The observer cannot be observed

[henry quirk]

A reflection cannot see.

I'm not a reflection; I see my reflection (the same info-carrying light that would allow you to see me directly, should we ever be in the same room)

How can you see what you are not?

give me an example of what you mean cuz I ain't gettin 'it

[Sculptor]

You are what observes, not what is being observed.

yes

What is observing cannot be observed because nothing is observing appearing as something.

does not parse.

No some thing has ever been observed, all things are empty concepts.

If so every thing you have said is rubbish

[Dontaskme]

I'm not a reflection; I see my reflection (the same info-carrying light that would allow you to see me directly, should we ever be in the same room)

How can you see what you are not?

give me an example of what you mean cuz I ain't gettin 'it

You’ve said...I’m not a reflection...but then say you can see yourself as reflected in the mirror anytime you like.

So if you are not a reflection, then what are you seeing in the mirror?

Sorry if this sounds clumsy Henry, I’m not trying to be awkward..I’m just really curious as to how you think the observer can be seen that’s all.

[henry quirk]

How can you see what you are not?

give me an example of what you mean cuz I ain't gettin 'it

You’ve said...I’m not a reflection...but then say you can see yourself as reflected in the mirror anytime you like.

So if you are not a reflection, then what are you seeing in the mirror?

Sorry if this sounds clumsy Henry, I’m not trying to be awkward..I’m just really curious as to how you think the observer can be seen that’s all.

me: I'm real; flesh & blood & bone & spirit

in the mirror I see -- in essence -- information carried by light, and -- as a direct realist -- I think this information has fidelity (what you see of me is accurate, what I see of myself in the mirror is accurate [though reversed]

I, slapper of tables, see myself

[Dontaskme]

give me an example of what you mean cuz I ain't gettin 'it

You’ve said...I’m not a reflection...but then say you can see yourself as reflected in the mirror anytime you like.

So if you are not a reflection, then what are you seeing in the mirror?

Sorry if this sounds clumsy Henry, I’m not trying to be awkward..I’m just really curious as to how you think the observer can be seen that’s all.

me: I'm real; flesh & blood & bone & spirit

in the mirror I see -- in essence -- information carried by light, and -- as a direct realist -- I think this information has fidelity (what you see of me is accurate, what I see of myself in the mirror is accurate [though reversed]

I, slapper of tables, see myself

So it seems you are saying that the information reflecting in the mirror is seen as the image of what is looking and that this seen image is what the observer is....you seem to be saying that the observer is seen as and through this reflected image.

But all I’m saying Henry is an image seen is not the seer...because if the image is the seer, then your flesh or blood or bone would be what is looking ....in other words, is the Body of flesh and bone the “looked upon” or is the “looked upon” what’s looking?

So the question is how can what’s “looked upon” aka an image be the observer...?

That would be like asking yourself, are you looking at your body..or is your body looking at you...and if your body is looking at you, then who or what is this extra “you”that your body that is already yourself looking at?

Do you understand this...I know it’s a bit deep, and you don’t have to play along if you don’t want to Henry...

.

[Dimebag]

Do the eyes see, or does the mind’s eye see what the eyes present?

When we dream, where is the dream world presented? The eyes don’t see the dreams.

[Dontaskme]

Do the eyes see, or does the mind’s eye see what the eyes present?

When we dream, where is the dream world presented? The eyes don’t see the dreams.

Very good questions Dimebag.

The answer to does the eye see is no..the eye does not see, the eye is seen, and by seen it is meant the eye is conceptually known, the eye is in fact a conceptually known image within the observer, there is no image of the actual observer as proved when the eyelid comes down over the eye. Without an image to identify with, there is no image of the observer, both the observer and the observed are absent, and yet there is beingness...it’s this beingness we are talking about here...this beingness is this obvious immediate infinity expressing itself in infinite conceptual forms, there is no other one here. And that which is only One cannot observe itself observing..so let’s make that clear...there is only here this observing, it’s always one infinity, infinity is a verb in every instantaneous moment,namely always now observing as one nondual unitary action.

And yet the mind that you mention is nested within this nondual reality which apparently cuts it into two, into knower and known, observer and observed...but this division is an illusion...for the seer,seeing and seen are the same One action....what is attempting to be said here is that there is no ONE because there is no OTHER than ONE

Reality is synonymous with a dream like Einstein and Edgar Allen Poe pointed out, in that the images within waking life are seen by the same light that sees the images presented in a nightly dream when the eyes are shut...these images are images of the unknowable imageless seer.

...no conceptual thing is ever SEEN ...all things are Known by the only knowing there is which is imageless unseen unknowable consciousness.


But when the mind claims it can see, and that it does know, as it identify with images on the screen of consciousness, this is in fact a false claim, it’s also just an energetic arising, appearing out of this immediate unseen unknowable consciousness. In other words, reality as it is known, not actually seen, is just an hallucination of the brain where the images on the screen of consciousness are mistaken for the real reality where there is none, except in this artificial conception of one by association...in the exact same context there is no real reality in a nightly dream, and yet the dream seemed to appear as if it was real at the time is was being witnessed...but in fact there is no witness present within any dream, be it a waking dream or nightly dream..there’s just what is being witnessed..Namely the Dream.

Notice also, that many different words are always being used to point to the same point that is trying to point to itself. . that’s the problem with trying to conceptualise the unknowable unseen ...all that is known is the out workings of reality...aka the dream world.





.

[Dimebag]

Do the eyes see, or does the mind’s eye see what the eyes present?

When we dream, where is the dream world presented? The eyes don’t see the dreams.

Very good questions Dimebag.

The answer to does the eye see is no..the eye does not see, the eye is seen, and by seen it is meant the eye is conceptually known, the eye is in fact a conceptually known image within the observer, there is no image of the actual observer as proved when the eyelid comes down over the eye. Without an image to identify with, there is no image of the observer, both the observer and the observed are absent, and yet there is beingness...it’s this beingness we are talking about here...this beingness is this obvious immediate infinity expressing itself in infinite conceptual forms, there is no other one here. And that which is only One cannot observe itself observing..so let’s make that clear...there is only here this observing, it’s always one infinity, infinity is a verb in every instantaneous moment,namely always now observing as one nondual unitary action.

And yet the mind that you mention is nested within this nondual reality which apparently cuts it into two, into knower and known, observer and observed...but this division is an illusion...for the seer,seeing and seen are the same One action....what is attempting to be said here is that there is no ONE because there is no OTHER than ONE

Reality is synonymous with a dream like Einstein and Edgar Allen Poe pointed out, in that the images within waking life are seen by the same light that sees the images presented in a nightly dream when the eyes are shut...these images are images of the unknowable imageless seer.

...no conceptual thing is ever SEEN ...all things are Known by the only knowing there is which is imageless unseen unknowable consciousness.


But when the mind claims it can see, and that it does know, as it identify with images on the screen of consciousness, this is in fact a false claim, it’s also just an energetic arising, appearing out of this immediate unseen unknowable consciousness. In other words, reality as it is known, not actually seen, is just an hallucination of the brain where the images on the screen of consciousness are mistaken for the real reality where there is none, except in this artificial conception of one by association...in the exact same context there is no real reality in a nightly dream, and yet the dream seemed to appear as if it was real at the time is was being witnessed...but in fact there is no witness present within any dream, be it a waking dream or nightly dream..there’s just what is being witnessed..Namely the Dream.

Notice also, that many different words are always being used to point to the same point that is trying to point to itself. . that’s the problem with trying to conceptualise the unknowable unseen ...all that is known is the out workings of reality...aka the dream world.





.

Thanks for all that. When I say mind’s eye, I am referring to awareness. The reason I called it the mind’s eye is, it is like an eye in that everything is seen in it, but it can’t be seen because it doesn’t exist outside of some kind of functioning in a brain. Functioning in a brain is essentially micro electro chemical behaviour which, to the naked eye, is indistinguishable from inactivity. But this activity is what awareness is. But to say it is just brain activity is like saying Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa is a few marks on a page. It completely misses the point, and is typical reductionistic eliminative materialism. Because it’s not just brain activity. It is the creation of an “insideness” from naught. It’s the creation of the “spacetime” of the subjective.

[henry quirk]

most of your post confuses me, 'cept for this...

if your body is looking at you, then who or what is this extra “you”...?

I am my body...there is no extra part

I believe man is a composite of flesh and spirit (matter and information for the materially-minded), the two irrevocably intertwined or bound together...when I watch my hand pokin' away at the ipad, as I compose this message, I'm lookin' at myself...there is no third party

if you were here with me: you'd see an old man pokin' away at an ipad, you'd see me...of course, you won't be privy to my internal experience, you'll only see my exterior, but you'll still be seein' me, flesh and spirit

light is the carrier of a kind of information my eyes are designed to apprehend and convey inside where I (by way of parts of me designed for processin') recognize the world (that which is external to me)

a mirror reflects light, it reflects the information in the light...in a sense, a mirror also distorts: it makes it appear that I am other than where I am, it reverses me...this can confuse me till I recognize the mirror for what it is...understandin' the mirror as one step removed allows me to compensate and appreciate that what I see in the mirror -- the old, bald, man -- is me (one step removed) reflected

[Dontaskme]

Thanks for all that. When I say mind’s eye, I am referring to awareness. The reason I called it the mind’s eye is, it is like an eye in that everything is seen in it, but it can’t be seen because it doesn’t exist outside of some kind of functioning in a brain.

Everything seen can be likened to everything known, but it's an unseen knowing without location, and this knowing is awareness. So I agree with you.

Functioning in a brain is essentially micro electro chemical behaviour which, to the naked eye, is indistinguishable from inactivity. But this activity is what awareness is. But to say it is just brain activity is like saying Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa is a few marks on a page. It completely misses the point, and is typical reductionistic eliminative materialism. Because it’s not just brain activity. It is the creation of an “insideness” from naught. It’s the creation of the “spacetime” of the subjective.

I completely agree with this. When I read this analogy I can understand what is being said, so thanks for this.

There are millions of ways to put this subject into words so it's no wonder some readers may be confused as to what is being pointed to.

[Dontaskme]

most of your post confuses me, 'cept for this...

if your body is looking at you, then who or what is this extra “you”...?

I am my body...there is no extra part

However, the claim ''I am my body'' is a division where there really isn't one, do you see this? No body is making that claim.

The point of this subject topic is show how what is looking cannot be looked at. So can you observe yourself without any image of yourself? The answer is obviously no you cannot! ... that's what's being pointed to here Henry. You do not need an image of yourself to be, you ALREADY ARE self-evidently in just the pure experience of being... this whole I am my body image thing is a misnomer. In other words the sky never tells itself it is a sky. Likewise, the body never tells itself it is a body. The body is just a known concept known by that which cannot be known for this unknowing is the knowing.

I believe man is a composite of flesh and spirit (matter and information for the materially-minded), the two irrevocably intertwined or bound together...when I watch my hand pokin' away at the ipad, as I compose this message, I'm lookin' at myself...there is no third party

if you were here with me: you'd see an old man pokin' away at an ipad, you'd see me...of course, you won't be privy to my internal experience, you'll only see my exterior, but you'll still be seein' me, flesh and spirit

light is the carrier of a kind of information my eyes are designed to apprehend and convey inside where I (by way of parts of me designed for processin') recognize the world (that which is external to me)

a mirror reflects light, it reflects the information in the light...in a sense, a mirror also distorts: it makes it appear that I am other than where I am, it reverses me...this can confuse me till I recognize the mirror for what it is...understandin' the mirror as one step removed allows me to compensate and appreciate that what I see in the mirror -- the old, bald, man -- is me (one step removed) reflected

Thanks for this, but it's just repeating what you have said originally at the start of the conversation, which deviates away from the actual point, so I'll just leave this particular discourse be for now.

[Dontaskme]

mirror, mirror, on the wall...

What is ''looked upon'' aka a mirror, is just a reflection of what's looking, aka emptiness appearing full, aka an image of the imageless.

No ''self'' thing can see itself, there is here only not-knowing knowing...aka CON sciousness.

Without Consciousness, time and space and things do not exist. These are appearances within Consciousness but have no reality of their own.
Consciousness is like a screen on which all this information, aka the ''known'' is cast as pictures and move as in a cinema show.
The Absolute Consciousness aka the screen of awareness alone is our real nature...and not what is appearing and disappearing within it.

Without an image upon my screen to identify with as known - I AM no thing.

Therefore, all known things can know nothing, no thing.

The self cannot see itself, if it could it would have to split itself in two into knower and known...no such SELF exists.

You cannot see your Self. If you could see your Self, it would be an object. And once it is an object, it is a reflection. You can only see reflections of your Self, which are essentially empty.


There is no 'self' called Henry looking out of your eyes.

[Dimebag]

It’s quite hard to explain this to someone who hasn’t had this penny drop for them.

Here’s how it happened for me.

One day, as I was reflecting on the work I was doing, very repetitive work which allows this reflective ability, i was able to notice that, these actions were happening while “I” was watching them happen, rather than “me” producing them. I was then listening to my own thoughts in my head, and noticed, “there is a voice in my head, narrating my experience, a narrator”. I thought, if I can experience my own thoughts, which seemed like someone else’s, this narrator, who was I, observing? I seemed to be this observer, observing everything. It threw me a little bit, because up until then, when a thought entered my head, I would take it as not an object to be observed, but as a new lens to see the world through, typically you inhabit a thought, which will create a new thought from that, and the process fractally continues. But instead I was observing actions happening, observing bodily sensations, observing thoughts. I was a detached observer. All of my experiences were appearing as objects, which could be seen as distinct from me, the one observing them.

I could even observe my own egoic reactions to social situations. Some days it took a few seconds to observe such egoic reactions, as I had moments where I would observe AS the one having egoic reactions. But other days I seemed to be able to “catch” these reactions as they arose. This was a feeling like “I” was simply the awareness, not even the one who wanted to change external situations.

This is all purely subjective. It all happens inside this organism which supports this awareness. And this awareness is not separate from the body which supports it. But experientially, as awareness, I am distinct from the sensations of the body, from the senses, from anything which can be seen. Yet this awareness which I am has no characteristics beyond being the medium through which everything becomes known. So experientially, there is the observer and the observed. And the observer cannot be observed experientially. The observer, or awareness is that in which all observations happen, but awareness cannot observe itself in itself, a gun can’t shoot itself, a paint brush can’t paint itself, etc. This observer has no characteristics to observe, as awareness.

[henry quirk]

[henry quirk]

the claim ''I am my body'' is a division where there really isn't one

it's a statement of fact that I'm communicating to you, that's all it... no division is implied


There is no 'self' called Henry looking out of your eyes.

no, of course not

I am reading and posting...there's no homunculus squattin' in my skull drivin' a meat car...there's no committee of ego, id, and superego arguin' in a room inside my brain...there's no ghost in the machine

there's just me (flesh/spirit), a person, a man, readin', postin', sippin' coffee, etc.