To really see something is to see the “source inspiration and beauty” behind that which is seen.
It is to see its place in a larger context, in a larger framework of meaning.
Otherwise, it is only surface/superficial seeing.
Seeing/Vision is a lot more about context than the content of the sensory-appearance of what is seen.
The following concepts are closely related to each other = the concept of seeing/vision, value, and beauty.
When you see something from love, you see the creation as the creator would see it.
There is no upper ceiling to perceiving source inspiration/love/positive vision/value/beauty.
The deeper your positive seeing, the more your capacity for the above qualities.
Please refer to my earlier blog post to learn about what I mean by positive vs. negative vision:
The connection between IDENTIFICATION and LOVE:
This is an extremely deep topic, but I’ll try to give a few pointer examples.
* For example, say, you look at your personal laptop that has all your life’s work = personal photos, videos, files, documents, music, playlists etc.
All that gamut of context is tied into your seeing of the laptop.
So seeing = both context and content.
Its not possible to quantify, but to give an idea, the content is just 1% or less while 99% or more is context.
The sensory impression is only a pointer to the tree of knowledge that resides in the mind.
Let’s say, you have a dog, and that dog too sees your laptop.
How would he see it? The 99% of context, memories, attachment, associations, information you connect with the laptop would not be present for the dog.
So he would see it as just “content” mostly.
* It is like looking at a stranger’s smartphone of an unknown make/model (so very little associative connections as such).
Imagine how different would that be from seeing your own smartphone.
* Imagine the difference between looking at your children vs. looking at a random person’s children.
When an artist creates a work from source inspiration, he is seeing from positive vision.
He sees the value/worth/significance/importance/beauty of his work, because it came forth from his channeling of source inspiration itself.
If he puts it up in an exhibition, and if various art critics come and start critiquing it, then the critics are seeing from negative vision here.
They are not seeing it the way the artist sees his own work which is from positive vision.
Both positive and negative vision are kinds of vision.
The distinction is that, positive vision connects what is seen to the source of creation (which is the potential/love/inspiration), while negative vision does not do that.
Negative vision does not see what the art piece is, rather it sees what it is not by comparing it to something else that is loved.
That is the fundamental difference.
Positive vision is to see from the point of view of the creator.