This reading validated a lot for me as an A/R/Tographer. It validates the notion that we all see things differently, all of our connections, baggage and memory bring different things to the viewing of an object. This might be part of the theory that we as artists all have our own "vision" or "style" or "taste". We all connect our sense responses differently, and in return we reorder those responses in different ways as output (artwork). This thinking also validates our thinking as art teachers that every students sees things different, and therefore responds to things differently. This is why art education and grading/assessment can be so difficult to wrestle with. You can have 20 students all set up in front of the same still life, and, every time, you will get 20 different responses to that still life. No two will ever be identical.
This in-discrepancy might feel challenge or overwhelming, how do we really know what something actually looks like? How do we really know what the color red really is? But to me, it's exciting and freeing! It's part of what makes art so magical, and why we as humans are still trying to make sense of the world around us through our work. It's why artists have been trying to depict the "simplest" of ideas over and over and over again for centuries: trees, flowers, sunsets, human beings, love, heart ache, fear. We'll never agree completely on what these things do and should look like, but we will continue to try and make sense of what we see, reordering it and putting it out into the world as our own unique perspective.