The observer cannot be observed

[Dontaskme]

I’ll try another approach....


Awareness CANNOT know or experience itself as an OBJECT ...but the object is NEVER NOT KNOWN simply because the object is a concept known to AWARENESS the only knowing there is.

That which is KNOWN aka the object/ concept....cannot know or experience anything...the Known aka the object / concept cannot observe the knower / experiencer. The knower/ experiencer is both awareness and what it is aware of instantaneously There is no division, because there is no other thing to divide what is alway ONE THING, which is no thing.

[Sculptor]

In saying The “observer is the observed” does not imply the “observer” can be observed. It just means there’s only OBSERVING and that this “observing” cannot then observe this observing....OK?

No not okay at all.
You are squirming. In future you need to say exactly what you mean.
So really - WTF are you actually talking about?

It’s you who is squirming mate. I’m good, I know what I mean.

But you don’t, and that not knowing makes you squirm.



Mind is the sixth sense. Mind is perceived, but it cannot perceive itself, just as teeth cannot bite themselves, or a finger can not touch itself.

Observing is One, this one cannot look at itself, if it could it would have to split itself in two into Knower and Known. There simply is no subject object divide. And yet Mind informs the divide, which is an illusion of course.

yeah whatever.

[Dimebag]

Tell me, what do you feel your identity is?

I identify as a homo sapiens. I regard all subcategories of this as divisive and potentially dangerous the health of humanity, and suspect all who promote other forms of group identity, which is most often damaging, as failing to see the solution to identity problem.

Your thoughts? Your emotions? Do you feel like a little you riding around inside your head, the one which sights and sounds are presented to? Or, do you feel like your body? Do you identify as your body?

Homo Sapience is about all these things.

Or do you feel like you are awareness, or consciousness?

What's the difference?

Does consciousness happen TO you, or are you consciousness?

The first seems like a disabling dualism. Attributing properties is what others do to you. I am complete with my consciousness, not separate from it.

That whole thing where we say, “we’ll figure out who this consciousness thing happens to later”, well that’s what this is about.

Never said it. Don't think i ever would.

Who are you, or more to the point, what are you?

Homo Sapiens

Sculptor and Henry quirk, answer these questions?

DOne

Some people identify for instance with their profession, with their familial role, or racial category (more so now). Which is why when someone loses that particular role, for instance, their job, or their children leave home, they feel lost and in a sense don’t know who they are. I don’t know of anyone who’s identity is tied to their species, but I suppose one could. That sounds more like an intellectual categorisation which you chose yourself rather than an identity, which you don’t choose but which normally is due to some attachment to that particular role. Being a human is very general and non specific and has no real designating characteristics. I’m not saying it’s not true or you are wrong, but it doesn’t seem like a typical identity.

My point is though, as identities can morph and change over time, they aren’t stable. When someone loses this particular identity, they are essentially floating free, but they tend to feel extremely vulnerable, and this results in a kind of “searching behaviour” for a new thing to attach their identity to. You see the human being doesn’t like being isolated or exposed as an individual, and rightly so it is safer as part of a collective group.

This is the idea of identity, it binds you to your group.

These days, we are less oriented towards large Dunbar number groups due to obvious reasons, and more oriented to our identity with our profession, our interests, or our familial roles.

But there is a default identity state our minds resort to when none of these social identity groups aren’t relevant. That state is the body. It is most relevant to moving around in the world, when we are doing things which don’t require much attention, our awareness views itself or merges with, the sensations of the body and thus, your identity is of the body.

But when one probes their identity deeper, there seems to be a feeling of being something in the body, specifically in the head, which is the controller of the body, the thinker of thoughts, the setter of goals, the haver of feelings.

This particular aspect of identity relates to the feeling of being in control, and thus also relates to the mind and body. Without this aspect of identity, you would merely be a passenger, watching your body move, watching feelings come and go, listening to thoughts entering your internal sound space, and then leaving. Instead of being this one that watches everything come and go, most people feel those things that come and go are created BY them. This is the illusion that identity creates, by “merging” awareness or identifying with that stream of mind.

By observing things coming and going, like bodily sensations, feelings, thoughts, etc, eventually you can break this identification with them. An analogy is, everything that comes and goes are clouds, but you are that in which the clouds pass, being the sky. What is left is an observer, and the observed. There is still some aspect of identity here, as DAM has iterated, more conceptually. This is not my area of expertise, as I am yet to fully realise this. I speak only from my experience.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You are what observes, not what is being observed.
Not really, today I can use a mirror or a video camera to observe myself, which sometimes makes me laugh.

What is observing cannot be observed because nothing is observing appearing as something.
So you're saying that no one can observe me observing, if so why does my wife smack me for observing a beautiful woman walking by? I want to live in your make believe world.


No some thing has ever been observed, all things are empty concepts.
Are you sure you're not Barbara Brooks reincarnated, because you sure do sound like her sometimes?
.

[Dontaskme]

You are what observes, not what is being observed.
Not really, today I can use a mirror or a video camera to observe myself, which sometimes makes me laugh.

You can observe your reflection that’s true, but you cannot observe the observer of the reflection. And is what this thread topic is pointing to.

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

So you're saying that no one can observe me observing, if so why does my wife smack me for observing a beautiful woman walking by? I want to live in your make believe world.

No I’m not saying no one can observe you observing at all.

I’m saying that the observer, namely you, cannot then observe this observing observer.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You are what observes, not what is being observed.
Not really, today I can use a mirror or a video camera to observe myself, which sometimes makes me laugh.

You can observe your reflection that’s true, but you cannot observe the observer of the reflection. And is what this thread topic is pointing to.

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

So you're saying that no one can observe me observing, if so why does my wife smack me for observing a beautiful woman walking by? I want to live in your make believe world.

No I’m not saying no one can observe you observing at all.

I’m saying that the observer, namely you, cannot then observe this observing observer.

I disagree, because there is a saying that someone is far too much inside their head; self-consciousness! Then there are those that just do what they feel, just spitting out words and actions to see where they splatter, not that they really care. I see that the really self-conscious are observing the observer, of course you could argue to what degree the observer observes the observer. Of course I would insist that some do, to whatever degree.

[Dimebag]

You can observe your reflection that’s true, but you cannot observe the observer of the reflection. And is what this thread topic is pointing to.



I disagree, because there is a saying that someone is far too much inside their head; self-consciousness! Then there are those that just do what they feel, just spitting out words and actions to see where they splatter, not that they really care. I see that the really self-conscious are observing the observer, of course you could argue to what degree the observer observes the observer. Of course I would insist that some do, to whatever degree.

When you are self conscious, you imagine that everyone is looking at you, talking about you etc. Your attention is focussed on the other, and so you feel exposed, you can sometimes feel like an eye is literally pointing at you (this is your mind, simulating the gaze of another person, by placing you as the focus of awareness, with awareness identifying as other not self).

When you are the observer, your awareness is focussed in itself. This is its natural state. The reason being, an internal loop has been set up which reflects back the awareness onto itself. Others are viewed as existing inside the observer, so there is no sense of being exposed. Others are viewed with openness and calm positivity.

I know this, because I have been in both these states. Being the observer is not the same thing as feeling self conscious.

[Sculptor]

Tell me, what do you feel your identity is?

I identify as a homo sapiens. I regard all subcategories of this as divisive and potentially dangerous the health of humanity, and suspect all who promote other forms of group identity, which is most often damaging, as failing to see the solution to identity problem.

Your thoughts? Your emotions? Do you feel like a little you riding around inside your head, the one which sights and sounds are presented to? Or, do you feel like your body? Do you identify as your body?

Homo Sapience is about all these things.

Or do you feel like you are awareness, or consciousness?

What's the difference?

Does consciousness happen TO you, or are you consciousness?

The first seems like a disabling dualism. Attributing properties is what others do to you. I am complete with my consciousness, not separate from it.

That whole thing where we say, “we’ll figure out who this consciousness thing happens to later”, well that’s what this is about.

Never said it. Don't think i ever would.

Who are you, or more to the point, what are you?

Homo Sapiens

Sculptor and Henry quirk, answer these questions?

DOne

Some people identify for instance with their profession, with their familial role, or racial category (more so now). Which is why when someone loses that particular role, for instance, their job, or their children leave home, they feel lost and in a sense don’t know who they are. I don’t know of anyone who’s identity is tied to their species, but I suppose one could. That sounds more like an intellectual categorisation which you chose yourself rather than an identity, which you don’t choose but which normally is due to some attachment to that particular role. Being a human is very general and non specific and has no real designating characteristics. I’m not saying it’s not true or you are wrong, but it doesn’t seem like a typical identity.

My point is though, as identities can morph and change over time, they aren’t stable. When someone loses this particular identity, they are essentially floating free, but they tend to feel extremely vulnerable, and this results in a kind of “searching behaviour” for a new thing to attach their identity to. You see the human being doesn’t like being isolated or exposed as an individual, and rightly so it is safer as part of a collective group.

This is the idea of identity, it binds you to your group.

These days, we are less oriented towards large Dunbar number groups due to obvious reasons, and more oriented to our identity with our profession, our interests, or our familial roles.

But there is a default identity state our minds resort to when none of these social identity groups aren’t relevant. That state is the body. It is most relevant to moving around in the world, when we are doing things which don’t require much attention, our awareness views itself or merges with, the sensations of the body and thus, your identity is of the body.

But when one probes their identity deeper, there seems to be a feeling of being something in the body, specifically in the head, which is the controller of the body, the thinker of thoughts, the setter of goals, the haver of feelings.

This particular aspect of identity relates to the feeling of being in control, and thus also relates to the mind and body. Without this aspect of identity, you would merely be a passenger, watching your body move, watching feelings come and go, listening to thoughts entering your internal sound space, and then leaving. Instead of being this one that watches everything come and go, most people feel those things that come and go are created BY them. This is the illusion that identity creates, by “merging” awareness or identifying with that stream of mind.

By observing things coming and going, like bodily sensations, feelings, thoughts, etc, eventually you can break this identification with them. An analogy is, everything that comes and goes are clouds, but you are that in which the clouds pass, being the sky. What is left is an observer, and the observed. There is still some aspect of identity here, as DAM has iterated, more conceptually. This is not my area of expertise, as I am yet to fully realise this. I speak only from my experience.

So what?

[Dimebag]

I identify as a homo sapiens. I regard all subcategories of this as divisive and potentially dangerous the health of humanity, and suspect all who promote other forms of group identity, which is most often damaging, as failing to see the solution to identity problem.

Homo Sapience is about all these things.

What's the difference?

The first seems like a disabling dualism. Attributing properties is what others do to you. I am complete with my consciousness, not separate from it.

Never said it. Don't think i ever would.

Homo Sapiens


DOne

Some people identify for instance with their profession, with their familial role, or racial category (more so now). Which is why when someone loses that particular role, for instance, their job, or their children leave home, they feel lost and in a sense don’t know who they are. I don’t know of anyone who’s identity is tied to their species, but I suppose one could. That sounds more like an intellectual categorisation which you chose yourself rather than an identity, which you don’t choose but which normally is due to some attachment to that particular role. Being a human is very general and non specific and has no real designating characteristics. I’m not saying it’s not true or you are wrong, but it doesn’t seem like a typical identity.

My point is though, as identities can morph and change over time, they aren’t stable. When someone loses this particular identity, they are essentially floating free, but they tend to feel extremely vulnerable, and this results in a kind of “searching behaviour” for a new thing to attach their identity to. You see the human being doesn’t like being isolated or exposed as an individual, and rightly so it is safer as part of a collective group.

This is the idea of identity, it binds you to your group.

These days, we are less oriented towards large Dunbar number groups due to obvious reasons, and more oriented to our identity with our profession, our interests, or our familial roles.

But there is a default identity state our minds resort to when none of these social identity groups aren’t relevant. That state is the body. It is most relevant to moving around in the world, when we are doing things which don’t require much attention, our awareness views itself or merges with, the sensations of the body and thus, your identity is of the body.

But when one probes their identity deeper, there seems to be a feeling of being something in the body, specifically in the head, which is the controller of the body, the thinker of thoughts, the setter of goals, the haver of feelings.

This particular aspect of identity relates to the feeling of being in control, and thus also relates to the mind and body. Without this aspect of identity, you would merely be a passenger, watching your body move, watching feelings come and go, listening to thoughts entering your internal sound space, and then leaving. Instead of being this one that watches everything come and go, most people feel those things that come and go are created BY them. This is the illusion that identity creates, by “merging” awareness or identifying with that stream of mind.

By observing things coming and going, like bodily sensations, feelings, thoughts, etc, eventually you can break this identification with them. An analogy is, everything that comes and goes are clouds, but you are that in which the clouds pass, being the sky. What is left is an observer, and the observed. There is still some aspect of identity here, as DAM has iterated, more conceptually. This is not my area of expertise, as I am yet to fully realise this. I speak only from my experience.

So what?

So, you asked. If none of this appeals to you, maybe this kind of work isn’t for you, that’s fine. It seems like you both aren’t impressed, nor are you open to any of this. My question is, why are you wasting your time here? I know why I am, I wish to show as many people as I can what I have experienced. Like they say, you can lead a horse to water...

[Sculptor]

Some people identify for instance with their profession, with their familial role, or racial category (more so now). Which is why when someone loses that particular role, for instance, their job, or their children leave home, they feel lost and in a sense don’t know who they are. I don’t know of anyone who’s identity is tied to their species, but I suppose one could. That sounds more like an intellectual categorisation which you chose yourself rather than an identity, which you don’t choose but which normally is due to some attachment to that particular role. Being a human is very general and non specific and has no real designating characteristics. I’m not saying it’s not true or you are wrong, but it doesn’t seem like a typical identity.

My point is though, as identities can morph and change over time, they aren’t stable. When someone loses this particular identity, they are essentially floating free, but they tend to feel extremely vulnerable, and this results in a kind of “searching behaviour” for a new thing to attach their identity to. You see the human being doesn’t like being isolated or exposed as an individual, and rightly so it is safer as part of a collective group.

This is the idea of identity, it binds you to your group.

These days, we are less oriented towards large Dunbar number groups due to obvious reasons, and more oriented to our identity with our profession, our interests, or our familial roles.

But there is a default identity state our minds resort to when none of these social identity groups aren’t relevant. That state is the body. It is most relevant to moving around in the world, when we are doing things which don’t require much attention, our awareness views itself or merges with, the sensations of the body and thus, your identity is of the body.

But when one probes their identity deeper, there seems to be a feeling of being something in the body, specifically in the head, which is the controller of the body, the thinker of thoughts, the setter of goals, the haver of feelings.

This particular aspect of identity relates to the feeling of being in control, and thus also relates to the mind and body. Without this aspect of identity, you would merely be a passenger, watching your body move, watching feelings come and go, listening to thoughts entering your internal sound space, and then leaving. Instead of being this one that watches everything come and go, most people feel those things that come and go are created BY them. This is the illusion that identity creates, by “merging” awareness or identifying with that stream of mind.

By observing things coming and going, like bodily sensations, feelings, thoughts, etc, eventually you can break this identification with them. An analogy is, everything that comes and goes are clouds, but you are that in which the clouds pass, being the sky. What is left is an observer, and the observed. There is still some aspect of identity here, as DAM has iterated, more conceptually. This is not my area of expertise, as I am yet to fully realise this. I speak only from my experience.

So what?

So, you asked. If none of this appeals to you, maybe this kind of work isn’t for you, that’s fine. It seems like you both aren’t impressed, nor are you open to any of this. My question is, why are you wasting your time here? I know why I am, I wish to show as many people as I can what I have experienced. Like they say, you can lead a horse to water...

Philosophy has very little to do with your idiosyncratic view.
You asked ME, about my notions of personal identity. You then pretty much ignored what I had to say, and just regurgitated your own views.
This begs the questions: first, why did you canvas MY views, when you had nothing to say about them, nor react to them in any detail.
My response of "So what?" may have been brief but you are lucky to have received that.
And, secondly, how do you have the temerity to tell me I'm not interested in Philosophy when in effect its you that is the problem here?

[Dontaskme]

When you are self conscious, you imagine that everyone is looking at you, talking about you etc. Your attention is focussed on the other, and so you feel exposed, you can sometimes feel like an eye is literally pointing at you (this is your mind, simulating the gaze of another person, by placing you as the focus of awareness, with awareness identifying as other not self).

When you are the observer, your awareness is focussed in itself. This is its natural state. The reason being, an internal loop has been set up which reflects back the awareness onto itself. Others are viewed as existing inside the observer, so there is no sense of being exposed. Others are viewed with openness and calm positivity.

I know this, because I have been in both these states. Being the observer is not the same thing as feeling self conscious.

Very well put.

I totally agree with this.

[Dontaskme]

You can observe your reflection that’s true, but you cannot observe the observer of the reflection. And is what this thread topic is pointing to.



I disagree, because there is a saying that someone is far too much inside their head; self-consciousness! Then there are those that just do what they feel, just spitting out words and actions to see where they splatter, not that they really care. I see that the really self-conscious are observing the observer, of course you could argue to what degree the observer observes the observer. Of course I would insist that some do, to whatever degree.

I get what you are saying, but this self -conscious realisation is a perception, it is perceived. It does not imply the observer is being observed, because the perception is already appearing within the observer, in that the observer must be prior to the perception perceived so that it can be known.

.

[Dimebag]

Maybe that saying really is true, the lights are on but nobody’s home. It’s typically meant as an insult to people lacking intelligence or self awareness, but at the heart of it, there really is no one home, but, there is still light in the home, aka awareness.

[SpheresOfBalance]

When you are self conscious, you imagine that everyone is looking at you, talking about you etc. Your attention is focussed on the other, and so you feel exposed, you can sometimes feel like an eye is literally pointing at you (this is your mind, simulating the gaze of another person, by placing you as the focus of awareness, with awareness identifying as other not self).

When you are the observer, your awareness is focussed in itself. This is its natural state. The reason being, an internal loop has been set up which reflects back the awareness onto itself. Others are viewed as existing inside the observer, so there is no sense of being exposed. Others are viewed with openness and calm positivity.

I know this, because I have been in both these states. Being the observer is not the same thing as feeling self conscious.

That's not entirely true! We also get visual/aural/tactile feedback which is what lends to self consciousness in the first place, so it's not necessarily solely one's imagination. So not just in ones head. Consequently, one can then be far too much inside their head, watching their P's and Q's, thus keeping tabs on the observer, (observing the observer), as they translate what was to be done/said into what others attempt to program into them. They can even go so far as to only say/do what those currently close to them are known to accept, being selective with their freedom/lack thereof. This is the observer, observing themselves. All those that say otherwise are lying to themselves, or have had many black eyes, broken bones, so called friends turning their backs on them, (being un-friended on social media), etc, etc, etc.

No all people observe themselves, or they die young, and dare I say ignorant of the relative power plays of, so called, social interaction! The truth is we aren't social animals as is commonly put forth, instead we are all users of one another, though we'll always deny such a thing. Another great example of the observer observing the observer, such that they'll always try and convey otherwise.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Very well put.

I totally agree with this.

You would, but you're both incorrect!