sight variation

Q: The third sight reveals truths about people and places that aren’t evident to the naked eye.  Are the specific images that are seen intrinsic to the subject, or is there a measure of personal metaphor and interpretation on the part of the viewer?  In other words…  Let’s say that Wizard A grew up in America, and may consider the embodiment of evil to be a devil-like figure.  Wizard B is from India, and might instead associate evil with a rakshasa.  They each view a subject with their third sight.  The subject is a vile and malicious person.  Would this be revealed to them both in the same way, or would what each one sees be influenced by his own cultural background?
A: Not only would the Western-raised wizard and Eastern-raised wizard perceive things according to the cultural biases and subjective experiences, they might not even perceive them with the same /senses/.
The Third Sight is different for everyone, subjective, and inherently slanted towards ones own experiences and background.  So while two wizards might look on some totally-gone, bloodthirsty warlock and see a bloodthirsty warlock, they might see it in very different ways.
Maybe Harry looks on him and sees some Hannibal-Lectery figure crouched on the floor grinning and soaked in blood.  But maybe Ancient Mai looks on him and sees a bare, twisted white tree in the center of an unbroken field of white snow, representative of the individual’s loss of spirit and humanity.  And maybe Rodriguez looks at him and hears some kind of hideous music that accompanies the individual and makes the hair on the back of Carlos’ neck stand up.  Maybe Klaus the Toymaker looks at them and sees that his head is covered in cracks and flaws, and that underneath the parts where the flesh looks chipped away, something rotten and horrible is underneath.  Maybe Listens-to-Wind looks on the warlock and smells something rotted and vile.
It’s way different for each wizard, and it’s why even though soulgazes and third sight can be used as evidence in, for example, warlock trials, there is also room for argument and interpretation–that’s how Ebenezar defended Dresden, for example.  He claimed that he Saw more than just “murdering warlock.”
Plus, it isn’t flawless.  I mean, if a wizard looks at someone who has just suffered some kind of horrible physical or emotional injury, he gets a much different picture of that person than if he sees them a week sooner, or a year later.  If a wizard looks on someone who is in a towering rage at the moment, it’s going to have an effect on what is Seen.  Maybe not an enormous effect, true, but at times even a little bit of difference in shading can change the overall picture.  Oh, plus if the /Wizard/ is in a radically altered state of mind, it can shade things differently, too.
Ultimately, the Sight is something that is best relied upon for making one’s own decisions, for supporting one’s intuitions and observations–as long as one remembers that while it is always true, it isn’t always completely correct.  Circumstance can, at tmes, effect what is Seen.
Jim


Miss Demeanor (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php?action=profile;u=1603)