Is there a looking without an object, without the knowledge of the object? Of
course there is. A film director came to see me once. He described how he had
taken LSD, and they had taped his reactions. He sat back on a chair waiting for
the effect. At first nothing happened. Then he moved his position a little.
Immediately the space between him and the object disappeared. Previously there
was a space between him, the observer, and the thing he observed, which
happened to be a flower. The moment space disappeared, it was not a flower but
something extraordinary. This was the effect of the drug. But here it is different.
The observer is the holder of knowledge, it is knowledge that recognizes the
cupboard, and it is the observer who sees the cupboard. See what happens: The
observer with his knowledge recognizes the cupboard; recognition implies
previous knowledge. So the observer is knowledge as the past. Now we are
asking if there is perception without the observer, that is, without knowledge,
which is the past—perception per se, not about something.
R: If the knowledge of the past is not there, the observer is not there. If the
observer is not there, knowledge of the past is not there.
K: Therefore, it is possible to see without the observer. I am saying ‘possible’.
The possibility becomes a theory. We should not deal with theories, but see that
the observer is the residue of the past and, so, cannot possibly see except through
the screen of the past; therefore his seeing is partial. For perception to be, the
observer must not be. Is that possible?
R: What happens to an artist? Obviously he perceives with a perception which is
not the ordinary perception which we have.
K: Now wait a minute. Is perception intellectual?
R: No; the intellect is the past.
K: Therefore, it is not the seeing of an artist or the non-artist that is at issue here,
but the seeing without the past. The artist may see for a moment without the past,
but he translates his perception.
R: It is a momentary perception.
K: Is there an act of perception without the observer? ‘Act’ means immediate
action, not a continuous action. And the word ‘act’ means ‘doing’, not having
done or will do.
Perception is action. It is not action in terms of the actor acting in accordance
with his knowledge. Are the professionals concerned with action, or are they
concerned with knowledge and action?