“…The examples of the knights nicely illuminate how observation was meant in general in an environment that wanted the Truth, preferred the real, and promoted the honest. When observation is made in context of the self, anomalies become clear. An honorable person, for example, detects the slightest signs of devious intentions, often before a word is uttered.
Perhaps it’s a good idea to show also some other concrete details on other levels. If the vocational aspect of a person is wealth creation for the community (vaisya) he will easily see through machinations for robbing the community for self-gain. Trying to sell inferior quality raw materials for somebody whose self is defined by art, by perfection through the ritualistic creation of artifacts, would be an impossible undertaking. Of course, in the estates ruled by knights in the name of justice, such attempts rarely happened.
Today the situation is obviously different; the environment is corrupt: it doesn’t want the Truth, it prefers the delusional and promotes the crooks. People with identity, with a clear sense of self, can still see clearly, but acting means going against the current, against the blind. This is why we decided to start with identity when talking about observing things in front of us.
The problem is not information overflow or lack of information, but lack of identity or people being in the wrong role. To reach back to the Hindu terminology of castes, it’s quite visible that chandras or shudras run companies and government administrations, practically unable to recognize the most elemental cause and effect relationships.
What does it mean that people without identity can’t see? It means that they’re doomed to think without context and thus without “tools”, like style for example (the quality of appearance), an obvious factor when it comes to looking at something. People without identity are completely unreliable when it comes to contextual questions: they confuse the repulsive with the desirable. “