"The observer is observed"

[sharlok]

"The observer is the observed"
This word will be a tatoo on my upper chest in latin
This words belong to Krishnamurti
Observer means consciousness and observed means the self(ego).
Our ego, superego, unconscious are all invisible to us. Indeed they are there in part to protect our being and body from the world and from our own thoughts. Our psychical structures are, developed through evolution and we are unaware of them except when they don’t function properly. So most people are unaware of what drives or moves them, why they act in particular ways or many things about themselves that are clear to others.

 

[Pacifica]

From your explanation I take it that "the observer" and "the observed" here are things (consciousness and self) rather than people. It's important to get this right because the translation wouldn't be the same.

With the "thing" interpretation it can translate to:

Quod observat id observatur.

 

[Pacifica]

Actually I can see a second way to interpret it, so I'll check this with you. It's about where the emphasis lies. Is the emphasis supposed to be on what is the observer (Q: What's the observer? A: The observed.) or on what is the observed (Q: What's the observed? A: The observer.)?

 

[sharlok]

Actually I can see a second way to interpret it, so I'll check this with you. It's about where the emphasis lies. Is the emphasis supposed to be on what is the observer (Q: What's the observer? A: The observed.) or on what is the observed (Q: What's the observed? A: The observer.)?

it can't be translate by logical. It needs a deeply insight. Don't stuck what mean the words try to feel as if the meaning of it just you are

 

[Pacifica]

I'm not sure I understand you but I guess you didn't understand my question either since you haven't answered it, so I'll try to formulate it differently.

Which one of these two sentences would you say is closer to your intended meaning?

1) It is the observer that is the observed.

2) It is the observed that is the observer.

I need to know which one it is because they don't translate the same.

 

[sharlok]

I'm not sure I understand you but I guess you didn't understand my question either since you haven't answered it, so I'll try to formulate it differently.

Which one of these two sentences would you say is closer to your intended meaning?

1) It is the oberver that is observed.

2) It is the observed that is the observer.

I need to know which one it is because they don't translate the same.

Appreciate you for your patience. The answer: 1) It is the oberver that is observed.

 

[Pacifica]

Great. Then the translation I gave above is right.

 

[sharlok]

Do you mean that translation: Quod observat id observatur.

 

[Pacifica]

Yes.

 

[sharlok]

I thank you so much

 

[scrabulista]

It's not what you're after but there is
Quis custodiet custodes? = "Who will watch the watchmen?"
Basically you can't trust authority.
It would be a nice change of pace if the custos finally got his comeuppance.
custos custoditur.

 

[sharlok]

Great translation

It's not what you're after but there is
Quis custodiet custodes? = "Who will watch the watchmen?"
Basically you can't trust authority.
It would be a nice change of pace if the custos finally got his comeuppance.
custos custoditur.

 

[sharlok]

custos custoditur. = the guardian showed up self
is it right?

 

[Pacifica]

custos custoditur. = the guardian showed up self
is it right?

No. "The guardian is being guarded" or "The watchman is being watched".

 

[sharlok]

could you translate this word for me please: "guardian is exposed"

 

[Pacifica]

Exposed in what sense? Exposed to observation? Or to danger?

 

[sharlok]

Exposed in what sense? Exposed to observation? Or to danger?

Exposed to observation

 

[Pacifica]

Maybe custos expositus est could work for either interpretation anyway.