Reality, Vision and Mind: Function and Structure -Different Entities Or One Phenomenon/Entity?

Reality, Vision and Mind: Function and Structure -Different Entities Or One Phenomenon/Entity?

Ayad Gharbawi
February 24, 2010 – Damascus, Syria

I have already said that structure, or ‘reality’ can exist and can, at the exact same moment, not exist.
For example: how can we say that the entire ‘physicality’ of a human being, let us call him our Observer (Ob), can be, at certain moments, at a certain time frame, in certain physical contexts and in certain specific circumstances, be completely non-existent and existing at the same moment?
Surely, the person in question will still ‘physically be there’ no matter what (assuming, of course, that our person in question, is alive) and therefore his ‘physicality’ will still be there?
But, I will argue, in this chapter of our studies, that an Observer can indeed ‘become non-existent’ during certain situations and contexts – relative to that Observer and he will be ‘existing’ at the same moment.
Now, I can hear the following complaint: “But, surely, even if we were to ‘accept’ your argument that a human ‘becomes non-existent’ at certain times and in certain contexts, we can still see and feel your ‘Observer’ and so that obviously means his physicality is still there and therefore, your argument is all wrong?”
Correct, for you, our questioner, the said Observer, does indeed, exist in all the manifestations of physicality.
For anyone, except our Observer in question, the Observer is indeed existing in every meaning of the word.
But, what about, for the Observer himself?
I argue, that as per the Observer, there are moments, time frames, contexts and circumstances – in which the Observer himself dissolves and becomes non-existent for as long as those abovementioned factors remain.
But how can that logically be?
Let us imagine that our ‘Observer’, during a specified Time Frame (tf), is awake but is thinking of nothing, or is ‘blanking out’, as is said. (We have already discussed this frame of mind previously). Fine. So, we can say that our ‘Observer’ is in a vacant state; in fact he is ‘observing’ absolutely nothing and that is why I have been putting the term ‘Observer’ in inverted commas.
Now, within that specified time frame, in which our ‘Observer’ is existing in a completely image-free, thought-free, emotion-free mental state, we can therefore say that his Mind is a complete blank. By the term ‘blank, I mean that the entire Constituents of his Mind are vacant, empty or blank.
Next, I argue, that the Observer becomes as one with that which his Mind is functioning within. His Mind is functioning within a totally empty, vacant state and so his entire consciousness will also be equally in an empty, blanked out, vacant mental state.
In other words, when the Observer is in that vacant mental state, he will have absolutely no meaningful, functional relationship to anything that is going on in his Mind (or – the Constituents of the Mind) and equally he will have absolutely no meaningful, functional relationship with anything in his outside world – that is, anything, outside of his Mind.
It is this proposition that is difficult to get across: that when an Observer’s Mind is in an entirely mentally vacant state then his entire physicality/existence/beingness will equally become non-existent/vacant/empty – relative and only relative to the Observer we are talking about.
Another paradox: for our Observer in the ‘blanked out’ mental state’ he will no longer exist (during the time frame), whilst for anyone around him will still see and feel and notice his very existence and physicality.
So, does he exist or does he not exist?
Again, the answer is both: yes and no. He exists and he does not exist.
It all depends on which Observer we happen to be talking to.
Therefore, the existence of any structure depends entirely on the Observer in question.
So, what can these propositions tell us?
It tells us that concepts such as ‘Reality’, ‘Truth’, ‘Mind’, ‘Consciousness’, are all: ‘truths that can exist in certain situations and circumstances and time frames’ and that can equally vanish, disappear in other contexts.
Notice, I had to put the above so-called definitions once again, in inverted commas; why? Because, language in simply an incomplete and inexact form of expressing one’s ideas and meanings.
Fine. So, what’s next?
What I am saying is that all these concepts – such as Vision, Mind, Consciousness, Truth and Reality – are all ‘real’ to people in certain contexts, and, these contexts do change, and we must therefore understand that all these mentioned concepts are as flexible as they are forever changing in their structures and in their functions, as per their forms, shapes, attributes and any other images you may wish to think off.
The age-old Cartesian view of Mind being abstract while the Body are facts that are real do not hold water, but they are certainly comforting for people and it is certainly ‘easier’ to understand and therefore easier to accept and live with.
We can no longer continue into believing that our aforementioned concepts, such as, for example, ‘Reality’ is a neat, cut and dry, physical, factual, recognizable, structure within our bodies and outside our bodies.
Reality, Vision and Mind all share the same properties in their structure.
As far as Structure goes, I have discussed in earlier papers, how the constituents of these concepts are composed of voids.
Functionally, they act and interact, producing other emotions, images, memories, and so on.
How do they functionally interact?
Vision can affect Mind, and the vice versa.
Take Vision interacting with Mind: for example, a beautiful scenery can affect a person’s emotion; let us say our Observer is beholding before him huge mountains and canyons. He may be exhilarated by the grandeur before him. Take another Observer, and he may be depressed or frightened from the exact same scenery.
Now, let’s take Mind interacting with Vision: we have two observers looking at the same image – a house. Now, if our first Observer is in a state of motion, then the Vision before him will necessarily be affected, while for a stationary Observer who is looking at the same Vision, the image that he will see will obviously look different as per the moving Observer.
I therefore argue, along with my studies, that Mind, Reality, Vision, Consciousness are not separate entities’ (as in the Cartesian model) and are not different as per their inherent structure: they are all equally composed of abstractions and nothingnesses.
It is not meaningful, logical or sensible to ‘separate’ Mind, Reality, Consciousness and Vision as being ‘separate phenomena’, because you cannot functionally ‘separate’ them – precisely because they are in their essence the same entity.
To give an analogy: imagine an Observer is in a room and so are Mind, Vision, Reality and Consciousness are also there and they all this happen to be colourless, odourless gases existing and easily mixing in one room, and imagine that each gas (representing Mind, Vision etc.) has different functions, but they all feel physically and bodily the same for our Observer in the room. Our Observer cannot obviously differentiate between the colourless, odourless gases in the room, but he knows, (or, is supposed to know) that each gas has different properties.
Hence, the question of ‘separating’ them makes little sense.
Let us take a practical look at this question now.
How can one even separate Vision from Consciousness?
Even for the blind, he/she will ‘see’ images within their minds.
How can you separate Mind from Consciousness?
Mind is forever interacting with the Constituents that exist within it. Even when a person is being in a mental state of being ‘vacant’ and his Mind is reduced to nothingness, and even when that person becomes as one with the nothingness of his Mind, his Consciousness and his Mind and his entire physicality will all be equally the same in their characteristics and properties: and that is, nothingness.
Therefore, as per Structure goes, they are all a one phenomenon, but they have differing functions.
They have similar properties or attributes, such as that they can all exist and they can equally not exist, depending on the circumstances and contexts of the particular situation that is existing – again, complimentarity.
They – Consciousness, Mind, Vision, and Reality – are all the same phenomenon in our lives, in our world and in our universe – structurally speaking – and they are therefore all one unified entity, but they have differing properties, functions.


Substack subscription form sign up
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.