob. When he hears the news, Bob becomes aware of the two perspectives coexisting in him, and consciously decides which of them (if either) he wishes to adopt. If he has any humanity he probably adopts the view that it's trivial. But he need not.

• Even death has this scope for multiple perspectives. Don't people dying, perhaps console themselves by looking for a way to accept it (that they've had a good life, it was worth it, their life is tiny compared to existence itself, god will take them up, their family will live beyond them, or whatever it may be). By itself, that seems a tacit acknowledgement that other valid perspectives also exist, simultaneous to their present perception, and that the adopted perspective will be a matter of choice. It also implies that other coexisting and equally valid perspectives may be preferable to adopt, to the point that these other perspectives seem worth effort to search for, even if not presently apparent.

Update:

I'm wondering in a way, if choosing between different equally valid perspectives, and deciding which of simultaneous perspectives to adopt, is a bit like something we all sometimes do. For example:

• Simultaneous validity of potential outcomes: Joe breaks a favourite valued object in a serious accident, and is deeply upset, and then reasons that the outcome could have been much worse, and it's not that bad really compared to breaking his neck. There's a choice between "valued precious thing I'll never have again" and "Could have been worse, accidents happen, not too bad really". Both are valid views. We probably all know some people who can't get over an incident and dwell on it, and others who move on without much looking back. Both views are valid and can be chosen between. So was the loss major or minor? The answer you'll get depends which view was adopted by the person. What can we say about a person give who sees both views simultaneously and believes that both are valid? Which answer would they give?

• Simultaneous validity of multiple temporal viewpoints: Claire is running a marathon. About 16 miles in, it's so tough, but at the same time she isn't really thinking about that. Her focus is squarely on the idea that there will be a future time in about 45 minutes where the pain will be a distant past memory. In a way, she's mentally already living there, and waiting for reality to catch up. But she could choose otherwise. Both her present pain and her future lack of pain, the current reality and its transient nature, are equally valid perspectives she could choose, even if it's pragmatically more beneficial to focus on one of them as a way to reach her personal goal.

• Simultaneous validity of multiple value-scales: Bob is a champion footballer playing in the World Cup/Superbowl (take your pick). Clearly to him, its serious, important, crucial. Abruptly he is told his house is on fire and one of his kids may be trapped. Suddenly the sport activity is trivial, unimportant, just a game. But what it is now, is in a way what it always was, and what it was, remains what it is. Seen from different perspectives, the game is crucially important and also the game is totally trivial. The game itself hasn't changed, but the lens through which Bob sees it has been changed. The capacity to see it both ways was always there, and the capacity for both/either perceptions to be adopted always silently coexisted in and for Bob. When he hears the news, Bob becomes aware of the two perspectives coexisting in him, and consciously decides which of them (if either) he wishes to adopt. If he has any humanity he probably adopts the view that it's trivial. But he need not.

For example, to simultaneously believe and hold that everything is real (in a sense) and nothing is real (in a sense) - and to accept both simultaneously, 100% of the time, as a working model of reality. That everything matters and nothing matters, simultaneously and truthfully. That my health or job or some aspect of my life both distresses me terribly and also doesn't bother me at all - not sequentially but actually and continually and simultaneously.

Along with this, everything else seems to be capable of multiple perspectives the same way. Morality simultaneously matters and doesn't, death simultaneously matters and doesn't, happiness simultaneously matters and doesnt, loneliness simultaneously matters and doesn't. The loneliness I hated, the health issues that affect my life, also aren't important at all. I don't even know how to explain that to others, except it's so.

Another way to convey it is a bit like this: At one level X is the case, at another level Y is the case, and all levels co-exist and are equally "true". Rather than picking a single "true" perception and working model, choose which level of perception you want to adopt, based on the purposes for adopting it, and one's inclination at the time.

For example, to simultaneously believe and hold that everything is real (in a sense) and nothing is real (in a sense) - and to accept both simultaneously, 100% of the time, as a working model of reality. That everything matters and nothing matters, simultaneously and truthfully. That my health or job or some aspect of my life both distresses me terribly and also doesn't bother me at all - not sequentially, and not theoretically, but actually and continually and simultaneously.

Along with this, everything else seems to be capable of multiple perspectives the same way. Morality simultaneously matters and doesn't, death simultaneously matters and doesn't, happiness simultaneously matters and doesnt, loneliness simultaneously matters and doesn't. The loneliness I hated, the health issues that affect my life, also aren't important at all. They are real and major features in my life, and also pure self created imagined fabrications of no meaningfulness whatsoever, at the same time. I don't even know how to explain that to others, except it's so.

Another way to convey it is a bit like this: At one level X is the case, at another level Y is the case, and all levels co-exist and are equally "true". Rather than picking a single "true" perception and working model, instead choose which "level" of perception you want to adopt, based on the purposes for adopting it, and one's inclination at the time.