The first photo (the one on the left), taken in a perspective as close as possible to the reality of the object photographed (close lens) gave me a real perception of the jungle. The second photo (the one on the right), taken from a perspective further away from the reality of the object photographed (wide lens) gave me the perception of a crack in the concrete of the family home… Nature has taken back its rights there.

It seems to me that it is not reality that is multiple, contrary to what many people say by way of a shortcut. Reality is unique. The perspective with which we look at it is decisive because it is multiple. Depending on this perspective, our perception will be different. It is therefore the multiplicity of perspectives that induces a multiplicity of perceptions. Reality remains the same. As a trained mathematician, I am almost tempted to say: Perception = Function (Constant Reality, Random Perspective).

In the case of a human relationship (friendly, loving, …), is it very different? I am talking about the perception we have of the said relationship. Let’s imagine two people with chemistry. You know, those relationships where time and space cease to exist, because the people are just both in resonance. It’s a reality and the protagonists are always aware of it. It’s a constant. However, very often, if the perspective (or zoom) that each person gives to the other is different, … then for sure, the perception of the relationship will be different as well.

How can we correct things and get back to reality? I don’t really have an answer to this question, except by talking about imagination. If I had stuck to the picture on the left, I would certainly have concluded that it was a jungle. But with a little imagination I could have guessed a crack… to be repaired of course.

These notions of Reality, Perspective, Perception, still leave me in a permanent questioning. This is undoubtedly the reason why I have always opted for constructivism (in very synthetic terms, reality constructed through observation with undefined protocols). I am in my element, construction, and not determinism (in very synthetic terms, the fixed reality that is tested with predefined protocols).

I admit that this helps me a lot in my work and in my human relations. I modestly try to build reality with the other, hoping that the other perceives it … But here again, everything depends on the perspective (zoom) that the other gives himself … That is to say, a perspective with his nose in his reality, or a perspective made of achievable challenges. The future always says it…