Posts Tagged ‘Reality’

Self Oppression Against Yourself

March 1, 2010

Self Oppression Against Yourself

Ayad Gharbawi

Those that greedily scorn you, they that persist in

Surrounding you and touching you;

Those that innately despise your Being, exist all around you

Screaming themselves to be your

‘Friends’, ‘Lovers’ and ‘Family’

But, think, I speak to you –

For, you are alien in thought and appearance to them

You are their reminders of what they themselves cannot ever Be

You create these Reflections of Fright that breathes

In their intertwined ribs of Perversities;

Listen! For you are what?

You are the Symbol Painful of their Evil

For these Sickening Sinner, who

Whenever contemplating the Lucid Portrait

That you have painted

And that you have so effortlessly

Exposed to their sickened sadistic Brains

And, yes, they become terrified;

Terrified of what, you ask me?

They become severely frightened

Of themselves

And that is why they turn their cheeks

From their own Sadistic Selves

From the portrait of themselves

And they twist now on to another path

Far removed from their own realities

And they thereby


Their murderous work

Understand, then, the Dangerous Emptiness which is around you

Understand, then, the Culture of Stupidity that they have surfaced from

For theirs is the land of silliness too real to behold

Theirs is the Land of Self-Fear

This is the land of Stupidity

The Civilisation of Plasticity

The Culture of Brainless Beautiful Bodies

Nations totalitarian render masses fearful of authorities on all levels

Yes, how true, but wait!

Nations democratic render masses fearful of what is within each Soul

Their stolen identities, lost and gone

The Screams of Munch reverberate and pound and murmur and sigh daily

In their varied manifestations and voices

In their varied moods and appearances within your insides.

Fear of one’s Self

The fear to discover human bonds, and not the norm

The fear to realize your need for Humanity, Warmth and Substance that

Cannot be attained

For, it does rarely reside in the homeland of the humans – the brain.

Yet, if loneliness and an island you become, you shall suffer accordingly

Social animals we are

Defective society turns your Personality, your Essence and your Being that is real

It turns and transforms you into the forests of Living Graves;

The same decomposing graves that are situated so deeply

Underground; and that lurk frightfully and mockingly

Within the sinister murkiness of your Disconnected Minds –

And then, you suffer necessarily, as you must, given your Unreasonable Realities

For, you are Alone and within Stillness, you exist

Existing in an open cage they call ‘Life’

And I call Self Oppression

And your varied passions and necessary needs do not hear their echoes

Nor do you see the murmurs of meaningful eyes from anyone anymore.

A dilemma such as this, needs to be understood and replaced

With healing ideas, Sacred and Eternal in their Supreme Serenity;

I tell you, o souls, Spiritual and Meek;

Treat the waxy masks around you,

Who casually call themselves your ‘Friends’, your ‘Lovers’, your ‘Family’

Treat them with your steel masks

Enjoy what you can enjoy

Try to nourish your bodily needs

There is no shame in that!

Even though they may be the driest fruits of your existence

For the recluse’s life can lead to further pains and mental torture

Read, write, sing; these Essences and Activities shall help

With the slowed passages of time

Co-exist, inasmuch as you can

Inasmuch as your masks allow you to co-exist

For you know, there shall be a tomorrow for you

The years of weariness and withering wilderness, shall cease

Hope in a superior tomorrow is a jewel and an essence of Humanity

The Fabric of your Life is that Hope

Without it, you suffer being but bitter and dying in your living

In between miserable conflicting strands of emotions and behaviour.

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.

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.

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

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).

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