What does it mean to See?
 

I've been juggling this thought around in my head for the past couple of days, and after reading HNM's status it sparked the motivation to make this thread. I've put it in debate only because I anticipate that some arguments will probably pop up as this thread will be dealing almost entirely with opinions. So, let me get started.

What does it mean to See?

Can someone go from Seeing to not Seeing?

Does someone have to love Avatar and the Na'vi culture to See?

Can someone think they See but in reality they do not?

As far as I am concerned, being able to See is valuing and respecting community/family relationships and maintaining a strong respect and admiration for nature and all that it has given us(I held this view even before viewing Avatar). I think that there are people out there who fit the definition of Seeing who have never even seen the movie Avatar. I don't think that anyone who can See can really change, because forsaking values that go that deep in someone doesn't really seem possible to me. This being said, I think Seeing can go to an even deeper level, so that even people who think they See in reality aren't getting the big picture. I know some people who think they See but it's pretty damn obvious to me and other that they don't.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

I think of seeing as a paradigm.

So, under my definition, seeing is not necessarily caring about the environment or loving others. It's a perspective, which is deeply embedded into Na'vi culture. That said, caring about the environment, and caring about others would be reactionary to having this outlook on life.

A good visual would be a lens from glasses. Glasses, lets say sunglasses can alter the way we view reality. When we put them on we see the world literally in a different light, and think and react accordingly. "The skypeople do not see (through our culture's lens).

The reason I like describing "seeing" as "seeing through a lens" is because then, you can see anywhere, anytime, just as you could always be wearing glasses. This way, I could still see even if I'm in an office, or out in the woods, or in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Plus, this outlook on life can be grown by anybody. It takes time and involves a process, but paradigms can be changed.

As far as describing the lens itself, I think it would involve an emphasis on loyalty, courage, and respect amongst others. From here traditions and social expectations are built.

For me, to "See" means to understand what's happening and act in consequence. :)

I would not say "Seeing" has one single meaning - it's different for all of us, and more importantly, should ONLY be said about ourselves (in other words, you could say you See, but you could never say whether someone else Sees or not).

Why? Because of the very thing I mentioned first, it means different things for different people (which the replies in this thread has already proven). One could not say "THIS is to See", because there will always be people who think differently. And that's the way it should be.

^ This. :)

To me, seeing is understanding.

Understanding all there is to understand about a certain subject or person.

In that case, per your definition nobody Sees. ;)

Sure. Perhaps this isn't meant to be a debate, rather a discussion about each other's own definition. I already gave mine, what's yours?

I do not have one.

I don't use the term at all, since I personally see no use for it. ;)

Truthfully... Correct.

But I believe to 'see' 100% you would have to be Na'Vi... And well, we're not.. :P

But however, I believe we are the closest group on the planet to reaching that 100%. :)

Just my view.. Nobody HAS to agree.

Gotchya. I guess I don't have a use for it myself. But I do often think about paradigms, particularly paradigm shifts, and how that could mean serious potential for the human race.

What Does It Mean To See?
 

Hm, what does it mean to see? A very interesting question...

Well, depends overall on how, through the film, one interprets *seeing*. Really depends on the individual. Or to use a better term. This is a grand example of subjectivity. In my opinion- There is no objective view of 'seeing' because it's the same as the word 'good'. For example- You won't find any Colleges, Universities or any business' with whom a requirement is *You must be good*. Subjective.

Just who defines *seeing*?

I digress- My point was;

Whatever it must do to suit the individual. There are always people saying "These people clearly do not See. They do not understand the film." on the Forums in places. Subjectivity dear Watson, subjectivity.

_

EDIT-

I agree with Elyannia. [Quote below] [Edited this post so as to not waste space.]

I think the term seeing is to complex to have just one definition.

Not that I use the term at all, but I actually thought Norm provided the definition of Seeing in the movie.

"I See into you"

which to me means "I can understand you/I can see your point of view". So, put simply, to See means to understand (or at least try to).

Really, nobody can truly state what it means for anyone else - there is a vague idea that is shared between most people - that is, a sense of respect, a degree of understanding (but as has been said, nobody can fully understand another person). It's a way of viewing things, rather than a single view.

Well said :)