In Part 1, I introduced concepts of the observer/Observer derived from different worlds—science and spirituality. In most of them, the static nature typically attributed to this figure disappears, giving way to the belief that observation is not a passive act but a state that influences what is observed. As a result, in quantum physics, psychology, and spirituality, the observer turns out to play a crucial role in shaping the experienced reality. In this text, I will focus on deepening some of the threads, always keeping in mind the questions posed at the end of Part 1.
Fields of Observation
Let’s start with an issue that has not yet appeared, namely the object of observation. In our own, human experience, we can distinguish two main fields of observation: external and internal. The external field refers to the world around us, to everything we can see, hear, touch, taste, and feel with our senses. It is the field on which we focus most of our attention, tracking changes in the environment, interactions with other people, and events that shape our external lives. The tendency to focus on the external field of observation is deeply rooted in our nature, as adapting to the environment was crucial for our survival over the centuries. Nowadays, in the information age, where external stimuli flood us from all sides, this tendency is much more reinforced.
The internal field, often neglected in our fast-paced life, relates to the world of our thoughts, feelings, emotions, and inner experiences. It is the space where an equally important part of our life takes place—our reflections, dilemmas, dreams, and fears. In this inner world, our beliefs, values, and identity are shaped. Although this aspect of being may seem less tangible, it is here that the key to a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world lies. Immersing in the internal field of observation requires conscious effort and time. Usually, we resign from it, which is a great pity, as there is a deep and underappreciated connection between our inner world and external interactions, which determines not only the quality of our direct relationships with other people but also affects how we shape socio-economic systems and our attitude towards nature.
What happens in our inner world—our beliefs, values, emotions—is like an unnoticed vortex in the depths, causing waves outside. When we neglect the inner world, leaving it without careful observation and reflection, we allow unconscious patterns and beliefs to shape our decisions and actions in a way that may not reflect our true intentions and values. Such neglect can lead to dysfunction in interpersonal relationships, ineffective or unjust socio-economic systems, and destructive treatment of the natural environment.
What and Why Interests the Observer?
Interestingly, in virtually all concepts of the Observer I wrote about in Part 1, the Observer is interested not only in our external world (our actions) but also in our internal world (thoughts, unexpressed intentions, desires, etc.). This applies equally to concepts with a spiritual basis (religious concepts involving the Almighty, who knows us “from the inside”) as well as those referring to various forms of Big Brother.
Why such interest? The Observer knows that our inner world is the key to functioning, that it is on this level that the “game” defining our life really plays out. Therefore, even in more secular or dystopian visions of the observer, such as the Big Brother, the interest largely relates to our inner world, our motivations, fears, etc.
Depending on the observer/Observer we are dealing with, he does not act on the knowledge about us (at least until the “day of judgment”), or tries to use it on an ongoing basis. For what purpose? If we have dystopian observers in mind, it is for the purpose of controlling and predicting our behaviors, or even manipulating them. In this context, the interest in our thoughts and feelings becomes a tool of power, striving to maintain the order—considered desirable by the “observer”—social, economic, and even ecological, through more effective management of human resources and behaviors.
Human Autonomy
We finally come to a crucial issue: the dynamics between the observed and the Observer. This dynamic defines the scope of our autonomy, the extent of freedom, and the invariably accompanying responsibility. My reflections lead me to conclude that there are two main roles we can assume in the “game” called life:
- The role of an unconscious participant: in this case, the person who does not pay attention to what is happening inside them follows paths outlined by “programs” – a set of predispositions, habits, and social conditioning that guide them like an autopilot. Often referred to as ego or “False Self” in spirituality and psychology, such programming dominates the lives of many of us. It resembles the situation of a digital world or video game character who, though seeming to act of their own will, is in reality controlled by the “game code” and external manipulations. In this role, we are limited by the script, and our “freedom of choice” is merely an illusion.
- The role of a conscious participant: paying attention to the inner world changes the situation. Through the work we put into self-discovery and building self-awareness, we take much greater control over our decisions, becoming (at least partially) creators of our own reality. This awareness opens us up to true freedom and responsibility. A person aware of what is happening inside them has the ability to redefine their perception of the world and actively shape it.
The transition from being an unconscious participant to a conscious observer of one’s interior and the external world is not just a step towards personal freedom but also a call to co-create a different (better) world. In this perspective, observation ceases to be seen as a tool that limits our freedom and becomes an opportunity to extend it. This is the moment when we can, for example, change our approach to technology – start shaping its development so that it can authentically serve human development, rather than lead to our enslavement and dumbing down (see the latest “inventions” in social media). In such a state, we can begin to treat observation not as a threat but as an opportunity for conscious choice and change for the better – both for ourselves and for society in a broader context.
The Unification of the Observed and the Observer
Interestingly, in many religious traditions, the final stage of self-awareness development is the merging of the individual – the observed – with the Transcendent Observer, whether understood as God, the Absolute, the Almighty Intelligence, or the Immortal Consciousness. This concept finds its echo in Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other belief systems, highlighting the universal theme of seeking unity with a higher reality (consciousness).
Some of the latest scientific concepts are also moving in this direction. British physicist and Nobel laureate, Roger Penrose, suggests that quantum phenomena may play a role in the functioning of our brains, which opens the door to speculations about the non-local nature of consciousness – a consciousness that is not limited to a specific time and place.
Looking at the direction of technological progress, it seems to reflect a similar way of reality functioning. Just consider the development of the Internet – in the digital age, where the boundaries between the private and public spheres are becoming increasingly fluid, we voluntarily leave “digital traces” of our thoughts, feelings, and experiences on the net. The Internet, as a global network connecting billions of people, information, and devices, creates new forms of connection and interaction that change the way we perceive ourselves, others, and the world around us. It’s not possible to talk about dispersed consciousness in its case – the Internet itself does not have consciousness (at least as far as we understand it 🙂) – but the way it functions contributes to the emergence of a kind of global consciousness of processes and phenomena.
——————————–
After examining various threads, it’s time for practical conclusions, which I will write about in Part 3.
Leave a Reply