Archive for January, 2010

Blinded Eye – Ayad Gharbawi

January 22, 2010


Ayad Gharbawi


That faint

In their sudden life

Beginning to create

A passionate being

That suffers

From an embarrassing


That begs to kill

Her only

Eye’s belief.

Birth of Sorrow – Ayad Gharbawi

January 22, 2010


Ayad Gharbawi

From my life

I gave in

Surrendering to

A sudden


Of such

Serious Sorrow

That so wrecked

My once

Secure life

And therefrom

I did


Begging Soul – Ayad Gharbawi

January 22, 2010


Ayad bin Izzet

Come to hear

A tearful word

That so begs

An unheard Hatred

To begin to love

In her blackened life;

If only we can


In this trial

Of such a beautiful


An Old Suicide Note – Ayad Ghabawi

January 22, 2010


Ayad Gharbawi

From my eye

That once

Used to win

And now

Getting to be


In my own blood

That is still

So unreal.

So goodnight to all


Now I can gossip

About Death

That so far

May happen,

Just happen


A Wife’s Pleas – Ayad Gharbawi

January 22, 2010


Ayad Gharbawi

Come to please

This life

That so suffers

Her insides


In my life

That you love

I can only see

What truths

Can be so

Killing me.

A Sailor’s Letter

January 22, 2010


Ayad Gharbawi

Monument’s finale

Requiem disguised

An act to move through

So at last, the

Words crossing the land of shameless criminals

See their laughter of virgin tears venomous

Don’t you turn away again

Can’t you see these uncivil sinister trivialities?

You can be so alive to feel

But do not lie to me

No north, no south to change disturbed winds

Wither do they vanish, or wither do they rest?

None is relevant

Between us now

This moment defines


What grips your indefinable, unruly senses

Are copies of the same

Immaterial emotional fakery that is so chaining

Your mind, within and your mind outside

And all can see are your acts so feigning, so pretentious

Your bride of vision is within

Lying to ignore your disrupted mind

Your infrastructure so burdensome to all

Between us now

Yearn for this now

For the now

Is the definition true

Of existence

The existing now moment

Is what your Self is

Confront your scavenging rootless eyes

Loneliness needs nourishing roots

To fire off instincts

Of a thousand detrimental deceptive rainbows

So illusory

Upon their borrowed masks

They effectively employed to

Entertain and torture you


Don’t take it all so seriously

If your brittle dry nerves can

Words you mentioned can kill, didn’t you understand?

Ah! The symphonic movements of sincerity’s passions between us

In the stillest hours of solitude

And yet, within contexts of raging passions screaming

Inside caged ears

If you desire your needs essential

Forgetting all others who forgot you, abandoned you

The fiery dead and the numb living continue their interesting arguments

But are they not all one?

Yes, your decayed compass

Turns inside out

And all childhood is good and bad, churned together

Don’t ignore too much others who are in solitary pain

You hear or you do not hear

When all say they do love you so

Laugh, friendless friends, laugh seriously

Now you shall hear the serious reality of truth’s images

Sweet humans, how much longer will you sin?

You are all, simply

Existing to exist?


Can you not do better?

Can you not be compassionate?

Can you not be humane?

Can you not be understanding?


So, I resign

Lie in your fragrant bowels of multidinous crimes

Lie to your sickening madness that butchers fanatically


To your spastic shudders of evil emotions that reverberate within you

Hear the polite, stern winds emerging, demanding truth, justice and peace!

Bow your soul, Man, bow your sanity to God above you;

Respond respectfully, understandably

And try to think truthfully

A Madman’s Gesture

January 22, 2010



Ayad Gharbawi

In rooms of a time I called yesterday

The evenings were red I felt

The sunsets meant something final to me

A pointless hand gestured meaningfully

A sentence expressed passions

Where else did I paint scenes of life

You saw the conversations

The attempts

In instances hopeful

I cried once or twice

To create

The hope of love

And fulfilment, how strange

Glancing nowhere

Walking somewhere

Where do I exist?

I can be, I can love

Yet, in loneliness’ laws

Who is there

To love?

What Is The ‘Mental Plane’ As Per The Observer?

January 22, 2010


Ayad Gharbawi
January 21 2010 – Damascus, Syria

This is a concept I wish to introduce, given my articles on Consciousness Studies.
Have you ever noticed that you start your day and you are in a certain mood, and then some several hours later, by the evening, you find yourself in a completely different mood? Yes, that is certainly common. But, wait a minute. Notice some basic aspects here:
Notice the vast difference in moods – between the morning and the evening.
Notice, that more often than not, the Observer, does not remember that mood that he was in during the day timeline– unless, of course, if something traumatic occurs.
Indeed, when questioned or asked, about the mood that he was in during the morning, he will find himself surprised that he was indeed, in ‘that mood’ at that time, for, from the mood that he is now, which is evening time, he will be so far distant from the memory of that morning mood, so that it will seem somewhat ‘foreign’ to him. He may even ask himself: ‘Did I really feel and think that way early this morning?’
Notice, that the word ‘mood’ will soon be far more thoroughly explained in this particular article, so if there is a sense of ambiguity here over that word, please wait, and I shall soon explain what I mean.
I will argue that there has been changes in ‘mental planes’ of the person involved.
I will now present another example of what I define as the mental plane (mp).
An Observer is in a certain ‘mood’, and then goes to see an emotion-enticing film. He leaves the cinema and is, not surprisingly, affected emotionally speaking by the contents of the film he saw.
We can, therefore, say, that our Observer (Ob) who existed on being in a mental plane one (mp1), then did change into mental state of being in (mp2) after he finished seeing the emotion-filled film.
That is a beginning of our explanation for the mental plane (mp).
This is the basis of my argument – but this is not my final explanation of what the mental plane is.
Now, we need to explain, what exactly is this ‘Mental Plane’?
And how does one (mp) differ from another (mp)?
Let us go back to that word ‘mood’. What does that mean? Well, that means that Observer has a collection of emotions, thoughts and feelings that make him antagonistic and amicable to certain influences and attributes and emotions that may impinge on him.
The collective summation of these mutually antagonistic and mutually amicable emotions in relation to the Observer’s Mind and to his outside world, can well lead us outsiders, to classify or label the Observer in question as being ‘angry’, or ‘happy’ or ‘introverted’ etc.
That is fine and well, for our point of view – that is, we the outsiders.
But what about that which is going inside the mind of our Observer?
For inside the Observer’s Mind, we enter an entirely different world.
We now inevitably must ask: what, then, are the difference/s between the ‘mood’ and ‘mental plane’ as per the individual involved?
And here, the paths of the mood and the mental plane (mp) do part ways in profound ways.
A mood is a collection of emotions, feelings and other Constituents of the Mind (CoM) that are not as powerful as the existence of the Mental Plane (mp).
One of the most obvious definition of what the (mp) is when a person becomes intoxicated or is under the influence of mind-altering drugs. Clearly the consumer has different (mp) here than before he consumed these items.
But, it need not always be drugs and alcohol.
Take bereavement. Some relative of yours dies. You suddenly find yourself under a massive emotional change in your mind, mood, emotions and other (CoM). How long this lasts, is not relevant here, for Time will not be discussed here.
Let us first of all look at our Observer (Ob) as he sits there and nothing of any importance is really happening to him:

Mt1) ( x^(∝+) { 〖 (gav〗_1^(o )) + (〖Em〗_1^o) } ) .

In other words, Observer (Ob) is experiencing something routine and without any emotions, negative or positive. He is looking at his pleasant surroundings and is in a neutral mood.
Next, (Ob) hears that one of his relatives has just died:

Mt2) 〖 [ x〗^(∝+ ) { 〖Ev〗_1^(-1)} ].

The 〖( Ev〗_1^(-1) ) means: it is a particular Event (Ev) while the lower number (1) signifies what exactly this event is, which in our example, is the fact that our Observer (Ob) has just heard the news of the death in his family. The top (-1) implies that this particular Event is of a negative flavour.
Suddenly, upon hearing this awful news, our Observer is immediately affected, in negative ways, to this sad news. We can state, within our fluid mind matrix model (f3m) the following that can go on in the mind of our Observer:

Mt3) ( x^(∝+ ){ ■(〖Em〗_1^(-1)&m_1^(-1)&〖Em〗_2^(-3)@m_2^(-2)&t_1^(-1)&〖Em〗_3^(-2) ) } ).

Notice, I am deliberately not putting in the Time Frame here (tf), as our present study here wishes to concentrate on the mere understanding of how a mental plane is produced., without adding on the complicating factor of the time frame (tf).
In the above mental transaction (mt3), we find that Observer (Ob) has, within his mind, 6 Constituents of the Mind (CoM). Notice, that he experiences three different Emotions (Em), (Em1), (Em2) and (Em3). That means these 3 emotions are different emotions – they are all different emotions from one another. Fine. Next, notice, that each Emotion (Em) has differing degrees of negative intensities – thus (Em1 = -1) in terms of its negative flavour; whilst (Em2 = -3) which signifies that is a far more bitter emotion for our Observer. Finally, Emotion 3 (Em3) has flavour negativity of (-2). Next, we observe, that within our Fluid Mind Matrix Model, (Ob) experiences 2 memories and both are totally different in their images and, again, both are negative. Finally, Observer (Ob) experiences a negative thought (t1 = -1) which is also, not surprisingly negative, given the situation our (Ob) is in.
Now how do all these activities factor in with our concept of the Mental Plane?
Clearly, when, during Mental Transaction 1 (mt1), Observer (Ob) was feeling neutral:

Mt4) ( x^(∝+) { 〖 (gav〗_1^(o )) + (〖Em〗_1^o) } ) →

( x^(∝+) { 〖 (gav〗_1^(o )) + (〖Em〗_1^o) } ) 〖mp〗_1^o.
Thus, in our above mental transaction, our Observer, is in a neutral mood, and we can say that he was in a Mental Plane condition/flavour of being neutral, or represented by our zero.
However, after hearing the grievous news, we have seen the welter of emotions, thoughts and memories our Observer undergoes, and so we can say:

Mt5) ( x^(∝+ ){ ■(〖Em〗_1^(-1)&m_1^(-1)&〖Em〗_2^(-3)@m_2^(-2)&t_1^(-1)&〖Em〗_3^(-2) ) } ).

And that can only mean:

Mt6) ( x^(∝+ ){ ■(〖Em〗_1^(-1)&m_1^(-1)&〖Em〗_2^(-3)@m_2^(-2)&t_1^(-1)&〖Em〗_3^(-2) ) } ) 〖mp〗_2^(-2).

Thus, we can now see, given the Fluid Mind Matrix Model (f3m) that is whirling, interacting and reacting within the mind of our Observer, his ‘Mind’ has now clearly changed, given the awful news he has heard, and therefore, we can justifiably state that our Observer, following his hearing of the negative news (Ev-2), has now had his entire mind – his entire feeling of his consciousness, his entire feeling of his ‘Self’, his entire feeling of his own beingness – has changed into another mental realm, plane, than before he heard of the news, and that is exactly why we must describe the difference in the reality and structure of the mind of our Observer before and after hearing the news, as being so totally and radically different, and therefore as warranting our classifying the two differing mental situations as being of two minds – that is, these two minds are existing, feeling, interacting, experiencing different mental planes’. And by the latter – or, Mental Plane – I mean the complete totality of the feeling, that only exists for our particular Observer, of ‘what I am being, feeling, experiencing of “who” I am’ at this particular time’.
What is the importance of the (mp)?
The (mp) is usually short lived in people. Examples abound: we’ve already mentioned intoxicating drink and drugs; an emotional movie; any emotional scene (like witnessing a fight, an accident or a death), a charismatic person who has the ability of being inspirational – these are all examples of when a person enters a new mental plane.
Where the danger exists is when the affected person continues to be under the influence of the (mp) – this, of course happens with extremely charismatic leaders or individuals. Or, this can happen with ‘love’. Yes, when a person is besotted with another person and all for the wrong reason and simply cannot extricate himself from that euphoric feeling he gets every time he is with ‘his’ love and whenever he thinks of ‘his’ love.
The question of ‘false reality’ inevitably arises here, and we are soon on our way to the next obvious question, which is, very well, but what then do you mean by ‘reality’?
All I can say here – deliberately leaving the question of ‘reality’ aside – is that if the (mp) persists in the mind of the affected person and it is affecting him in negative ways, then he ought to try to get rid of the particular (mp).

Who Am I? Ayad Gharbawi

January 18, 2010


2 Persons Talking: 1 is Person One, and 2 is Person 2.

Ayad bin Izzet

1: What is your problem?

2: I don’t know ‘who’ I am?

1: ‘Who’ do you want to be?

2: I don’t know. I just don’t know what is ‘best’ for me’. Do you understand me?

1: You do not know ‘who’ you want to be. So, how can you ask me, or how can you ask anyone, how you can best be yourself?

2. Actually, I didn’t understand a word you just said. Can you speak in plain English, please?

1. All right. You don’t know ‘who’ you are, and furthermore, you don’t even know ‘who’ you want to be. Fine. So, my question to you is this: do you, for example, wish to be a saint or a sinner?

2. No, for sure, I want to be good.

1. Good. I asked you that question, for obvious reasons. We can now classify you as wanting to be in the category of people who are decent and God-fearing.

2. Yes, Sir. That’s good. Now, what?

1. You tell me that you do not know ‘who’ you are. Who do you ‘think’ you are?

2. Good question. I am like water in the ocean. One moment I am a gentle water and the next  moment, I really shock myself, because I become a savage wave that kills all before me. You see, Sir, that is the exact source of my hurt and anxiety. If I am a solid person, then, am I not supposed to have the same character under any situation? But, the truth is for me, that I change with every differing situation, and, to my horror, I find myself a different person reacting to the different circumstances. And, again, I obviously have to ask myself, ‘who’ am ‘I’, if this ‘I’ in me keeps changing my personalities and my characteristics?

1. All human personalities change with the differing circumstances. That does not mean that your Self is a non a strong entity. Just as any animal will display vastly different responses to what life offers it, that does not mean that the animal in question does not have a solid personality. Do you follow me?

2. I listen & I heard you, but in truth, I do not understand you – or anyone else for that matter.

1. Please speak to me your feelings, thoughts and passions.

2. I feel alone. I feel frightened. I feel scared. Why is that? Can you explain that to me?

1. You feel fear, and all of its associates, because you are yourself incomplete.

2. What do you mean by ‘incomplete’?

1. I mean that the entirety of your Mind is not totally connected. That is why, you do not know who you are.

2. ‘The entirety of my mind is not wholly connected’? What on earth are you talking about?

1. I ask you, to think of what my words mean. Your mind and its constituents are not connected. In other words, one part of your mind does one thing, while another part of your mind does the exact opposite. And there are so many different entities, within your Mind, that work in opposing ways – again, without knowing each other. This, then results in discord and aggravation. Do you understand?

2. No, not really.

1. All right. Suppose, you love someone. Suppose you love him, because he has all the right attributes that you would want in a man. Are you so far with me?

2. Yes. So far, anyway.

1. So you choose to marry this person – let us call him (X) – because you find him to be perfect. But then, you discover that (X) has some really nasty habits that you cannot possibly live with.

2. Fine, but what are you trying to say here?

1. I am trying to tell you, that what you may see and believe is to be the ‘truth’ is nothing more than another lie.

2. But wait a minute, if truth can be a ‘lie’, then, maybe I myself am a ‘lie’? I feel, in many ways, that I am a living lie. A pretender. And, it makes me sick.

1. Excellent! We are now going somewhere with our somewhat conversation. Yes, you may well be a ‘lie’ or an entire ‘fabrication’ of your own imagination. Do you understand?

2. But, Sir, if I accept that I am a ‘lie’, then how can I correct myself – which, by the way, is my original question to you.

1. Listen, carefully. We humans have brains, within which are our minds. The Mind is not a ‘united’ entity. The Mind is composed of a vast number of overlapping, opposing and, at times, cooperating entities. Some entities, within the Mind, are Conscious, whilst others are Unconscious. The human who is are aware of the entities within his/her Mind and is satisfied with the way they function and behave is the satisfied and content human being. The person who is not in control of the entities within his/her Mind and is unable to control their activities, is precisely the person who is not happy and not content with him/herself.

2. I see. Now, I think, I can understand what you mean, when you say, that a person does not ‘know’ himself. You mean, he who is unaware of the activities of his Mind?

1. That’s correct! But, I would also add, that he who is not sure of his/her Identity, is the person who, not only is unaware of the activities of his Mind, but is also unable, or unwilling, to take control of the activities of his/her Conscious Mind.

2. And, so, the person who is not connected to the entities of his Mind cannot know of the Identity of his Self.

1. Exactly! Going back to your original question, how can anyone ‘know’ who he or she is, if they do not think of what their Mind is all about? After all, the Mind is the Self!

2. So, what’s next for me?

1. What’s next is this: you must begin to think – and to think deeply and calmly – about the Contents of your Mind. Only then, will you be able to formulate a picture of ‘who’ you really are. It is like a painter who is about to start painting. He thinks of what he wishes to paint, and he thinks of all the important details he needs to paint, in order for him, to then create the final painting. So, you too, must think and visualise, what are the Contents of my Mind? And, then, you must put all those contents together, as a whole entity, and only then will you be finally able to ‘see’ who you really are.

What Is Reality? Ayad Gharbawi

January 18, 2010

Ayad Izzet Gharbawi

What is reality?

You may say, ‘All that is real, is reality.’ And, by the word ‘real’, I understand, all that can be seen, felt or heard. So, for example, if I see a flower in front of me, then it is obviously real. No one can seriously doubt that fact! No one can seriously say that the flower is not ‘real’.


Is the flower you see really ‘real’? Are you so sure that it is ‘real’ simply because your brain, having received the required electro-chemical information from your rods and cones, tells you that the flower is ‘real’?

Well, yes, that would be sufficient evidence for most people, that the object they are seeing (the flower, in our example), is truly real. In other words, what the brain sees, feels, hears is enough evidence to categorize what is, and what is not to be classified as real.

Fine, and what about those that exist and we cannot see – are they real? Are electrons ‘real’? Yes, they are real, because most physicists have informed us of their existence. So, in other words, if I could shrink my size to the same size as the electron, then, presumably, I would be able to see the ball-shaped electron? I would say the electron in all its splendid reality!

Is that correct?

Actually, physicists do not say that electrons are ‘real’. Those days ended with the Quantum Physics revolution in the 1920’s, whereby the geniuses like Schrodinger, Bohr, Bohm, de Broglie, Heisenberg and so on, demolished the Newtonian view of what physical reality was meant to be. Even Einstein – who himself had played a major part in demolishing Newton’s laws when it comes to the atomic and the sub-atomic level – could not accept the facts and the implications of Quantum Physics.

Actually, here we are in the year 2009, and the sad fact is, that a vast majority of people do not have the slightest clue about Quantum Physics and its implications. We are still living somewhere around the Newtonian world view. Even Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has hardly permeated the minds of most people – so, you can well imagine, that Quantum Physics is light years away from the minds of  most people!

But, wait a minute, I hear you say! What does all this Newton, Einstein, Quantum gobbledygook have to do with our question concerning reality?

Well, quite a lot actually.

So, hold on, be patient, and allow me to explain the meaning of reality, and how it does connect with Newton-Einstein-Quantum Physics.

Let us take three people, each with a recorder. The first person is sitting inside a moving train, and is recording the sound the train is making. Assume that the train is moving smoothly and that there are no stops or sudden movements – in other words, the sound of the train is constant. The second person is standing on a train platform, recording the distant, oncoming train. Clearly, he will record, at first, a distant sound, then with time, as the train nears the station, its sound will increase; then when it bypasses the station, the sound will reach its peak and thereafter, after it moves away from the station, the recorded sound will decrease. The third and last person is standing one kilometre from the moving train and yes, he too, is recording the sound of the train.

Sound is measured in Hertz (Hz), and so, we can say that for the man sitting in the train, he will record the same Hz level since, as we have said, there is no change in the speed of the train – relative to the observer sitting in the train. Therefore, we can say, that for the first observer, he records a constant 5Hz. The second observer will record a different measurement; it can start out as 0Hz, then 2Hz, going up to the peak of 4Hz, and then receding as the train leaves the station. The third observer will record a faint 2Hz since he is far away from the train.

So, what can we conclude here? Clearly, each observer records different sound levels for the train in question. Clearly, each observer records a sound that is totally different from the other observer. Thus, the first observer, or O1, records 5Hz. O2 records: 0Hz-2Hz-4Hz-2Hz-0Hz, while O3 records: 2Hz. That means we have conflicting and contradictory sounds that the train is emitting.

Where, then, is the ‘reality’ of the sound of the train? Can we say that only O1 is right? Or, only O2? Or O3? Obviously, that would not make sense, since each observer will not only swear that what they heard was ‘real’, but to prove it to us sceptical people, they duly recorded what they heard, and surely the tape recorded does not lie!

Can we then say that all observers are correct?

But how can we say that, when each observer records a completely different sound, and furthermore, how can the same train produce different sounds?!

To make matters more complicated, can’t we add, by stating that we hardly need to be restrained by having three observers – why we can have millions of observers, and guess what? Yes, every single observer – out of the millions -will still manage to record a different sound to this one train. So, now we have millions of recorded sounds that are all different to each other and we still talking of one single train!

So, we ask the question again: what is the ‘reality’ of the sound the train is making?

For those who may say, that there is no reality, then we can say that that is preposterous since what each observer hears is precisely his or her reality and no person can simply dismiss another person’s fact, or truth.

Can we say that every observer is ‘right’?

Is it possible that the train does indeed have a limitless number of mutually exclusive sounds, all depending on the observer?

And if we answer ‘yes’ to the above question, then what happens to the so-called ‘unity of reality’? Clearly, there would be no ‘unity’ anymore, since reality would be based exclusively on the observer.

But, wait a minute here – let us add by saying that the train had a mind, and said: “Look, I know my own sound and I obviously disagree with all these other silly observers!” Very well, we can then listen to what the train records for his own sounds. Very well, and now we have another recording, and, yes, it too will be different to the multitude of other recordings.

So, who’s right and who’s wrong?

Remember, when I talked about the electron? What exactly is the electron? Is it a negatively charged spherically shaped object? That is certainly a good enough definition for beginners in physics – but, in advanced physics, it just will not do. The fact is, quantum physicists discovered some truly startling facts about the reality of the electron. Without going into detail, I will simply and briefly state them: first, the electron is both a wave and a particle, and it becomes either a wave or particle, when the act of observation takes place. Second, as Heisenberg discovered, no one can precisely know the position and the momentum (or velocity) at the same time; you can know or the otherbut not both. Thus, we have the famous Uncertainty Principle, whereby we simply cannot know the total reality of an electron’s measurements.

So where does that mean, when we talk about the reality of the electron? It means that we cannot say that there is a one, simple ‘reality’ of an electron. It depends on the observer, for, in the absence of an observer, the electron’s reality hovers in a contradictory manner – being both a particle and a wave! And, as we’ve seen, there cannot be precise measurements of the measurements of an electron. All these quantum facts, makes the reality of an electron extremely foggy and imprecise – not to mention baffling!

Now, without delving into greater details (in order to avoid complicating the story), I will stop here and conclude with the following words.

What is reality?

Reality is an observer based ‘truth’; this ‘truth’ is relative to the observer alone; there exists an infinite number of realities, that are all mutually contradictory to each other, and they are all observer based. There is no ‘one reality’ for ‘one object’ – that commonly held belief needs to be discarded.

Copyright © Ayad Gharbawi . All rights reserved.

Powered by SyriaNobles