The Geometry of Perception: When Right Angles Don't Meet
That iconic scene from the 1998 film Yugpurush, where an unjustly confined Anirudh, played by Nana Patekar, perfectly depicts the game of perception. Despite his physical subjugation, Anirudh's sketch of the police officer on the other side of the bars reveals a profound truth about how we interpret reality. The officer, initially impressed by his artwork, is struck by the unsettling ambiguity of the sketch. The very iron bars meant to imprison Anirudh visually confine the police officer in his sketch. Anirudh’s subsequent explanation that, from his side, the officer appears detained while the officer sees Anirudh imprisoned from his side, forces us to confront that our understanding of reality is linked to our vantage point, demonstrating how the same reality can be perceived and interpreted differently.
The assertion that one person can be right while another cannot be considered wrong stems from the understanding that our experiences and interpretations are inherently subjective. Our realities are not simply reflections of an objective world, but rather intricate constructions built upon the foundations of our unique influences, cultures, and emotions through which our minds process information. Each factor acts as a Filter, selectively shaping the data we receive and impacting the conclusions we draw. What appears as a self-evident truth to one individual may be perceived and evaluated through a vastly different lens by another, leading to interpretations that, while seemingly contradictory, are internally and properly coherent within their respective frameworks of interpretation and analysis.
While the majority of India views Ravana as the ten-headed demon who abducted Sita and waged war against Lord Rama, pockets of reverence for him persist. In places like Mandora in Rajasthan, Ravana is considered the son-in-law of the town, and his effigy is not burnt during Dussehra; instead, prayers are offered. Similarly, in Bisrakh, Uttar Pradesh, believed to be Ravana’s birthplace, the villagers mourn his death rather than celebrate it. These traditions often stem from unique interpretations of the epic, viewing Ravana as a localised scholar, a powerful king and a devoted devotee of Shiva. This highlights how the complexities of perception and traditions can lead to drastically different valuations of even the most universally condemned and wretched figures of mythology, like the Dashanana.
The concept of wrongness typically implies a deviation from an absolute, universally agreed-upon truth. However, the existence of such truth becomes questionable when we acknowledge the inherent variability in human perception and cognition. Our senses, while providing us with information about the external world, are also prone to biases and limitations. The frameworks we employ to organise and make sense of this sensory input are shaped by our individual and collective experiences. Cultural norms, societal values, and personal biases all contribute to how we choose to interpret information and form judgments. Consequently, what one culture or individual deems to be a fundamental truth may be bluntly challenged or reinterpreted within a different cultural or personal context.
Our self-interest powerfully sculpts our perceptions, twisting clear truths to align with our desires. The global consensus on Russia's aggression against Ukraine, marked by invasion, annexation, atrocities, and ceasefire violations, paints a clear picture of right and wrong. Yet, the call from some nations for Ukraine to concede its territory, or even implicitly surrender, often betrays a self-serving pragmatism. These voices, eager to capitalise on the ongoing conflict and advance their hidden agendas, prioritise expediency over justice. However, not all nations are driven by such opportunistic calculations. Many nations honour dignity and justice, suggesting that even in the face of overwhelming power, not all would join them if they cannot beat them and would rather prefer to fight to the finish.
Today, absolutes of black and white are often elusive. What we perceive as correct or incorrect, moral or immoral and truthful or false is frequently contingent upon the unique lens of our perception. Like Robin Hood, forever a thief for the affluent he pilfered and a saviour to the impoverished he supported, or the act of killing in self-defence, simultaneously viewed as survival and homicide, most of reality resides in the nuanced shades of grey. Cultural divides further illustrate this, with practices openly embraced in the West often condemned in the East. This inherent subjectivity in our understanding, shaped by our backgrounds, societal norms, and temporal shifts, ensures that definitive classifications are rare, and a vast majority of human actions and beliefs occupy the undefined grey area.
Even in seemingly more objective domains, such as the interpretation and evaluation of artistic merit, the influence of perspective remains significant. Two individuals examining the same art may arrive at different conclusions based on their prior knowledge, analytical frameworks, and their emphasis on morality. Similarly, appreciating art is notoriously subjective, with individual tastes and preferences shaping aesthetic judgments. What one person finds to be a masterpiece; another may dismiss as uninspired. In these instances, it is difficult to definitively label one interpretation as wrong simply because it differs from another. This divergence often reflects the difference in application of criteria, the prioritisation of elements, or the resonance of craft with people of different interests.
The ancient temples of Khajuraho, erected by the Chandela dynasty, stand as a compelling testament to the diverse ways sexuality has been perceived and represented. Their intricate stone carvings openly depict a spectrum of sexual positions and practices, a feature that elicits sharply contrasting reactions. For some, these depictions are considered vulgar and offensive, a blemish on sacred spaces. Yet, for others, they represent a frank and artistic exploration of an essential aspect of life, a celebration of human desire and the intricate dance of intimacy. This dichotomy underscores how the very act of sex can be framed either as a profound expression of love and a fundamental process of procreation or as a means of satisfaction of our perverted lust and desires and a form of mere recreation.
Imagine two individuals looking at the same number. One, positioned to the left, unequivocally sees a '6'. The other, viewing it from the right, is equally certain it is a '9'. Neither is inherently incorrect. Their perception is dictated by their unique perspective. This simple illustration mirrors the complexities of human understanding. Just because our perspective yields an irrefutable truth, it does not invalidate the viewpoint of another. Their wrongness, as we might perceive it, could simply be a consequence of experiencing life differently. To truly understand and perhaps even bridge divides requires us to step into the shoes of others and go beyond the constricting confines of our perspective and endeavour to examine the world and its myriad interpretations from contrast and diverse standpoints.
In today's world, a divide between rightist and leftist ideologies fuels a regrettable animosity, blinding individuals to the merits that may lie beyond their chosen camp. We often succumb to the comfort of echo chambers, judging opposing views without the full spectrum of understanding, becoming willing adherents to ideologies that mirror our pre-existing beliefs. A parallel and centrist lens reveals the inherent strengths and weaknesses within both right and left ideologies, exposing the fallacy of absolute perfection in either. Only by transcending the symbolic shackles of ideology and focusing on the individual merit of leaders can a truly beneficial global future be forged, a yearned freedom currently hampered by the limitations of our intensely entrenched political perceptions.
Just as a triangle aiming for the perfect equilateral form, with all sides rendered equal, inherently excludes the sharp perspective of a right angle, so too does our increasingly multilateral world struggle with the intolerance of differing viewpoints. The rigid 90-degree certainty of right cannot coexist with the harmonious equality of perspectives. For a triangle to truly embody equilateralism, where every side holds the same value, the angles must necessarily be acute, allowing for a multitude of viewpoints, none dominating the others by being the sole truth. In this complex geometry of human interaction, the pursuit of an equilateral understanding demands the acceptance of diverse angles, fostering a space where each perspective, though not a right angle, contributes equally to the whole.
