How do you define "Seeing"?
 

Sorry if this was already a thread, I did a quick search but didn't find anything.

Anyways, what does "seeing" mean to you. That word is thrown around a lot and I'm curious to see how much our definitions differ. Most likely, everyone will have their own little definition that may or may not match how it was defined in the script. So share what "seeing" means to you.

Personally, I define seeing as "seeing through your heart". Normal seeing, through the eyeballs, is physically seeing and connecting with the reflecting light around you. But for me, seeing is connecting with the light in another's heart, and feeling it within your own. It's more spiritual than physical. So when someone signs a post with "I see you", I read it as "I feel you, I connect with you, I understand you on a deep level, I know how you feel, and in a sense, I love you". It can be to someone you love (relationship), or someone, lets say a friend who you understand on the most fundamental level.

I believe it takes a lot of maturity to "see". A lot of understanding and growth needed to have that mindset. And when you do learn to see, naturally from being that mature, you will find more value in things like the world around you and your own health. But like I said, I think it's spiritual. So for example, seeing might include caring about the environment, not because you like trees, but because the environment is life, and you realize life is something precious, regardless of its abundance.

So in short, seeing is seeing with the heart through spirit, as opposed to the eyes and light. Although, the eyeball does make a good visual for seeing...

It's interesting, I think Seeing is primarily a Na'vi concept, even if there are other people who are close to it... I wouldn't associate it with love particularly (although you certainly should See someone you do love), but otherwise I think it's similar to what you said about understanding someone, knowing their feelings.

"Seeing" has a great deal in common with "grokking", to go back a generation or two.

Good analogy Sempu... and that book is still in publication so it might be something for people to read. (Stranger In A Strange Land)
Anyway.. 'seeing' in my understanding is difficult to explain. It's one of those intangible understandings of what you are comprehending.
There is an old saying 'Not seeing the forest for the trees' is on the right path. There is an internalizing of what you see, 'knowing' what you are seeing that is part of it.
We have the 'definition' of 'I see you' already and we can internalize that to a point. With the Na'vi and their connection to Pandora and everything around them, they have another level of understanding that is on an intuitive level.
We, as humans on this world, have few examples of that. Enlightened people, tribes that live in remote areas might have it.... but again, not on the same level as the Na'vi.
Enlightenment is a close approximation to 'seeing'. But it isn't a light bulb going on suddenly, (or in some cases, maybe it is). You understand all the levels of interconnectedness around you with what you are doing and where you are.

I hope this made some sense because it was difficult to try and make it coherent on the screen!

Seeing is not necessarily a Na'vi concept, in my view. Seeing is just the ability to peer beyond the veil of secrecy and greed that society covers over us, and see the real world, and our real purpose. The Na'vi just kick started that age old concept, the one we've forgotten since B.C.

As I see it in a sense that's not Na'vi-specific, "seeing" means being able to mentally slice through all the facades that a person puts up (or has to put up) in order to see their true, inner intentions. To see what they really mean to be.

The problem I personally see is that Person A may use the expression towards Person B and Person B may not feel that Person A really is "seeing" them. Or what if Person B actually isn't aware of his/her true self? Whatever the case, I think you need to really know and be in tune with a person in order to actually "see" him/her. Sometimes I'm afraid I'm guilty of not truly seeing someone while using the expression.

The best example of got is this, my friend is cheap and doesn't like going to the movies, torrenting them instead. I came back from some movie (no idea what it was, may have been Hot Fuzz) and asked if had seen it. He said that he had, and that he thought it was stupid, so I asked him why. He spouted off some rather lame reasons to why he didn't like it. Basically what he had done was download a poor quality version of it and sort of watched it while on the internet. I told him that he hadn't seen the movie, which he responded by saying he had watched it. Key word is SEEN here. The difference is actually understanding and knowing what you are seeing. You can stare out the window all you want, but if you're not really paying attention then you aren't seeing anything.

Understand at a glance.

I don't want to complicate it any more.

I like this.

An example to help explain how I feel about it would be this: A friend notices one of his beloved friends looks sad. Now, someone who doesn't "see" might just think they're sad, but someone who does "see" would feel their pain... because this person uses their heart as their first sensory organ.

More fuel for thought: Is "seeing" strictly between two or more people, or can it be with other living/non-living things like the Earth? There's no right or wrong answers. I like the ones posted so far. Personally, I think "seeing" is in a way independent from caring about the environment, like, that isn't what "seeing" means to me. However, I believe if someone were capable of seeing through other's so deeply, they would naturally see through the world around them. So caring about the environment comes from having that level of maturity and enlightenment and love.

Being able to understand is the same as being able to See.

To put it on the see-er rather than the seen, I say that to see is to perceive without filters, preconceptions, or biases that distort or impede true and complete perception.

I this about how I feel about it at a purely academic level.

I do however tend to think of the word as closer to an I love you. An ILY with out the same degree of emotional weight.

All my sentiments exactly! I agree with all the above. :)

I don't consider it the same as loving someone... I know that that can be interpreted in different ways, but you can possibly even still See someone you dislike, if you understand them, what they do and why, and think that they are still a person.

Certainly. Good point.

I think of it as: You could "love your enemies". It doesn't mean so much love them, as it does just respect them and understand them, think they are still a person.

However I think of "seeing" as a coined term by Cameron that has certainly been used many other times in other cultures. I think it really just gives a name to this kind of perception.