Idea of the Observer, Witness, Watcher.

[fitz]

Been pondering this idea of the witness/watcher/observer. Seems that in physics, there needs to be an observer in order for something to spring into being.

Have come across ideas of the Watcher(s) being on the moon to overview our evolution. Seems to be an aspect of a `trinity' that is needed to complete duality, or to manufacture a `reality' within the dualistic system.

Anyone interested in sharing their thoughts on this topic?

[zenafire]

Hmm a third observer? Hadn't read your post yet and I just posted the below under Laws of Qualia:

Recognition of qualia!!!

Even in the science of consciousness studies you would think that there would be a dialogue between the first and third, some communication between observer and observed, that is integral to the process of understanding. This as an outgrowth of scientists becoming so obsessed with the objective that they ignore the subjective, giving precedence to the scientific method and losing touch with their own experiences of their work, or denying their experiences in the name of science. Analogous to the rest of western society in terms of awareness and denial, I suppose.

I did witness a Naval scientist, who was an AI and consciousness specialist, transform after only a week's worth of morning meditations. His views on consciousness had changed to favor the subjective. I haven't kept in contact, but hopefully this influenced his work positively.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't tell a story without seeing something, even if you imagined it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to honor your experience before I can respond to it. If y'all weren't on this list you would not exist to me. The cosmos, Soul, Great Spirit, God, etc. needs a consciousness to be.

This reminds me of Schrodinger's Cat-a multiplicity of possiblities existing at once until observed. Though that led to discussion of multiple universes, it also indicates a true unity of everything, a residence for what is called god.

Like the Bandler quote.

[SecondSun]

It is interesting that every language (at least that I am aware of!) has a first, second and third person. I can only guess that these concepts are evolutionary and are present because they are useful in interpersonal communication. (I need this. Can you help me? He did this to me.)

However I think that the concept of a witness is purely psychological and not an innate property of the universe. It is the illusion of self (created by the physical brain) that causes one to see the world as something external, something that needs to be witnessed. There is no witness. Only witnessing.

[daniel]

As for the "moon beings," fitz, Steiner has a lot to say about them. According to him, the esoteric sphere of the moon is where the earlier teachers of humanity went when they could no longer continue their evolution on Earth - at the point where the Earth and the Moon separated (if they hadn't separated, we would have become too hard and bony to evolve, says Rudolf "Doctor Strange" Steiner).

In his cosmology, the planets are akin to dimensions of consciousness, harmonically related to each other. Planets separated from the Sun so that the Beings on them could undergo their own evolution at different rates.

[forteanajones]

I just began Gebser and I think this came up when he talked about the advent of perspectivism in the Renaissance, one result being the introducion of a new consciousness and the objectivation of space (making obvious both space and the person viewing it) and the other being that new limitations came to light such as the fact that in order to see or think perspectively one has to think in a fixed way.

Also many traditions talk about "creating a space" for deities or entities, when calling on them for assistance. Apparently our world is "too dense" for them to enter without some sort of ritual or something like that. So in order to give them a place to inhabit where human-entity interaction can actually occur on this plane, we are required to create mini-universes in advance using applied consciousness. When I finally understood this concept, I liked it so much better than my misconception that the ritual was intended to be polite or make them feel more comfortable or whatever.

[SecondSun]

Daniel wrote: "In his cosmology, the planets are akin to dimensions of consciousness, harmonically related to each other. Planets separated from the Sun so that the Beings on them could undergo their own evolution at different rates."

Weird. Reminds me of a Hare Krishna text I read once. Apparently in the Hindu cosmology there exists a multiplicity of worlds, some with oceans of milk, others with oceans of liquer, etc.

Steiner must of been a fun guy to talk to late at night, high on opium or something. I'd be sure to bring plenty of hashish to the party... Maybe I'll meet him in a dream sometime.

[SecondSun]

forteanajones wrote: "Also many traditions talk about "creating a space" for deities or entities, when calling on them for assistance. Apparently our world is "too dense" for them to enter without some sort of ritual or something like that. So in order to give them a place to inhabit where human-entity interaction can actually occur on this plane, we are required to create mini-universes in advance using applied consciousness. When I finally understood this concept, I liked it so much better than my misconception that the ritual was intended to be polite or make them feel more comfortable or whatever."

Don't forget, when you invite a diety into your plane you might end up with a lot of extradimensional riff-raff crashing the party. Often these sacred spaces exist to keep the bad guys out just as much as it invites the good in. Think of the gorgoyles in front of churches. Or the smudging, purifying the soul and keeping bad spirits at bay.

[ April 22, 2005, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: SecondSun ]

[forteanajones]

Hell yes, there seem to be lots of ways these beings, bad or good, invited or not, are able to cross that line into our world. Invited seems to be the easiest way, though, and protecting against the evil ones seems to be a great justification for doing ritual with guidance.

fitz, I forgot about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: when the scientist looks into the microscope, she finds that her subject is actually responding to the observation.

[SecondSun]

fitz, I forgot about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: when the scientist looks into the microscope, she finds that her subject is actually responding to the observation.

That's not the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This is: dp x dx > h / (2 x pi)

It says that the difference in momentum times the difference in position is greater than planck's constant divided by 2 pi (a small number). This means that the greater precision with which you know a particles position the less precision with which you know its momentum (speed and direction).

This is because in order to discover the particles position you must fire a beam of light at it. If you fire low frequency light at the particle you will only know the position +/- the wavelength of the light. So in order to know its position at a high level of precision you must fire a high frequency lightwave. The reason why this is significant is that you cannot fire an arbitrary amount of light at the particle, you must fire at least one quanta. This means that if you fire a high frequency quanta at the particle you will impart upon that particle a high energy force that will change its momentum (speed and direction).

Now if you fire a low energy quanta you know it's momentum and direction has not changed much, and hence you know it to a high degree of precision, but you do not know its position very well because you only know it to the resolution of the light's wavelength.

[forteanajones]

SecondSun:...This means that if you fire a high frequency quanta at the particle you will impart upon that particle a high energy force that will change its momentum (speed and direction).

So in other words, when the observer uses a light to examine small structures, the light photons interact with the atoms being observed, and the behavior then changes as a result.

[SecondSun]

Yes.

There is another way that observation can affect results though. In the double slit experiment a laser is fired at a screen behind a partion, the partition has two slits in it. You get an interference pattern on the screen because the wave goes through both slits. (You can do this with water and get the same result) However if you place photon detectors at each slit to figure out which slit the photon goes through the interference pattern breaks down because you have observed the photon passing through slit a or slit b. If you don't observe which slit the photon goes through you get an interference pattern but if you do (or even set it up so you could potential figure out which slit the photon went through) the interference pattern breaks down. For an excellent discussion of how this works I highly recommend the book Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) by Richard Feynmann.

[SecondSun]

I would also like to add that nobody has ever come up with a good explanation for why this happens. Even physicists are in the dark.

[Eagle Wing]

Fitz,
as for more on the "observers" on the moon, here are several different lines of thought on the subject that seem to lead in similar directions...
As Daniel mentioned earlier, there's the moon beings as described by Steiner. But what is our relationship to these "obeservers" of another planetary sphere? Gurdjieff talked about how the souls of the living are devoured by the moon when they leave this life. In esoteric astrology as taught by Alice Bailey, the opposite end of the spectrum is emphasized: she believed that the energy of the moon is "all used up" in your astrological chart: that is, it shows an archetypal part of yourself that is no longer useful, a place where you're coming from, rather than going to.
The perspective of shamanic astrology is that the position of the moon at the time of a person's birth shows a particular kind of spiritual lineage that they come from; an archetypal mastery that already informs their being when they come into the world. Perhaps what one experiences as the "watchers" on the moon are similar to the ancestors standing behind your shoulders?
Another branch of astrology, called horary, deals with questions of divination in the moment. In this kind of astrology, the moon's position and phase (time of the month) signify the present and future development of the question at hand. Here, the moon is seen as a vessel, empty at the new moon, being filled with intention as it waxes, until the saturation point of fullness, then pouring out or dispersing the energy that was accumulated. This is a regular monthly cycle... check it out, notice the 28 day cycle of the moon....
from a shamanic perspective you are most in touch with your personal power during the phase of the moon that recapitulates the same phase as your birth.
An important aspect of this kind of magic is that rather than objectifying the "watchers" on the moon we are actively engaging with them... the moon, after all, revolves around the earth, and its tidal pull is intimately related to our physical life cycles. It is entirely logical to surmise that the monthly revolution of the moon is cycling massive waves of spiritual input and output -- thoughts and souls passing through on their way in and their way out.

[fitz]

Been reading the book "The Disapperance of the Universe" and it is altering how I view this topic.

In this thesis, the world is created by our mind as a part of our turning our focus away from our God-self and thus `feeling' separate from God, versus acknowledging that we are God.

Perhaps the Witness idea is simply a projection of the mind to `Witness' the fact that we are looking away from source and into the depths of our own illusionary creation and perhaps is there as a sign to look back to our true origin as the creator.

[silentwolf]

Fitz, if you're referring to "God" as the absolute point of unity of all things, then I completely agree with you.

[jezebelle]

I feel a beat coming on, view-move, rest-be

[fitz]

Silentwolfxvx ,

Yes, that is what I am referring to as `God'. I really am enjoying this book as it is pointing out to me the triggers I still have around such terms as`God' and `Holy Spirit'. Having been raised as a Catholic, these words became hot-buttons as I moved toward my own spiritual awareness. As if I need to get past these trigger-illusions to get back to myself as an element of source.

[Eagle Wing]

fitz,
my experience of "the watcher" is that it's a facet of our own awareness. It's a process that evolves from the constant feedback loop of our conscious testing of experience, from the time we are born. Eventually we learn to find a reference for identity that can't be influenced by the exterior world... on the mental level, this is the inner observer. I'm not sure that your questions about "God" are part of the same thing -- it occurs to me, that one could view God as the "objective observer" watching over the universe, and in a more Christian sensibility, as the observer within, as well. So the Self/God distinction can't really be explored more through the question of "what is the observer?" because as far as we can understand it from that point of view, they are the same. A more relevant question is "what is God?", but i'd rather not dwell on that. Leaving behind the baggage-laden terms of religion, I think we can safely say that the observer is a function of inner awareness that holds together a resevoir of inner experience, in order to have a comfortable perspective on outer experience.
Maybe some appropriate questions are, "what do i create?", "what am i capable of creating?", "what do i want to create?", "why do i want what i want?" and "what has created me?"
we are all capable of being more creative, but it is a challenge. The high challenge of creativity is to manifest the greatest thought that you can dream of. In so doing, we integrate the world with novelty, and we partake in creating our own destinations.

[silentwolf]

Fitz ~ during my younger years, I was forced into the whole xtian thing as well, and I had a lot of problems with the words "god" and several other ideas that had been literally beat into me. Moving past them is a laborious process, but if you persevere, you will overcome.

I feel from my own experiences that "the observer within" is the voice of the Ultimate Infinite, the source that is my true state of being and not this fallacy of material that I'm currently anchored to.

[ScottishPaul]

>Been pondering this idea of the >witness/watcher/observer. Seems that in >physics, there needs to be an observer in >order for something to spring into being.

This is a misunderstanding based on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The universe certainly existed before life evolved.

Trees falling over make a sound even when nobody can hear that noise.

Paul.

[silentwolf]

What exactly is Life?

Is Life necessary for consciousness to exist?

Can anything exist without consciousness?

If there is no consciousness, would it even matter that anything existed?

If consciousness can actually alter physical things...like photons, is it reasonable to assume that consciousness created the physical? Or did the physical create the consciousness that in turn can alter the physical which can also alter the consciousness that alters the physical?

[jezebelle]

I'd put my money on consciousness first, but what a big abstract word.

I think that by being human in an animal body we are creating new life somehow in this crazy dimension.

Why this leads me to this next point, I don't know.
Maladea Some an african healer (a must read: Of Water and Spirit) was condemmed to this world because he was not paying attention and accidently killed a spirital being, in a deer form.
He has very interesting take on it all.
love, jez2

[eaglesyes]

me, myself and I
I, you and them
the illiad and the oddessey
father, son and holy ghost
...third world countries
and who is to judge who's on first
we judge with our egos which is always the first
loose the ego and learn from the third world ok i babblin now off ta never nevah land the third world lol

[eaglesyes]

hey silent and all yes life is necessary for conscience to exist yet alot of things exist without conscience it's all relative however the collective conscience is and are most powerful
may the force be with you

[Eagle Wing]

Is a rock at all "conscious" of its rock-ness?
How do you know?

[ph(^)id]

something that came to me coming down from a long k session.

god us them

at first this may seem like nothing. But it, to me summed up everthing i had been experiencing for my whole life.

Let me explain.
god - the one, everything, all of creation, the universe, all possible universes

us - me, creative individuals, altruistic, sometimes successful, usually the "nice" ones. The lenin or che - the revolutionary, the shaman, etc. Drawing on creation to create, energy, ideas, existence.

them - simply put. vampires. more specifically energy vampires (though i do hesitate to use the word, since it does have its own baggage) those people who nothing is ever good enough, that absorb everything around them and mechanically reflect it back out. narcissism, looking inwards, instead of outwards. Spiraling away, rather then towards the one.

This simple three words explains so much to me. Even the numbers tell the story. God, 3 letters, us, coming from god, only two. Less than (energy, scope) god, but a creation nonetheless. A creation from a creation. Them, 4 letters, a doubling of the energy from us, unnatural, the law of causation. But possible still.

This is not meant to be a divisive idea, though it can be taken that way. We are all one, of the one, of god. However, we are ones who have stepped away from the one, as lucifer did. As gods, but with a weakness. The ability to move too far away, become narcissistic and become unnatural. To become them...

I beleive this to be an imminent element to our existence, and would go so far as to say that this is the reason why genocide is even possible, it is how we come to hyper-define ourselves as top become narcissistic, nationalistic, and then turn that unnarturalness into violence, anger and hatred.

[ph(^)id]

oh, and more on numbers, 9 letters, 3 covenants of three,

I would love to hear anyones comments on this, i have spoken to many freinds and they all respond to it, almost as though it is already familiar.

[eaglesyes]

^5 to Ph(^)id good post makes sense to me
as for the rock having a conscience i don't think so but the science of the molecules and atoms and things it's made up of are a form of n'r'g'
to God, us and them cheers

[silentwolf]

Does a rock actively think? I don't know. Does a rock have awareness? Most definately.

Every particle is aware of itself, though I cannot speak in terms of consciousness. I simply have no knowledge of whether or not they are conscious in the way we consider ourselves conscious, and as of yet, none of us can prove one way or the other.

[fitz]

"oh, and more on numbers, 9 letters, 3 covenants of three,

I would love to hear anyones comments on this, i have spoken to many freinds and they all respond to it, almost as though it is already familiar."

As the old pythagorean concept of 1+2+3+4=10=1. Like we need to go through interations that are represented numerically to come back to the one realization.

Anyone have any source material on other ways to represent this concept of leaving oneness, to duality and then returning mathematically. Like some sort of symbol of formula?? TIA.