Are you an observer, or a participator of life?

Answer 1

I am both because, 'you can't have one without the other, love and marriage, love and marriage.'

The unexamined life in not worth living.

You must act upon the world instead of the world acting upon you.

To know, is to know that you know nothing.

Better know nothing than half-know many things.

The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion.

War cannot be avoided; it can only be postponed to the other's advantage.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.

Envy is ignorance, imitation is suicide.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church.

Answer 2

Part of participation is observation. Just by being alive, one can be considered a participant.

However, if we consider external things, such as career, I consider myself an equal parts observer/participant.

Career is not life though, and whether or not one fully participates or simply observes the phenomenon of human career, it tells very little about the person's engagement in his own life.

Life is for living. Observing and participating are both essential parts of living. Sometimes observing and participating cannot be differentiated in their value towards this thing called life.

Answer 3

I am an observer and sometimes a participator of my own life. I am an observer of the other people's lives.

Answer 4

It tells us that the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics maximum probably isn't maximum suitable and the 'Many worlds' -interpretation greater in all risk so, in spite of it having some surprisingly extensive implications. in my opinion, the Copenhagen interpretation is surprisingly a lot destroyed by way of the subject of defining the words 'be conscious' and 'observer'. in short, the C interpretation posits that an observer would reason quantum superposition states to interrupt down. yet what precisely is an observer? all of us understand that we detecting a phenomenon by way of an device qualifies as an observer, on the grounds that reasons an observable crumple of the superposition state. yet can an atom be an observer? How a pair of scientific device that could completely be conscious the phenomenon yet can't let us know the outcomes? Is the device itself an observer? Why not? Edit: Thumbs down, eh? looks peculiar for a technology-question like this. My answer is scientifically maximum suitable and to the element. it may look not many people right here comprehend or maybe want to comprehend Quantum Mechanics.

Answer 5

Everyone is both to an extent. The ideal would be to be a participator rather than an observer.

Think of your last 10 conversations, were they about something you did or someone you know, or about something going on in the media on TV?

Answer 6

You have to be a observer before you are a participator, or you are not truly living, as you are interacting unconsciously. Observation is the beginning of consciousness and awareness.

Atm I am a observer but I will be a participator.

Answer 7

I am both like the others. The differences with me is that I observe until it is time for me to participate.

I observe the answers.

and Now I participate and give one myself

Live Long Live Free

Answer 8

I need to be both an observer and a participator of life. I play my guitar and sing, and I sit and listen to others. I play baseball, and I go to the stadium and watch the pros play. I read and I write.
Of course when it comes to some things, like eating food for example, I lean heavily toward the participatory. Other things (ever seen the show jackass?) are, for me anyway, more observer-orientated.

Answer 9

How can one help but participate when all life is interactive? Participation is unavoidable. And being living, how can one not observe, through all of the senses. Observation is similarly unavoidable.

Answer 10

Participation requires observation, so maybe both or neither. In order to learn anything we need observance, and in order to observe we need participation from ourselves, even if its only in the learning interaction between mind and mind's eye..

my two cents.

Answer 11

Both are closely related. You can not truly participate until you learn to observe carefully. Strive for greater consciousness. Only then can you participate.