When you say : “I am the world”, do you mean : “the experiencer is the experience”?
Which I think means : I see what I believe. The central entity experiences its own interpretation of reality.
When I say “you are the world”, I am quoting K. That it was his discovery and he was pointing out something quite radical to the way we usually see things. What it “means” and if it is the fact has to be re-discovered by each of us. Right? Thought it seems can’t be the ‘explorer’.
post #54
post #59:
That is understood. Isn’t it also understood that there can be observation of thought? Observation is innocent, guileless. Thought IS (psychological) time. Thought is self. Self is time. Thought is not observation, awareness, perception…
It is not at all clear to me what people mean when they say this - Please, please could you give an example of what you mean.
The ‘states’ of observation, awareness, perception may be a different dimension than thought which is matter, material? Intelligence may also be of that dimension?
#59:
There is a fundamental difference between psychological division, fragmentation or separateness and physical differences, physical separateness. Physical separateness is not psychological separation. The sun is not the moon. The ocean is not the sky. I am not the tree :o)
If “you” are “me” physically, if there is no physical separateness, then we can NOT observe each other at all, can we. If physically, we are one and the same, what can observation BE? What can relationship be? I can’t see you physically if I am you, if there is no physical distance between us. The physical eye cannot see itself. It can see only what is physically separate from itself. The mind’s eye can imagine anything. It can imagine wholeness, love, and so on. There may BE wholeness and love, but — as factual, actual things - the intellect can NOT see them. They are not in the scope of the intellect.
If I “observe” myself (think of myself) as being separate and independent from my thoughts, emotions and actions, that separation or independence is imaginary. I am the very thing that is being observed. There is no actual separation. Thought is not an independent witness with no involvement in what is being observed.
If I walk from the living room to the kitchen, there is awareness or observation of what is, including thought. The intellect can impose itself and claim the observation, but it is understood that spontaneous observation is not an activity of the intellect.
#70:
#71:
What does observation mean to you?
I see what you’re getting at with your commentary about the above - I was actually trying to address “what I see”, not fundamental reality itself.
By naming the things that I see, I am referring to my knowledge of them - you are trying to argue that Chairs, the sun, etc exist somehow - its not the same debate (am I right?)
In keeping with the topic, the only point in discussing thought, is to discover how limited thought is.
1 Like
In the context of the statement : “The observation of thought” - to me, this could mean : to review, remémorer (in French), analysis.
Observation seems to mean than something is watching something
My question arises because there seems to be the implication that “observing oneself” is a good thing - as if the I can be observed when no knower is present.
#75:
Can “what I see” be separated from fundamental reality? How can I “untangle” them? For me, there is no need, interest in, meaning or attraction to such untangling activity. That is perhaps for philosophers or quantum physicists if they are interested in or capable of it. I’m not, so in this sense, it’s not the same debate. The chair and sun are real in that thought is not imagining them and thought can’t “unimagine” them.
To me, what I see or otherwise perceive through the senses, is fundamental reality, perhaps with some exceptions. Generally, where there is a need for naming, one names the things that one sees, hears, or otherwise senses. One doesn’t go around naming as one goes about. So I have no questions with respect to the fundamental reality of chairs and sun. Questions with respect to fundamental reality arise where psychological thought or the psyche intervenes - violence, fear, corruption, deceit, greed, desire, arrogance, brutality, and so on. Suffering, illusions, imagination, the psyche are real. Everything that is experienced is real, but not fundamentally. Something like that. It’s not set in stone.
#77:
And what is the “something” that is watching to you? The observer, the knower, the intellect, the very thing that is watched? Or something else?
#76:
Charley,
I don’t know if it’s the only point, but discovering the limitations of thought is certainly a revolution! I once thought I understood what “people” shoud do. I foolishly thought I could change the world to conform to my ideals and beliefs. I once believed in ideals and beliefs. And now I see that, in essence, the world is a reflection of what I am - petty, unkind, self-centred, greedy, and so on.
Me seeing what I see, is part of what is. But am I seeing what is, as it is? Or to put it differently : The Human experience is part of reality. But humans (nor any other creatures) do not see reality as it is.
The chair and the sun are concepts (that must be taken seriously), they obviously represent some aspect of reality as it is, but my relation is with my subjective interpretation of them.
I must interact with the chair as I see it, (maybe this is why you lose interest with learning about atoms and stuff - as this is not our business) but this does not mean that the chair is as I imagine it to be.
I would say that everything I experience is subjective, no need to consider them to be true - because this may cause me to hold on to them, even when they cause conflict with reality.
“The world” being humanity? Animals can be “petty, unkind, self-centered, greedy”, but because they can’t ponder their behavior and feel regret or remorse, they’re not expected by humans to be anything more or less than what they are.
Human children behave like animals and parents try to help them develop a conscience; try to condition them to always consider the consequences of their behavior, even if that development takes the human brain about thirty years.
One problem about discussing thought, is that its sometimes my thoughts that get discussed - which is most uncomfortable.
These all sound plausible - except for the “something else” as I can’t see what that might be.
Maybe you are referring to “Intelligence”? Intelligence might be watching me? Might this be a more interesting topic than “Do chairs exist?”
Dearest Huguette,
Yes, “I” understand; Charley was like that too, the idealist (which included the romantic). And OMG, there was so much suffering and sorrow associated with this idealism, and a lot of stupidity, on “my” part. The idealism was like a shadow, and sometimes a blanket that prevented seeing clearly what was going on. There was the seeing of some terrible things in the world, but one’s reactions to that didn’t change a thing, and Charley wasted years pursuing some pretty dumb passions.
When you say, you are:
well, whoa, “I” don’t know “you”. 
One sees such generosity and warmth coming from you. Perhaps, that was H. long ago. Not sure that H. exists any more. Life is rather incredible, eh? I am you.
For my part, one sees no point in discussing what were C’s character defects in public, personally, as that Charley doesn’t exist anymore. But, one can only say that the father didn’t succeed in killing C but he did with C’s mother (his bros. were also monsters, also his sisters and mother scared me as a child). Anyways, Charley understands violence, and so many outward manifestations: the arrogance, hubris, lack of humility, etc. with which some draw conclusions and try and impose such thoughts and ideas on others, all so patently false, even the rejection of integrity, ethics, truth, insight, awareness, goodness, etc.
Many live with thought all their lives, so immersed in it that they can’t learn. In effect, they are thinking their way through life. This is sorrow.
Yes, it seems so. Another “dimension”, for want of a better word. Perhaps that “dimension” is the whole mind, undivided, beyond the limitations of thought. Perhaps not.
So our minds, conditioned by knowledge, belief, and experience, distort perception so that we perceive our interpretation of actuality, which is to say that the observed is the observer’s “take” on what is perceived, and it’s a mistake that cannot be seen for what it is until/unless perception is direct. We are constantly making a mistake we cannot correct.