Witness [was Re: Amazing!]

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
1

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.05.30 15:35 EDT)]

A truism: From any point of view, the point of view itself is not observable. That is, when we identify with a given point of view in the perceptual hierarchy, that level of the hierarchy is out of awareness.

This is an excluding, an ignoring, a constricting of awareness to smaller compass within the perceptual universe. It seems necessary, but it's not. Awareness, the witness, has no standpoint. It is not of the perceptual universe at all. It is a self-existent reality, inexplicable to the senses, in light of which the perceptual universe becomes possible. This is the sense of the saying (Shankara) that it alone shines, and the universe shines in its reflected light.

What the heck does that mean? A little circumambulation: It is possible to lose perceptual or cognitive capacities, so that the scope of the perceptual universe that one may witness is less than that of others. Small differences of this sort are an everyday source of misunderstandings among people who presume themselves generically alike. It is possible to have intact perceptual and cognitive apparatus, but no awareness. Nobody home. For no reason that anyone can find, at that particular center of expression, the lights are out. And it is possible to identify with that witness, rather than with any perceptual point of view whose forms of perception then therefore cannot themselves be perceived. What the Buddhists call attachment is all that prevents this. A small thing, trivial. But supple, wily, indefatigable.

You can't observe it. You don't witness yourself witnessing perceptions. All that is is a little jitter between perception and memory.
Perception of p. "I was perceiving p."
Back and forth. And then that back-and-forth can itself be perceived. You may think that you're perceiving yourself witnessing. But that little jitter is a kind of shimmering veil quite within the perceptual universe. To identify with that is merely to identify with yet another domain of perception. To identify with the witness is to identify with nothing witnessed. Non-attachment.

This witness is no ghost in the machine, it is nothing. No thing. Everything that it might be supposed to be is in the perceptual universe. We are told by various wise guys that it is not different from whatever-it-is that is really going on behind our perceptual inputs, because there's only one thing. I can't speak to that. But there is nothing more intimate.

  /Bruce Nevin

2

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0530.1614)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.05.30 15:35 EDT)

A truism: From any point of view, the point of view itself is not
observable. That is, when we identify with a given point of view in the
perceptual hierarchy, that level of the hierarchy is out of awareness.

I'm afraid I can't parse "we identify with a given point of view in the
perceptual hierarchy" in PCT terms.

This is an excluding, an ignoring, a constricting of awareness to smaller
compass within the perceptual universe. It seems necessary, but it's not.
Awareness, the witness, has no standpoint. It is not of the perceptual
universe at all. It is a self-existent reality, inexplicable to the senses,
in light of which the perceptual universe becomes possible. This is the
sense of the saying (Shankara) that it alone shines, and the universe
shines in its reflected light.

That may be true, but it seems to have nothing to do with understanding
behavior. If you are recommending that we not worry about the Witness, I agree.

3

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.05.30 17:03 EDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0530.1614)

I'm afraid I can't parse "we identify with a given point of view in the
perceptual hierarchy" in PCT terms.

Just quoting a phrase that's been used before about this point of view issue. Can we parse "attachment" in PCT terms?

That [...] seems to have nothing to do with understanding
behavior. If you are recommending that we not worry about the Witness, I agree.

The upshot for PCT seems to be threefold: To "worry about the Witness" as you say doesn't make any sense. Chasing awareness is futile. But understanding the mechanics of attachment in PCT terms might be useful for understanding behavior.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 04:14 PM 5/30/2003, Bruce Gregory wrote:

4

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0530.1723)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.05.30 17:03 EDT)

Bruce Gregory (2003.0530.1614)

I'm afraid I can't parse "we identify with a given point of view in the
perceptual hierarchy" in PCT terms.

Just quoting a phrase that's been used before about this point of view
issue. Can we parse "attachment" in PCT terms?

How about "to defend perceptions against disturbances?" I think of "we" as
colloquial for the hierarchy. I'm not sure how the hierarchy "identifies" with
anything. It cerainly can control a perception of something like "being a
loyal American" if that's what you intended. "Being a loyal American" is
presumably a perception at the system level. Is it a "pont of view"?

···

At 04:14 PM 5/30/2003, Bruce Gregory wrote:

5

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.06.01 08:13 EDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0530.1723)--

Bruce Nevin (2003.05.30 17:03 EDT)

Bruce Gregory (2003.0530.1614)

I'm afraid I can't parse "we identify with a given point of view in the
perceptual hierarchy" in PCT terms.

Can we parse "attachment" in PCT terms?

How about "to defend perceptions against disturbances?"

If you feel that you are anything other than observer then you are identifying yourself with something witnessed. How does this happen?

"Attachment" might be a better handle on this. Emotion is involved. Perception of bodily sensations, projection of imagined perceptions into the environment, further arousal of bodily sensations in a positive feedback loop (runaway feedback) until faculties of perception are so engaged with those perceptions that they attend to other perceptions less and less. This is perceived as 'paying attention' to perceived causes of error.

Attachment is not merely control, i.e. resistance to disturbance to controlled values, but also the emotion-laden churn arising from it.

I think of "we" as
colloquial for the hierarchy. I'm not sure how the hierarchy "identifies" with
anything. It cerainly can control a perception of something like "being a
loyal American" if that's what you intended. "Being a loyal American" is
presumably a perception at the system level. Is it a "pont of view"?

[A view from the bridge ?-> ]

The point of view on any perception is not the perception itself. Perhaps this is why perceptions at the top of the hierarchy are often defended with irrational vigor. If there's no point of view on them other than biological survival, a threat to them must be pretty scary.

Cultivation of merely witnessing can perhaps open merely witnessing as an alternative point of view. Perhaps it can lead to realization that there is no other point of view. If so, anything else is to identify with a point of view within the hierarchy. In the normal course of events, that's a movable fiesta. Like attention.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 05:24 PM 5/30/2003, Bruce Gregory wrote:

At 04:14 PM 5/30/2003, Bruce Gregory wrote:

6

[From Bill Powers (2003.06.01.0830 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.01 08:13 EDT)--

If you feel that you are anything other than observer then you are
identifying yourself with something witnessed.

Yes. The identification is like moving to the window and looking out at the
scene beyond it containing all the colors and distortions of the window
glass. It seems that the colors and distortions are in the scene, not in
the observer's point of view. The same holds for relationships or other
levels of perception. When you examine the world closely from the viewpoint
of the relationship level, the relationships appear to exist in the world,
not in the viewpoint. They're just there. You could spend half an hour
noticing the distances between the tip of your right forefinger and every
discernible object in the room. There are millions of such distances,
billions. After a while you become aware of the distances themselves and
they begin to be what they are, perceptions, things you are doing to your
experiences of the world. Perhaps if you moved to a different window you
would see different things -- but the same observer is looking.

How does this happen?

Not ready to answer that question yet.

"Attachment" might be a better handle on this. Emotion is involved.
Perception of bodily sensations, projection of imagined perceptions into
the environment, further arousal of bodily sensations in a positive
feedback loop (runaway feedback) until faculties of perception are so
engaged with those perceptions that they attend to other perceptions less
and less. This is perceived as 'paying attention' to perceived causes of
error.

Another yes. However, these, too, are observed phenomena and not the
observer who attends to them. The same is true when we observe our
memories, and our thoughts about our memories. and our memories of
remembering, and so on.

Attachment is not merely control, i.e. resistance to disturbance to
controlled values, but also the emotion-laden churn arising from it.

All that is merely control. Without the emotion-laden churn you would be
unable to change your level of activity: you would instantly run out of
energy if you tried to flee or attack, or even celebrate. But that is
probably not your point: attachment is somehow adopting as a point of view
_all_ the experiences associated with a particular cluster of control systems.

>The point of view on any perception is not the perception itself. Perhaps
>this is why perceptions at the top of the hierarchy are often defended with
>irrational vigor. If there's no point of view on them other than biological
>survival, a threat to them must be pretty scary.

That also is attachment, isn't it? I can observe that I am, or am not,
afraid for my life, where the "I" being observed and to whom the life
belongs is a collection of perceptions and reference levels. If I, as an
Observer, care about that, it is a different kind of caring from what the
hierarchy does. The Observer does not emote.

Cultivation of merely witnessing can perhaps open merely witnessing as an
alternative point of view. Perhaps it can lead to realization that there is
no other point of view. If so, anything else is to identify with a point of
view within the hierarchy. In the normal course of events, that's a movable
fiesta. Like attention.

Yes. Precisely what the MOL is about.

Best,

Bill P.

7

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0601.1111)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.01 08:13 EDT)

Attachment is not merely control, i.e. resistance to disturbance to
controlled values, but also the emotion-laden churn arising from it.

O.K.

The point of view on any perception is not the perception itself.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this.

Perhaps
this is why perceptions at the top of the hierarchy are often defended with
irrational vigor. If there's no point of view on them other than biological
survival, a threat to them must be pretty scary.

I agree with the conclusion, but I can't follow the reasoning. That is,
I don't see what "point of view" has to do with the vigor with which
perceptions are defended. I thought that perceptions at the top of the
hierarchy are defended with irrational vigor because there is no way to
reset their reference levels save by reorganization.

Cultivation of merely witnessing can perhaps open merely witnessing as an
alternative point of view. Perhaps it can lead to realization that there is
no other point of view. If so, anything else is to identify with a point of
view within the hierarchy. In the normal course of events, that's a movable
fiesta. Like attention.

By "cultivation of merely witnessing" do you mean something other than
inhibiting action and thereby enhancing awareness of perception?

···

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org

8

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.06.01 08:13 EDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0601.1111)--

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.01 12:59 EDT)

The point of view on any perception is not the perception itself.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this.

If you perceive the sensation of the color green, the point of view from which you perceive it is not itself the sensation of the color green. If you perceive that you are affronted -- a disturbance to control of your self-image perception, let us say -- the point of view from which you perceive it is not your perception of the disturbance, nor your perception of your self image. Within the hierarchy, your point of view may be some control system that is controlling the state of your self-image perceptual signal(s). Or you may be simply witnessing the disturbance, the self image, and the other system maintaining its preferred input by means of the reference for self image.

The former case is more liable to the emotional churn that builds up to attachment -- an increasingly fixed and vigorous demand that the given reference value(s) be met. An addictive demand, as one student put it. You flog yourself for failure, or you flog others for affront, or you flog yourself to achieve, and so on. The energy of arousal for action is possible without the flogging. (This is in response to Bill's (2003.06.01.0830 MDT) "Without the emotion-laden churn you would be unable to change your level of activity: you would instantly run out of energy if you tried to flee or attack, or even celebrate.")

It's even possible to be emotionally expressive without getting caught up in it. An illustration: S.N. Goenka tells of his teacher U Ba Kin, and a young man who was there in Burma for a meditation retreat - I think 6 months was the shortest retreat they offered then. The guy had been goofing off, avoiding the work of meditation practice. U Ba Kin went into his room and chewed him out, shouting, gesticulating, eyes bulging, red in the face. The kid was shook up. Goenka was alarmed. Then when they were out of earshot U Ba Kin turned to Goenka, laughing. "I was really angry with him, wasn't I. That was a lot of anger!"

Perhaps
this is why perceptions at the top of the hierarchy are often defended with
irrational vigor. If there's no point of view on them other than biological
survival, a threat to them must be pretty scary.

I agree with the conclusion, but I can't follow the reasoning. That is,
I don't see what "point of view" has to do with the vigor with which
perceptions are defended. I thought that perceptions at the top of the
hierarchy are defended with irrational vigor because there is no way to
reset their reference levels save by reorganization.

Maybe we're saying the same thing.

Cultivation of merely witnessing can perhaps open merely witnessing as an
alternative point of view. Perhaps it can lead to realization that there is
no other point of view. If so, anything else is to identify with a point of
view within the hierarchy. In the normal course of events, that's a movable
fiesta. Like attention.

By "cultivation of merely witnessing" do you mean something other than
inhibiting action and thereby enhancing awareness of perception?

I think you're referring to disciplines for sharpening one's attention and developing skill at maintaining it. But other than that it's not necessary to inhibit action. Just as body temperature equilibration and heartbeat continue, so do other actions. There are those actions that I have no qualms about perceiving as autonomic, and there are other actions that look and feel like I'm doing them. They can go on looking and feeling that way, and those looking and feeling perceptions can be witnessed too.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 11:11 AM 6/1/2003, Bruce Gregory wrote:

9

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0601.1448)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.01 08:13 EDT)

Bruce Gregory (2003.0601.1111)--

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.01 12:59 EDT)

The point of view on any perception is not the perception itself.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this.

If you perceive the sensation of the color green, the point of view from
which you perceive it is not itself the sensation of the color green.

If green is perceived, it is not clear to me that it is perceived from a
particular "point of view."

If

you perceive that you are affronted -- a disturbance to control of your
self-image perception, let us say -- the point of view from which you
perceive it is not your perception of the disturbance, nor your perception
of your self image.

Same problem. Is my "self image" anything other than a reification of
certain controlled perceptual variables?

Within the hierarchy, your point of view may be some
control system that is controlling the state of your self-image perceptual
signal(s).

I'd be happier if we dispensed with this mysterious "point of view" and
stuck with perceptions. I'll try to do that in the future.

···

At 11:11 AM 6/1/2003, Bruce Gregory wrote:

--
Bruce Gregory lives with the poet and painter Gray Jacobik in the future
Canadian Province of New England.

www.joincanadanow.org