it suddenly dawned on me how the multiplicity of imagery is part of our lives.
Be it politicians or religious leaders, theater makers or the film industry, the whole gamut of advertising proves to be just as unnecessarily abundant in our outside as inside world.
Its how we understand the world we live in
In order for us to believe a story, it must be simple.
Complex incomprehensible relationships are instinctively rejected.
is it too simple to accept the outcome of the elections of the USA and too complex to go for the acceptance for fraud ?
This seems to me a wrong answer !
Iād say even more than part of our lives, it seems to be our whole idea of living!
We build an image of ourselves and others, of how things āshouldā be, and then live from those ideas. Furthermore, imagery goes as far down as consciousness itself.
There canāt be an idea without a goal, an expectation. Our idea of love is based completely on expectations and sensations. Our idea of how a country should be run, is based on our immediate life experiences. Our idea of a cloud or tree is dependent on how we view the world around us. The list goes on and onā¦
Our idea of truth also seems to be complex, but it is really the most simple thing. The problem is that the complexity of our attachments get in the way.
We fall into what is easiest. Itās hard to see the simplicity of awareness, but easy to keep believing the same illusions.
It wasnāt supposed to answer all questions - the problem you describe re USA elections has probably more to do with tribalism : āI believe the story from my tribeā. (Though it is a simple story : āthe bad guys are doing bad thingsā - the actual processes of the election and human psychology, being slightly more complex) 
Although the idea that we have a tendancy to understand the world via highly simplistic stories has been demonstrated (see Daniel Kahneman - thinking fast and slow. Hereās a wikipedia article that is related somewhat : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristics_in_judgment_and_decision-making
PS - With extra effort we are however sometimes able to muster up more complex world views - using statistics or logic for example
When thinking about an image process, can we think of it, scientifically, technically? Seeing we mean the visual function of the eyes and brain? Seeing as a visual function is not broken down into various images. The various images is a different process of labelling, objectifying, identifying, quantifying etc, and this is thought, isnāt it?
Beliefs are like images held in the memory banks, on which we depend to understand the present (and confirm the past) - yes, this is thought.
The scientific method can and is being used to observe and describe the habitual processes of the brain.
They may not be incomprehensible to every mind, in which case it isnāt a matter of instinct, but of ability. A lot of what is written in this forum is incomprehensible because it is either written so poorly or was never thought through to begin with.
We canāt communicate without imagery and ideas, and we donāt communicate without the goal and expectation of being acknowledged and understood, so it goes without saying.
Thinking itself seems bound, dependent on our perceptionsā¦ Thinking also seems to be tied to our ideas based off of experience.
Yes, communication is completely dependent on imagery and ideasā¦
ā¦yet there can only be a relationship when the same facts are seen. Not only seen, but when both people or things are able to come together āaroundā that fact.
Why do we think it is all so clear and correct?
(sorry for the late reply!)
Very interesting questionā¦! It seems that we believe everything we say is clear and correct, because we want to know something, to possibly even reach something!
All our explanations and ideas might shift depending on who we are talking to and who we have talked withā¦
ā¦yet ātheā awareness with which we āknowā experience seems to remain untouchedā¦!
Beautiful question to observe deeply in oneself! ā¦ Thanks! 
Hubrisā¦
what is presented to our senses is the āwhat isā, but what we do with it is cause the disturbance, we donāt know and have started to make something of it. Thatās the beauty of observing a child when it is handling something new. wāve lost that kind of curiossity with the knowing it !.
so the input is crystal clear but the process is going wrong !
The input and the process are not separate. We have created this separation and call it civilized.
thatās one way to look at it and in accordance with the one liner āWe are the worldā and at the same time seeing that civilization is the " what is" is also true.
And is that not the process which will alter our process?
Looking at the world without effort, is not a process. The process is the activity of the conditioned brain, mind, which works with things and with measurement.
But how would you name the alteration of the brain cells he is talking about ?
A new habit?
Realisation, followed by the habit of freedom. The habit of ease, of appreciation.
I read something the other day, about some research carried out on olympic level meditators (they meditated a lot) - they had unusually high levels of neural gamma waves - apparently the kind of waves that humans usually get for milliseconds when we solve a problem, or when we bite into an apple.