Can the way an observer observes an object be an event?

[commonsense]

This thread represents a legitimate unravelling of a previous thread about Vietnam, war, some person whose name I don't recall, and the way that person looks at the moon (presumably the Earth's moon). These disparate words concealed a general question worthy of philosophical inquiry. Here's how that thread looked to me:


Is the Vietnam war (let's call it event E) the way (let's call it W) that Jane Doe (J) observes (O) the moon (M)?

If the answer is no and another condition is true, then the conclusion is a generalized statement derived from the original terms.

So let's assume that the answer is no and the other condition is true (i.e. E Not = W+J+O+M) so that we can see whether the conclusion is true.

The generalized statement is E can = anything other than W+J+O+M.

Well, without other constraints, E can certainly be anything at all as long as it isn't the way (W) that Jane Doe (J) observes (O) the moon (M)?

Unless, an event can only be an event or something like an event can only be itself!

So, where does this take us? Is it possible that one thing can actually be another thing? What can we say about events and observations?

[AlexW]

The observation (meaning the direct experience of seeing) is not affected by the presence of E, J or M.
E, J, M are concepts created by the mind, they exist only in thought, and are as such in no real connection with O.
E, J, M constitute a state of mind - an entity, the observer, looks at M from a certain point of view. Thought creates a framework around O aiming to interpret how O happens and what it reveals, but this interpretation is not O, it is only an abstraction of O.

We have to be careful not to mistake a direct experience with conceptual thought about it - they exist in different dimensions altogether and will never truly meet.

[Walker]

The observation (meaning the direct experience of seeing) is not affected by the presence of E, J or M.
E, J, M are concepts created by the mind, they exist only in thought, and are as such in no real connection with O.
E, J, M constitute a state of mind - an entity, the observer, looks at M from a certain point of view. Thought creates a framework around O aiming to interpret how O happens and what it reveals, but this interpretation is not O, it is only an abstraction of O.

We have to be careful not to mistake a direct experience with conceptual thought about it - they exist in different dimensions altogether and will never truly meet.

Well … the experience is not the thought, but both the thought and the experience are the same thing, only they are different expressions (realms, dimensions) of the same thing.

Because of the mind/body connection, both the experience and the thought of the experience can cause stress, with similar effects of stress, sometimes dramatic and sudden. This is evidence that experience, and thought of the experience, are the same thing manifesting in different realms.

Examples:

Bad news can cause a heart attack, making thought of the news an aspect of the event and experience.

A nagger can land her, or his, victim in the ER with back spasms caused by thoughts about both the content of the nagging, and the neural reaction to the physical vibrations of say, a screeching Hillary.

*
Consider that:

The thought of a building,
the blueprint of the same building,
talk of the same building,
the physical structure that is the same building,
perhaps even occupying the space defined by the building,
are all the same event,
manifesting in different realms.

[commonsense]

The observation (meaning the direct experience of seeing) is not affected by the presence of E, J or M.
E, J, M are concepts created by the mind, they exist only in thought, and are as such in no real connection with O.
E, J, M constitute a state of mind - an entity, the observer, looks at M from a certain point of view. Thought creates a framework around O aiming to interpret how O happens and what it reveals, but this interpretation is not O, it is only an abstraction of O.
We have to be careful not to mistake a direct experience with conceptual thought about it - they exist in different dimensions altogether and will never truly meet.

Thank you, Alex, for your compelling post.

I take it, then, that (an abstraction of) an observation cannot be an event. You’ve supported this by pointing out that experience and thought are from separate dimensions. Fair enough: one is external and the other is internal.

But I wonder what you might say if the event were a lunar eclipse, Jane were the experiencer and she would be observing the moon’s eclipse. Surely there is a correlation among O, E, J and M in this case, isn’t there? If so, would that make any difference to you?
.

Well … the experience is not the thought, but both the thought and the experience are the same thing, only they are different expressions (realms, dimensions) of the same thing.
Because of the mind/body connection, both the experience and the thought of the experience can cause stress, with similar effects of stress, sometimes dramatic and sudden. This is evidence that experience, and thought of the experience, are the same thing manifesting in different realms.
Examples:
Bad news can cause a heart attack, making thought of the news an aspect of the event and experience.
A nagger can land her, or his, victim in the ER with back spasms caused by thoughts about both the content of the nagging, and the neural reaction to the physical vibrations of say, a screeching Hillary.
Consider that:
The thought of a building,
the blueprint of the same building,
talk of the same building,
the physical structure that is the same building,
perhaps even occupying the space defined by the building,
are all the same event,
manifesting in different realms.

Thanks, Walker, for your insightful commentary.

I gather that an observation can be the same as an event, with the caveat that they are from different realms. Why do you say this? On what assumption(s) are your statements based?
.

[Walker]

You're welcome. The truth arrived via insight, and then verified via observation over the years. As I recall, I mentioned it in early postings on this forum, and there wasn't any expressed interest. I figured folks were just amazed and dumbfounded. Thought I'd see what you and Alex, et al, might make of it via contemplation of personal experience and memories.

[AlexW]

The thought of a building,
the blueprint of the same building,
talk of the same building,
the physical structure that is the same building,
perhaps even occupying the space defined by the building,
are all the same event,
manifesting in different realms.

There are really only two realms/dimensions:
1) Reality, which is always directly experienced now, in this very moment.
2) Conceptual thought about an experience, which is always "in time".
Imagine a white sheet of paper, there are many black dots on the paper, now you grab a pencil and connect the dots in a way that makes sense to you. The picture that emerges obviously depends on how you connect the dots... connecting them in a slightly different way will result in a very different image.
It is the same with direct experience and thought about the experience. Direct experience is the sheet of paper with black dots. There is no meaning contained at all. The meaning is generated by mentally connecting the dots, by wrapping the meaningless, raw experience into a storyline - an event is created. To create an event you have to apply thought, you require memory of the past and the ability to project into the future. An event is never now, it lives in time, while the experience itself is always now.
The building, and its different realms that you are referring to are only different variations of connecting the dots - they are all not reality. They all exist only in thought as a collection of interpretations of past experiences.

I wonder what you might say if the event were a lunar eclipse, Jane were the experiencer and she would be observing the moon’s eclipse. Surely there is a correlation among O, E, J and M in this case, isn’t there? If so, would that make any difference to you?

It doesn't matter what kind of event we are referring to. An event is always a mental construct (a pretty useful one for sure), it is always dependent on having the mental ability to abstract, to conceptualise, to differentiate and most of all, to remember.
Imagine having no memory at all. Every moment simply flows past and leaves no trace. This is pure, direct experience - there is simply life happening without labels, without time, even without a self. Having the capacity to remember an abstraction of a past experience (you can only remember an interpretation/abstraction - never the real thing as the real thing is not a concept) we are able to mentally create an event, name it, talk about it, compare it to other events... this doesn't mean that in reality, in the nameless flow of life, the event has any meaning. In reality it didn't even occur. It only has the meaning that we invent. All events, all meaning making, only happen in thought, never in reality.

[Walker]

AlexW:

Two opens the door to more.

Have you considered that there is only one reality, and that it is physical?

Various realms simultaneously, physically exist just as the whole elephant exists, however since the elephant is larger than a man, all of reality cannot be touched all at once.

Buddhists say that the river exists to all, yet each perceives the same river differently due to perception from different realms. A god-being will perceive a river of nectar, a hell-being will perceive a river of fire, and those in other realms will perceive according to their realm.

This can also be seen in human experience.

For example, laughter floats on the summer air.
The paranoid one, and the balanced one, both hear the same sound … the same river.
However, to the paranoid the laughter is a burning fire, and for the balanced one it is the sweet music of life.

So, in this sense we can say that a realm, or that a psychological state that filters reality into the found meaning that makes sense and orders the world from the moment-to-moment existence of that realm, is itself an event.

For instance, the one who hears the music of life, which becomes bliss with attached attention, does not just hear the music in laughter. The music is everywhere. And by the same token, the paranoid does not suffer simply because of laughter, but everywhere.

[AlexW]

Have you considered that there is only one reality, and that it is physical?

Yes. Sure - there is only reality - this - now.
The other "realm/dimension" (number 2 above) is not real in the way this direct experience is real, it is only made up (thought up).
I only meant to point out that there is a huge difference between the direct experience, life itself, and the interpretation of it. While thought itself is real, its content, the world that it creates is not. It is simply an interpretation (and most people live in this interpretation 24/7)

Buddhists say that the river exists to all, yet each perceives the same river differently due to perception from different realms. A god-being will perceive a river of nectar, a hell-being will perceive a river of fire, and those in other realms will perceive according to their realm.

Yes, but here "realm" again points to thought, to our mindset, our conceptual understanding of what is being perceived. The perceiving is always the same, its only the interpretation of the perceived that differs. A god-being is exactly the same as a hell-being - there is only one difference - the hell-being is locked up in his mind and perceives only the interpretation (which mostly judges the moment as being lacking) - a god-being perceives reality as it is, directly and without the filter of the ego. Its the same reality, its the same direct perception, its only a matter of how we see ourselves - as the mind-made ego/identity or as the one that is not limited by the concepts of the mind.

For instance, the one who hears the music of life, which becomes bliss with attached attention, does not just hear the music in laughter. The music is everywhere. And by the same token, the paranoid does not suffer simply because of laughter, but everywhere.

Agree