Why We Must Abandon The ‘Concept’ That There Exists A ‘One Real Image’ Of Any Observed Object.

Throughout the articles I have been writing, I have been trying to get a closer ‘look’ at what exactly ‘Reality’ is.

Where are we now?

I have argued that the individual, indefinable, unrecognizable ‘constituents’ of any image before is entirely composed of images of voids, or nothing. In other words, however much you may stare and look and try to understand/relate to any point on the object that you are focusing on, you will find, to your regret, that your mind/emotions/reason cannot find any functionally meaningful entity or entities.
In other words, the essence of the minutiae of what ‘constitutes’ any aspect of Reality is Abstract.
I have argued that there are two images facing Man: that which is in front of him and that which surrounds him, and I have called that General Abstract Vision. Those images that are within a person’s mind, I have called Mental Abstract Vision (mav).
I have argued that both of these images/visions have, as their fundamental constituents, meaningless, unrelatable voids to the observer. And, yet, it is precisely these unrelatable voids that immediately ‘create’ a recognizable image – be it in the mind or outside the mind of the Observer.
I have argued that the differences between the (gav) and the (mav) is that the latter are far more abstract as per their constituents. That is all.
It is important to understand this point. Nothing else separates the ‘worlds’ of the (gav) and the (mav) except the degree/s of abstraction as per the observer.
Next, I have argued, that within the essence or basis or ‘reality’ of any image in the General Abstract Vision, such as a face, for example, there is no ‘one unified image’ of that face. No image exists as a ‘one’ sole image. It depends on many factors – as I have earlier said – such as: the angle from which Observer is observing the (gav); the distance between (Ob) and the Observed Object (OO); the speed of the movement between (Ob) and the (OO); the particular mind frame, or emotion/s of (Ob) vis-a-viz (OO) during the Time Frame, (TF), in which he is observing the observed object; the degree of the Awareness Factor (?+/?-) of the Observer in relation to the Observed Object – these are all factors that will add or decrease flavour to what the Observer eventually perceives during the specified time frame of the Observed Object.
And, needless to say, all these cumulating factors that produce a final image of the Observed Object, that in turn affects the emotion and opinion of the Observer, will themselves, change as soon as these very same attributes and conditions described above themselves change.
Let us move on.
So, we can see that what an Observer defines as ‘Reality’ is an ever changing ‘truth’ or ‘image’.
We can therefore immediately say that there is no ‘one unified image of Reality as per any image or observed object or person’.
This leads us into the seemingly odd and contradictory statement that what we ‘see’ has opposing and contradictory images.
Let me repeat: everything we see and look at have an infinite number of images that can and do change at every moment and these very changes exist precisely because the observer’s mind has so many fluid, changing mental attributes and characteristics and when these changing mental characteristics change, then so does the image.
To put in simplistic terms: imagine an optician changing lenses of differing optical power for your weak eyesight, and therefore, obviously, what you will see, will differ, precisely based upon the different lenses being given to you.
You can argue, very well, your eyesight is changing in its visual accuracy (thanks to the lenses you are helping yourself to), but what does that say about the original Observed Object which has not ‘changed’?
So, are you saying that the Observer, or any Observer, changes the ‘Reality’ of an Observed Object, regardless of the ‘fact’ that the very Observed Image hasn’t actually changed?
Good question.
Can any Observer, by changing his visual optical accuracy, see differing images of the Observed Object, while the selfsame Observed Object (assuming it is a human) will beg to differ, and tell you, that I am still the same person and that ‘I have not physically changed in any way?’
So, we have a contradiction?
We must forever abandon the ‘idea’ that there exists a ‘real image’ of any observable object.
The image that is observed by any Observer will depend, as we have seen, depending on the above ever changing circumstances.
So, for the Observer, there is no ‘unity in the reality of any one image that is observed’
Where does that leave the Observed Object?
Surely it possesses physical attributes, regardless of Observer?
No, it does not.
How can I argue in this manner?
The answer already lies in our above definitions. For how can any one Observed Object have a ‘one’ physical reality to its image when every Observer has an endless number of mutually antagonistic images and also an eternal number of mutually similar images – and all those images exist in the one mind of but one mere Observer?
And, when you add the fact that the above exists true for any Observer, be it human or animal – and you have a mind numbing number of mutually antagonistic images and mutually similar number of images of the self-same Observed Object.
Where, then, in this welter of images, does there exist the ‘one image’ of the particular Observed Object in question?

Why We Must Abandon The ‘Concept’ That There Exists A ‘One Real Image’ Of Any Observed Object.

Ayad bin Izzet

January 20, 2010 – Damascus, Syria

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.