Archive for the ‘Reality’ Category

Words Of A Prostitute Imporisoned For being Insane

March 5, 2010

WORDS OF A PROSTITUTE IMPRISONED FOR BEING INSANE


Ayad Gharbawi

Oil On Canvas - Ayad Gharbawi

October 3 2009 – Damascus, Syria

What do I think

Who I am ?

I do not know

Who I am?

I am nothing.

That, I know

My ‘dignity’, my ‘morality’

Are scattered

As my meanings are

In fact my entire being

My entire mind

Is scattered

To have any meaningful meaning!

Do you like that?

I mean my words?

Do you like my words?

I lay down in my cell

And sometimes I entertain myself

Are you entertained?

Am I doing any good job for you?

I am and have been

Hated and loved

By idiots, all over and everywhere

And, anyway

They all receded from the muddied shores

Of my sorrowful memories

I am a ‘human’

I think

Who exists

Believing in nothing for anything to be eternal

While everyone surrounding me

Are liars killers and simple-minded thinkers of murder

Exquisite

With a love of their needs that is surely equal to

Any

Fish

With its Cold brutality

Passionate blood bursting with heat

Evaporating

And then you’ll need more heated

Blood

No?

I live in a box

You called apartments

Are you ‘humans’ serious?!

Wages stingy

Prices posh

And how then are we supposed

To make our ends meet?

And how was I supposed to pay

My wages?

Christ!

Sin or no Sin

My landlord

Wants his slimy money

Man you bastard!

You have has only committed crime after crime!

I tell you screaming

You’re the only animal

Who needs to blush

From your vomity lies

That you have been force feeding us

And that have been

That have been searingly etched all over

My skull, my dry brain that has been pounded by your lying fists

You who ‘promise’ me ‘love’ and ‘happiness’

And then you all deceive me

Leaving me alone

Unknowing humans

Are you really so ‘unknowing’?

I’m not sure, myself

Now when I look at you all

In the streets, in your homes

I feel, yes, that

You can’t think

You can’t feel

That is certain, for my security of truth

Your intelligence

Is ape-like

Beauty

Can you ever succeeded

No no no no

Beauty is well beyond you

Yes, you are beautiful for this moment

But didn’t you kind of notice

Your soul is cracked, my Dear?

Advertisements

Contradictions In Life!

March 1, 2010

CONTRADICTIONS IN LIFE!


Ayad Gharbawi


A love

Ends

And a truth

Suspended

No longer

Finally

Begins to

Laugh

At herself.

Unbelieving eyes

Come to feel

Here

This now moment

That has so

Despised

Your only lifetime’s

Achievements

Of worthlessness.

Studies In Reality: Changing Faces In One Face

February 28, 2010

STUDIES IN ‘REALITY’: CHANGING FACES IN ONE FACE


Ayad Gharbawi

October 16, 2009


Why is it that one face can have so many different variations? One face can literally have an endless number of different images that can be dissimilar to the so-called ‘original’ face. So is there an ‘original’ face? No, there is not, precisely due to the existence of these unlimited number of faces that we can see in that one face. So, what is the ‘face’ on an individual if there isn’t ‘one’ face? The answer is that all the images are the ‘truth’ of what the person in question looks like.

But isn’t there a lowest common denominator? Surely, when we imagine a person, we do have a certain image of that person’s face? And surely that ‘certain image’ allows every person to immediately recognise the person in question? All these statements are true, but they do not change the fact that every face has an unlimited number of images. And, yes, every face, does have a lowest common denominator, and by that, I mean that every face has certain basic, common physical attributes that allow us to recognise it.

But how is it that ‘one’ face can have so many different images? Because within ever second, a face changes its facial muscles thus creating another image. These changes occur so fast, that it is best to see them in photos, or in slow motion. That is why we sometimes do not like the way we look in photos: but these unwanted images are part of you, wether we like them or not.

Another complicating factor is that the face, over time and experiences, does constantly change physically; so much so, that in many cases, one can hardly recognise a person between the time and ages of 20 and 60.

Let us go back to the question of, how exactly does a face change and produce so many images?

What factors affect visual perception?

I did say that changes in facial muscles are responsible for changes in the facial image. But there is more. Another factor is our own changing mood. Our changing moods will also affect our changing perception of the face in front of us. For example, if we happen to despise the observed face, then it is likely that we will view a negative image as being evil, ugly or bland. The next factor, is movement. Any movement by us and any movement by the observed person’s face will affect the images we perceive. Next, our own visual standards. One person’s vision may be stronger or weaker than another person’s vision, and that affects our perception of a face. Another factor is light. The strength or weakness of the available light will affect your perception of the image in front of you

What gives the face its most emotional content?

Without doubt, it is the eyes that give the most emotional expression to a face. Here too, there are constant changes. Indeed, were we to cover the eyes, it becomes difficult – if not annoying and frustrating – for us to ‘read’ the face before us. The next most expressive part of the face are the lips and mouth. Finally, it is the voice that affects our perceptions of the face.

Now all these factors affect our perception of a face before us: and, to stress, it is a constantly changing situation. Given all these sensitive factors involved, it is hardly surprising that a face constantly changes its images.

Thus, our perception of a face, in any given time frame, will be affected by: changes in the observed facial muscles + changes in our mood + changes in our movement + changes in our visual acuity + changes in the light around us + changes in the observed person’s eyes + changes in the observed person’s lips and mouth + changes in the observed person’s voice.

All these factors constantly interact with each other at the same moment in time and they immediately produce and create the ever changing face you see.

It is perhaps because of these complications that it can be so easy to forget a face. After all, the face is not a one, fixed image before us. Perhaps this fact causes us to have some difficulties in recognition and in its remembrance.

It is fascinating to see how a face changes almost instantly even though, at times, it hardly alters the above mentioned factors. Indeed, you notice a face before you, changes constantly, from moment to moment. The face is like any colour with all its infinite number of variations in its hues, brilliance, tint, tone, dullness and shades.

Thus, we see that our study of the perception of ‘reality returns us to that grand infinite number of images, moods or emotions and sounds that are constantly and immediately changing nano-second by nano-second, and, in turn, producing differing images and differing sounds, that in turn, produce for us observers, what we deem to be ‘reality’ before us.

There is no ‘unity’ here; the perception of a face contains an infinite number of changing images.

Reality is not a unified structure.

Ayad Gharbawi

Is The Mind Unique For Each Person?

February 28, 2010

IS THE MIND UNIQUE FOR EACH PERSON?

Ayad Gharbawi

October 24, 2009 – Damascus, Syria

When we ask ‘who am I’? let us say, that we are asking the question with the view that we are inquiring within the timeframe of that precise moment the question is being asked.

Who am I ‘now’, at this moment?

How do we define ourselves when asking that question within the time frame (TF) asked for?

Any mind, or observer (Ob), when thinking about himself, and when thinking about ‘who’ he is at that moment, will necessarily be able to think and visualise a finite number of thoughts, emotions and images.

This ‘finite’ number need not distract us here, but I do mention it precisely because we are asking this question within the ‘now’ context. Thus, there is not a lot of time to think and define.

Within the time frame of the ‘now’, any person can easily see his immediate surroundings; he can see and feel his body, he can sense his emotions, he can tell us of his current needs, loves, requirements, ambitions, failings, disappointments and so on. These facts can easily be spoken by any mind being asked this question. They are not difficult to be realized.

Do these attributes then define the essence of the Observer (Ob) in question?

Yes, for that particular short time frame (TF), the answer is yes.

It will sound to many people disappointing, because we are used to thinking and reading and listening to literature and to what our society and our culture telling us that our mind is unique, profoundly deep and even for some, mystical (whatever the latter term means).

But, when we ask ‘who are you right now’? then there is little that can be said to be so unique or profound in most people, precisely because most human beings cannot be so ‘unique’ within the same of a few seconds.

Thus, the time factor reduces our uniqueness factor to being a nonentity.

But does that mean we are all copies of one another?

No, it does not.

Why? Because one has to calculate that for every individual person, (Ob), the ‘now’ in question, will reveal unto us a certain, limited number of a matrix of emotions, feelings, surroundings and situations that can never be the exact same copy of the person next to you.

In other words, within the time frame (TF) of each Observer (Ob), you will find an infinite number of groupings of the constituents of the mind (com) – or, emotions, feelings, hopes, despair (see article, ‘Constituents of the Mind (com)’) and that no two people can have the exact same flavours, shades and hues of any emotion.

And so, within the context of a finite number of (com) as we discussed above, no two persons can ever have the exact same mind matrix.

However, we do need to stress this point, and that is, within any short time-frame, all people, and all minds, cannot be unique or deep in the sense that they are radically different from one another.

Thus if you meet a world famous philosopher or physicist, and you may think what a profound mind sits in front of me, that is fine, but it would be inaccurate. Why? Because unless this genius is in the process of thinking about profound matters, and if you were to ask him, ‘who are you now?’ then he would be forced (if he were honest and not an arrogant soul) to say to you that he is a mind that is currently made up of common emotions, thoughts and images.

Now we will move on to the mind in general terms, with respect to time.

Stretch time some more, and yes, the genius will certainly show us a unique mind when he is creating and thinking out the profound issues that interest him, but once he has finished from that process, he reverts to being no different to other people.

Some people may object by saying, “Yes, but this genius of ours, even when he’s not ‘being a genius’ is still so awe-inspiring and different’ in his behaviour”.

Yes, but so are millions of other people, who are certainly no geniuses, but they may equally inspire some people and impress others – all these are impressions by impressionable people. And if these impressionable people were to live with our genius on a day to day basis, they will eventually get to realize that the genius is a ‘genius’ for specific spaces in time, while during the rest of his waking hours he is not that different from the ordinary people.

The genius can shown us the products of his genius and we all say to him that yes, he does indeed have a unique mind, but that ‘unique mind’ can hardly be ‘unique’ all the time.

So if this essay is disappointing to some, then so be it.

The truth of the ‘reality’ is that the mind, for the most part, is not that different from anyone else, and we are not so ‘mysterious’ or fascinating as so many people seem to believe in.

Ayad Gharbawi

Structure of Reality: How Can They Be Functionally Defined As Per Observer

February 28, 2010

STRUCTURE OF REALITY – HOW CAN THEY BE FUNCTIONALLY DEFINED AS PER OBSERVER?

Ayad Gharbawi

February 22, 2010 – Damascus, Syria

We have seen, in our studies, so far the numerous functional entities that exist within the Mind of any person. I choose to give these ‘entities’ the collective name of Constituents of the Mind or – (com).

We have seen that the CoM are directly affected by the Awareness Factor (AF) because when an Observer has a low or declining level of AF then his consciousness/awareness/understanding of what is going in his mind and/or in his surroundings will be equally diminished. And the same goes for increased AF, then Observer will be that much more conscious/aware to what’s going on in his mind and/or his surroundings.

(Please note that AF can and does affect, at times, any number of  Constituents of the  Mind and therefore, the Observer will be conscious of ‘parts’ of his mind and/or surroundings, whilst less aware of other parts of his mind and/or his surroundings – we shall leave this topic for another paper).

We have also seen that when we talk of our Observer we are not talking on a person with a ‘unified one Mind’, for within that person’s Mind, there are an unknown number of functional mental entities that act and interact with other CoM and with the exterior of Observer’s Mind – that is, his surroundings.

Thus, for each Mind, there are functioning mental entities, whose ‘origins’ are unknown, that can and do, affect the person in question. This, of course, raises the issue of the centrality, unity of each individual person? We take it for granted that ‘sane’ people have a ‘one mind’ whilst it is only those afflicted with mental problems who do not have a ‘one mind’. But, in truth, that thought is false.

No person has a ‘one mind’. We are all a thoroughly changing collection of numberless functional Constituents of the Mind that act in harmony at times and act in antagonistic ways with other Constituents of the Mind – with and without our knowledge and control.

It is, in a way, like an extreme form of democracy – where the parliament (your Mind) has an endless number of political parties (Constituents of the Mind).

Now it does to be said here that the (so-called) ‘sane’ person is the one who keeps reigns and control over these mental actions and interactions, whilst the (so-called) insane/unbalanced/troubled person is one who cannot control his CoM, and, in fact, allows or surrenders to the situation whereby the CoM control the Mind of the said person.

(Note: these categories ‘sane/insane’ are unacceptable to me, and will properly be discussed in another study, but for our present purposes, we will need to ‘accept’ them).

Within the scene I have been discussing thus far, we need to go back at some of the more fundamental/essential roots of our studies in order for us to get a better understanding of what it is we are talking about.

What are these ‘fundamental/essential roots’ of our studies that I am talking about?

I believe, that if we were to try to understand ‘Reality’ of the Mind, Vision or any of the other such-like aspects, then we must necessarily go back to the most basic question and that is: what are the fundamental building blocks of Reality, Vision, Mind and so on?

Just as any physicist will ask a similar question – what are the basic building blocks that form the atom? – then, we too must ask the same type of question, albeit in a different context.

Fine. So what are the basic building blocks of Mind, or Vision?

We have already discussed this in my earlier papers – see ‘A Study of Vision In Relation To The Mind’.

However, let us quickly review what we have already been through.

I have argued that the basic constituents of Vision – for example – are made of a numberless amount of ‘units/points/areas’ that are, in themselves, defined as indefinable, hazy, formless, indistinct, imprecise in their essence.

So, when we say that the constituents of Vision are fundamentally imprecise, unrelatable, elusive and hazy as per the Observer, then what does that exactly mean?

It means that the Observing Person who is ‘looking’ at any one point on an observed Object will find nothing that he can define to be understandable or meaningful.

And, what does mean?

That means, that the Observer will have no functional, meaningful relationship with the constituents of what he is looking at. In other words, and here we come to the crux of our argument, our Observing Person, in fact, is seeing a ‘nothingness’ when he ‘looks’ at the constituents of the Observed Object.

(Now the reader will appreciate why I have been putting the verb ‘to see’ or ‘to look’ in inverted comas, because, in truth, he is actually ‘seeing a nothingness’!)

Next, we can say but how does that square up with the fact that our Observer does actually see an Observed Object and can relate to it – meaning he knows what it is and can define it and it may well produce emotions, memories and/or thoughts in his Mind if the constituents of the Observed Object are made of a numberless set of nothingnesses?

Isn’t that a paradox?

In general, people do not feel comfortable with paradoxes, but, in truth science, life, reality are full of paradoxes that co-exist side by side, – complimentarity, quantum physicists would term it – so I am not worried about the mere ‘existence’ of paradoxes.

There is, however, a more important inquiry to be studied here: are we to assume that a numberless collection of indefinite, imprecise, elusive, nebulous, blurred constituents of Vision eventually come to  produce a perceivable, meaningful ‘final image’ that our Observer can properly relate to?

Answer: yes.

And, so what?

Well, here is my important argument that I wish to be studied.

It is not only the constituents of vision (CoV) that are composed of an unending number of nothingnesses, but it happens to be: that all ‘Reality’s’ constituents are also composed of an equally numberless number of nothingnesses that all – eventually produce an images, thoughts, feelings, emotions that are eventually recognizable and meaningful to the Observer.

And now we may rightly ask, what exactly do we mean by ‘nothingness’?

Apart from the fact that I have already given definitions of what this ‘nothingness’ is, (see previous studies) I wish to add more to our understanding of what exactly this ‘nothingness’ is.

For ‘nothingness’ is nothing more and nothing less than abstract ‘realities/images/truths’. Nothingness is abstraction.

And, what then, is ‘abstract’?

It is precisely that which we human beings cannot humanly relate to in any meaningful way. (See my previous article, ‘Questions Science Can Never Answer’).

The abstract is that which is beyond our human mind’s ability to understand, or to realize or to fully feel the function and structure of whatever the abstract is.

Therefore, the ‘fundamental building blocks’ of Reality, Mind, Vision are composed of a numberless amount of abstractions or nothingnesses.

And it is precisely these numberless abstractions and/or nothingnesses that eventually ‘add up’ to produce the recognizable, meaningful Vision, reality that any Observer can relate to and understand and interact with.

Now, once we accept or understand, the fundamental building blocks of our entire Reality are abstract nothingnesses, then we can come to a better understanding of our own Minds.

The history of Man, from the days of Sumer, Babylon, ancient Egypt, to the Greeks, the Romans, the Islamic philosophers to our European thinkers has been an endeavour to create a Reality that is precise, definable, meaningful, strict in its preciseness (especially as per the mathematical formulas), and rigid like any clockwork  system (much to Newton’s taste).

Reality was supposed to be ‘cut and dry’ concept ‘out there’ and all we needed to do, if we wished to understand its Form and Function, was simply to measure its every aspect – from its structure to its motion and to its actions and interactions.

One day, science will be able to ‘measure’ these facets of Reality, and like any MRI scan, we would be able to fully ‘see’ any aspect of Reality.

Obviously Einstein’s Relativity dealt the first blow to that philosophy and next came the Quantum mathematicians/philosophers like Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Bohm, Bohr, de Broglie and others.

Sub-atomic reality is actually far from being precise, definite and clear cut. We can only understand some aspects of the ‘reality’ of sub-atomic particles, and that at the expense of other aspects of the characteristics and attributes of these self-same sub-atomic particles. In other words, we cannot ever see the ‘full picture’ – so to speak – since there does not exist a full, united one picture of any sub-atomic particle.

Today, I believe, that through our present day studies, we too can see, a similar result with our own Mind and Consciousness Studies – albeit, that we are, of course, that here we are dealing in a somewhat different context – dealing with the Mind.

Thus, the ‘Reality’ of the Mind and the outside world, Vision, is composed of nothingnesses and abstractions that cannot ever be meaningful, significant, functionally recognizable and therefore, our effort to ‘look’ at these constituents of Reality will always produce functionally-speaking an absolute nothing, as per our cognizant Mind.

Meanwhile, it is precisely these numberless abstractions that emerge to create a meaningful, understandable Reality.

In other words, functionally meaningful and understandable and recognizable Reality is an Emergent process/phenomenon.

(Note how this emergent property we are discussing is related to the emergent property of the emergence of complex systems in biology as per organisms – this will be discussed later).

Please note that this entire emergence process is completely connected to the Awareness Factor (AF) of the Observer, and, as we have said, the AF is in constant change and motion, and therefore, the Reality and Vision of Observer is in equal constant flux, change and altering ‘truths’ (as per Observer).

REFERENCES:

  1. Baggot, Jim. Beyond Measure – Modern Physics and the Meaning of Quantum Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004.
  2. Barad, Kared. Meeting the Universe Halfway – Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Duke University Press, Durham and London 2007.
  3. Coveney, Peter. The Arrow of Time – A Voyage Through Science to Solve Time’s Greatest Mystery, W.H.Allen, London 1990.
  4. Omnes, Roland. Quantum Philosophy – Understanding and Interpreting Contemporary Science, Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey 2002.
  5. Maudlin, Tim. Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford England 2002.