We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."

-Anais Nin

It's amazing how we view the world through constricted eyes, unknowing of how to react to the diversity lining life's wake. Eyes that have only seen and experienced that which has been placed directly in front of them. We understand the things we see to represent that which it aligns with first in our memory. The instant you see a growling dog in front of you, the image rides the brain's electricity around your hard drive searching for the quickest association. This image will attach to a specific experience you have had before or have heard about from someone else. That is when it enters what I call The Thinking Process. The product of this process is a conclusion, and from that conclusion you create a reaction, which, in this case, would include you either soiling yourself or remaining calm.

In the realm of behavioral science, the way someone reacts to a new situation is a discussion for another day. Just as well, I will not be considering the "fight or flight" argument here because it would complicate what can stand alone in an theoretic discussion. It is the conclusion I am concerned with, not the reaction, because a reaction is to a conclusion what a "bang" is to a gunshot. To pose this analogy in my hypothesis' question: why would someone experience a live gunshot but consider it a toy gunshot? Why can we only see things with our labels and not see them for what they truly are?

After the image has been captured, it enters The Thinking Process. During this process the image is fitted for its conclusion, but there is only one filter between seeing and understanding: perception. The memory that is matched with the image is chosen because of their perception of what this image actually is. Let us use an example: Two women hold hands as they walk along the sidewalk. It would be easy for me now to say "what the normal person would think" in this situation, but that is an idea I wish to dispel. What I would think in this situation is in direct link to my experiences and knowledge. If I spend the majority of my maturation with lesbians, I might be more inclined to assume that these two women are lesbians than to consider any other possibility. And everyone else will draw their own conclusions based on what their perception is.

How is love affected by all of this? Consider the average person, with limited experiences and short-sighted expectations, learning to grasp, tolerate and commiserate with a society loudly entrenched in a social, sexual and spiritual battle with the moral establishment. How will individuals fair in the war of self-understanding and acceptance of others? Only their reaction will tell. But on a less overwhelming level, how is one able to cast aside their dogmatic ways to find content in someone whom they love but cannot relate to?

Being a human being with history logged in your subconscious, you have formed an opinion about the lifestyle that you lead. Everything you consider right is based on that history. Though you may never have actually experienced a 'perfect life', it is what you subconsciously yearn for. But, more over, you attempt to live a lifestyle based on your perception. You know this 'perfect life' like clockwork from following a hero, like a father or mother, or external influences, such as the movies or books. And not only do you know it intrinsically, you also know that anything outside of it is wrong.

I have created a detailed example of star-crossed lovers, so as to better apply our theory of perception and it's troubling effect on reality and, in our case, love.

Man Y. You have lived hard and memorable: experiencing too much by fifteen, sliding through school on your ass until it expected something back, searching the world for excitement but only finding what was comfortable, dating a flock of normal women who all eventually succumbed to your proclivity for nightlife, settling for a mundane job and existence. You have spent eight years in relationships more out of fear of being alone than out of love. Many years ago you quietly placed all of your talent and dreams in a closet and forgot them. Now you have the opportunity to rekindle a self you lost years ago. But alas, love (i.e. Woman X) appeared and dominated your life. It was everything you could have ever imagined, but you questioned whether that was because of your penchant for monogamy or because of her. Your expectations of her were low, but her's were high because of what she expected from the 'perfect life'. You tried to change these differences but they were hardwired and she found your progression too slow. A series of breaks, issues and separations ensued and now you finally have your time and your bed to yourself.

Woman X. You have experienced the complexion of life: moving cross-country at eighteen, failed loves filled with warning signs, the disastrous marriage that bore two wonderful children, and the uphill battle of feeling validated in a world that doesn't care. Just as you were finally breaking free, when you were so close to finding yourself and had rediscovered the secrets to fulfilling long forgotten dreams, love (i.e. Man Y) appeared and dominated your life. It was everything you could have ever imagined, though not quite in sync with the map drawn many years ago when you traced your hero. And though the relationship was flawed, it is possible that you never truly let his love into your world. You considered his social needs excessive and expressed often how they created trust issues. Whether it was bitter independence or just scar tissue, you let go before the expectations of the 'perfect life' were met. A series of breaks, issues and separations ensued and now you finally have your time and your bed to yourself.

In studying these examples, we can find obvious instances where perception affected the relationship. But in regards to our thesis, we must ask ourselves, "could they ever see one another for who they are"? She might be able to embrace him if she could let go of her need to fulfill the requirements of a fantasy life. He might be able to fill the holes in his heart and have a great supporter of his talents if he could grow out of his habits. But where is the decoder, the potion that will open their eyes to the possibilities and put their minds at ease? Tolerance would not work in this situation because it is a band-aid that falls off. What we need here is a pure understanding of who each other really is, because they are ultimately no different from one another. When you scrape away the details, all that remains are two people who cannot see each other for anything other than what they think. The Thinking Process is producing a black-and-white conclusion from a color image; a right-and-wrong conclusion when judgment is irrelevant.

Even though these are two people with different past and presents, they could logically share a future together. But first, they must remove the filter from their Thinking Process. In fact, we all need to remove our filters and see the world for exactly what it is. Our perception of images must be disconnected from our previous experiences. We can no longer be cloud by greed, intolerance and ignorance. We can finally enjoy this earth and begin rejuvenate its richness. And, for the sake of love, we can avoid punishing someone for another's crime. Losing the filter will refresh our understandings of normality and make the playing field level with attainable goals.

I realize that this was a long and tiring biopsy of a quote. However, it is the conclusion of my Thinking Process. I'm sure that for each individual the quote brings about different feelings altogether. After reading the quote again, what does your filter leave you with?