Witness

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
1

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.30.1430)]

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 not sure I can sign up to that (as far as I understand can it). For example,
when I look at the world from the point of view of the configuration level of the
hierarchy I am aware of seeing the works in terms of lines, contours and shapes.
It's the other points of view that seem to leave awareness. For example, when I
look at the words on the page as a bunch of angles and lines and curves, I lose
awareness of the fact that the shapes are black (sensation) or that they are
letters and words.

Awareness, the witness, has no standpoint. It is not of the perceptual
universe at all.

Then how do you know about it?

It is possible to have
intact perceptual and cognitive apparatus, but no awareness.

Of course. That's the "pressure on the butt" phenomenon. Those butt perceptions
were there all along, without awareness, until suddenly awareness comes onto the
scene (for some reason) when they are mentioned.

You can't observe it. You don't witness yourself witnessing perceptions.

That's what I don't understand. If what you say is true than how do we know there
is an Observer or what you call a Witness? How can we be having this discussion
if we can't, in some sense, observe the Observer (or Witness)? I think I
understand what you and Bill are talking about. But how can I do that unless I am
able to, in some sense, witness myself witnessing?

This witness is no ghost in the machine, it is nothing. No thing.

So what Lear actually meant was "no thing comes of nothing"? (A bit of literary
humor; no response necessary).

Everything that it might be supposed to be is in the perceptual universe.

I like that. But it still doesn't really help me understand how I am able to
distinguish my "witnessing" from my "perceiving", which I think I can do.

We are told by various wise guys that it is not different from
whatever-it-is

There's mob people involved in philosophy? Hey, maybe that's what we need in PCT,
someone to make an offer people can't refuse instead of of one they can't
understand.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

2

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0530.1740)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.30.1430)

There's mob people involved in philosophy? Hey, maybe that's what we need in PCT,
someone to make an offer people can't refuse instead of of one they can't
understand.

Gee Rick, isn't that your job?

3

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0531.0802)]

An HPCT model redux:

Suffering alone exists, none who suffer.
The deed there is, but no doer thereof.
Nirvana, but none who seek it.
The Path, but none who travel it.

···

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

www.joincanadanow.org

4

[From Bill Powers (2003.05.31.0856 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (2003.0531.0802)--

An HPCT model redux:

Suffering alone exists, none who suffer.
The deed there is, but no doer thereof.
Nirvana, but none who seek it.
The Path, but none who travel it.

Yes, I've heard things like that. How do we know they're true?

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.0531.1647)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.31.0856 MDT)

Bruce Gregory (2003.0531.0802)--

An HPCT model redux:

Suffering alone exists, none who suffer.
The deed there is, but no doer thereof.
Nirvana, but none who seek it.
The Path, but none who travel it.

Yes, I've heard things like that. How do we know they're true?

It's a model. Models are neither true nor false, simply more or less
adequate.

···

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

www.joincanadanow.org

6

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.05.31 19:57 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.30.1430)--

> 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 not sure I can sign up to that (as far as I understand can it). For example, when I look at the world from the point of view of the configuration level of the hierarchy I am aware of seeing the works in terms of lines, contours and shapes.

Your point of view is then from the next level up, from which you are controlling configurations.

It's the other points of view that seem to leave awareness.

But not necessarily the levels below. It is easy to be aware of black angles and lines and curves.

> Awareness, the witness, has no standpoint. It is not of the perceptual
> universe at all.

Then how do you know about it?

We infer it. I outlined in (2003.05.30 15:35 EDT) how and on what basis that happens with me. So far, it doesn't sound like your experience differs.

> It is possible to have
> intact perceptual and cognitive apparatus, but no awareness.

Of course. That's the "pressure on the butt" phenomenon.

I mean a person (if person you still call her) who is apparently without any awareness. Checked out. Of course that cannot be proven. But I could be wrong, and the extreme case was not important, except as part of that little circumambulation of the question. Which may not have been useful.

> You can't observe it. You don't witness yourself witnessing perceptions.

That's what I don't understand. If what you say is true than how do we know there is an Observer or what you call a Witness?

In terms of this communicable sort of knowledge, we infer it.

How can we be having this discussion
if we can't, in some sense, observe the Observer (or Witness)?

We talk about many things we cannot observe. And we are perfectly capable of talking nonsense without realizing it.

I think I understand what you and Bill are talking about. But how can I do that unless I am able to, in some sense, witness myself witnessing?

The reason you are not able to is because there is no other. So there can be no metawitness.

> Everything that it might be supposed to be is in the perceptual universe.

I like that. But it still doesn't really help me understand how I am able to
distinguish my "witnessing" from my "perceiving", which I think I can do.

While it appears to you that you are perceiving your witnessing, you are not. You are putting memory in the role of witness. Or that anyway is how it works with me.

> We are told by various wise guys that it is not different from
> whatever-it-is

There's mob people involved in philosophy? Hey, maybe that's what we need in PCT, someone to make an offer people can't refuse instead of of one they can't understand.

"Hey, you talka nice or I breaka you needs."

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 02:26 PM 5/30/2003, Richard Marken wrote:

7

[From Rick Marken (2003.05.31.1720)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.05.31 19:57 EDT)

> > Awareness, the witness, has no standpoint. It is not of the perceptual
> > universe at all.
>
>Then how do you know about it?

We infer it. I outlined in (2003.05.30 15:35 EDT) how and on what basis
that happens with me. So far, it doesn't sound like your experience differs.

I agree. This helps.

>That's what I don't understand. If what you say is true than how do we
>know there is an Observer or what you call a Witness?

In terms of this communicable sort of knowledge, we infer it.

OK I like this idea. I think Bill made a similar comment about this:

through experiences involving the Observer, the hierarchy learns to say,
"There is an Observer, and here is how it behaves."

What are the experiences on the basis of which we learn that there is an
Observer? Is it things like point of view change? Volition? Awareness? It would
be great to think about ways to test put some of these idea into the model so
they can be tested, if only in the comfort of one's own armchair. I'm getting to
the age where armchair experimentation is looking more and more attractive.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
marken@mindreadings.com
310 474-0313

8

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.05.31 21:40 EDT)]

Rick Marken (2003.05.31.1720)--

I think Bill made a similar comment about this:

> through experiences involving the Observer, the hierarchy learns to say,
>"There is an Observer, and here is how it behaves."

"Experiences involving the Observer" could be confused with perceptions taken in an illusory way to be perceptions of one's observing, though I assume that's not what Bill meant. I also have trouble with "here is how it behaves". Its 'behavior' is clearly not control of perception. I'm not sure how to apply the word.

What are the experiences on the basis of which we learn that there is an
Observer?

There is pseudo-learning as in "I think, therefore I am", and inference putting memory in the role of observer. Or meditation practice develops ability to concentrate, and eventually to be still in the midst of the tumult of the perceptual universe. Only witnessing, nothing else, as all the activities controlling perceptions are going on. But the operative word there is practice. Talk about it remains just that.

Is it things like point of view change?

As in the Necker cube? As in focusing on one level or kind of perception? Do you mean witnessing this shifting as it happens, or controlling the shifting of point of view?

Volition?

Do you mean "Where does volition come from?" In the model, doesn't volition originate in reference signals, which are seeded, ultimately, by innate references?

Awareness?

Not sure what you could mean that does not beg the question. Are you distinguishing awareness from witnessing?

It would be great to think about ways to ... put some of these idea[s] into the model so they can be tested

Straightforward empirical observation first. Then model.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 08:21 PM 5/31/2003, Richard Marken wrote:

9

[From David Goldstein (2003.06.158 EDT)]

Several years ago I was doing a self-analysis. Bill Powers helped me to
get started with the MOL. I reached a certain point and started to apply
Q Methodology to the self-descriptive statements.

The results of the self-analysis led me to find three different
self-images within myself, three parts. When I simultaneous thought
about all three self-images, I was led to the concept of the Observer
Self. When asked to describe the Observer Self, my words failed me. I
wound up thinking that this must be what people mean by the soul or God
or the real self.

The only reason I am telling you all about this is to let you know about
one way that the Observer Self can be discovered. One takes a look at
all that is you, at the same time, in order to be in the Observer Self.

When we are sleeping, and not dreaming, the Observer Self seems to be
not there. When we are dreaming, the Observer Self is there.

Some people seem to be in the Observer Self state rather than the lower
self-images states. These people seem more real, more together, more
genuine. There is a wiseness, and sense of peace about such people. I
think we all recognize when we are in the presence of such a person.

When we are undergoing surgery, the Observer Self does not seem to be
there. Antonio Damasio, a Neurosurgeon, has written an interesting book
describing the parts of the brain involved in awareness entitled "The
Feeling of What Happens."

10

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.06.01 08:18 EDT)]

Bill Powers (2003.05.31.0856 MDT)--

Bruce Gregory (2003.0531.0802)--

An HPCT model redux:

Suffering alone exists, none who suffer.
The deed there is, but no doer thereof.
Nirvana, but none who seek it.
The Path, but none who travel it.

Yes, I've heard things like that. How do we know they're true?

Who is it sets your references? If they are 'yours', then you are something other than the Observer or Witness. If they are indeed emergent from control of innate, genetically determined references, as the theory postulates, then any sense of who you are other than "the rider in the chariot," "the enjoyer" (Bhagavad Gita) must be illusory.

The advice from the Buddhists at least (among others) is not to take their word for it, but to experiment and determine directly. What happens when you just witness, nothing more?

There are intermediate beliefs that something or someone else sets references. Such beliefs are often institutionalized. Outside of socially sanctioned belief-disbelief systems the people who hold such beliefs are -- or were in less conservatively compassionate days. This is a reversal of what is generally assumed. When Jacob Boehme says "walk in all ways contrary to the world" he doesn't mean to get in people's faces about it.

As some zen guy said, you still chop wood and haul water. It still looks like and feels like 'you' are doing these things. But you know better. You also maintain your posture, digest food, breathe, eliminate.

If you know this is true, it's by process of elimination. Like anything in science.

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 10:57 AM 5/31/2003, Bill Powers wrote:

11

[From Bill Powers (2003.06.01.0853 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (2003.06.01 08:18 EDT)--

Who is it sets your references? If they are 'yours', then you are something
other than the Observer or Witness. If they are indeed emergent from
control of innate, genetically determined references, as the theory
postulates, then any sense of who you are other than "the rider in the
chariot," "the enjoyer" (Bhagavad Gita) must be illusory.

Tat tvam asi, is it? My memory leaks.

The one situation in which the observer does something other than
observing, or rather has some effect on what is observed, is when something
new is wanted or required. Predetermination is a toy robot walking with its
face against a wall. If there were an observer in the toy robot, it would
eventually want to experience something else, and would institute some sort
of change. Obviously, nothing in the robot can do other than what it is
designed and equipped to do. If it does something other than that,
something must have changed inside it, and something must have instituted
the change.

I invented a "reorganizing system" and gave it the ability to cause random
changes anywhere in the hierarchy (not just at the top level -- at any
level). I adopted Ashby's "essential variables" to provide a motivation for
such random changes -- intrinsic error -- and his "homeostat" as a model of
how the changes work. But I didn't say how random changes are generated,
nor did I put any bounds on what was to be considered an intrinsic quantity
or essential variable. So I didn't rule out intrinsic reference levels that
had to do with more than the pH of the bloodstream or body temperature. If,
for some reason, someone wants to limit the concept of intrinsic state to
the boundaries of biology and physics as we know them in 2003 (a mere
10,000 years after we discovered system concepts), a limited range of
phenomena can be explained without saying things that sound spooky. But
there is no reason (other than our admitted ignorance) to impose such limits.

The advice from the Buddhists at least (among others) is not to take their
word for it, but to experiment and determine directly. What happens when
you just witness, nothing more?

I keep saying yes. Yes. If the method of levels is conducted faithfully
with the aim of seeing how many times one can go up a level, you find out
what happens when you just witness and nothing more. The method of levels
had its origins in such an experiment, done by my late friend Kirk Sattley
and me shortly after we both woke up and left dianetics. The experiment was
aimed at seeing how many times in a row one could shift attention from the
foreground of thought and experience to the background of thoughts _about_
the foreground. The result, for both of us in turn, was an odd and
interesting state of mind in which nothing remained to be said.

As some zen guy said, you still chop wood and haul water. It still looks
like and feels like 'you' are doing these things. But you know better. You
also maintain your posture, digest food, breathe, eliminate.

If you know this is true, it's by process of elimination. Like anything in
science.

Yes.

Would you agree that it's important for the toy robot to have a correct
model of the toy robot?

Best,

Bill P.

12

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.06.01 11:38 EDT)]

David Goldstein (2003.06.158 EDT)--

One takes a look at all that is you, at the same time, in order to be in the Observer Self.

This relates directly to clinical work with multiple personalities, doesn't it?

When we are sleeping, and not dreaming, the Observer Self seems to be
not there. When we are dreaming, the Observer Self is there.

If on waking you recall dreams, the at-one-remove character of the memory in the present seems as though it must be the at-one-remove character of observing at the remembered time. This seems to be the basis for the illusion of witnessing yourself observing. Some say that dreams are constructed in memory upon awaking. So it seems to me, but I am not a close student of dreams.

When we are undergoing surgery, the Observer Self does not seem to be
there.

Do you mean you recover from anesthesia with no memory of it? Is this not the same as waking with no memory of dreaming?

Some people seem to be in the Observer Self state rather than the lower
self-images states. These people seem more real, more together, more
genuine. There is a wiseness, and sense of peace about such people. I
think we all recognize when we are in the presence of such a person.

It's a tangible beneficence, isn't it.

Antonio Damasio, a Neurosurgeon, has written an interesting book
describing the parts of the brain involved in awareness entitled "The
Feeling of What Happens."

Interesting lead! Subtitled "The physiological aspects of consciousness & emotions". I'll be getting a copy. Thanks!

         /Bruce Nevin

···

At 02:34 AM 6/1/2003, David M. Goldstein wrote: