a sample of the studies that I have been analyzing as part of my general
theory on the studies of Mind, Vision and Reality:
What is ‘Reality’? Can Reality be ‘defined’? Is there a ‘one’ Reality, or
are there more than one Reality? Is the Reality for one Observer different
from another Observer? I argue, that yes ‘Reality’ is an infinite number of
images, sounds, memories, thoughts, emotions as per each Observer.
conflicting, mutually repulsing, antagonistic ‘Realities’ co-exist within
one Observer’s Mind? I argue, yes. Mutually repulsing mental entities exist
within the mind of an Observer – the crucially important, and what keeps
our sanity, is the ability to keep control on these mutually repulsing
mental entities as per each person here.
What is the definition of the ‘Mind’? How ‘close’ can we define ‘Reality’
of the Mind? Through my general work, I believe, I have come ‘close’ to an
interesting distance to what it is that makes up the structure of the Mind.
there ‘Constituents of the Mind’? What are they? Do they interact with each
other? And, if they do interact with each other, do they produce any
results? I believe, yes, there are ‘Constituents of the Mind’ (CoM). And
they are an essential key to help us not only understand how Mind functions
but also what is the structure of Mind itself.
there are mental entities within the Mind, then can we say that a person
has ‘one’ Mind? If not, then what does that say about the ‘unity’ of one’s
Mind? And, if there is no one, unified Mind, then can we say that there are
more than one functioning mental entity within the
Mind/Personality/Self/the ‘I’ of the Observer in question? How do we define
these ‘mental entities’ that exist within the mind of one person?
And, if we agree, that there are more than ‘one’ functioning mental entity
within a person’s Mind, then, how do we/can we ‘define’ the Self/the
‘I’/the character/the personality of that person? Do we have to accept
mutually contradicting mental entities/attributes in one Mind – are there
echoes of Complementarities here to be found in the Mind of Man?
What is the Matrix Formation for the Mind? Through my studies, I have come
to find that creating the Matrix Formation for the Mind is a much more
accurate way of understanding the ‘Reality’ of the structure of the Mind.
Furthermore, why exactly is the Matrix Formation for the Mind a better
method for our understanding the structure of the Mind? I find to answer
this question, using the matrix equation, easily simplifies, clarifies how
the Constituents of the mind (CoM) exist (what their structure is) and how
What is Vision? When you ‘see’ an object, what is ‘it’ you are seeing?
What are the constituents of Vision? If we were to studiously stare at one
point on any object, what is ‘it’ that we see? Further, if we were to stare
at one point in a white room that has completely flat walls, and that has
no contours, shades, tones, curves, depressions, hues, shadows, cracks, no
jagged edges – what Vision will our Observer see? Will he see a
‘nothingness’? Can ‘nothingness’ be the basic constituents of Vision?
What are the Constituents of Vision? I find that, just as there are Constituents
of the Mind (CoM), I find, in my studies, that there exists, Constituents
of Vision (CoV), and in my studies, I have found that the essence, or the
constituents of the Mind and Vision are one and the same. Note: linkage.
there a ‘one’ Vision of one Observed Object – for example, a chair? Or are
there many differing Visions for the one Observed Object? If there are
differing and mutually contradictory images of the same Observed Object,
(our table), then does that not necessarily mean that there does not exist
a ‘one, unified’ Image of a one Observed Object? I argue that just as in
the Mind, so too with Vision: there is no ‘one’ image for one Observed
Object. There are a limitless number of similar images and mutually
contradictory images of the same Observed Image.
there a functional connection between Mind and Vision?
they – Vision and Mind – interact, and if so, what happens when they do
Can it be that Vision and Mind can ever become functionally as one entity –
as I argue?
And if Vision can become, as one, with Mind, then does that mean that the
Observer and his mind/consciousness/his ‘Self’ – no longer functionally
‘exist’? But, how can a human, an Observer, ‘no longer exist’? And this is
precisely what I argue: in certain contexts, circumstances, and given a
specific time frame, the Mind of an Observer becomes reduced to becoming as
one with the contents of the Vision he is embracing.
argue, that in certain specific circumstances, Mind becomes functionally
equal to the Observed Vision, and therefore, relative to the particular
Observer we are discussing, his mind, his consciousness, his sense of
‘Self’, his entire physicality, his Being disappear and he becomes exactly
as the particular Vision in question.
What role, if any, does Time play when we seek to define the Mind? If it
does, how does Time affect an Observer? Yes, Time is crucial for our
understanding of the ‘Reality’ of Vision and the Mind. I find there are
‘two’ times: the time that we can all observe/measure, and there is also,
the Time, as perceived/felt/experienced by the particular Observer and the
two Times are not related.
‘Who’ or ‘what’ mental entity causes the following action: a movement by a
person – for example, moving his right arm – when there existed no reason
for him to move his right arm – and, of course, since this action was
inconsequential, he was completely unaware of the action that made on the
part of his right arm? In other words, his right arm was comfortable and
there was no itch and no mental/emotional reason (eg. he didn’t move his
right arm because he was in a situation where he may have been shy or
embarrassed etc.) for him to move his right arm. The question then is:
‘who’ or ‘what’ moved his right arm?
find that there are unknown mental entities that function in the mind and
that produce actions without the knowledge/awareness of the Observer, and
actions that have no meaning and that are not necessary – exactly, as in
our example above, where our observed person moves his right arm for no
reason. So, what does that tell us about the structure of the Mind of an
find that the ‘Abstract’ plays a fundamentally crucial important role in
our studies? But, what exactly is the ‘Abstract’? How does the Abstract
relate to the Mind and Vision? Does the ‘Abstract’ have any functional
connection with our understanding of ‘Reality’?
Are there any functioning connections/relationships between the ‘Abstract’
and ‘Reality’ and the ‘Mind’ and ‘Vision’? Yes, abstraction is essentially
what links Mind, Vision, Time and ultimately Reality.
Ultimately I have come to the conclusion that Mind, Vision and Reality are
structurally speaking, the same or a one unified entity, whilst
functionally speaking, they act differently.