In this study, I will propose, that the relationship between Mind and Vision can enable us to draw certain conclusions relevant to one aspect of what constitutes the Mind, and therefrom, we may seek a better understanding of what the 'I', or the 'Self' is. In seeking such an understanding, I have sought to increase our understanding of the issues we shall discuss, by employing novel mathematical and logic symbols. This will be of fundamental importance to my thesis, not only because I am using novel notations and symbols, but because the latter will enable us to clarify and speed up our understanding of the subject matter.

I will propose, that just as it was necessary for G.Boole to create a new symbolic language in order to uncover an existing 'reality', so too, we need to seek another viewpoint from which we can analyze this particular study I am presenting – and that has necessitated the establishment of novel symbols with new meanings.

What I seek to do in this paper is this: to establish the salient characteristics of the relationship between Mind and Vision; it will be proposed that these characteristics possess an inherently abstract quality. It ought to be immediately stated that the concept of the 'abstract' will be fundamentally and extremely important in our study.  

Further, I seek to employ this relationship and interaction between Mind and Vision, by creating a clearer understanding of what Mind and Vision are, and that, in turn, we will allow us a closer inspection of what the 'Self' is.

I would like to add, that this manuscript is the beginning of my proposals – in other words, there is a lot more work that I have done, with respect to this subject. And so, I have necessarily restricted myself, to discussing only the introductory concepts in this study.

*  *  *  *  *  *

1.    ANALYSIS OF VISION

In this part of the study, I shall attempt to explain how Vision is of critical importance if we seek to understand what Mind is. We shall see that the very abstractness of Vision is, in itself, a contributing factor to the overall recognition of what Mind is.

To begin our understanding of what I call the 'elusive' quality of Vision is, I shall pose a simple question: When we are seeing an object, (let us say, a flower), what do we actually 'see'? I shall propose that what we are seeing is an 'Abstract Image' of that object.  I will now explain why I use the terms 'Abstract Vision'. I deliberately use the term 'Image' because our visual perception of any observed object is dependent on the differing anatomical differences and the differing optical accuracy of the observer. Thus, if we allow a bee, an eagle, a human and a worm to see our object, (the flower), they will all 'see' different 'images' of the same object. Therefore, the one observed object has an unlimited number of differing 'images', and all these differing images contradict each other, since, to use our example, what the bee 'sees' will not be what the worm 'sees', and so on. That is why I use the term 'Image'. There is no 'one' 'real' image of the flower. Observers can only see 'Images' and these Images are all different from other observers. The reason why I use the term 'Abstract' will be more difficult to explain. I propose that when we see any object, we are seeing a collection, an amalgamation, or a collection of nothingnesses. Let me suggest this much: focus on any object (our flower, for example). Now, your Mind can relate to, recognize what he/she is seeing; that is, the Observer – or, the 'Self' or the 'I' -  can state that he/she is seeing a flower.  Next, focus on one specific point on the flower, and try to think of nothing else, and try to observe nothing else except at this particular point on the flower. Now, try to 'define' for yourself what it is you are actually seeing within this point on the flower. You will find, try as you may, that you cannot observe anything. You are seeing a 'nothingness'. As hard as you may concentrate; as focused as you can be – your Vision will not 'see' anything that is visible, perceptible or recognizable to your Mind. Can we ever say, with any precision, what it is we 'see' when we focus on one point on an object? I propose, that when we focus our mind on one point on the Observed Object, (hereafter referred to as 'OO'), and we do not allow our mind to think of anything else except on that point on the (OO), we 'see' a 'nothingness'. By 'nothingness', I mean that our Mind cannot relate to, or recognize anything within the boundaries of the observed point. Furthermore, it is precisely this nothingness which ultimately generates the 'whole' vision of the OO. It is for this reason that I use the term 'Abstract' in describing Vision.  Now, we must elaborate on what we mean by 'Abstract', because the concept of the Abstract will play such a fundamentally important part in our thesis.  By using the latter term - the 'Abstract' - I mean any perceived object that is indefinable, indescribable, immeasurable, elusive, hazy, formless, blurred, and perhaps most importantly; 'Abstract' means anything for which our Mind simply cannot 'see', relate to, recognize or comprehend in any meaningful manner. All objects are made up of an unrecognizable, indefinable 'number' of nothingnesses. When an Observer (hereafter referred to as 'Ob') looks at a particular point, or at a Focused Observed Point, (hereafter referred to as 'FOP'), on an (OO), an Abstraction of Vision will necessarily occur, because what the (Ob) sees is in the (FOP) is a nothingness – or nothing that he/she can relate to, precisely because the constituents of any object vis-à-vis Mind and Vision is made up of nothingnesses, or abstractions. Therefore, Vision becomes irrelevant in relation to the Observed Point, because there is no meaningful connection between Mind and the (FOP).  It is irrelevant to Mind precisely because of the attributes of the (FOP) – these attributes being Abstract. If Vision is to be understood as the recognition by (Ob) vis-à-vis the (OO), then the (FOP), due to its abstract qualities, can have no functional relationship to Mind. This said, we can now turn to our original question, concerning 'what' it is that we 'see' when we are focusing on an object – the bird. Let us now say this: let us look at a blank piece of white paper; now, we may see shadows resulting from contours and the texture of the paper. Let us assume that the paper has no contours, no shadows and its texture is so plain that the colour white is utterly uniform and without variations in hues. Let us say we completely focus our looking on this piece of paper. What exactly do we 'see'? I propose, that when we focus on one particular point on this paper, we shall 'see' a 'nothing'. Why? Because there does not exist any 'point' or 'area' on that paper, wherefrom our Mind can 'see' anything, or our Mind can relate to, recognize or comprehend as being anything meaningful. From here, evolves our meaning of 'nothingness', when we discuss Vision. This 'nothingness' can be appreciated by simply trying, again and again to focus on any one particular point on the paper – and we shall get the same results: nothingness. However, since the surroundings around the Observer (including the body of the Observer him/herself) will inevitably be 'seen' by the Observer, and since these sights and sounds will inevitably distract the Observer from a complete focusing on the Observed Object, we must, therefore, take our experiment one step further.   Let us now assume that, by some method, we are unable to see our body or any other object in our surroundings. Let us assume that we are in a white coloured universe, (or any other colour will do), and we have only our eyeballs and this 'universe' that surrounds us with its uniform colour, with no contours or variations in hue, and therefore, there are no contrasts in the colour of this universe. We now ask our Observer to focus at any one point in this universe and we ask the Observer: what do you 'see'? I propose that no Observer, in these circumstances, will be able to focus on any point in this universe, and be able to 'see' anything. The Observer will see nothingness or a void. Wherever the Observer will try to 'see', he/she will get no result. A multitude of voids, or nothingnesses. Why? Because the constituents of Vision are, as we have said, Abstract. The essence, or the constituents of any perceived Object, is made of abstractions – or nothingnesses. When seeing an Object, we are seeing the totality, or the sum total of these nothingnesses that ultimately 'create' the recognizable and meaningful whole. Therefore, a multitude of nothingnesses or abstractions ultimately create Vision.Abstract Vision is similar, in a way, to the properties of the electron as defined by Quantum Physics. The constituents of Vision are not unlike what Heisenberg, Bohr and Schrodinger perceived the 'reality' of the electron to be. Just as the electron cannot be fully visualized, described, or defined, so too, the constituents of Vision are abstractions that no human can optically relate to in a functionally perceptible and meaningful sense. And so, we come to the paradox and the seeming illogicality of Vision: for Vision is made up of indefinable, unobservable, unrecognizable 'parts', and yet, it is precisely these unobservable voids that ultimately we come to 'see' an image that our Mind can recognize and relate to. In other words, a multitude of nothingnesses ultimately create perceptible, meaningful Vision. Let us elaborate on this 'nothingness' I am talking about.  The perceived 'whole' of any object makes sense to the observer – that is, the observer can relate to it. The observer can say, "I am looking at a flower". However, the constituents can only be defined as 'abstract' because they cannot be 'seen' in the first place. It should be noted here, that words or terms such as 'components', or 'constituents' are misleading, since there are no neat, cut and dry 'components' or 'points' to speak of. These terms are, at best, the most accurate terms in the linguistic sense. We can, therefore, speak of a vague, indefinable, unrecognizable, shadowy 'point', or 'area' that the person can focus on, and it is the summation of these 'points' and/or 'areas' that create the final recognizable object that is being seen.We now turn our attention to another aspect of Vision vis-à-vis the Mind. When we are not looking at anything, and when we are not thinking or imagining anything – what, in that circumstance, do we 'see'? Let us take this example: when one is being vacant minded, or is momentarily blanking out – and we all experience this situation from time to time – what do we 'see' in that situation? Now, I have deliberately chosen this example, because when we daydream, we are still seeing images in our minds; and, when we dream, we see the dream itself. There are times, however, when we are awake, and our Mind and Vision see nothing – no Observed Objects and no Images. Our Mind is being vacant or blanking out.Now, I propose, that when we do 'blank out', the Vision we 'see' is the exact same as the Vision we 'see' when we concentrate and focus at one particular point on an object or, the Observed Object (OO). In other words, the results reveal that the person who has momentarily 'blanked out', sees exactly the same as the Observer who is focusing at one particular point on an Object. Once again, we can say that Vision, in both cases, becomes imperceptible, unrecognizable – and, ultimately Vision, in both circumstances, becomes a nothingness.*  *  *  *  *  *