I think he means that in order for the observer to exist, it must also be observed. Then that observer must be observed. Then that observer must be observed. Then that....and so on.
The observer
is observed -- by itself. The suggestion is that existence (other than mere potential) arises from a foundation of Awareness -- 'cogito ergo sum' --
So it seems that what we are
NOT discussing is the sort of "the world is supported by an elephant, which is standing upon a turtle, which is standing upon a yak. But what is the yak standing upon? Oh, the yak is standing on a lizard, which is standing on a penquin ... etc" infinite regression.
Awareness doesn't 'regress' infinitely; Awareness arises as the fundamental ground-source of Being (or so the idea suggests).
So, perhaps he could explain what he meant, hisself?
ETA - The observed thing is daft anyway - it would mean that nothing could have existed before we came along to observe it. So where did we come from?
Well, it isn't 'daft' in that it does work within its own model (the same must be said of Physics): We don't 'come' from anywhere, Awareness simply is aware.
"So where did we come from?" is indeed a valid question -- but the answer is an issue of THE BIG BANG. Is that 'daft' too?
Then all Existence must be 'daft' ... and even then there is one thing NOT daft. The AWARENESS that things are daft is not a daft observation, it is a fundamental
truth.
*************************
I'd also still like to understand his comment about things being 'misleading' ...
Misleading IN WHAT WAY?
That's a sincere question!