Isn’t seeing objective? You see what you see and that’s all there is to it. Or not?

My kids get fed up with me when we’re walking home from school and I stop, go back and take (yet another) photo. “Really, dad? What was that one? A slug? A bug? Another plant? Let’s go! I have to pee!”

There is so much to see … when you’re looking for it.

But I could have sworn I saw a heart in the bushes. I had to go back. Sure enough, there it was. It felt like I found a four-leaf clover. Hmm, do all calla lilies look like hearts? No, can’t be.

Was I looking for hearts in the bushes? No. Were my eyes open? Maybe I was ( … hold onto your hats, we’re going near the edge) seeing with my heart. Or was it just the Volkswagen Jetta Principle? OK, cheesiness aside, what do you choose to see? What are you looking for? Is it glass half full or half empty? It’s the same object: a glass of water with water filled to the halfway point.

So is a heart or is it a flower or is it a rounded triangle or maybe the country of Argentina? Is it all of those? Or none of those? Is it up to you and how you interpret it?

In any case, I’m taking the heart perspective and although she’ll probably never read this post, I’m sending it to my wife.

  • Possible: see
  • Impossible: don’t see what you don’t want to see
  • Repossible: see what you want to see
Do I see a heart because it's almost Valentine's Day?

Do I see a heart because it’s almost Valentine’s Day?