What Is The ‘Reality’ For The

Observer Who Is Observing A Person?

February 3, 2010 – Damascus, Syria

Ayad Gharbawi

The definition/s of a Mind can only

be ‘defined’ within a particular Time Frame (tf). Why?

Because, the Constituents of the Mind

(CoM), can only be defined and understood by combining the sum total (∑) of the (CoM) within the defined TF.

But ‘who’ is it that decides what

exactly is the Time Frame to be?

Let us, for example, ask what

observers can define our Observer’s mind/personality is like.

For example, Person A, may say ‘I

wish to observe the Observer for 10 seconds’, whilst another Person B, may say,

that he wishes to study the Observer for 40 seconds.

Clearly, then, Person A will net a

different reading from Person B, as per our Observer? For the Observers of our

Observer, yes, they can ‘pick and choose’ any moment/s in time, and therefrom

they can ‘create’ an opinion or an image of what Observer is.

And, yes, each and every observer

observing of our Observer (Ob) will get a differing picture, image, definition

of what it is that constitutes the ‘reality’ of our Observer.

Let us suppose, that our Observer

(Ob) experienced the following:

MT1) 

[

 {

} ]

The above means that our Observer, (

),

experiences/feels the following: one Emotion, two Odours that are different,

and two Sounds that are also different. Each constituent lasts for 5 seconds

each, and so the total is 25 seconds.

Here, we do not need to concern

ourselves how each Constituent of the Mind (CoM) has affected our Observer

precisely because in our example that is being presented here, we are simply

studying, how people besides our own Observer, are viewing/experiencing our

Observer.

That is why I have deliberately not

put in flavours on each of the (CoM) – meaning, positive, negative or

neutral.

Now let us study, our first person,

who is looking at our Observer. Let’s label him Person A.

Person A observes our Observer (Ob)

on the following basis:

MT2)   [

{ x

{

} ]

The above means: person A was

watching/observing our friend (x). Notice that (A)

experienced/related/interacted with person (x) only for the above mentioned

moments – that is the (Em1) + (Sn2) and the (Sn2). It can almost be said that

he ‘picks and chooses’ which moments and which images/aspects of (x) that he

wishes. In other moments, it may well happen that person (A) will

observe/interact with (x) and he will ‘pick and choose’ characteristics of (x) without

being conscious of specifically choosing these moments.

This is an important point: Observer

will, depending on his (

-)

(Awareness Factor), notice/observe/react/interact with the Observed person in

any possible ways/combinations that he may choose (being aware) or without

being aware at what he is ‘choosing’ – choosing, yet being himself unaware of the

‘act of choosing’ - to observe from the Observed person.

And notice here that we do not need

to put wether our friend (x) is ()+ or (-). Why? Because Person A has no functional relevance or

connection as to if (x) is in any state of awareness. It is an irrelevant

factor for him. Therefore, we need not bother to describe the Awareness Factor

of person (x).

Notice, also, we need not concern

ourselves with the Time Frame (tf), as per relative to (x) himself, precisely because, Person A, cannot

relate to what time experience person (x) himself experience and therefore, the

Time Factor for Person (x) is meaningless for Person A. And so, we did not

include the (tf) as per person (x).

Now it is necessary to define how

Person A, experienced Time, as per (x). To simplify matters, let us say that

(A) observed (x) for a total of 10 seconds.

MT3) 

 { ( x {

 } ) }

The above means that: person (A)

sees/experiences/feels person (x) for a total of 10 seconds. That is the Time

Frame is experienced relative to Person (A).

And it is within those 10 seconds,

that person (A) sees/experiences/feels what the nature/definition/reality

person (A) as experienced by our person (x). From these 10 seconds, (AP

forms an opinion/image/truth/understanding of what person (x) is all about.

Please notice that there can be a

total disconnection in the ‘truth/reality/understanding’ of how (x) relates to

these constituents, as compared to what person (A) relates to as being the

image/reality of himself.

Indeed, the image/reality that person

(A) ultimately chooses in seeing (x) to be can totally differ from how (x) sees

himself. Here lies the root cause for misunderstandings between people. The

opposite to that situation, is when Observer (A) sees/identifies the

images/reality of person (x) in the same manner that person (x) happens to see

himself. Here we find a situation there will be harmony between these two

people. Indeed, the ‘charismatic’ personality is the one who gets the

deepest approximation of what the observed person feels and sees himself to be,

and the latter will be stupefied by this uncanny ability to ‘see right through

him’ and that, in turn produces a feeling of awe, over respect and so on.

Thus, we can say, that as per Person

(A),

MT4)

 {  (x ∑ {

 } ) }

Now the summation  (∑) of the above 3 (CoM), which are the

(

 must come to finality (again, within the

prescribed Time Frame).

So, we can say, that as per person

(A), he experienced/felt the person (A) within the 10 seconds to be the result

of the sum total of experiences/feelings/thoughts that he experienced while he

interacted with (x).

Fine, so what does the summation of:

[ ∑ (

 ]

add up to, as per Person (A)?

We can say that the summation of (A)

experiencing person (x) in the time frame that (A) experienced, and within

which, existed the above 3 constituents – we can say, that (x) experienced/felt

that (x) was a person whose definition/reality is to be a ‘REALITY’ that can

only exist for person (A) and more importantly, this ‘truth’, or reality’ that

person (A) believes is to be the truth and reality of person (x) need not be

infinite. In other words, within seconds, or minutes, or hours, or days or

years, person (A) may well change his opinion/mind or his sense of what is the

‘truth’ or the ‘Reality’ of what it is that constitutes the ‘Truth’ of person

(x) as seen/felt/experienced/remembered by Person (A).

Thus, within our Matrix system, we

can state:

MT5) 

[

 {  ( x {

 } ) } ]

Now, since,

MT6)  

x {

 } 

=        ( x =

  );

So,

MT7)

{

  } 

] 

 .