# Observing

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/observing/7813>\
**Category:** CSG2007\
**Created:** [December 18, 2007, 4:04pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/observing/7813 "2007-12-18T16:04:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2007, 4:04pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/observing/7813/1 "2007-12-18T16:04:12Z")

</div>

> > But you control at all levels  
> > all of the time, don’t you?
> 
> Yes, but I am not aware of the controls above. In my consciousness  
> they
> 
> exist just in my words.  
> [From Bill Powers (2007.12.18.0800 MST)]

Bjorn Simonsen (2007.12.16,13:20 EUST) –

I think it would be a good idea to get some practice with observing  
logic, principles, and system concepts without the words. At a lower  
level, consider the word “red.” Better yet, consider the  
Norwegian word for the same experience. When you experience something  
with a red color, you don’t have to say or think the word “red”  
to yourself before you can perceive the color (do you?). You can let all  
the words go silent and simply attend to the color sensation. That  
sensation, directly experienced, is the meaning of the word.

To understand what I mean by my definitions of levels, you should try to  
do this with specific examples at all levels. Start with the word, and  
then stop thinking the word while you continue to observe the perception  
it means. For me, the principle “look before you leap” goes  
with a feeling of cautiousness, looking left and right while I’m just  
ready to start moving. I can give an explanation of the phrase by using a  
lot more words, but when I turn the words off, that’s the real meaning of  
the phrase for me. There’s probably more to it than that, but whatever  
remains is far outside the realm of words.

> > And how does  
> > the reference signal, traveling in a neural
> 
> > pathway toward lower systems, “observe” anything?
> 
> It doesn’t observe anything. It thrusts in the human system, the  
> negative
> 
> feedback will contribute to that.

How does the negative feedback contribute to “thrusting” in the  
human system? I don’t understand that sentence at all. For me,  
“thrust” is a sudden forceful push into something. I see  
reference signals more like examples held up for comparison with  
something else. Negative feedback doesn’t contribute anything to what  
reference signals do. I think the picture you have in your head must be  
very different from mine, or your words are not conveying to me the same  
meanings they have for you. Considering that there is a change of  
language involved, that’s not very surprising.

> > Observing is a  
> > process of taking information inward,
> 
> > not sending something outward. Observing is the sort
> 
> > of thing an input function does.
> 
> Yes, but that is not the point.

Well, thanks, but I think it IS the point.

> Without a  
> reference I would not been able to experience the Observers  
> “idea”.

What makes you think you can experience the observer’s idea, if you’re  
not doing the observing yourself? Anyway, it’s the perceptual input  
function that generates a perceptual signal and gives you something to  
experience, not the reference signal. As far as I can tell, we never  
directly experience a reference signal. The closest we come to that is  
when the imagination connection is operating, so the downgoing signals  
that would ordinarily become reference signals for a lower level system  
are turned back upward into the higher system’s perceptual inputs, where  
they appear as perceptual signals in the same place all perceptual  
signals appear. My basic assumption here is that _everything_ we  
experience is a perceptual signal.

> I am not  
> saying the Observer is responsible for my references. It is responsible  
> for the System.

Have you experienced the state of Observer awareness by itself? This is  
best done by talking with with someone else to help you remember what  
you’re trying to do. The object is simply to see how many times you can  
focus on a foreground thought, discover a background thought that comes  
into awareness about the foreground thought, and shift attention to the  
background thought so it becomes the new foreground thought. This cycle  
is repeated until you can’t carry it any farther. If you get to the state  
where you are simply Observing, with no background thought at all, you  
will then know what the relationship of the Observer is to the System  
Concept level, or any other level. It is the same no matter what levels  
you are Observing. And the conscious brain activity can gradually die  
away until you are simply Observing with nothing to observe. That is also  
informative.

It’s important to speak from experience when discussing these things and  
not just to manipulate words and thoughts. Then you have something to  
help you put the words together for communication and make sure they  
describe something you have experienced. If the other person experiences  
the same things, your words will then have the right meanings for the  
other person.

> And in my  
> thoughts/words/hypothesis the System is my only way to the  
> Observer.

That is an example of the kinds of problems that can arise when you try  
to reason out what you should be able to experience. In fact, you are  
always in the position of the Observer, but most of the time the Observer  
is focusing on the perceptions from some level in the hierarchy and is  
identifying with that level, as if the Observer _is_ that level.  
When you notice that you are having a certain type of experience, such as  
problem-solving, you can back off and observe that you are  
problem-solving – but when you do that, you have moved to some higher  
level and are looking at _its_ perceptions and evaluations of the  
problem-solving. The Observer is still identifying with a level of the  
hierarchy, a different level now. If you deliberately go through the  
exercise I described, you will find yourself, as the Observer, occupying  
higher and higher levels in the hierarchy, each time eventually realizing  
that you are still identifying with a hierarchical point of view, until  
there are no more to be found when you try to back up another level. Then  
you detach from the hierarchy for a moment, which is a valuable  
experience because now you have the pure sense of being an Observer. With  
time, this sense remains with you when you return to participation in the  
hierarchy, and this makes it easier to move the focus of awareness  
around. One thing that makes it easier is that while you’re trying to  
continue the mental exercise, you will often encounter conflicts and you  
won’t be able to continue until you’re resolved them.

> The great Why is  
> always a level up. When I pray, I “move” my awareness (I  
> don’t
> 
> know what that the awareness is) to control (most often) elements of
> 
> praiseworthy perceptions. Easy now. I know I both perceive and action in  
> praiseworthy and spankworthy ways, but that is another  
> thing.

Yes, that other thing is still another level above what you call praying.

When you notice that you are praying, background thoughts about praying  
come into view, and you can switch your attention to them. You focus on  
those new thoughts about the praying for a while, and (assuming no  
conflicts come to attention) still another set of background thoughts  
will appear. Keep doing this as long as you can, and you will see where  
it leads.

> Let me exemplify.  
> If you are the Observer and you make a Price Theory
> 
> simulator, then your idea is found as a reference for the highest level.  
> I
> 
> think the real Observer thinks the same way. PS. My Price Theory  
> simulator is running, but not well enough.

Do Observers make theories? Not in my experience. Maybe Observers guide  
the systems in the hierarchy while they are reorganizing to make  
theories, pointing attention toward one aspect of the problems and then  
another, but the Observers don’t work out the logic or the principles or  
the system concepts, or know them in advance. You just keep returning to  
the simulator knowing that something still isn’t working right, but not  
knowing what. That’s my current picture of how it works, anyway. If I  
were completely satisfied with it I suppose I’d get bored with it and  
turn to something else, so if I keep returning to the subject there must  
be something that still doesn’t fit correctly. I expect that to go on for  
a while.

Best,

Bill P.