A Study of Vision in Relation to the Mind and how it Relates to the ‘I’ or the ‘Self’


Ayad Gharbawi

In this study, I will propose, that the relationship between Mind
and Vision can enable us to draw certain conclusions relevant to
one aspect of what constitutes the Mind, and therefrom, we may
seek a better understanding of what the ‘I’, or the ‘Self’ is. In
seeking such an understanding, I have sought to increase our
understanding of the issues we shall discuss, by employing novel
mathematical and logic symbols. This will be of fundamental
importance to my thesis, not only because I am using novel
notations and symbols, but because the latter will enable us to
clarify and speed up our understanding of the subject matter.
I will propose, that just as it was necessary for G.Boole to create
a new symbolic language in order to uncover an existing
‘reality’, so too, we need to seek another viewpoint from which
we can analyze this particular study I am presenting – and that
has necessitated the establishment of novel symbols with new
What I seek to do in this paper is this: to establish the salient
characteristics of the relationship between Mind and Vision; it
will be proposed that these characteristics possess an inherently
abstract quality. It ought to be immediately stated that the
concept of the ‘abstract’ will be fundamentally and extremely
important in our study.
Further, I seek to employ this relationship and interaction
between Mind and Vision, by creating a clearer understanding
of what Mind and Vision are, and that, in turn, we will allow us
a closer inspection of what the ‘Self’ is.
I would like to add, that this manuscript is the beginning of my
proposals – in other words, there is a lot more work that I have
done, with respect to this subject. And so, I have necessarily
restricted myself, to discussing only the introductory concepts in
this study.
* * * * * *
In this part of the study, I shall attempt to explain how Vision is
of critical importance if we seek to understand what Mind is.
We shall see that the very abstractness of Vision is, in itself, a
contributing factor to the overall recognition of what Mind is.
To begin our understanding of what I call the ‘elusive’ quality of
Vision is, I shall pose a simple question: When we are seeing an
object, (let us say, a flower), what do we actually ‘see’? I shall
propose that what we are seeing is an ‘Abstract Image’ of that
object. I will now explain why I use the terms ‘Abstract Vision’.
I deliberately use the term ‘Image’ because our visual perception
of any observed object is dependent on the differing anatomical
differences and the differing optical accuracy of the observer.
Thus, if we allow a bee, an eagle, a human and a worm to see
our object, (the flower), they will all ‘see’ different ‘images’ of
the same object. Therefore, the one observed object has an
unlimited number of differing ‘images’, and all these differing
images contradict each other, since, to use our example, what
the bee ‘sees’ will not be what the worm ‘sees’, and so on. That is
why I use the term ‘Image’. There is no ‘one’ ‘real’ image of the
flower. Observers can only see ‘Images’ and these Images are all
different from other observers.
The reason why I use the term ‘Abstract’ will be more difficult to
explain. I propose that when we see any object, we are seeing a
collection, an amalgamation, or a collection of nothingnesses.
Let me suggest this much: focus on any object (our flower, for
example). Now, your Mind can relate to, recognize what he/she
is seeing; that is, the Observer – or, the ‘Self’ or the ‘I’ – can
state that he/she is seeing a flower. Next, focus on one specific
point on the flower, and try to think of nothing else, and try to
observe nothing else except at this particular point on the
flower. Now, try to ‘define’ for yourself what it is you are
actually seeing within this point on the flower. You will find, try
as you may, that you cannot observe anything. You are seeing a
‘nothingness’. As hard as you may concentrate; as focused as
you can be – your Vision will not ‘see’ anything that is visible,
perceptible or recognizable to your Mind.
Can we ever say, with any precision, what it is we ‘see’ when we
focus on one point on an object? I propose, that when we focus
our mind on one point on the Observed Object, (hereafter
referred to as ‘OO’), and we do not allow our mind to think of
anything else except on that point on the (OO), we ‘see’ a
‘nothingness’. By ‘nothingness’, I mean that our Mind cannot
relate to, or recognize anything within the boundaries of the
observed point. Furthermore, it is precisely this nothingness
which ultimately generates the ‘whole’ vision of the OO. It is for
this reason that I use the term ‘Abstract’ in describing Vision.
Now, we must elaborate on what we mean by ‘Abstract’, because
the concept of the Abstract will play such a fundamentally
important part in our thesis. By using the latter term – the
‘Abstract’ – I mean any perceived object that is indefinable,
indescribable, immeasurable, elusive, hazy, formless, blurred,
and perhaps most importantly; ‘Abstract’ means anything for
which our Mind simply cannot ‘see’, relate to, recognize or
comprehend in any meaningful manner.
All objects are made up of an unrecognizable, indefinable
‘number’ of nothingnesses. When an Observer (hereafter
referred to as ‘Ob’) looks at a particular point, or at a Focused
Observed Point, (hereafter referred to as ‘FOP’), on an (OO), an
Abstraction of Vision will necessarily occur, because what the
(Ob) sees is in the (FOP) is a nothingness – or nothing that
he/she can relate to, precisely because the constituents of any
object vis-à-vis Mind and Vision is made up of nothingnesses, or
abstractions. Therefore, Vision becomes irrelevant in relation to
the Observed Point, because there is no meaningful connection
between Mind and the (FOP). It is irrelevant to Mind precisely
because of the attributes of the (FOP) – these attributes being
Abstract. If Vision is to be understood as the recognition by
(Ob) vis-à-vis the (OO), then the (FOP), due to its abstract
qualities, can have no functional relationship to Mind.
This said, we can now turn to our original question, concerning
‘what’ it is that we ‘see’ when we are focusing on an object – the
bird. Let us now say this: let us look at a blank piece of white
paper; now, we may see shadows resulting from contours and
the texture of the paper. Let us assume that the paper has no
contours, no shadows and its texture is so plain that the colour
white is utterly uniform and without variations in hues. Let us
say we completely focus our looking on this piece of paper.
What exactly do we ‘see’? I propose, that when we focus on one
particular point on this paper, we shall ‘see’ a ‘nothing’. Why?
Because there does not exist any ‘point’ or ‘area’ on that paper,
wherefrom our Mind can ‘see’ anything, or our Mind can relate
to, recognize or comprehend as being anything meaningful.
From here, evolves our meaning of ‘nothingness’, when we
discuss Vision. This ‘nothingness’ can be appreciated by simply
trying, again and again to focus on any one particular point on
the paper – and we shall get the same results: nothingness.
However, since the surroundings around the Observer (including
the body of the Observer him/herself) will inevitably be ‘seen’
by the Observer, and since these sights and sounds will
inevitably distract the Observer from a complete focusing on the
Observed Object, we must, therefore, take our experiment one
step further.
Let us now assume that, by some method, we are unable to see
our body or any other object in our surroundings. Let us assume
that we are in a white coloured universe, (or any other colour
will do), and we have only our eyeballs and this ‘universe’ that
surrounds us with its uniform colour, with no contours or
variations in hue, and therefore, there are no contrasts in the
colour of this universe. We now ask our Observer to focus at
any one point in this universe and we ask the Observer: what do
you ‘see’? I propose that no Observer, in these circumstances,
will be able to focus on any point in this universe, and be able to
‘see’ anything. The Observer will see nothingness or a void.
Wherever the Observer will try to ‘see’, he/she will get no result.
A multitude of voids, or nothingnesses. Why? Because the
constituents of Vision are, as we have said, Abstract. The
essence, or the constituents of any perceived Object, is made of
abstractions – or nothingnesses. When seeing an Object, we are
seeing the totality, or the sum total of these nothingnesses that
ultimately ‘create’ the recognizable and meaningful whole.
Therefore, a multitude of nothingnesses or abstractions
ultimately create Vision.
Abstract Vision is similar, in a way, to the properties of the
electron as defined by Quantum Physics. The constituents of
Vision are not unlike what Heisenberg, Bohr and Schrodinger
perceived the ‘reality’ of the electron to be. Just as the electron
cannot be fully visualized, described, or defined, so too, the
constituents of Vision are abstractions that no human can
optically relate to in a functionally perceptible and meaningful
sense. And so, we come to the paradox and the seeming
illogicality of Vision: for Vision is made up of indefinable,
unobservable, unrecognizable ‘parts’, and yet, it is precisely
these unobservable voids that ultimately we come to ‘see’ an
image that our Mind can recognize and relate to. In other words,
a multitude of nothingnesses ultimately create perceptible,
meaningful Vision.
Let us elaborate on this ‘nothingness’ I am talking about. The
perceived ‘whole’ of any object makes sense to the observer –
that is, the observer can relate to it. The observer can say, “I am
looking at a flower”. However, the constituents can only be
defined as ‘abstract’ because they cannot be ‘seen’ in the first
place. It should be noted here, that words or terms such as
‘components’, or ‘constituents’ are misleading, since there are no
neat, cut and dry ‘components’ or ‘points’ to speak of. These
terms are, at best, the most accurate terms in the linguistic sense.
We can, therefore, speak of a vague, indefinable,
unrecognizable, shadowy ‘point’, or ‘area’ that the person can
focus on, and it is the summation of these ‘points’ and/or ‘areas’
that create the final recognizable object that is being seen.
We now turn our attention to another aspect of Vision vis-à-vis
the Mind. When we are not looking at anything, and when we
are not thinking or imagining anything – what, in that
circumstance, do we ‘see’? Let us take this example: when one is
being vacant minded, or is momentarily blanking out – and we
all experience this situation from time to time – what do we ‘see’
in that situation? Now, I have deliberately chosen this example,
because when we daydream, we are still seeing images in our
minds; and, when we dream, we see the dream itself. There are
times, however, when we are awake, and our Mind and Vision
see nothing – no Observed Objects and no Images. Our Mind is
being vacant or blanking out.
Now, I propose, that when we do ‘blank out’, the Vision we ‘see’
is the exact same as the Vision we ‘see’ when we concentrate
and focus at one particular point on an object or, the Observed
Object (OO). In other words, the results reveal that the person
who has momentarily ‘blanked out’, sees exactly the same as the
Observer who is focusing at one particular point on an Object.
Once again, we can say that Vision, in both cases, becomes
imperceptible, unrecognizable – and, ultimately Vision, in both
circumstances, becomes a nothingness.
* * * * * *
We have, thus far, seen that any Object we perceive is:
a. An Image, and by using the term ‘Image’, I mean that there
exists no one exact same Vision’ of any object – be it cat,
house, fire and so on. There is no unity of Vision on any
object, and therefore we cannot say that there is one Vision
of, let us say, a particular cat we are observing, and that
that Vision of that cat is the ‘real’ and only Vision of the
cat. No, there are an endless images of the cat (or any
other object) and each image will differ, in one way or
another, despite the fact that we are all observing the same
Object – in our example, the cat. That is why I use the
term ‘Image’. The latter is removed from the meaning of
‘Reality’, precisely because there is no one ‘Reality’ of any
perceived object.
b. Any Object we see is Abstract, because it is composed of
an infinite number of indefinable, unrecognizable, nonfigurative,
shadowy, intangible, imperceptible and
undetectable ‘points’ or ‘areas’ and all these areas do not,
and cannot, allow any human being to perceive them or
relate to them in any meaningful manner. The constituents
of any Object are abstractions or nothingnesses. Finally, it
is these limitless number of nothingnesses that ultimately
compose the larger Object that our Mind can then
recognize and relate to as being a dog, a table or whatever.
We can differentiate between the external world that we see
around us, and the Visions that we see in our Mind, and, in this
chapter, I shall address these two different dimensions vis-à-vis
Mind and Vision.
We can differentiate between our outside world, and what goes
on in our minds, and, it is with this difference in mind, that I
propose the following terms: ‘General Abstract Vision’ (GAV),
and ‘Mental Abstract Vision’ (MAV). General Abstract Vision
is the external Vision that we see around us, whereas, Mental
Abstract Vision is any Vision we ‘see’ in our minds, such as
thoughts, or when we daydream, or when we or when we recall
memories or when we are dreaming.
We can now proceed to use the novel notations in order to speed
up, and facilitate, our understanding of what we are presenting
When an Observer (Ob) looks at an Object in front of him (that
is, an Image that is not in his Mind), we can write the following:
( ) ( ) ( ).
: : 1 x + R OO = gav
? ?
(NB. ‘Mt’ stands for ‘mental transaction’).
Or, in plain language; relative to, (denoted by ‘R’), person ‘x’,
who is aware and conscious (denoted by ? + ), when he/she is
looking at (or in ‘relation to’, denoted by ‘:R:’), the Observed
Object (denoted by ‘OO’) – which in our example, is a flower –
then the Observer’s Vision of the (OO) would be categorized as
‘General Abstract Vision’ (which is denoted by GAV).
And, if a person is imagining an image, (again, a flower), then
we can write the following:
(x ) R (i) = (mav) +
? : : ?
In other words; person ‘x’, who is fully conscious ( ? + ), is
imagining an Image (the flower), (denoted by ‘i’) and this Vision
would be categorized as ‘Mental Abstract Image’ (or MAV). I
use the term ‘image’, because person ‘x’ is imagining the image
only within the confines of his Mind. He is not looking at the
image of a flower in front of him – that would be categorized as
(GAV). The (MAV) refers only to Vision within the Mind only.
We must now explore a bit deeper into these concepts. For,
what are the constituents of (GAV) and (MAV)?
If, by using the following notation:
x {a}
We mean to say that person ‘x’ has, within his Mind, the entire
contents of ‘a’, then we can say:
{ } 1 x + gav
? ?
NB.: The number ‘1’, after ‘gav’, refers to the specific type of
‘gav’ we are talking about; for example, a particular geranium.
Thus, relative to person ‘x’, he or she is looking at an Observed
Object, which is the (GAV). The Observer is looking at a flower
in from of him/her. He is seeing the ‘whole’ flower without
concentrating at any one point, or area, on that flower. So, we
can write:
( ) ( 1)
gav = V +
Whereby, ‘V’ denotes ‘Vision’, (in our case, the Vision is the
flower), while the (+1), indicates that this particular Vision is
the ‘whole’, or that it is perceptible and recognizable to person ‘x’
as being a flower. When numbers are written at the bottom of a
letter or symbol, that refers to the specific type of image; it is in
order to differentiate between one vision from another and one
image from another. Why do I write (+1)? As we shall see later,
this is an important question, but for now, suffice it to say that
the (+1) is being used purely symbolically, just as an electron
has a charge of ‘-‘, while the proton is ‘+’. The (+1) notation,
however, will be shown to have significant importance when it
comes to the differing perceptions of Vision. Note that when we
use the term (V), for example, when the number is above the
symbol, it will signify the degree of abstraction. This will be
discussed in the next paragraph.
Now the above mental transaction (Mt4) is incomplete, because
we must further analyze what (V +1 ) is. As we have seen, when
we focus on a (GAV), the constituents, or components of Vision
are abstract ‘areas’ or ‘points’. This void, or emptiness, or
nothingness is the basis and essence of what it is that Vision is
made up from; and, we can therefore denote the individual
constituents of Vision as being (Vo) – why the ‘zero’? I use the
‘zero’ to indicate that, since the constituents of the (GAV) are
more abstract than the whole (OO), or the (GAV), therefore,
since we write the (OO) as being (V+1), then, logically, we can
write (V-1) for the constituents of the (GAV). Now, as we have
seen, the (GAV) is composed of a limitless number of these
nothingnesses (or ‘o’), and so, we can say:
( ) ( ) 1
1 0 0 0 … gav V V V V = ? ??
? + + +
In other words, we have an endless number of (Vo) that all add
up to the final image, which is the Vision +1, (or V+1), which,
in turn, is our (GAV1), which is our flower of course.
Or, to be more precise, we can write:
[ { ( { 0 0 0 } ) }] ( 1)
1 + … +
? x? gav V + V + V + ? V
That is, Observer ‘x’, is looking at (GAV1); the latter is
composed of an unending number of nothingnesses (denoted by
(Vo), which, in turn, ultimately ‘create’ the final, recognizable
whole Vision, the (V+1).
If we now turn our attention to the Mental Abstract Vision, the
situation becomes somewhat more subtle, precisely because
(MAV) is much more abstract in its essence than (GAV). Thus,
if we write that (GAV) is ‘V+1’, and if, as we have seen, the
constituents of the (GAV) are (Vo), then, logically speaking, we
can write that that the (MAV) is ‘V-1’. In other words, the
negative sign, ‘V-1’, indicates that the Vision is more abstract
than the (V+1), and the (Vo). So, if Observer ‘x’ is imagining a
flower, we can write:
( { } ) ( { 1} )
1 1
+ ?
? x? i ? mav V
And what of the constituents of the (MAV)? We can now write
that, if the imagined flower is (V-1), then the constituents of (V-
1), which are more abstract than the (V-1), must be written as
(V-2). And so;
( { {( { 2 2 2 } ) } } ) ( 1 )
1 1 + ? ? ? … ?
? x? mav i V + V + V + ? V
In other words, a multitude of (V-2) ultimately ‘create’ the final
recognized Mental Abstract Vision, which is the (V-1).
* * * * * *
We can now proceed to outline, thus far, the Visions we have
most general type of Vision, for it is the Vision an
Observer, (Ob), sees in his surroundings and in one’s
environment, and when one is not seeing
images/daydreams/dreams in his/her mind, and when one
is not focusing on any particular point or area of the
Observed Object (OO). We can write this General Abstract
Vision as:
x + {gav 1}
? ?
Vision an Observer sees only when he/she is thinking in
his Mind; or when he/she is seeing any image, or dream or
daydreaming in his/her Mind only. We can thus write
(MAV) as:
{ } 1 x + mav
? ?
when (Ob) is concentrating his mind and vision on a
particular point/area on a (GAV); our (Ob) is completely
focused on this particular point/area on the GAV without
thinking, or looking at his/her surroundings. We can
denote this situation in the following manner:
{ ( { } ) } ( { } ) 1 1 1 x gav fop x + fop
? ? = ?
4. VISION OF NOTHINGNESS – (VoN): This is the more
subtle type of Vision, for it is the Vision when the
Observer is neither seeing his surroundings, (GAV), nor is
the Observer imagining anything within the Mind (MAV).
Observer, is, de facto, being vacant or blanking out.
Remember that the (Ob) is fully awake here; therefore,
(Ob) sees a nothingness, since (Ob) isn’t noticing the
(GAV) nor the (MAV). We can therefore write this type of
Vision in this manner:
x + {o}
? ?
The above equation requires more explanation, as it is extremely
relevant to an understanding of our manuscript. The x + {o}
? ?
is, as we have indicated, the situation whereby an (Ob) is not
aware of the (GAV), nor the (MAV). The result is that (Ob) sees
a nothingness, a void. This is functionally analogous as to when
an (Ob) is concentrating on a particular point/area on the
(GAV), or what we termed as the ‘Focused Observed Point’,
(FOP) – see (mt11). Thus, we can say that the (VoN) and the
(FOP) are visually similar in relation to the Mind of the
Observer; and so we can write:
( { }) ( { }) 1 x o x + fop
? ? = ?
In other words, the Observer who is blanking out, ‘sees’ a
nothingness, while the Observer who is focusing on one
particular point/area on a (GAV), will also visually experience a
nothingness; therefore the two circumstances – though totally
different in the way Mind and Vision are relating to each other –
are still quite clearly connected.
* * * * * *
I now propose the following situation: a person imagines an
image in his mind, (MAV1), for a certain moment in time and,
then, imagines nothing at all (VoN). Thus, we can say:
{( { }) ( { })} 1 1 1 1 x + mav i + VoN o
? ?
The above mental transaction tells us what occurs to (Ob) ‘x’,
but it does not, as yet, mention a crucially important element I
have deliberately, thus far, omitted – and that is Time, of course.
Let us now be more precise and insert the Time Frames in which
these mental transactions take place:
[ {( { })T s ( { })T s }]T s x mav i 0 5 VoN o 5 10 0 10
1 1 1 1
? ? ? + +
? ?
NB.: ‘t’ stands for ‘time; ‘TF’ stands for ‘Time Frame’; ‘s’ or
‘sec’ stands for ‘second/s’.
The above simply means that (Obx1) experienced seeing the
(MAV1), which is the flower, in his mind for 5 seconds and
then, from the 5th to the 10th second, our (Ob) was blanking out
and was thinking/seeing/imagining nothing.
Now, we have seen that the (MAV1) is the perceived whole, and
so, we can substitute the notation (MAV1) by writing ‘V-1’. Or:
{( { })} { } 1 1 1 1 x mav i = x + mav = i
? ?
{ 1}
1 1
+ ?
? = x? mav = i = V
and so;
+ { ? 1}
? ? x ? V
Now, within the (TF5-10s), we said that in this situation, Mind
becomes entirely concentrating, within that specific Time
Frame, on nothingness; Mind itself becomes functionally void
and blank, and therefore, Mind becomes an irrelevance, since it
is no longer functioning in any way, shape or form.
That is, Mind becomes functionally the same as what it is
concentrating on. Mind in the (x + {o })
? ?
becomes an
‘irrelevance’ because it is not functioning – there are no
thoughts, emotions, feelings, visions, images, memories –
nothing. It has none of the properties or the characteristics that
are attributes of the Mind. And that is why I denote that the
Mind of (Obx1) becomes a ‘zero’ (or ‘o’). And more crucially, in
this particular situation, so too has Vision ceased to function
precisely because our (Obx1) is completely ‘blanked out’ in the
Visual and the Mental sense. Mind and Vision become nonexistent
as far as functionality goes. They are momentarily
annihilated, so to speak.
The (x + {o })
? ?
state, is, as we have seen, similar, in its effects,
to the (Vo). However, the (Vo) is more or less an area/spot/point
we focus on when looking at an external object (GAV);
therefore, it would be more precise to say that the (x + {o })
? ?
state is functionally different from the (Vo), because in the latter
situation, the (Ob) is still conscious and perceptive and aware of
his/her surroundings. However, with the (x + {o })
? ?
, the Mind is
not thinking and it is not visualizing anything at all and,
therefore, the effect of the functionality of the Mind-Vision
relationship becomes one of complete nothingness. So, our
mental transaction equation of:
( { { }})T s
x VoN o 5 10
1 1
+ ?
? ?
and this leads to:
( { })T s
x VoN o 5 10
1 1
? + =
? ?
and this results in:
( { })T s x o 5 10
+ ?
? = ?
( )T s and x o 5 10
+ ?
? ? ? =
The above Mental Transaction must now be changed, or more
precisely, it must be now be refined, in order to reach our
conclusions. And so, we say:
[ {( { })}] 1
1 1
+ ?
? x? mav i ? V
(Remember, that the V-1 is our flower)
And since;
(x {o})= (x + = o)
? ?
We can, therefore, write:
{( ) ( ) } s
s s
T T x V o
0 10
1 0 5 5 10
? ? ??
? + ? +
? ?
Remember, that the ( 1 )
V ? , during the Time Frame 0-5s, is our
Observer visualizing, in his/her Mind, the flower; whilst in (o)
during TF5-10s is our Observer ‘blanking out’.
And so, finally, we now come to our concluding Mental
Transaction that is the crux and the essence of our thesis:
[( ) s ( ) s] s
T T T x V x o 1 0 5 5 10 0 10
? ? ? = + + =
+ ?
? ?
And so, Mind becomes as the Vision during (TF0-5s), whilst, in
(TF5-10s) Mind and Vision become completely non-existent.
* * * * * *
What does the last mental transaction, (Mt21), tell us; or what
conclusions can we derive from it?
Our first postulate has been that the constituents of Vision that
we see outside our bodies, (the GAV) are made of Abstractions.
The constituents of Vision cannot be ‘seen’, nor perceived, or
recognized in any way by the human eye or the human Mind.
Furthermore, Mind itself can become ‘Abstract’, or void of any
function, at certain times. This is extremely important here: for,
I mean to say, that within certain Time Frames, Mind becomes
‘nothing’; it becomes non-existent. The (x + {o})
? ?
state means
that Mind becomes the same as the nothingness (or ‘o’). Since
Mind becomes wholly immersed in nothingness, therefore,
functionally, the properties of Mind, and therefore the essence
of Mind, becomes itself a nothingness. Mind ceases to exist in
that Time Frame.
And, just as we have seen that the essence of any Vision, (GAV)
is made up from Abstractions, or nothingnesses, we can, now
see a connection between the constituents of Vision (GAV) and
Mind; since Mind itself is made of abstractions to varying
degrees (thus, the V ?1 is less abstract than its constituents which
V?2 ). Everything that makes up mind – thoughts, memories,
images and so on are Abstract because they are all indefinable;
vague, hazy and so on.
Finally, when we say that when an Observer is imagining a
flower ( 1 mav ), and that (Ob) is absolutely focused on nothing
else except on that ( 1 mav ), then we have seen, that the (Ob)
becomes the flower itself, (or the 1 mav ). Mind becomes the
exact same as the image being visualized or imagined.
Now, we have seen that the ‘Observer’ is the same as the ‘Self’,
or the ‘I’. Therefore, we can say that the Self – his/her entire
being, his/her entire physicality, emotions; his/her entire
thoughts, memories, feelings – every attribute that defines
his/her Mind cease to exist in the above situation.
Remember, that ( )T s x V 1 0 5
+ ? ?
? ? =
means that the Observer ‘x’
becomes ‘as one’, or the same as the Vision of the flower in
his/her Mind. The ‘person’, the ‘I’, the ‘Self’ becomes the flower
in the Mind. The Observer, the human being, the Mind, the Self
or the entire persona of the observing person, becomes the
Vision in question. There are no other attributes to the Observer,
during the specified Time Frame, except that the Observer has
‘become’ the Vision itself.
And the same goes for the situation in:
( )T s x o 5?10 + =
? ?
whereby Observer becomes simply unified
within the nothingness (o) during TF5-10s. Observer, therefore,
becomes nothingness, and nothingness becomes the Observer.
There is nothing else that defines our Observer during these
Time Frames.
The human being in question, within the specified TF, ceases to
exist – relative to him/herself only. The Observer is nothing
more, and nothing less, than the viewed image. The Observer, or
the Self, cease to exist in relation to the Observer him/herself.
Thus, what the ‘I’ or the Self of any person is, is inevitably and
inextricably linked to the differing and ever changing
characteristics and attributes of Mind and Vision. As we have
seen, there are several different types or categories of Mind and
Vision, and it is these attributes – such as, for example, the
Vision of Nothingness, or when (Ob) is visualizing an image in
his/her mind – that then define what the Observer, or the Self or
the ‘I’ of the person is, within, of course, the ever changing
specified Time Frames.
* * * * * *

The material in this press release comes from the originating research organization. Content may be edited for style and length. Want more? Sign up for our daily email.