Joseph Newton

A persons worldview is how they see themselves in relation to the world around them. An internalisation of the external. Worldview. Itself. Yourself. Your Culture. Your Area. Your Religion. Your Ethnicity. Your Colour. Other peoples view of you. Your view of other peoples view of you. Ad infinitum What we see is that worldview is relativistic and what we also see is that that is not what humankind has in place. Free will exists up to a point in some societies but someone always imposes their view as the truth. Power and tyranny in all spheres exist and will continue to exist as long as society contains heirachy. But heirachy usually leads to a faster process. Style and fashion drive what people buy, for instance. To sell something one has to encourage the prospective customer that they are buying the right thing. In a completley free world this would be purely based on a personal experience but it is not always the case. To make the choice easier a person may opt to buy what would be accepted to others in the form of the latest fashion or style. They strive to some convention that is not there own just for the sake of ease or because they feel the need to fit in. So who sets these conventions?

Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups, with or without the threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favour the dominant group. Hegemony controls the ways that ideas become "naturalised" in a process that informs notions of common sense.
Throughout history, cultural and political power in any arena has rarely achieved a perfect balance, but hegemony results in the empowerment of certain cultural beliefs, values, and practices to the submersion and partial exclusion of others. Hegemony affects the perspective of mainstream history, as history is written by the victors for a sympathetic readership.Knowledge is power and as discussed knowledge, in all probability, can only be to understand the state of a system at a given point in time if it is a live system, or simply to understand the whole system if the system has ceased to be live. If you have the key or code to a system be it a language or a set of definitions or a sequence you have power over that system and if you stop others from understanding then you have power over that other in the form of knowledge of the system. (eg computer compression algorythm) Alongside the abstract is also the concrete. Any form of representation relies on some sort of carrier to perform. Abstraction could be seen as the catabolic destruction of the real in concrete information but which holds the essence of the real by the way of symbolic form. Thus we come to the question of what real means and we find that in reality (!?) it is usually based on conventions formed from experience first as a singleton and then as the conventions of society. This is seen in the way representation has style but is there another visual system that of the carrier of the information, the way the visual system perceives the information in a physical way can be the carrier of the information and the information itself.
The use of flat colours and sharp linear edges in my paintings uses the loss of information from the perceived world to evoke like responses in the abstract representation and to use the averaging of the colours in a perceived scene to find the edge of representation. Texture and shade have been forgone even to the extent that many of the paintings show no obvious method of making. All that exists is the colour. To make the concrete simple has not simplified the meaning indeed the added ambiguity could be said to have added more information and not less, this is the paradox. Even with the textural, constructural element removed and even with non representational colours, conventions are drawn upon from the viewers experience, sensory experience and knowledge. For instance most people have a view of abstract art either from what they have seen written about it or from simple sensory response. In the present day this includes the idea of the abstract as itself, not indeed as an abstract at all.
If abstract art is it's own language and so is representational art where do they meet where is the edge abstract representationalism or maybe representational minimalism! With all the conflict in the world at present caused by peoples differing worldviews and ideas of truth,I began thinking about the idea of an art that any worldview would appreciate irrespective of the cultural background. A universal visual truth that goes beyond boundaries of conventional truth of any particular culture, a cross-cultrural commonality of representation. The use of effects that go beyond cultural boundaries such as illusion, the lack of any certain cultural apparels (or the use of a wide range) and the psychology of perception allow an idea to be un-worldview specific. Another way of course is to use the mundane. Abstract art is not completely cross cultural because of style. Depending on the cultural background (even within countries and art movements) it takes a particular style.Depending on the cultural background (even within countries and art movements) it takes a particular style.
The way that computers compress images so that files are within a certain size of information (bits/bytes) yet convey the original because we expect them to look that way because the information is reconstructed by our perception. This is an anabolic gain of information (our perception) after a catabolic loss (computer compression) but because computers work in this way we have learnt to see in that way. The amount of entropy or information lost depends on the observer. The more knowledge of a system an observer holds the less information is needed to represent it. This leads to the use of symbols. The other form of compression a computer uses is more interesting in that the information is transformed to take up less size. Instead of being lost, information is converted via an algorithm to a smaller (in bits and bytes) form and then uses the inverse of the first algorithm to recreate the original. This could be seen as an analogy for perception. Maybe!
Absolutes only seem to exist on a local level and in the world of the computer this local level is worldwide. The conventional truth of the way the computer works married to the conventional truth of how we see computers forms a language that becomes the subject itself. Information. The digital revolution has been driven by this information, the use of binary numbers is in a way the simplest form of binary opposition, but as such is still opposition and therefore fragmentation of the whole. The flow of being has been broken up into packets or units. This thinking pervades everything from the way graphics and music is stored and reproduced all the way to how the universe is structured (the quanta of quantum physics and the particles involved)

Within many modern theories it is becoming increasingly clear that the basis of objectivity is in itself subjective. There is no, and will never be, any formal system that will be able to substantiate or prove itself. This has led to a general change in worldview, the whole concept of which is now seen differently. Our understanding of information, wholeness, order and chaos have undergone conceptual shifts that make it possible to see

Truth or the premise of it does not exist. The Basis of people's world-views are based on the constructs and conventions of civilisation and not to be taken as absolutes. Absolutes lead to conflict and conflict lead to waste. Consider the above statement is it true?
So how to escape this circular argument
The idea of the statement is itself an absolute idea so to talk about world-views in a wholly relativistic way is itself an absolute: the paradox of the relative absolute. This is where we find that the basis of what we see as reality is nothing. It is bound up in self-reference and can never be known except when seen from a higher dimension. (the idea of the fourth dimension allows for the truth of our dimension to be seen. This may be why the idea of the fourth or n dimensions is seen as mystical or godlike for it allows an outside view)
If paradox is the idea that a premise cannot exist within a given set of statements then either
- the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction
- the puzzling result is not really a contradiction
- the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together.
There is already a problem in this statement, the appearance of the word truth. For the paradoxical to exist it has to exist against some truth, otherwise it would not be paradoxical. We can see that truth is caught in the same self-referential spiral of need for opposition. If everything were true the idea of truth would itself be meaningless. The paradox of truth is that is it needs to be falsifiable, or the ability to prove it false has to exist to make it true. What is the justification of truth anyway? For someone to know something is to believe in this knowledge as truth or false, the justification of this statement of knowledge is another matter all together (if knowledge is therefore individualistic it has no convention. Maybe we should believe Alfred North Whitehead’s statement; “Truth is the conformation of appearance to reality” but here we have an absolute truth in the appearance of the word reality, so what he is really saying is “Truth is the conformation of appearance to truth”, Or is that “The conformation of appearance to a convention described as reality by a group”. But if justification of a statement is based on world-view of an individual and not as a societal paradigm or convention, truth can be seen as relative for it is individual. knowledge on the other hand cannot.
For example let's take an example of the Gettier problem by Carl Ginet.
Suppose you're driving through a rural area. As a matter of fact the region contains a lot of fake barns: wooden frontages that look just like barns from the road. But you don't know this, and have no reason to suspect it. You look off to your left and you see something that looks like a barn, so you believe "that's a barn." In fact it is a barn. It's one of the few barns in the region. But you're just lucky. If you had looked at a fake barn instead, you would have believed that it was a barn.
In this case it seems that your belief that you're driving by a barn is justified or reasonable. After all, it looks like a barn; and you've never heard of a region full of fake barns. And your belief is also true. But we are reluctant to say that you know that you're driving by a barn. The justified true belief cannot count as knowledge. Is this lack of knowledge simply a lack of information? The truth that is held by the individual driving through the region is simply because the whole system is not known to that individual. But if you learn that the region you're driving through is full of fake barns you're justification for believing that you're looking a t a real barn would disappear. Hence, even if it's true that you're looking at a real barn you would not know that you were and in fact may believe that you were not. A lack of knowledge still exists. Or what could be said as a lack of information of the whole system that is being perceived which leads to individual true justified belief. The communication of this information about the system is therefore needed for someone to know.
So already there are societal or conventional truth and individual truth but both depend on knowledge. Knowledge can come from personal experience of physical phenomena or from communicating abstract ideas. Knowledge, unfortunately, is bound up in a system of individuals each with separate world-views and spaces who use abstract languages and systems to communicate, convey and convene this knowledge to each other. Take the idea of qualia; They can be defined as qualities or feelings, like the idea of redness for instance. Is it possible to describe the feeling of the sensory perception of redness in such a way that it is totally comprehensible to another? It can be better understood in the thought experiment was originally proposed by Frank Jackson as follows:
"Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a colour television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?" [1]
In other words, we are to imagine a scientist who knows everything there is to know about the science of colour, but has never experienced colour. The interesting question that Jackson raises is: Once she experiences colour, does she learn anything new?
if Mary does learn something new, it shows that qualia (the subjective, qualitative properties of experiences), exist. If we agree with the thought experiment, we believe that Mary gains something after she leaves. She acquires knowledge of a particular thing that she did not possess before. That knowledge, Jackson argues, is knowledge of the qualia of seeing red. Therefore, it must be conceded that qualia are real properties, since there is a difference between a person who has access to a particular quale and one who does not. Furthermore, if Mary does learn something new upon experiencing colour, the idea that all knowledge is knowledge of physical facts (physicalism) is false. Specifically, the Knowledge Argument is an attack on the physicalist claim about the completeness of physical explanations of mental states. Mary may know everything about the science of colour perception, but can she know what the experience of red is like if she has never seen red? Jackson contends that, yes, she has learned something new, via experience, and hence, physicalism is false. Jackson states:
"It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then is it inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete. But she had all the physical information. Ergo there is more to have than that, and physicalism is false.[2]"
But what this could be saying is that the physical information that Mary posses within her black and white realm is incomplete for another reason. That the information is conveyed by the use of a mere descriptive language which is an abstract, means that she actually did not have all the physical information. What was incomplete was the way the information was conveyed. In this sense it doesn't have to be that qualia are real properties, but the lack of knowledge of all the information because of the transmissive loss of language in describing the physical facts. If this is so then the actual experience of seeing the colour red is simply gaining all the information properly. What Mary would think was true from thinking she had all the physical information would be changed when the actual thing was experienced. The evidence that she held as truth while within her room was therefore a social construction. The most immediate form of evidence available to an individual is the observations of that person's own senses. For example an observer wishing for evidence that a tomato is red need only look at a tomato. However this same example illustrates some of the difficulties of evidence as well:
? someone who was red-green colour blind, but did not know it, would have a very different perception of what colour a tomato was than someone who was not. Even simple sensory perceptions (qualia) ultimately are subjective ; guaranteeing that the same information can be considered somehow true in an objective sense is the main challenge of establishing standards of evidence.
? there is also the question of what is meant by 'red', and how we measure it. (If determined by a particular wave-length of colour - then how do we actually measure this?)
? there is also the question of how evidence 'translates' e.g. is 'blau' in German universally translated as 'blue' in English: Germans may have different words for different parts of the spectrum; thus 'evidence' is a social construction.
One is needed by the other. To need evidence is to believe something to be true but to not have observed it on the other hand to have observed the qualia but not had the relevant knowledge Immanuel Kant discussed the theory of truth in the following manner:
"Truth is said to consist in the agreement of knowledge with the object. According to this mere verbal definition, then, my knowledge, in order to be true, must agree with the object. Now, I can only compare the object with my knowledge by this means, namely, by taking knowledge of it. My knowledge, then, is to be verified by itself, which is far from being sufficient for truth. For as the object is external to me, and the knowledge is in me, I can only judge whether my knowledge of the object agrees with my knowledge of the object. Such a circle in explanation was called by the ancients Diallelus. And the logicians were accused of this fallacy by the sceptics, who remarked that this account of truth was as if a man before a judicial tribunal should make a statement, and appeal in support of it to a witness whom no one knows, but who defends his own credibility by saying that the man who had called him as a witness is an honourable man."
— (Kant, 45)Assuming that knowledge is justified true belief. Then:
1 Suppose that P is some piece of knowledge. Then P is a justified true belief.
2 The only thing that can justify P is another statement – let's call it P1; so P1 justifies P.
3 But if P1 is to be a satisfactory justification for P, then we must know that P1.
4 But for P1 to be known, it must also be a justified true belief.
5 That justification will be another statement - let's call it P2; so P2 justifies P1.
6 But if P2 is to be a satisfactory justification for P1, then we must know that P2
7 But for P2 to count as knowledge, it must itself be a justified true belief.
8 That justification will in turn be another statement - let's call it P3; so P3 justifies P2.
9 and so on, ad infinitum.
Aletheia is the Greek word for "truth", and like the English word implies sincerity as well as factuality or reality. The literal meaning of the word is "the state of not being hidden; the state of being evident".Aletheia is the truth that first appears when something is seen or revealed. It is to take out of hiddenness to uncover. It is not something that is connected with that which appears. Allowing something to appear is then the first act of truth; for example, one must give attention to something before it can be a candidate for any further understanding, for any understanding of space it must first somehow appear. Untruth, then, is something concealed or disguised.
Is a/the experience beyond language and communication
Can qualia be found with a little and not all information
Abstraction of paint to form language and also cognitive abstraction. The painter is the medium from which society changes. The artist either goes with the conventions of the present representational system of the time (e.g. use of linear perspective) or strives against it (impressionism, cubism). When the artist works against the representational style or schema of the time then these representational styles are either changed or the artist considered minor or quirky and the current representational style continues. (here the diachronic nature of knowledge can make the minor or quirky artist a great or well respected one at a later point in time either because their ideas or representational style fits with that of the time). This acceptance of representational style can be seen to be similar to the scientific problem solving process. PROBLEM > CONJECTURED SOLUTIONS > CRITICISM AND TESTING > REPLACEMENT OF THEORIES > NEW PROBLEM The artist is going through the same process but the problem is one of representation or style.

REPRESENTATION > CONJECTURED SOLUTIONS > CRITICISM AND TESTING > REPLACEMENT OF STYLE > REPRESENTATIONWhat is the truth of a painting? In much the same way as reality, the truth of a painting depends on the internal truth of the viewer, their personal and sensual experiences and also the truth on an historical level what Arnheim described it as such "intellect is a linear or sequential analysis, while intuition is a synthesis of the entire structure. Intuition enables us to perceive and interpret the relations between various elements of a subject." Take for example a painting by Constable ; such landscapes need no historical knowledge to appreciate it's painterly skill and beauty but it holds more. The modern viewer sees it in today's context and as such to the unknowledgable viewer it would be a nice painting, intuitively. the historical context is the intellect or sequential analysis side (conventional historical knowledge) of the paintings truth. Knowledge for example that the picture was a major step forward in representation at the time a new way to represent.PROBLEM > (how to paint light)
CONJECTURED SOLUTIONS > (painterly technique)CRITICISM AND TESTING > (painting is shown)REPLACEMENT OF THEORIES > (technique or style is taken up by others)NEW PROBLEM (how to paint light).For this type of of advancement to take place a schema is needed to base the advancement on, a few eureka moments do happen but even these need a knowledge base (no ancient ever had a eureka moment over how to build a computer!). The slow progression of knowledge is seen it retrospect as a whole. All present world views coming from extensions from past ones. The idea of looking with no experience, with an innocent eye is basically impossible. What do things look like to the innocent unbiased eye. The act of living leads to habits, conventions, and sorting of experience when visualising and to observe the viewer will bring a priori knowledge to the act of observing. This means that a representation will be stylised by both the viewer and the painter. Fry and Ruskins idea that representation advances through the suppression of conceptual knowledge and the use of the unbiased eye is impossible for someone in the sphere of making. A schema , style or individual visual truth will be present in the representation. But how do optical effects fit with the unbiased eye idea? It shows the importance that the intuitive side to truth rather than the intellectual analysis side of conventional truth holds. The eye knows what the brain doesn't or the knowledge of the visual world that the brain has learnt through experience is fooled by a purely physiological optical effect. What is in effect our reality, is fooled. It is the idea of experience and knowledge which is why representation has such a long history of change. To read a picture is to bring into play all our memories and experience of the visible world our intuitive response and our knowledge of representation out analytical response which are tested against the representation in question. As this representation is based on the past the reading of the representation will be tested against all the representational styles known. This started slowly firstly the idea of symbolism which led to the schema being copied over and over. This happened because in using increasingly well known schema or symbols the intended information can be conveyed more easily. The constancy strived for by early civilisation was found in these symbols. The narrative of a picture only became important during the Greek period. Before the Greek the timeless function of the potent image (symbol) was representing constancy of knowledge. Pre Greek art might represent, for instance, a great battle won by a king in a wholly symbolic way using a set of sanctified images set out in a certain order or pattern. A prior schema is need to understand this sort of image, which could also be seen as language. The system of representation needs to be known which can lead to hermetic power. This schema is what is used to control in the pre Greek era. The use of knowledge to control.
The Greek civilisation as of the 6th century b.c. changed this by adding a narrative - a story to just one image instead of using a series of images. Before an image had been an ideal, a representation not of a person but an idea. The schema was shifted from external, systematic and symbolic to an internal schema. Mimetic tradition started here with the shifting from internal thoughts of the subjects in the narrative. The Greek introduction of mimesis to representation taught us to ask of its imagery and forms of, for instance, a warrior or king how does he stand or even why does he stand. It was no longer enough to have the king or warrior stand for a value or symbol. Why? The introduction of the alphabet freed the Greeks from having to represent in this way. The pictogram of early writing was no longer needed to identify specific certain things or meanings and the stiffness and regularity of the representation softened as it was no longer had the same schema or meaning attached to it, an image which held no inherent information. But this is not all, with the ability of the alphabet to represent abstract ideas and thoughts the story tellers and poets no longer had to use pictoral images to form an objective idea. They were freed from the constraints of what and given license to vary and embroider the particular myth or story and to dwell on the how in the recital of epic events.
From this opening of narrative it was possible for artists to add narrative to representation. With the addition of narrative another space is formed for the schema of the narrative is no longer in the external objective what world. The narrator is free to add feelings and drives to their characters and another space is formed, the space of the narrative itself.
Giving the narrative space meant that representation, for the first time, had also to be given a space of it's own. The narrative space transposed to the representational space. It is from this that the narrative space became a real space with the design of theatrical scenery. It is within this space in the context of plays based on ancient mythical tales that the tricks of illusionist art, perspective and modelling in light and shade first came to be used to represent an actual space.
So the schema had changed from a wholly (or indeed holy) conceptual model to a naturalistic one. Instead of a set of rules based on symbols for things the schema simply became a set of rules, the symbolism coming from the language of naturalistic representation instead of learned known symbols. This schema could be seen as visual truth, or more precisely the visual truth of the moment it was meant to represent.
As well as ancient civilisations using certain schema to control knowledge and indoctrinate the masses, the use of certain known variables or symbols is also easier to represent over a period of time to keep a true meaning. If the image stays the same it must hold the truth. Constancy of form leads to the form becoming the truth but also if the representation is schematised laziness or discrepancy cannot creep into the meaning. When a certain schema is adopted individuals within it will try to find easy ways to carry out there work within the scheme (the underlying microstructure of individuals convening under the macrostructure of the actual schema) and introduce shortcuts, a sort of shortcut to the truth, to either save time or through economy (laziness) but if the schema has a set canonised symbols it is hard to change by this type of plastic devaluing. With the onset of mimesis this type of canon (or truth) was lost to the much more free narrative internal space of an eyewitness scene. But maybe because of this lack of underlying canon of representation (the method itself was not canonised as before, the artist being free to find any way to represent naturally only the idea represented was the canon) the lifelike eyewitness scene lost it's way. Former naturalistic methods such as foreshortening and other perspectival tricks became plastically and catabolically devalued to symbolic gestures of their former selves - space. Figures became more and more structured into certain poses as though the artists were using previous representations as their schema. The initial burst of the original ideas slowly diluted over time by copyists but also by conventions of religion or society. For instance imagine a painter who has been asked to paint a scene for a particular patron, they know that the patron is expecting something in as certain style and so use schema already used, certain arrangements of crowds or figurative poses from existing paintings (and probably open references to them and others as well) that they know to work and can be easily incorporated. Over the decades that a particular schema is prevalent this process is repeated but at each stage or generation of paintings the dynamic range of the number of poses will decrease as poses are taken from a selection of poses already taken from a selection of poses. Eventually the range of poses that are found acceptable in this manner becomes so that the pose itself becomes canon - To show a certain subject the painter must use a certain pose. This only happens when the particular canon or schema that is prevalent at a time is loose or new. With the narrative space, Religion saw the opportunity to subvert the new space of representation to it's own ends. Plato, who formally disproved of the Homeric narrative tradition, yearning for the strict laws of logic and truth. The arts for Plato made life harder to understand, they destroyed the idea of the universal truth. This lacking of the universal in narrative representation along with the laziness of copying and hegemonic subversion by the church led to certain absolute schema to be adopted. Schema adopted from the ancient world so you get a strange mix of narrative (which was/is never lost) being tempered by the use of ancient schema who's original meaning has been subverted. Everything constricted back to known or copied events - truth from the past through the eyes of those in the present because of the lack of canon, a truth vacuum.
The return to the idea of the convincing image again took hold with the beginnings of perspective. A more exacting universal was slowly being sort. Ancient Greek texts of philosophy and maths saved by the Arab sphere of influence were starting to be translated ( after those held by the Christian world had been destroyed by the catholic church.) and the symbolic iconic representation began to be replaced by images that were seeking the truth behind the symbolism of the then present schema or truth. Instead of foreshortening being used as a symbol to represent a space being present, artists such as Giotto began to try to find the underlying truth behind the foreshortening itself. Alberti being the last link in this process with the discovery of Perspective Artificialis. This seemed to be the final truth, finally Humankind had found a way to represent the world around them in a wholly convincing way. Before we continue in this linear pattern we must consider why the search for the absolute single truth began."Order is a necessary condition for anything the human mind is to understand. Arrangements such as the layout of a city or building, a set of tools, a display of merchandise, the verbal exposition of facts or ideas, or a painting or piece of music are called orderly when an observer or listener can grasp their overall structure and the ramification of the structure in some detail. Order makes it possible to focus on what is alike and what is different, what belongs together and what is segregated. When nothing superfluous is included and nothing indispensable left out, one can understand the interrelation of the whole and its parts, as well as the hierarchic scale of importance and power by which some structural features are dominant, other subordinate." Entropy and Art: An Essay on Disorder and Order, p. 1. Has there ever been a search for a one truth anyway? Every individual has their own idea of truth of reality through experience, but throughout the history of humankind we have gathered together to discuss our experience. When we found that they were similar they became truth in the conventional sense as discussed earlier. The safety of certainty is what humans look for in truth and knowledge. If lots of individuals experience the same sensory event it must be true or real, they no longer have to worry about it, much like the copyist or follower of style - the safe easy option - the principle of least effort to reduce stress. Up until the middle ages this is what the search for the universal has been. The reduction of stress by trying to find the truth. This also has another darker side though, the use of knowledge to control a population. Hegemony is the dominance of one group over other groups, with or without the threat of force, to the extent that, for instance, the dominant party can dictate the terms of trade to its advantage; more broadly, cultural perspectives become skewed to favour the dominant group. Hegemony controls the ways that ideas become "conventionalised" in a process that informs notions of common sense or societal truths. Make an individual believe a certain truth to control them or act in a way that is managable. The less a person knows the less of a problem they will be in upsetting the status quo of the current society. Throughout history, cultural and political power in any arena has rarely achieved a perfect balance, but hegemony results in the empowerment of certain cultural beliefs, values, and practices to the submersion and partial exclusion of others. Hegemony affects the perspective of mainstream history, as history is written by the victors for a sympathetic readership. This has been a major problem in the growth of knowledge for it's own ends.If something represents itself and has not been seen before it is not imitation but because we hold schemata for all that we perceive and experience of what we think is reality the self representing object will be tested to see if it fits into anything experienced before. This leads to the object or phenomena having certain characteristics and schemata attributed to it (see Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus). If something is completely new in this way it has probably being created by chance or through some chaotic system such as clouds. This adoption of schema is akin to expectation. The viewer expects to see something, so will. If the viewer expects to see nothing they will eventually think that maybe if there's nothing to look at they may as well have a look anyway and at this point they have lost, it will resemble some experience. To think and see nothing is actually very hard to do. ( The use of conceptual knowledge schema to evoke emotional response in abstract or non- representational is what some would say is metaphysical. When a person experiences a phenomena that does not fit with there own experience of the world they then go on to use conventional knowledge to try to explain it. The brain tries to fill in what it thinks is the underlying schema that it has detected from visual clues. The brain or viewer think that the underlying system is a certain way either conceptually or through visual experience and will experience something that fits within that system. For example the belief in UFO's is based on this. Most if not all pictures and representations of UFO's are of low quality and lack information which in fact make them more believable. The visual clues for what UFO's are have been convened (flat disc shaped, cigar shaped, metallic etc.) everyone has an idea of what a UFO should look like, not usually through there own experience but because of societal conventions, so when a photo of one is viewed these conventions take control. The viewer sees a representation of a flying disc in the sky (or actually sees) and thinks "a UFO!" This initial thought is supplanted only if there is contrary evidence such as "the scale is wrong, there's no shadow, i have that lampshade at home."etc. Because UFO sightings are usually fleeting and/or unexpected the recorded evidence is usually bad and the contradictory clues will therefore be harder to spot or missing leading to the representation being accepted as is. If you had seen a UFO but had had no preceding experience be it personal or conventional you would not know what you where looking at and would probably not think it from outer space. The more likely explanation would be a government experiment or similar. Only if the experience was so profound as to alter the expectation of reality, the conformation to the appearance of reality, would the viewer receive a jolt (just like an illusion). In fact most people in these instances distrust themselves first, finding some personal experience to blame (e.g. I must be tired/ drunk.) or simply use a faith mechanism (it's a ghost).
The noise, graining or loss of information of a visual scene could be said to be the visual entropy of the scene, if there is too much entropy and the brain cannot come up with a suitable schema it tries to fit it within the sphere of or from conventional truth (e.g. science) and then the abstract conceptual. (see information section) If this does not come up with a satisfactory answer then the only explanation left for some is faith. Faith in a system that is not proven such as religion or the supernatural. Sometimes the faith explanation comes before their own or conventional knowledge - so called blind faith. There is no way of proving that the persons faith is false. Faith is certain expectation, no matter what is observed a certain belief is seen as the cause. This is much like the visual system. We must have faith in our senses otherwise we would believe nothing but this is what makes the power of illusion possible. Take the idea of solipsism, for example, the idea that only one mind exists (or that we're in a computer program being the latest version!) and what appears to be external reality is only a dream being played in that mind, cannot be logically (or otherwise) disproved. A boundary has been drawn, in this case the boundary is the external world outside of their own brain, beyond which human reason has no access. A place where problem solving has no path to understanding. The faith and blind faith aspect can be used in representation to control or indoctrinate because the viewer does not ask any questions. It also means that ideas can be expressed easily because the representational schemes and symbolic language are known- constancy of symbolic form - constancy of information - constancy of knowledge - constancy of control - constancy of civilisation.

The idea that the world is fragmented or made of units is deeply ingrained upon human society. Different religions, political, economic and racial groups show it's fragmentation while the art, science and human work in general is also divided into specialities considered to be separate in essence. The notion that all these fragments are separate is an illusion, one which can only lead to conflict and confusion. What had, in the earliest days of civilisation, been a way to make tasks and problems managable and allow an autonomy of thought had become more than a useful technique. Humankind began to see and experience oneself and the world as actually constituted of separately existent fragments or things. This lead to the fragmentation of the way that humankind saw and understood itself and it's surroundings. Because we began to think in this way we overlook that it is the act of thinking in this way that leads to fragmentations which now seem to have autonomous existence. The breaking up of experience by the way we think using language. The universal habit of taking the content of out thought (via language) as being in direct correspondence to objective reality. The relationship of thought to reality is informed by the the use of theories, ways of looking at the world, which could be seen as an insight or idea that fits with experience at not actual knowledge of how the world is.
Theories could be said to be abstractions from reality but are taken to be reality, replacing each other over time. To look at the world from just one point of view is to miss the whole picture and look using a fragment. A theory could be compared to a particular view of some object. With each view or theory only perceiving some aspect of the object. The whole object is not perceived in any one view but is understood implicitly as a whole when looked at from more than one viewpoint.
Take for example the atomic theory as proposed by Democritus over 2000 years ago. Large objects are seen as being arrangements of smaller scale atoms and as such could be seen as a theory of wholeness for it allowed the enormous variety of the whole world to be understood as the movements of a set of basic constituents in a singular void. But this way of looking lead to fragmentation for it ceased to be regarded as an insight instead being seen as an absolute truth. The notion that the whole of reality consists of nothing but atomic building blocks. The particular content is especially conductive to fragmentation for it implies that the entire natural world including humans and therefore their minds could be understood in terms of systems of separately existing atoms. This seemed to be backed up by experiments which proved it's correctness and therefore it's universal truth and thus the whole weight of science was put behind the fragmentary approach. But as in all theories even those backed up with observed experiments the experimental confirmation is limited. The further theories of quantum theory and relativity leave the atomic theory with too many questions which indicate the need for new forms of insight, new theories that fit the new appearance to reality. With quantum theory the attempt to describe an actual atom as a solid particle is now false, it can now be regarded as a cloud of possibilities depending on the whole environment for it's form. This includes the observing instrument and thus the division between the observer and what is observed disappears, the atomistic view of these being separate is no longer. Both observer and observed are merging and interleaved aspects of one whole reality.

David Bohm proposes thus in his book "Thought as a System" (TAS) a pervasive, systematic nature of thought:
What I mean by 'thought' is the whole thing - thought, 'felt', the body, the whole society sharing thoughts - it's all one process. It is essential for me not to break that up, because it's all one process; somebody else's thoughts becomes my thoughts, and vice versa. Therefore it would be wrong and misleading to break it up into my thoughts, your thoughts, my feelings, these feelings, those feelings... I would say that thought makes what is often called in modern language a system. A system means a set of connected things or parts. But the way people commonly use the word nowadays it means something all of whose parts are mutually interdependent - not only for their mutual action, but for their meaning and for their existence. A corporation is organized as a system - it has this department, that department, that department. They don't have any meaning separately; they only can function together. And also the body is a system. Society is a system in some sense. And so on.
Similarly, thought is a system. That system not only includes thoughts, 'felts' and feelings, but it includes the state of the body; it includes the whole of society - as thought is passing back and forth between people in a process by which thought evolved from ancient times. A system is constantly engaged in a process of development, change, evolution and structure changes...although there are certain features of the system which become relatively fixed. We call this the structure....Thought has been constantly evolving and we can't say when that structure began. But with the growth of civilization it has developed a great deal. It was probably very simple thought before civilization, and now it has become very complex and ramified and has much more incoherence than before."
What he doesn't say in this passage though is that thought cannot be conveyed without language. The idea of thought as a system only works because of communication. Without some form of carrier to communicate thought, the idea of thought itself would not be known! Thought is a system but it depends on a carrier (language) to exist. But language cannot exist without thought also. If there are no thoughts to convey in the first place then language is not needed! Thoughts can be/are abstract and the carrier must therefore be able to convey abstract notions. This means that anybody else’s experience is only known through communication of abstracts, language, which itself is limited so the idea of the knowledge can only be passed within the limit of the transmitting language or medium. But this is not all, for language is not a static system and if communication of experience is failing within it, it can be redefined, more abstracts can be added. The use of units within one artwork shows the systematic nature of my philosophy. The distortion of one causes a cascade of change around it. Like a web of signification in structuralism where each constantly refers to each other or one particle of a micro-state of an overlying macro-state referring to each other and the overlying macro-state itself their similarity and difference cause a system to be seen and understood by our perception. The space of our perception also being one of convention like our use of perspective or of an innate gestalt such as our reaction to certain patterns can be used within this system of units to build up a whole from the units. Each unit either being part of the whole in which the change of any of the units alters the perception of the others the so called implicate order of the micro-state altering the overall explicate order of the macro-state. Each unit could act upon our perspectival conventions to pull the viewer to one position at which point there significance would change from one of moving to one of meaning. The separate micro-states would meld to show the macro-state or explicate order.

At the most fundamental level, some physical quantities are quantized. This is a result of quantum mechanics . Signals may be treated as continuous for mathematical simplicity by considering the small quantizations as negligible. In any practical application, this inherent quantization is irrelevant for two reasons. First, it is overshadowed by signal noise, the intrusion of extraneous phenomena present in the system upon the signal of interest. The second, which appears only in measurement applications, is the inaccuracy of instruments. Thus, although all physical signals are intrinsically quantized, the error introduced by modeling them as continuous is vanishingly small.
The use of less in paintings is therefore synonomous with the way nature is viewed. The representation of things using flat blocks of colour is like the quantization of information.
If these units are represented on more than one plane or use more than one plane to represent one then we have an analogue with higher planes or the idea that our plane of existence is not the true reality but just a manifestation of a higher plane.

The alphabet (from the Greek invention of vowels) could be seen as one of humankind's first abstracts forms. Each letter having symbolic meaning but having lost all of it's pictorial meaning to the symbolic meaning which can that could be used to construct abstract thoughts. Unlike numbers which never had any pictorial meaning apart from a quantity (except zero maybe). Symbols of an alphabet need to form words which are again symbolic abstracts to describe higher level abstractions, then sentences on a higher level, etc. It is therefore of no surprise that following this abstraction of language to forms higher level systems, that other abstract systems could be formed from using it; The first systematic interpretation of space being a good example of this. Previously the Babylonians, Hindus and Egyptians had discovered fragments of a geometric system (truth) but it was Euclid who gathered all the proofs from these fragments and formed a coherent system of geometry. He defined his terms and proposed axioms that where so obvious that no proof was needed, but this was only possible to use abstract terms because of the abstraction of language. The proof of the inherent truth of his system is the fact that his definitions of axioms could be used to prove the theorems (a closed system. Which can have truth because you can look at it externally and can therefore be absolute.) From this it was implied by Archimedes that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line thus implying that space is uniform, continuous and homogenous. This shows that inherent truth can be found within a closed system if looked at from without, or synchronically in the past. It is not the same as saying Euclid’s geometry is the truth and correct and should be believed as such it is only true to itself. Sadly the latter did not happen and this homogenous metrical space has stood within the sphere of conventional truth for more than two millennia and even now is the truth of all but a few esoteric scientists. Why is this? Maybe because it as a system that conforms to the appearance of to reality like a glove. The space we live in appears to follow the laws of geometry.
A language itself is a closed system, if looked at synchronically, especially if used to define another abstract, for it has to be seen as some standard to be able to define. It is the microstructure used to convey the macrostructure of the overlying abstract idea that is being conveyed. A closed system of words that have relation to each other within an overall framework which itself has no inherent definition except that of the general users of that language to understand each other. When looked at diachronically however, any language that you look at does not have a definition in itself and can never have one for when you attempt to give it a definition it has already changed. This is because we are within the system of language, the microstructure, if you like, constantly redefining the macrostructure. The definition has to be in the actual usage of the language. This is where computer languages and mathematics differ from human languages. They deal in definite values that mean certain things whilst as we all know human language is not that straightforward! (maybe this is why each profession has its own jargon, it's needs a set of conventions to carry the profession (not the professional) forward. The computer language being definable simply means the system is closed or defined from without itself by a set of conventions. These conventions are periodically updated to a new set when they have been agreed upon. This is much how the testing of a new scientific theory or classification works, here is a good example taken from the BBC website which shows that it is indeed our definition of reality itself that is changing.
“The number of planets around the Sun could rise from nine to 12 - with more on the way - if experts approve a radical new vision of our Solar System.
An endorsement by astronomers meeting in Prague would require school and university textbooks to be rewritten.
The proposal recognises eight classical planets, three planets belonging to a new category called "plutons" and the largest asteroid Ceres.
Pluto remains a planet, but becomes the basis for the new pluton category.
The plan has been drawn up by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) with the aim of settling the question of what does and does not count as a planet.
Some 2,500 astronomers gathered at the IAU General Assembly in Prague will vote on the plan next Thursday.” By Paul Rincon Science reporter, BBC News Wednesday, 16 August 2006, 07:05
As we can see before this convention there were 9 planets and afterwards there are 12, which include 3 in a new subcategory – plutons!
Since this first change of the number of planets we now have 8!
Last Updated: Thursday, 24 August 2006, 13:34 GMT 14:34 UK
“Pluto loses status as a planet

About 2,500 scientists meeting in Prague have adopted historic new guidelines that see the small, distant world demoted to a secondary category. The researchers said Pluto failed to dominate its orbit around the Sun in the same way as the other planets.
The International Astronomical Union's (IAU) decision means textbooks will now have to describe a Solar System with just eight major planetary bodies.
Pluto, which was discovered in 1930 by the American Clyde Tombaugh, will be referred to as a "dwarf planet". There is a recognition that the demotion is likely to upset the public, who have become accustomed to a particular view of the Solar System.
"I have a slight tear in my eye today, yes; but at the end of the day we have to describe the Solar System as it really is, not as we would like it to be," said Professor Iwan Williams, chair of the IAU panel that has been working over recent months to define the term "planet".
The need for a strict definition was deemed necessary after new telescope technologies began to reveal far-off objects that rivalled Pluto in size.
Without a new nomenclature, these discoveries raised the prospect that textbooks could soon be talking about 50 or more planets in the Solar System.
Amid dramatic scenes in the Czech capital which saw astronomers waving yellow ballot papers in the air, the IAU voted to block this possibility - and in the process took the historic decision to relegate Pluto.
The scientists agreed that for a celestial body to qualify as a planet:
• it must be in orbit around the Sun
• it must be large enough that it takes on a nearly round shape
• it has cleared its orbit of other objects
Pluto was automatically disqualified because its highly elliptical orbit overlaps with that of Neptune. It will now join a new category of dwarf planets.”
The truth of how many planets make up the solar has now being redefined twice in a month! If you enter a pub quiz and give the answer 9 to “How many planets are in the solar system?”, Would you be wrong?
But how does this convention of truth arise in the first place? As stated in paragraph three the paradox is that to be true something needs to be falsifiable (otherwise how would you know it was true?) and to be falsifiable some standard or truth needs to be known. The truth is bound up in its reference to the false and vice versa. It normally follows that it is when an old truth or world-view is proven false by a newer definition or newer more precise observation that the old truth/knowledge reveals paradoxes that disprove itself then the new definition becomes canon. Thus paradox lies at the very foundation of the idea of truth. They form an opposition to the present truth and cause it to be re-examined and altered. In some instances the paradox has not been convened and this leads to different interpretations being accepted by separate groups (for instance in quantum physics). This leads to an entanglement of the truth and the idea of the false is lost, becoming the idea of newer and older truths or simply different truths.
This idea of duality is itself a system, circular processes or binary oppositions (true/false) are among the simplest of systems. Seemingly with no start and no end they would continue forever without outside influence. But such a process must have started somewhere and this is where the idea of feedback comes in. Taking the analogy of a busy party in a room in a house. Up to the point where it is not busy the process in linear (people keep arriving and staying) but when it starts getting crowded people start to leave the room. At this point people are leaving at the same time as people are arriving and a circular feedback loop is formed. The amount of people at the party will on average be stable. If the party starts to become less crowded more people will decide to stay or more may enter and the overall number of people at the party will not fall and conversely the more crowded it becomes the more people will decide to leave the room keeping the number of people at the party at a constant level (with fluctuations) Obviously there are two levels at work here. The party exists but has no form within itself being made up of party goers. We could see the individual partygoer as the microstructure and the party itself as the macrostructure of a system. When the microstructure (partygoers) become stressed by the macrostructure (i.e. it gets too crowded) then some leave and the tension in the system is relieved. But this in turn makes the party room more attractive and so more of the partygoers stay or come in from the kitchen. At some point a balance is achieved between these two forces the attractor and the repeller but there will always be fluctuations (so called flicker noise) because the macrostructure is always an average of the microstructure over time. It is the relationship of the microstructure with its macrostructure that forms the system. The party macrostate (the state of the party) is wholly dependant on the partygoers which make up the party and at the same time the individual partygoers are influenced by the state of the party according to some rule (is the party enjoyable or not?) They are not opposing each other on the same level one is the state that the others behaviour manifests as. From this it could be true to say that truth is a manifestation of the tension between a group or number of objects or individuals within a given framework/system at a certain time relative to each object or individual within that framework. The truth is relative because it is a manifestation of behaviour with a group and occurs over time and not at any one point in time, absolute because to be true for the group they have to convene to agree upon it (see number of planets above). This idea of macro and micro states is found with Boltzmann's theory of thermodynamic entropy, entropy being the disorder in a physical system or more precisely "the number of distinct microscopic states that the particles composing a chunk of matter could be in while still looking like the same macroscopic chunk of matter". If you where to superimpose matter with truth you would get truth as a macrostate, the entropy of which would be microstates of individual interpretations of what the truth is. This never ending ouraborous seems impossible but with time included it becomes clear that the macro and microstates depend on each other at different times (which, I suppose is a never ending ouraborous in the temporal axis). From this it could be true to say that truth is a manifestation of the tension between a group or number of objects or individuals within a given framework/system at a certain time relative to each object or individual within that framework. The truth is relative because it is a manifestation of behaviour with a group and occurs over time and not at any one point in time, absolute because to be true for the group they have to convene to agree upon it. The macrostructure (system) and the microstructure (system components) is analogous with this (see paragraph11 above) but the use of structuralist and post structuralist frameworks also fits in the idea of systems. Niels Bohr having a similar idea with Duality of light. David Bohm goes even further with the idea of the implicate and explicate.The implicate being the mass of unseen microstates of which the explicate is a manifestation of. Nothing has value except as part of a greater system - tension. Perspective is a system and as such could be analysed as a language. Art and science are similar in this use of systems be it a belief system or a physical system. The portrayal of space and time brings forth philosophy in an effort to understand our place within it. These philosophies are just systems with different signs or elements. Philosophies are no more than systems described by language instead of other symbols such as numbers or shapes. All three would seem to be connected by the idea of reality. What is it and what is our place within it? What we notice though is that all of these processes, systems or realities have a common property. The communication of some form of information.

So far we have been looking at truth to be a system that develops over time and that the truth is relative within the system over time as well as being relative at any moment in time if you are within the system. Truth from within the system is made up of conventions that arise from looking at the system at a frozen ‘point’ at certain past intervals to relieve and then build tension of the common consensus (from without the system all the variables are known and so any future state can be determined – truth can be known) the reality is that the new idea or truth starts at one point and spreads from there (eventually becoming the norm or convention by default – just like fads or trends, or not, and fading away) through the temporal axis as well as the present axis or spacial wavefront. Systems such as language work in this way, a wholly relativistic unconventional way in common usage where as systems such as geometry work in a totally absolute way with definitions and provable axioms. We as human use both these types of system from language and abstract thoughts to visual perception and the appearance of reality.

There is another problem with the idea of truth from being found for a closed system in the past. If it is an abstract and/or simple system looking at it at any point of time will not alter its truth for all the definitions that govern that system are knowable. But for a live system that is being looked at in the past, for example human culture, the system cannot be fully understood from the outside. We come back to the idea of convention of reality. The present viewer does not have the same individual (or conventional) world-view as someone in that system at the time and will define that world-view architectonically with the blessing (or curse) of a further knowledge system or set of conventions. Epistemes that consists in most cases of a furthering of the world-view being studied, the a priori knowledge of which places the searcher/researcher at a distance from any real
The idea of looking at a system synchronically being at a static point does not hold all the information (knowledge) about that system.

So we come to the conclusion that truths are conventions of closed systems seen in the past or at a static point and cannot be fully justified from within the system that they are representing at any present instant. This is the paradox. Truth needs to be convened or ratified for a group (usually large) by a group (usually smaller) and this doesn’t happen continually, only at intervals. In between the ratifications or setting of truth the definition of what is being ratified or set, the truth, is continually bombarded with justifications against and for the definition. Like the circular feedback system or the idea of Poincare/Phase space this pulling or tension between the attractors (conformation of appearance to reality = truth) and repellers (paradox to conformation of appearance to reality) continues, either dogmatically (ancient Egypt, well, any religion) or until the evidence against the ‘present’ truth and here we come back to the definition of paradox - that a premise cannot exist within a given set of statements then either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together – become so great as to form another convention of truth to be formed , what Thomas Kuhn would call a ‘Paradigm Shift’. The visual system could be built up of a convention system, the convention of experience. What the brain has perceived to happen in a given situation in the past will effect the action or understanding when a similar situation arises. Some of these experience or convention systems are so ingrained that to fool them is to fool our basic concept of reality – and therefore (our) truth.
“Take for example our simple prejudice about object size. If you see two cars ahead, one big and the other tiny, you assume the bigger one is closer. Your experiences of perspective have woven a neural pathway in your brain that transforms the sight of ‘little object/big object’ into ‘far object/near object’. There is no pre-operative checkpoint at the start of this pathway to question whether the tiny car may be in fact be some child’s toy cunningly placed to look like a real distant vehicle. Such a test, if it was run each time you encountered two cars of differing size, would take up so much time you would never get around to crossing the road. No, when the stimulus ‘big car/little car’ gets through the primary vision areas and into the visual association areas the automatic perspective processor trips into action without pause. We are so used to it delivering the right answer that when we find it is wrong – the little car really is a child’s toy – we receive a jolt” (Mapping the Mind page-215).
Similarly creating the illusion that an object is located where it is not is the essential feature of the hologram. When looked upon it seems to have spatial extension but if it is tested by trying to touch it, it does not exists. It's three dimensionality is based in interference patterns. A hologram is produced when a single laser light is split into two separate beams. One beam is bounced off the object and the other is then allowed to collide with the reflected light from the beam bouncing off the object. The resulting interference pattern is recorded on film. The information needed to represent a 3d image is thus recorded on a 2d photographic plate. As well as being a good example as to how our visual system can be fooled it also can be used as an example as to what our reality is. Which of the holograms states are real? The interference pattern on the photographic plate or the projected 3d image? To most of us it would seem obvious that our feelings and imagination are internal realities and our experience of our senses external realities, but how the brain determines which is which is not obvious at all. For instance the neurophysiologist Karl Pribram points out that when we look a person, the image of the person is really on the surface of our retinas yet we do not perceive the person to be on our retinas we perceive them as being in the external world. How is it possible for our brains to interpret these processes, which are all internal, and yet fool us into thinking that some are external? If we go back to the idea of a hologramIf you ask someone what the physical world is made of, you will likely be told "matter and energy" but there is no way to convey this except through information. Information is therefore crucial to reality and indeed a latest trend (or convention) initiated by John A. Wheeler of Princeton University is to regard the physical world as made of information, with matter and energy as incidentals. (phenomena). This view of reality leads to the question. " What is the information needed to describe a whole universe?" By studying the properties of black holes (note x) physicists have deduced absolute limits on how much information a region of space or a quantity of matter and energy can hold. Further results suggest that the universe we inhabit which we perceive to have three spatial dimensions might instead be codified with information on a two dimensional surface like a hologram. Our everyday perceptions of the three dimensions would therefore be completely illusionary or one of a number of ways of seeing reality (as earlier with the convention to appearance argument of reality, but this time reality itself is relative!). This so-called holographic principle states the three dimensions may be completely equivalent to alternative quantum fields and physical laws painted on a distant vast surface. Studies of black holes show, although defying all convention, that the principle may be true. The maximum entropy or information content of any region of space is defined not by it's volume but by it's surface area!

One way it has been explained is that if an entity is sufficiently non-humanlike then the human-like characteristics will stand out and be noticed easily therefore generating empathy, whilst if the entity is almost human in appearance the non human characteristics will stand out leading to a feeling of strangeness.
This could be extended to the appearance of computer generated entities and graphics.
Much the same happens in any representation. Things that look uncannily like something are somehow seen as feeling strange or not quite right. In much the same way the appearance of a representation will hold empathy if it obviously does not look lifelike. The viewer will use the symbolic to achieve empathy with the representation whereas if the representation is quite lifelike these symbolic factors will not be used, instead the representation will be judged as if it where real and in no way symbolic. If it was not sufficiently real in appearance the mind/brain would interpret is as deception and would behave in a negative way. This is the purely naturalistic(primitive) response anyway, in practice other symbolic responses in the form of want could stop this from happening but still only after the initial checking for reality.
Camus's idea of the absurd tells us that the absurd is the difference between what appears to be true and what is communicated. The absurdity is the contradiction between the two, It lies in neither of the compared elements but in the space between. The truth and the false or maybe knowledge and experience are interspersed with difference. The bigger the difference the more absurd one will seem to the other (and maybe more will be learned) Like a trinity the three cannot be separated, to destroy one is to destroy the whole and therefore all three are manufactured in the mind. Representation works in such a way. The mind sees something and checks against prior knowledge it has gained from seeing the similar in the past. The difference between what it has seen and gained knowledge from and what it is presently experiencing evokes it's response. This space between the knowledge of experience and what is being experienced is the now of reality. At this ever changing point humankind exists in a kind of everflowing stream. The reality as such only exists within the mind for it is this bond uniting them the conflict of expectation and actuality. The nearer to the expected the appearance of what is seen is,the more it will be judged for contradictions, until a point is reached where it conforms. The further away from the expected the experience lies, the less it will be judged by its appearance to actually be something in particular and the more what it can stand for in a symbolic or purely abstract way can/will be sought.
The use of say a blurred image or one without all the information
The mind's first step is to distinguish this truth to appearance from what is not, the true from the false. But here we get into problems as Aristotle said "The often ridiculed consequence of these opinions is that they destroy themselves. For by asserting that all is true we assert the truth of the contrary assertion and consequently the falsity of our own thesis. And if one says that all is false, that assertion is itself false. If we declare that solely the assertion opposite ours is false or else that solely ours is not false, we are nevertheless forced to admit an infinite number of true or false judgements. For the one who expresses a true assertion proclaims simultaneously that it is true, and so on ad infinitum"

camouflage and the uncanny
Camouflage could be said to be the difference between what is expected and what is seen but without the knowledge needed to seem uncanny. Rather than the it trying to be an object it is an object trying to be something else, disguise. Almost like the opposite of what the uncanny trying to be. Instead of trying to be a thing it is trying not to be a thing by being something else. To be confused about what is different and what is not is to be confused about everything. This is what camouflage is trying to do. To lose information about itself to itself become lost whereas the uncanny is a loss of information in spit if itself which leads to a feeling of uneasyness.