Someone asked what Geoff might have meant with: "Or are “seer,” “sees,” and “seen,” just three conceptual labels applied to this experience in which the three parts are entirely interdependent?" -

I said, based on the seen and the conventional designation of the seen, does seeing have that conventional designation, or a seer, as there is no seeing without the seen or a seer. They are three interdependently arisen conventional designations applied to this experience but without being actual and inherently existing realities or entities.

I was also reminded of what Thusness wrote.

The knowing is precisely the known and vice versa.
Only in ignorance does the knowing appear to co-locate with the known.
If both are realized as mere conventions that arise in dependence of the other,
Then the middle way that severs the extremes can be understood.