v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-GB
X-NONE
AR-SA

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Again and again, one of the deepest mysteries of life, is what
exactly is ‘reality’?

We can agree that reality is that which surrounds us, including our
bodies, General Abstract Vision (gav), plus that which is what I call
the Mental Abstract Vision (mav), like the known senses,
feelings, vision, dreams, emotions, thoughts and so on.

In truth, both categories, (gav) and (mav) are fundamentally alike
in their basic constituents, since both are ultimately made up of an unlimited
number of indefinable, indistinct and unrecognizable ‘number’ of mutually
contrasting and similar images, and that is why, I classify them as being
‘abstract’.

I use the term ‘abstract’ to indicate that which the Mind
cannot recognize or understand or relate to or see in any way.

I argue that these are the basic fundamental constituents of
Reality.

An oddity, indeed.

For an infinite ‘number’ of abstract images that, in themselves
have absolutely no relation, and far more importantly here – they have
absolutely no ‘flavours’ (to use the quantum terminology for subatomic
particles here) to the perceiver, and it is precisely these flavourless
abstract images that do ultimately emerge, and then do create a recognizable
and relatable image and environment and feelings that we ultimately call as
that totality, which is every person’s own reality.

What is the difference between the constituents of the (gav) and
(mav)?

The difference is in the degree and depth of abstraction.

Thus, a table in front of me (gav) is one that is less abstract
than if I were to think and imagine a table in my mind (mav).

But we must never forget that the fundamental constituents of all
reality are all abstract.

The question becomes – to what extent are they abstract?

The existence of abstract constituents for all attributes of
reality can be seen, whenever we wish to look at any aspect of reality.

I have discussed, in many of my previous articles, the aspect of
vision in relation to the mind, and what role abstraction plays in the
beingness or in being the essence of vision.

And here I need to add that every aspect of reality is made up from
an unlimited number of meaningless, unrelatable, indefinite number of abstract
images.

Now, I need to be more precise. For in many instances, within the
described or the studied time frame (TF) of the Observed Person (Op), the
reality that he feels, or perceives can be a totality of these unlimited
number of (gav) and (mav) that can and need to be compressed in order for the
said Observer (Ob) to make any understanding and relatable meaning from these
same attributes.

To understand the ‘Reality’, the first and most fundamentally
important understanding that needs to be accepted, is that Reality is and can
only be a ‘truth’ for an observing person. Therefore, Reality can only be
relative to each individual and cannot be described as a phenomenon beyond the
mind of each individual.

Reality, beyond an Observer, is therefore a meaningless concept.

Now, relative to the person we are studying, given a prescribed
(TF), Time Frame, we can say that the Observer (Ob) is looking at a table in
front of him, and so we call that situation as 
being General Abstract Vision (gav). 

Now, if we say the (Ob) was only concentrating at looking on the
chair, what else can we say from that specific situation?

Assuming, (Ob) was not thinking of anything else, and had no
feelings, or memories and, in essence, during the specified time frame, (Ob)
was thinking of nothing and looking at nothing else;

Then, we can say that the Mind and the Reality of (Ob) during (tf)
5 seconds were equal to the observed object, the chair.

The Mind and the entire Reality of the person in question becomes functionally
equal and- or as one - with that which is being observed.

In other words, within the 5 seconds, the Reality and the Mind and
Consciousness and the sense of the ‘Self’ and ‘I’ for the (Observer x), became
completely unified functionally with the object he was looking at.

In other words, the total entities and constituents and contents of
the entire mind/the ‘Self’, the Consciousness of (Ob), during the 5 prescribed
seconds, constitute and add to nothing more than the observing of the chair.

Thus, when we ask our question: what is the Reality for Observer
(x), we answer thus:  - during a certain
time, Observer’s Reality was an observed chair in front of him. That means,
that the totality of the Reality of the Observer (x) was nothing more
and nothing less than that particular observed object. 

And, we add, that equally so, the entire - Beingness,
Consciousness, Mind, the ‘Self’, the ‘I’ of our Observer (x) – or the
totality of what constitutes the Mind of our particular Observer, during
the 5 second period, was itself the observed object, the chair.

In other words, Mind becomes, functionally speaking, exactly as
one, unified as that which the Mind is concentrating on.

And, further, the Reality for our Observer (x) during the specified
Time Frame is exactly as what the constituents of his mind are during the same
time frame.

Ayad Gharbawi