Stimuli can be divided into two general classes: distal and proximal. Distal stimuli are actual objects or events which happen "out there" in the world, and proximal stimuli is the information that our sensory receptors receive about that object or event. For example, a tree falling in a forest would be a distal stimuli linked to a proximal stimuli of light rays and sound waves which reflect and stimulate our eyes and ears (Coren, Ward & Enns, 1999). However, the proximal stimuli is not always an ideal source of information about the distal stimuli, and other factors such as context in which the distal stimulus occurs affect our perception, such that perception of objects may be viewed as a form of multidimensional interaction (Uttal, 1981).
This has got me thinking about the buddhist notion of right view. So often in practice, I mistakenly seek to avoid my perceptive activity in favour of a direct apprehension of the senses. From the science I've been reading on sensory-perception distinctions, my attempts, whilst valid in the context of learning, are nonetheless significantly illusory. But more importantly, including the perceptive and cognitive arrangements which intertwine with sensory information it got me thinking that right view not only includes the process of consciously recognising the fine distinctions between functions, but also paying credence to their interconnectedness, such that the cognitive expectations (like context) are essential elements of right view in practice. It seems to me that only through embodying appropriate distinctions and connections between and within all the ways we unfold across the twelvefold chain, will we allow ourselves to be poised for direct perception of reality - or right view.
