How significant is your insignificant and vice versa?

Significant (adjective), that which are critical and consequential to an outcome. Insignificant (adjective), that which are trivial and inconsequential to an outcome. Though the significance or insignificance of something may be ascertained to by its state of being absent or present in a designated outcome, the perceptive valuation of such state being so is still dependent on one who perceives. Hence, something may be significant to one yet totally insignificant to another.

Let's evaluate how in one's perceptive reality, something should be valuated as being trivial or critical. Consider the logic in deductive reasoning - if an item which was removed or added does not effect an outcome in any way, said item is insignificant to the entirety. In pragmatic maxim, an item which may be added or eliminated without affecting the outcome of a concept is not part of said concept.

Parallax: One's values and priorities in life may form the basis in determining what is or not significant in one's perceptive reality. Something may be trivial to one yet critical to another and vice versa. The rule of thumb would be to determine if something is consequential and critical in one's concept of values and priorities in life. It doesn't matter how trivial and inconsequential something may be in other's perception, if something is critical and consequential to the attainment of your will, that thing is significant to you in so far as your perceptive reality is concerned.

Parallax: How much of your life is devoted to inconsequential and trivial matters while the consequential and critical remain neglected? Are your perceptions more of an illusion? Are you living the life yourself want to be? Or a life of how you perceived others want you to be? Only you can prove to yourself that whatever objectives you have has been attained or not, if you had succeeded or failed in accomplishing that soever. From other's perspective, you may even have been the smart, wealthy, famous, influential, sought-after, good-looking, healthy, knowledgeable, philanthropic and super personality, yet would still be a failure to yourself if your primary goals and objectives in life were never attained and living a life yourself don't want.

Parallax: Does an award or citation mean something? None except as a psychological, ego or morale booster for oneself. Other's perception of you is actually insignificant in determining attainment in one's perceptive reality. If you haven't achieved what you had willed for, you have failed regardless of what you have been awarded for.

Parallax: Significance in other's perceptive reality versus one's own. Your significance or insignificance in other's perceptive reality can be ascertained to by your state of being present or absent. To determine how significant you are in other's perceptive reality, simply take a leave of absence and observe how many people looked for you? Were you missed? Has anything changed? This can be further substantiated by tallying the number of people who would surround you during your most troubled times against those who would cheer your most rewarding moments. To determine how significant you are in your own perceptive reality, tally the number of things you had accomplished against the number of things you want to.

Your perception of reality plays a vital role in addressing what is supposed to be trivial from critical. Consider the following being of significance and insignificance from variable perspective of views.

The human physical term averages to about eighty years which may be insignificant compared to the billions of years the world had and could be in existence, but in our perceptive reality we would treasure each moment of life as if time existed just for us. The world's human population ranged in the billions. Unless one is a president, king, star or tycoon, would be just another statistical data represented by some alphanumeric symbol, yet we would love and worship our names and emblems as if gods. People sacrificed lives and limbs to acquire earthly treasures, yet not realizing the world consists of mineral stone deposits in greater volume than the grains of dust we were made of. Humans lust and kill for food and sex, yet not realizing that food is a consequence of nature and sex is an urge which can be satiated by anyone of the billions we share the world with. The universe is innately huge that even as you are reading this article, another may be doing and meditating as you are and resembling you in so many ways. As we find significance in other's perceptive reality, we tend to find our own insignificance and vice versa. The key lies in how to strike a balance between our interconnected realities. Without others we would not be able to valuate the relevance of our significance and insignificance. Without self-significance, we would all be living as a consequence of others' perceptive realities.

"It is ironic that as humans, we had exhausted so much resources in a futile attempt to change and conquer a world which we perceived and claimed as reality, when the only conquerable conquest we ever should and could have conquered is oneself - our minds' perception of reality that is."

What makes a perception an illusion?

Perception (noun), a mind's interpretation of reality. Illusion (noun), an unreal or misleading appearance or image, figment of one's imagination, a misconception, a delusion. What makes a perception an illusion? When it is unreal or misleading? Unreal or misleading to whom? Apparently not to the one who perceives, for it wouldn't be an illusion had one perceived it otherwise. To the one who perceives, an illusion is just as real as any perception. Hence, one's perception may only be an illusion for another.

When we perceive of something, we form an opinion or concept. Depending on whether such opinion may be negative, neutral or positive, said concept then assimilates into our mainstream consciousness structure which then affects our individuality accordingly. A perception of something as negative will create the consequential negative mindset associated with that concept, regardless of whether such is actually negative or not to another.

Other's perception may differ with ours. It doesn't matter if we perceive something in a contrasting opinion with that of another. Provided such concept has passed the logic test based on the principles on pragmatic maxim, such may actually work to our favor if not for another. Other's opinions will only affect our perceptive reality up to the extent we allow them to. The rule of thumb would be to determine if a certain concept does work to our favor or whether such is a misconception or illusion in our perceptive reality.

Any claim to infallibility by oneself beomes the fallibility in itself

"Absolute certainty of any knowledge is impossible". There is no absolute certainty of anything (which includes this writing). Whatever your perceptive reality unfolds is a version of your interpretation of totality. The events you think unfolding, places you think visited and people you think met - exist within the framework of your mind. Your mind exudes a physical state comprising a body and brain which in turn relates to the laws of physical nature. The pleasure or pain you think experiencing is your transcended body interacting with other physical elements comprising the physical state. I'm physically writing this blog on the purported assumption that, other beings within my perceptive reality exist likewise, but I can not ascertain this to absolute certainty. My assumption of your existence is yielding to any certainty. If I would claim your existence for certainty, then I succumb to fallibility.

It is logically fallible to ascertain a claim to infallibility if the one asserting the claim is itself. For instance, consider the book of religion. A book of religion is suppose to be perceived as a book written by a god. Why? Because the book itself says so? Or some other humans said so? Or some other humans claimed the book itself or a god said so? Above is an example of a claim ascertained to by itself. This method of analogy contradicts rational logic. An absolute certainty is assumed by another based on an absolute claim made by the same entity owning to the claim. The flaw is in the logic process of analogy. The claim is senseless because it was ascertained to by itself. One cannot ascertain if the book of religion is indeed written by a god based on an assertion made by the book itself. One may instead end up ascertaining that claiming of such by the book itself makes itself likely fallible.

Had the book of religion not claimed by itself to be written by a god, one can even consider the possibility of it being written by such. Since one's concept of a god is that of being infallible, one now doubts the book was indeed written by a god, for it was too fallible for the author to have made such a fallible claim. Too fallible to some extent that one would even suspect such book to be written by a devil. Parallax: If a devil had wrote the book of religion, it may not want to acknowledge such. Godly beings would not want to read such had the devil claimed it. Instead, what a devil would have done is - claim the book was written by a god. This way, it be assured that godly beings abide by it henceforth doomed thereafter.

A book is physical hence produced by physical methodology whilst a god is an intangible and metaphysical entity. To ascertain the metaphysical qualities of a physical state, the affirmation must come from the metaphysical, not from within the framework of the same physical state. To ascertain if the book of religion was written by a god, one must first perceive the metaphysical entity of that which is a god, the act of writing made by that god and the transcended physical manifestation of such writing which is the book itself. If one can distinctively perceive the above three qualities, to some extent one may logically claim for oneself that a god wrote the book of religion. Only you can say to yourself if the book of religion was indeed written by a god or not. If you attest to or perceive this claim to or from another, you succumb to fallibility. To think and believe by faith within one's perceptive reality is rational. To preach, attest or claim one's faith to another on the assumption this be perceived likewise is what makes the basis of thought analogy irrational.

"I don't mind what you think or believe, as long as you don't shove it down my throat even if my mouth isn't open"

Fallible nature of the human mind dictates human nature

From the reciprocal (negative and positive) mind characteristics of the homo sapien, two discerning traits exude. Creativity and fallibility. Whilst other beings evolve physically, humans evolve intellectually. Whilst humans had invented computing machines which are capable of speed and infallible accuracy, the latter lacked creativity and ingenuity of an analytical and creative human mind.

What makes a human fallible?

The human mind's subjective, emotional, impulsive or urge process of thinking, also known as passion. Because passion is involuntary and supersedes logic - logical errors, inaccuracies and inconsistencies naturally predominates a human mind and perceptive reality. Though passion fuels one's desire to be special, creative, ingenious, clever, inventive etc, the same produces negative mind traits when over driven, interrupts logical objective and critical thinking. Until the human being evolves in time to isolate the urge or impulsive thought process from interfering with logical, objective and critical thinking, derives conclusion, initiates action and reaction based on logic than passion, the nature of human beings would remain that of being fallible.