The Paradox of Observation

[Age]

If I see a forest and focus deeply what it is composed of I observe a tree. If I see a tree and focus deeply on it I see the leaves and branches so on an so forth. In focusing deeply I miss the surroundings through which these things occur. With the increase in complexity comes an inability to see other things as the more that is known the more questions that are raised.

WHY do you PRESUME that just LOOKING or FOCUSING 'deeply' INCREASES 'complexity', or that by doing so there is some so-called 'increase in complexity'?

If one can NOT see 'the forest for the trees, NOR see 'the trees for the forest', then that one is just NOT LOOKING Properly AND Correctly.

By the way, there IS absolutely NO so-called 'complexity' found when LOOKING AT the WHOLE nor DEEPLY WITHIN EVERY single 'Thing'.

In focusing on the forest and the trees one loses focus on the mountains.

That would all depend on what the 'forest' word was meaning or referencing, EXACTLY.

[popeye1945]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes the less sense it makes because not all of it can be sensed. The deeper something is sensed the less it is sensed.

The fact that the mystery deepens through empirical inquiry by the senses and understanding, does not negate their importance. Although much becomes known, there is yet wonder to feed a hungry mind. The above simply does not make sense.

If I see a forest and focus deeply what it is composed of I observe a tree. If I see a tree and focus deeply on it I see the leaves and branches so on an so forth. In focusing deeply I miss the surroundings through which these things occur. With the increase in complexity comes an inability to see other things as the more that is known the more questions that are raised.

You are simply focusing on human intellectual limitations; the senses and understanding is enabling but also limiting, apparent reality is determined by the biology of the life form/individual. Alter the biology and you alert the apparent reality of the given individual life form.

[Darkneos]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes the less sense it makes because not all of it can sensed. The deeper something is sensed the less it is sensed.

Wrong again, as usual.

[Eodnhoj7]

WHY do you PRESUME that just LOOKING or FOCUSING 'deeply' INCREASES 'complexity', or that by doing so there is some so-called 'increase in complexity'?

If one can NOT see 'the forest for the trees, NOR see 'the trees for the forest', then that one is just NOT LOOKING Properly AND Correctly.

By the way, there IS absolutely NO so-called 'complexity' found when LOOKING AT the WHOLE nor DEEPLY WITHIN EVERY single 'Thing'.

In focusing on the forest and the trees one loses focus on the mountains.

That would all depend on what the 'forest' word was meaning or referencing, EXACTLY.

That would depend on what you are referring to when you use the term "meaning".

[Eodnhoj7]

The fact that the mystery deepens through empirical inquiry by the senses and understanding, does not negate their importance. Although much becomes known, there is yet wonder to feed a hungry mind. The above simply does not make sense.

If I see a forest and focus deeply what it is composed of I observe a tree. If I see a tree and focus deeply on it I see the leaves and branches so on an so forth. In focusing deeply I miss the surroundings through which these things occur. With the increase in complexity comes an inability to see other things as the more that is known the more questions that are raised.

You are simply focusing on human intellectual limitations; the senses and understanding is enabling but also limiting, apparent reality is determined by the biology of the life form/individual. Alter the biology and you alert the apparent reality of the given individual life form.

Human intellectual limitations are the limits of biology. As limited biology is fundamentally relative as it requires definition and with definition comes contradiction as one definition must contrast to another if definition is to occur. Definition through consciousness, and the biological nature through which it occurs, requires contradiction.

[Eodnhoj7]

Here is ANOTHER one who thinks or BELIEVES that by just responding with letters to A QUESTION is ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED.

ONCE AGAIN, 'responding' is NOT necessarily ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION. As you have PROVED True in other posts and above here.

And what do you mean by "proof"?

I SAID 'PROVED' above here. And, what I MEAN by 'PROVED' in the context that I wrote 'PROVED' above here is that 'you', "eodhnoj7", have SHOWN, without any doubt at all, to the 'readers' here that 'you' ARE 'responding' but NOT actually ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION/S being posed and ASKED TO 'you'.

And what is your proof? How can you speak for others if we do not all share the same perspective considering the subjective nature of observation?

[Dontaskme]

The concept ''Observer'' implies there is a 'thing' other than, or separated away from the observer observing the 'thing'.
This phenomena is a necessary paradox if observation is to be recognised. In recognition, is it seen that in reality, the observer and the observed are completely inseparable, both are one and the same 'thought thing' in the exact moment of aware recognition/knowing.


Within the immediacy of aware recognition/knowing, the observer is also the image, implying a duality is present within what is always and never not a nondual reality. That observation is a necessary paradox within nondual reality itself.

The observer can only ever come into being as and through it's own image, which is seen as permanent. But on further investigation, it is also observed that this ''seeing'' is completely empty, because it's only visible as and through it's own illusory image. Therefore, the image of ''Self'' is an image of the imageless. And ''Time'' is the illusory duality between the observer (creator)and the observed (created)

The ''Observing Self'' is illusory in the sense of a duality, seemingly full, appearing as if real and life like, but illusory in the sense this appearance, fullness, real, life like awareness, is in fact, empty at it's fundamental core.

A divine paradox.

[Age]

And what do you mean by "proof"?

I SAID 'PROVED' above here. And, what I MEAN by 'PROVED' in the context that I wrote 'PROVED' above here is that 'you', "eodhnoj7", have SHOWN, without any doubt at all, to the 'readers' here that 'you' ARE 'responding' but NOT actually ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION/S being posed and ASKED TO 'you'.

And what is your proof?

AS JUST EXPLAINED, 'your' OWN WORDS, above here.

How can you speak for others if we do not all share the same perspective considering the subjective nature of observation?

But WHO is CLAIMING that the 'we' does NOT share the SAME PERSPECTIVE?

in other words, are 'we' CLAIMING 'this', or just 'you' here?

[Dontaskme]

But WHO is CLAIMING that the 'we' does NOT share the SAME PERSPECTIVE?

in other words, are 'we' CLAIMING 'this', or just 'you' here?

''Who'' - implies separation which can only arise when there is the illusory sense of otherness, AKA the paradox of subject and object duality.

In reality, Observer and Observed are One, not Two.

On the subject of observation, the observer can only claim/represent itself. The observer's relevance is apparent in relationship to itself only, and never not for others, as the very act of observing is always one single unitary action, never not two.
''Others'' are also this SAME ONE single unitary action of observing, and never not two.

This many of the one observer / observing from it's own unique perspective, is the illusory duality of nondual reality, which can and does appear as DIFFERENCE. That's the paradox of observation.

[Age]

But WHO is CLAIMING that the 'we' does NOT share the SAME PERSPECTIVE?

in other words, are 'we' CLAIMING 'this', or just 'you' here?

''Who'' - implies separation

NOT NECESSARILY SO AT ALL.

which can only arise when there is the illusory sense of otherness, AKA the paradox of subject and object duality.

MOOT, as what you CLAIMED is NOT NECESSARILY TRUE AT ALL.

In reality, Observer and Observed are One, not Two.

On the subject of observation, the observer can only claim/represent itself. The observer's relevance is apparent in relationship to itself only, and never not for others, as the very act of observing is always one single unitary action, never not two.
''Others'' are also this SAME ONE single unitary action of observing, and never not two.

This many of the one observer / observing from it's own unique perspective, is the illusory duality of nondual reality, which can and does appear as DIFFERENCE. That's the paradox of observation.

What do 'you', individually, mean by 'paradox' here?

[popeye1945]

If I see a forest and focus deeply what it is composed of I observe a tree. If I see a tree and focus deeply on it I see the leaves and branches so on an so forth. In focusing deeply I miss the surroundings through which these things occur. With the increase in complexity comes an inability to see other things as the more that is known the more questions that are raised.

You are simply focusing on human intellectual limitations; the senses and understanding is enabling but also limiting, apparent reality is determined by the biology of the life form/individual. Alter the biology and you alert the apparent reality of the given individual life form.

Human intellectual limitations are the limits of biology. As limited biology is fundamentally relative as it requires definition and with definition comes contradiction as one definition must contrast to another if definition is to occur. Definition through consciousness, and the biological nature through which it occurs, requires contradiction.

Did you strike your head recently, what a line of nonsense----lol!!

[Dontaskme]

What do 'you', individually, mean by 'paradox' here?

Same difference.

[Age]

You are simply focusing on human intellectual limitations; the senses and understanding is enabling but also limiting, apparent reality is determined by the biology of the life form/individual. Alter the biology and you alert the apparent reality of the given individual life form.

Human intellectual limitations are the limits of biology. As limited biology is fundamentally relative as it requires definition and with definition comes contradiction as one definition must contrast to another if definition is to occur. Definition through consciousness, and the biological nature through which it occurs, requires contradiction.

Did you strike your head recently, what a line of nonsense----lol!!

"eognho7" will say just about ANY 'thing' AT ALL to 'try to' prove 'its' BELIEF that EVERY 'thing' CONTRADICTS 'Itself', including even CONTRADICTING "its OWN self".

Which OBVIOUSLY defeats 'the purpose'. That is; if one wants to SHOW and PROVE that 'everything' IS A CONTRADICTION, here then that one would just have to provide A sound AND valid argument rather than just a self-contradicting statement.

[Age]

What do 'you', individually, mean by 'paradox' here?

Same difference.

Okay, so 'you' have your OWN, individual, definition here, and are NOT USING a SHARED and AGREED UPON dictionary definition.

[Dontaskme]

Okay, so 'you' have your OWN, individual, definition here, and are NOT USING a SHARED and AGREED UPON dictionary definition.

My response ...to the meaning/definition of the word 'paradox'

No word can define what seeks to define words.

Or, every word defines what seeks to define words.

Q: What seeks?
A: No word comes to mind, or, every word comes to mind.