Does An Ideal Marriage Exist?

February 28, 2010


June 17 2009

Ayad Gharbawi

Can an ideal marriage exist?

Or is the entire concept a Man-made construction?

Before we start this discussion, we ought to, as a beginning, ask ourselves: What is an ‘ideal marriage’?

Presumable an ‘ideal marriage’ is one where there is harmony, love and understanding between the couple. Yes, there may be friction, arguments and differences of opinion, but on the whole, an ‘ideal marriage’ is one where the union between the husband and wife there is generally a loving couple, who have mutual respect, understanding, compassion for each other.

Do such marriages exist?

Or, are we being over romantic here?

Now, yes, you will hear of couples who do declare themselves to be in a state of blissful marriage; but, can we believe them?

An ideal marriage presupposes relative harmony between man and wife. The question here is this: how can there that ‘relative harmony’ when in our world today we face so many distressing challenges, difficulties and seemingly endless problems? Furthermore, how can there be ‘relative harmony’ when, without knowing it, people themselves are in conflict against themselves? When people have insecurities, anxieties and difficulties in controlling their own emotions?

So, when you have all these factors between two people, how can one create love, peace and harmony?

I argue, that in our complicated and most difficult times of these days, an ‘ideal marriage’ is almost impossible to achieve.

Let me elaborate.

I will first of all discuss the turmoil that exists between Man and himself.

Today, we see people who are unsure of themselves. They have low self esteem, they have nagging insecurities; they have endless worries about ‘who’ they are; they have fears as to how they should behave in this or that social situation.

The fact is, that Man in this 21st century is an Anxious, Insecure Man.

When you are unsure of what or ‘who’ your identity is; when you are anxious about how to behave – then you create a conflict between your mind and yourself. This conflict, in turn, creates emotional turmoil and pain.

The opposite scenario would be: a person who is confident and utterly sure of him/herself, has serenity and peace of mind, precisely because, he/she have no doubts, fears and anxieties in the first place.

But the number of self-confident people are few and far between.

The majority of people, especially the young, are fundamentally unsure, anxious souls.

I will not go into the reason as to why we have this awful situation, whereby a majority of people are in this state that we’ve been discussing. That is not the subject of this article. (I do discuss the latter subject in other articles).

Secondly, Man is in constant stress due to his surroundings – and by that, I mean, his society, its economy, its traditions, values and its culture.

It is not difficult to fathom the reasons and the factors that cause so much stress and distress to ordinary people as they daily face their environment. Take economics. Obviously, in every country and in every society, a major stress creating factors are: poverty, low wages, stressful jobs, insecurity in one’s job (ie. Not knowing if you are still going to be employed tomorrow or not), unemployment and so on.

Another source of stress, is a person’s conflict with his society’s culture, values traditions and so on.

So we see, thus far, how Man is stressed out from these factors, and it is this turbulent, unbalancing situation, that causes man and wife to feel so much pain, aggravation and anger, so that the latter negative emotions will inevitably interfere with one’s marriage.

You cannot separate these conflicts from your marriage.

It would be either naïve, ignorant or stupid to imagine, that one can deny, that the emotional factors we’ve been discussing, can be safely isolated from one’s married life.

Indeed, it is precisely the foolish ‘romantics’ who somehow believe that a married couple can ignore all these emotional factors!

That is why, they are ‘foolish’; because, like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand, ignoring a storm, is not exactly going to immunize you from that very storm!

Unfortunately, there are other factors that can create a dysfunctional marriage.

The man discovers that there are habits and attitudes he does not like in his wife – and, the vice versa. This comes as a surprise for both partners to discover attributes that they do not like in each other. You argue and try to change each other’s attitudes and habits.

But, alas, nothing changes.

So, what comes next?

Anger and resentment as both sides eye each other with a degree of dissatisfaction – but, what on earth can you actually do?

No change, as both sides stick to their guns.

Next, you may discover that your spouse has changed as a personality. This may come suddenly or it may evolve over the years.

Suddenly, to your horror, you discover that, ‘This isn’t the same person I married!’

But, again here, what can you do about it?

You obviously do not – and cannot – love this ‘different’ spouse you are living with, precisely because of the changes that has occurred in their personalities.

And then, there is that biggest marriage-killer of them all: boredom!

Yes, you knew it, boredom!

How can you ‘love’ anyone when you see them day in, day out, seven days a week, 365 days in a year?!

It becomes almost inevitable and inexorable that you get bored!

What, then, is ‘Love’? ‘Infatuation’? ‘Romance’?

To me, these emotions are when a person is exceptionally excited about another person without actually knowing who that person is.

In other words, these emotions are based on a fantasy, and not quite on the more mundane reality.

Quite often, love is based on a person’s weakness and insecurity, and that is precisely why love is doomed to failure.

What do I mean by ‘weakness’?

For example, a person may feel his/her life is dull, boring and empty; suddenly they see an exciting, glamorous person and that creates in their heart a swelling of excitement. This momentary excitement can be ‘defined’, or interpreted by the person, as a state of being in love.

A person may feel insecure about themselves. Suddenly they meet a person who is very sure of himself; a strong character. Not surprisingly, you find that the weak person falls in love with this strong minded person, because the latter satisfies his need for a stronger person, who will cover for his own weakness.

All these reasons why a person ‘falls in love’, are based on false premises and they will mostly wither away in time.


Death Of Man

February 28, 2010


September 30, 1989 – London

Ayad Gharbawi

For many the turbulence of life are inexplicable and profoundly frustrating our faith in goodwill. What is the essence of personal meaning in a world where human relations are becoming increasingly fragile? What is the meaning of this world when only one in a thousand will succeed in his lifestyle? And what of the majority others left stranded by forces that apparently none can escape from? What is the meaning of this world where millions upon millions are forced to work in underpaid tiring jobs? While the extravagances of wealth are accepted, tolerated, applauded and esteemed, where does that leave the rest of humanity?

The twists of hypocrisy numb and stagger, while our changing moods react to this world of ours. We watch pontificating and condescending authorities speak of facts and visions bearing little relevance that are in any way significant to the average soul.

We listen to the oft-repeated clichés people employ as language has become script for so many a pre-recorded programme with little room given for free thought. Conversations of blandness, set-piece questions and answers and people ‘exchange’ ideas and thoughts on set pre-defined topics.

The turbulence of life are numerous and dense. The sad quality of human nature renders much of our need for meaning and fulfilment a useless quest. The chaotic nature of the human mind renders our hopes and desires resting on fragile ground. For dependence on humans to satisfy our needs is a risky adventure, precisely because most humans are themselves lost with no identities and suffering a severe sense of one’s security.

In truth, we are alone. Alone as any planet, for though you may be part of a constellation of ‘friends’ and ‘family’, and though you may be part of a grand interconnected web of interests and lifestyles and motives, you are still, in essence, alone as any revolving planet is.

In this vast universe where the uncertainty principle dominates, you exist in isolation with no adequate means of knowing your security of your journey’s path.

This truth, in turn, grinds down upon your hearts as we walk our daily lives here there. The heavy truth is that we are all alone and that the caring ones are fast decreasing in numbers. Our world is being divided between the cruel ones and the frightened ones, whilst the brave, heroic ones are dying out, and an increasingly lame society and an increasingly brainless culture, renders it more and more difficult to continue enacting out that heroic role.

The Age of Quantum is the Age of Uncertainty!

The destruction of the self due to its gradual erosion and fragmentation. United personalities are being hacked away by the effects of a profoundly idiotic ‘culture’. These poisonous gazes that culture spits out creates a decoherent, paralyzed sense of meaning to our daily lives.

It is far more comfortable to exist numbly rather than to exist with a thinking mind, because the latter frightens us, given the ugly truths of our reality. For to reflect upon one’s condition is to divulge the secrets of who we are all trying to repress and hide. The hidden secrets of our hearts that would awaken our eyes to the sordid spectacle of human nature afloat everywhere are not so easily to bear, even though the hidden secrets of our hearts we all can know of – if we desired to seek.

For in truth, the real vision of human nature is far too exceedingly ugly to behold!

Yet your persevering repression breeds chaos and greater fragility. Repression creates rage and an increasing sense of being lost in one’s own life. All creatures, great and small, the rich and famous, the hungry ones and the beggars, the middle class workers and the destitute unemployed ones all share one common grief: the sense of a lack of personal fulfilment for one’s vital existential needs.

So what is this life teaching us? What is this life conveying to our impressions? As the days pass by, the years and experiences being remembered, what calculations do you create and what results do you deduce therefrom?

The different sceneries you witness, the deep conversations you have had and the experiences you have been through, what essences do you infer therefrom? For in the final analysis, do we not all have a personal ideology for fine tuning our attitudes and lives in a positive and fulfilling direction?

And what of those afflicted with a terminal illness? What greater paradox can there be in life? How can we equate the authoritative, pontificating steadfast words of some, when for some others extinction is a near certainty and thus making their brief lives so utterly wretched?

Paradoxes of life!

The soldier killed at the dawn of war and the soldier killed in the final hour of the war. The prisoner of war who is summarily chained to an enforced loneliness and a casual sentence of frightful solitude and brutality for an unspecified time. What explanations do we offer ourselves when we try to understand the words and meanings of the puzzles of life?

The delicate nature of all souls in their routine lives saddens us. The quick discovery that life’s offerings are bland and predictable.

The architecture of loneliness; the architecture of gloom; the architecture of mass-produced, cheap, drab houses surround our bewildered visions: these are our home towns; these are our cities – this is where our solitude comes from. The extremely ugly row of houses, the high-rise gray buildings, the dull corner shop, the bleak streets are common sceneries we all witness and experience hourly. This, then, is the architecture in which we are to live our entire lives?

Well, I say there can be no proper, decent and healthy living in these repugnant circumstances. We can only repress our emerging grief and our daily dying and our hourly saddened sighs – if we choose to tune to ourselves. The repeated ugliness of the towns and cities destroys joy, creativity and our remaining hopes.

The morally empty lives we live. The fundamentally directionless lives we live. This is indeed destitution for rich and poor alike, for this lifestyle we are living through creates a crassness within our minds.

This is the ongoing decline of ‘culture’ that I am speaking of, and this is the exact same decline that every ancient civilisation once underwent, leading to their ultimate extinction.

This is our age of the decline and the deadness of our souls.

And as we surrender our sense of the self and joy to the opium, mass produced high-tech rubbish, nonsensical ‘culture’, so too do we lose our own minds.

The murder of Man is now abstract and no longer necessarily bloody: for it doesn’t really need to be bloody at all.

The destruction of the human race can and is being carried out far more efficiently by the greatest propaganda machine that has ever been created: the junk mass media culture of entertainment, hype, stupidities, fast services, bumper sticker intelligence, plasticity of tears and the deliberate ignoring of our noble feelings and emotions.

Americans: I Ask You To Try To Understand What ‘Israel’ Is?

February 28, 2010

Americans: I Ask You To Try To Understand What ‘Israel’ Is?

Ayad Gharbawi

February 28, 2010 – Damascus, Syria

It is so strange and weird to hear so many of you Americans describing us Arabs and/or people living in Islamic countries.

Now you are the most powerful nation on Earth, no? Aren’t you, kind of, supposed to be the most learned and educated people as a consequence of all this vast wealth and power of yours?

Well, the truth is, your sheer ignorance on what is going on, not only in the world outside your country is breathtaking.

You describe the Arabs and Moslems as living in medieval times; women are slaves; we are seen by you enlightened people as barbarians, vicious, head chopping fundamentalist, fanatics who can only love blood and war.

Obviously you get your misinformation from your fanatically anti-Arab, anti-Islamic mass media, which is, in itself, controlled by Zionists.

This is one of the most idiotic thing you Americans do not seem able to understand: you simply do not understand or have any clue to what extent the Zionists legally control most of your mass media industry. And to prove my point, simply read – just read – who owns all your major newspapers, TV channels, movie industry, music industry and so on. It is not exactly a secret that the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal are all blatantly pro-Israel and anti-Arab.

What does astonish so many of us living in the medieval world why it is you Americans cannot see that simple fact. Again, go and check the owners of these papers, even you say I’m lying.

Who are your major so-called intellectual commentators? The sad likes of Alan Dershowits or Charles Krauthhamer who are all Zionists.  How often do you see Fox, MSNBC, CNN interview anti-Zionists – like Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein or Israel Shamir? You do not. All you see are anti-Arab, pro-Zionists again and again. So, ask yourselves, you great people of America, why is your mass media so biased?

Notice that I have deliberately mentioned Jewish anti-Zionists here. Why? Because the only weapon Zionists have against anyone who dares to critique Israel is that he/she is an ‘Anti Semite’ and that means he/she is morally the same as a child murderer.

Well, I am not American, and I will critique Israel for its complete illegitimacy and I will critique Americans who support this nation, called Israel, that was immorally created by ethnic cleansing its original inhabitants in 1947-48.

I will try to ask you good Americans to understand:

  1. What gives the ‘right’ for Jews all over the planet Earth to simply ‘go and settle’ in Palestine/Israel?
  2. The Zionist answer: what gives every Jew the ‘right’ to go and live in Israel? It is because our Holy Book, our Jewish religion, orders us, or our God, orders to go and live in Israel.
  3. Fine, so your Jewish religion/book demands that you Jews go and live in Palestine. But what about us who are not Jews? What are supposed to do? We have been living in Palestine for 1,000’s of years, and now because of your religion, we are supposed to leave our ancestral homeland?
  4. Zionist answer: Yes, we’re sorry, this land of Israel was created only for us Jews and so you non-Jews, sorry, but you’ve got to pack up and leave.
  5. And who ‘ordered’ you Jews to live in Palestine and by what ‘right’ did your God ‘order’ you to live in Palestine?
  6. Zionist answer: our God ordered us to live in Israel and if you are asking us ‘by what right do we Jews’ have to take over a populated land – then our answer is simple. We Jews, are God’s Favourite People on Earth, and therefore, God wanted us to live securely in a land of our own and obviously, since God wanted us to live amongst each other, then, it follows, that we Jews, God’s Chosen Race, cannot accept the existence of non-Jews in Israel.
  7. Fine. So what do we now do with those already living within your Holy Land?
  8. Zionist answer: we want a Jewish state and that means a state populated only by Jews and that means we will gradually and legally pressurize the remaining non-Jews to get out so we have a Jew only land.
  9. So let me understand you Zionists: any and every Jew can go to Israel and live. But no Arab can go back to his land – I mean those hundreds of thousands of Arabs you ethnically cleansed during 1947-48 and in 1967?
  10. Zionist answer: Yes, exactly, because, once again, we want a Jewish-only nation so how on earth can you stupid Arabs expect us to take back those we ethnically cleansed?

So, I hope you get the gist of the basic Palestinian-Zionist problem here.

Please note – and I’ve said this a million times – I am NOT anti-Jewish. I am anti-Zionist because that so-called ideology is a brutally racist, exclusivist, nationalist belief that simply states that ONLY Jews can live in the Holy Land of Israel because that is how they interpret their religion.

I have mentioned again and again – some of the best philosophers, journalists, academicians, artists, writers are passionately anti-Zionist Jews themselves.

So any of you Zionists out there who are itching to write ‘ANTISEMITE’ on my articles, please, your nauseous, putrefying accusations mean nothing to me.

Dear Americans: try to understand me.

How can you have a so-called nation that publicly says they want to create a ‘nation’ for Jews only? And do not please tell me that you haven’t heard that before from Zionist leaders and from your own US Presidents?

A nation for Jews only?


And what about the non-Jewish humans who happen to be living there?

Are they cattle or are they equal citizens?

Well, you Americans, think, please think this with me.

How can any state be ‘democratic’ when it is a Jewish state?

What about its non-Jewish people?

Do you good Americans know that every Moslem, Christian, Armenian Palestinian town and village is fenced off and surrounded by barbed wire?

Are you imaging with me: every non-Jewish village, town and city is circled and surrounded by Israeli armed forces so as no non-Jew is allowed to go out and so that not one non-Jew is allowed to go these ghettoes?

Why do the Jews take most of the water resources whilst the non-Jewish ‘humans’ are given the least amount of water? When Jews use garden sprinklers and have swimming pools, non-Jews, have to save up for water?

Why? Is it because non-Jews are equal to Jews?

Is that what you Americans think?

Did you know for any non-Jew to go from village to village, they need the ‘permission’ from God’s Chosen People?

Do you know, you Americans, that pregnant women are denied access to maternity units, because their ‘papers’ are deemed to be unacceptable.

And pregnant non-Jewish women are denied access to maternity wards.

Do pregnant women need ‘acceptable documentation’ to go to any maternity unit in Europe, China, Russia or the rest of this planet?

For God sakes, what do you Americans think and feel of when you look at that entity called ‘Israel’?

Why do non-Jews need ‘proper documentation’ to go to a kidney dialysis machine department?

And if they don’t have these ‘proper documents’ they deny them access.

And they die.

American readers: which democratic country denies its own people the right to go to a hospital?

Why do Zionists deny stationary and text books for schools in Gaza?

Is it because school children in Gaza will become ‘terrorists’ if they actually go to school? Or maybe – just maybe – it is because you Zionists are trying to educationally cripple an entire Palestinian generation of children?

And where are you, you American mass media?

In Haiti, you Americans gave love.

In Apartheid South Africa you supported the oppressed blacks.

When it comes to the non-Jewish humans in Israel, why is it you show no interest?

Please understand one more thing. This article and others are written by myself not just for the sake of writing.

I am a nothing. I am nobody.

I am not Dershowitz or Krauthammer or Richard Perle or Paul Wolfowitz, or Douglas Feith and all the other revolting Zionists.

Though I am naught, but I do tell you that you can beat a human for so long.

Punish him, insult him, butcher his pregnant mother.

Keep on doing that.

But, then, it is strange to say, but even these barbarian, idiotic, medieval non-Jewish sub-humans will fight against you Zionists – they will fight you to the death.



Who’s been dumb now?!

Studies In Reality: Changing Faces In One Face

February 28, 2010


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


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


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).


  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.

How Can You Tell Me ‘Man Does Not Live By Bread Alone’?

February 24, 2010


Oil on Canvas - Ayad Gharbawi

Ayad Gharbawi

February 18, 2010 – Damascus, Syria

I live

From what

Jesus told me

It’s what You told me, Sire;

“Man does not live by bread alone!”

Fine, words you speak

But I Sire I do not even have

Of this ‘bread’ that you speak of

Sire, if you may, listen to my


I possess

No money

No home

No friends

No family

No warmth

And then – what now do you say to me

Jesus My Beloved Sire?

I lost my children

I live in a fanatical Panic,

That Obsessively

Is determined

To rip out and slice off my

Remaining mind, flesh and nerves

And you tell me


“Man does not live by bread alone”

What ‘bread’ do you talk about, Sire?

For it is not only I that speaks to You


Look at us here, below your nailed Body

We, that some called ‘Humanity’

Has nothing here within their depressed lives


It is not only bread or food, if that is what you mean

That, yes, we do ‘need’ to live;

But we also, Sire

We have no security, no protection

No laws to protect us from prisons

Beatings, torture

No one to protect us Sire

From abject poverty, dilapidated homes

Miserable jobs, miserable wages

We have nothing to live for

Do you understand


How ever can any human live


The Ruins of Despair?

Sire, I humbly ask you;

How can we live

When there are

Conceited Bastards

Who have the luxury of

Analysing the intricate values

Of the square root of

Minus zero multiplies

By the inverse ratios

Of zero

In their abstract mathematics


While we, here, have no education, Sire

Our jaded children’s books

Have books whose papers crumble

As they desperately try to read

Crumbs of information

That was meant to elevate them from their

Revolting poverty

You have humans shaking

Their corpulent bodies

Across the wonderful distances of this exotic earth

While we, here, Sire

Live, to breathe

So, in time, we may

Painfully suffocate

And die

What, then is your message?

Living by bread alone is not enough?


How exactly do you like to see us live, Sire?

Mental Patient Writing Something

February 24, 2010


Ayad Gharbawi
February 19, 2010 – Damascus, Syria

I love you all you
Or, all of you
I guess
I should write

Happy ones
Yes you!
Living you all
Drinking air
Vacuous nonentities
Am I describing myself or yourselves?

Supreme in my brutal
Inertia is my magnificent pulse
Loss is my definition
That defines
My dumbest elemental stench

I live to see so-called teeth grinding
My teeth
I talk about
Am I being grammatical correct for you all?

Worms satanic
Eyeballs melting from Sorrrow
And they then
Bleeding and looking fractured and pale
Didn’t Sane People
Tell me
Eyes are Souls into
Our lost Selves?
Or, something similar?

Weeping Nerves
That are
To dry
To move
Without a breakdown
I am scared, in a bed, a room
I involuntarily break my idiotically stretched lips
So, I become shy
From you all onlookers
Doctors and Visitors
Or Relatives?
Who’s who here?

If I fake
That pointless
For any ashamed passerby
A sad banner
Shall be there –
Announcing my
Smashed structure
And functionless music
Will tell you my homeless address
Of my abandoned Mind and Flesh.

Oil on Canvas by Ayad Gharbawi

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

February 24, 2010

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.

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.