PDA

View Full Version : Is there an "I"?


Timeless
17-10-2015, 05:55 AM
The feeling of self would not exist without other. To view through the lens of ultimate divinity, we are one with the universe. We are able to have the experience of the self because "other" automatically implies self. For example, "What is it that is seeing this other person?". If the universe was only you, could you even be aware that you exist? (Just a side thought)

Any idea that you should defend a certain image in your mind (of who you perceive yourself to be), is neurotic. Find the comforting sense of self in other. Other can be anything. Seeing other means that you exist. I don't even know quite how to explain myself. I'll just leave this here and maybe somebody else can elaborate.

naturesflow
17-10-2015, 10:49 AM
I am

Going to turn into Lorelyn soon..

naturesflow
17-10-2015, 11:11 AM
The feeling of self would not exist without other. To view through the lens of ultimate divinity, we are one with the universe. We are able to have the experience of the self because "other" automatically implies self. For example, "What is it that is seeing this other person?". If the universe was only you, could you even be aware that you exist? (Just a side thought)

Any idea that you should defend a certain image in your mind (of who you perceive yourself to be), is neurotic. Find the comforting sense of self in other. Other can be anything. Seeing other means that you exist. I don't even know quite how to explain myself. I'll just leave this here and maybe somebody else can elaborate.


Have you ever read how you developed your sense of self and surroundings as a infant/baby/toddler.

It is helpful for what your sharing here.

Lorelyen
17-10-2015, 01:22 PM
Any idea that you should defend a certain image in your mind (of who you perceive yourself to be), is neurotic. Find the comforting sense of self in other. Other can be anything. Seeing other means that you exist. I don't even know quite how to explain myself. I'll just leave this here and maybe somebody else can elaborate.

Why?

If that's the case then almost the whole of humanity is neurotic. Most people I know have a perception of their image independent of the particular role they happen to be playing at any given moment, and naturally defend it. Who wouldn't?

I'd say that the exact opposite of your statement is more accurate.

But you aren't exactly known for elaborating on points you make in response to questions, are you?
I bet I get no reply to my question.

...

Lorelyen
17-10-2015, 01:27 PM
I am

Going to turn into Lorelyn soon..

Awww, no. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy!

I'll parse the statement I emboldened in the quote of my previous post through my bull-o-meter, see what reading I get.

:D

BlueSky
17-10-2015, 05:20 PM
The feeling of self would not exist without other. To view through the lens of ultimate divinity, we are one with the universe. We are able to have the experience of the self because "other" automatically implies self. For example, "What is it that is seeing this other person?". If the universe was only you, could you even be aware that you exist? (Just a side thought)

Any idea that you should defend a certain image in your mind (of who you perceive yourself to be), is neurotic. Find the comforting sense of self in other. Other can be anything. Seeing other means that you exist. I don't even know quite how to explain myself. I'll just leave this here and maybe somebody else can elaborate.
I don't know, I guess you could call what we all sense to be a sense of self but I see it more as a sense of being, is-ness, existing.
Does that make me a self? What exactly is a self anyway? I think the word implies separate-ness. I think it implies that there is something separate that goes on after the body dies. I can't see where it implies anything but separate-ness.

God-Like
17-10-2015, 06:34 PM
The feeling of self would not exist without other. To view through the lens of ultimate divinity, we are one with the universe. We are able to have the experience of the self because "other" automatically implies self. For example, "What is it that is seeing this other person?". If the universe was only you, could you even be aware that you exist? (Just a side thought)

Any idea that you should defend a certain image in your mind (of who you perceive yourself to be), is neurotic. Find the comforting sense of self in other. Other can be anything. Seeing other means that you exist. I don't even know quite how to explain myself. I'll just leave this here and maybe somebody else can elaborate.

Any self reference had indicates something making reference . The Mind allows reflection of self and others similar to what you said above .

We can call what is making a reflection and what is reflected what we like lols, but what is reflecting and reflected is the same .

x daz x

Mr Interesting
17-10-2015, 07:36 PM
Before Buddism, there was a man trying some stuff. And before Christianity the same pretty much occurred. And before Vintage Pop Collage there were people cutting stuff out and making stuff.

Then the people were perturbed because the prices of vintage magazines went up as the supply dwindled and they were locked into their thing.

And the man asked me who are you?

But I was already gone.

There are alternate worlds littered with previous me's gone and forgotten where whole cultures of recycling rules and regulations war over the denominations of my forgetfulness.

Gem
18-10-2015, 02:01 PM
The feeling of self would not exist without other. To view through the lens of ultimate divinity, we are one with the universe. We are able to have the experience of the self because "other" automatically implies self. For example, "What is it that is seeing this other person?". If the universe was only you, could you even be aware that you exist? (Just a side thought)

Any idea that you should defend a certain image in your mind (of who you perceive yourself to be), is neurotic. Find the comforting sense of self in other. Other can be anything. Seeing other means that you exist. I don't even know quite how to explain myself. I'll just leave this here and maybe somebody else can elaborate.
I think the feeling of self is existent and there's a distinction between being yourself and projecting self imagery. Self imagery exists in presence of an Other. I could elaborate no-end on self imagery and the Other, but it's not like a dissertation subject. It has to be talked through in real terms, which is not what people are doing, actually. The medium of this forum is already fraught with imagery. It's a forum for spiritual self images, and the hierarchy of enlightenment, progress, evolution, development etc already pegs these images in positions relative to others. These images pre-exist our arrival and we just come along an fill them. The community itself is already constructed with images of twin flames indigos christians and so on, and individuals fill those places. If I speak to my image of you, I am no longer talking to you. I am then talking to an imaginary character whom I conjured, and only conjured with respect to my own self imagery in a perverse exercise of validating myself. I.e. I paint you as portrait, not of my reflection, but as all that I am not, and you represent me by becoming all that is not me. You become a position that defines me - as the guru image I am not I can become the disciple - or vice versa. These images of self and the Other exist concurrently in my own head. In life, people are continually conjuring each other in terms of their own image. It's so common and so habitual and so normal that it occurs unconsciously, which means, it's actually pretty obvious but largely ignored due it being 'just acting normally'.

naturesflow
18-10-2015, 02:12 PM
I have two eyes.

Maybe we have two eyes for the purpose of other and self? See me, see you. I see you clearly, I see me clearly.

Miss Hepburn
18-10-2015, 02:23 PM
Oh brother...'beingness, separateness, isness, existence, selfhood,'...
infinity, eternity...oneness...the Creator of all...
Time for my morning meditation, obviously! :glasses9:

BlueSky
18-10-2015, 02:44 PM
Oh brother...'beingness, separateness, isness, existence, selfhood,'...
infinity, eternity...oneness...the Creator of all...
Time for my morning meditation, obviously! :glasses9:
I hear ya and I am just as guilty as the next guy.
Meditation is s much better way to begin the day lol
Clear the mind of all these words.

Rokon
18-10-2015, 02:49 PM
For me the canceling out of self, or "other" to for the benefit of a concept of ultimate divinity is a denial.

Self is good. :)

BlueSky
18-10-2015, 03:16 PM
For me the canceling out of self, or "other" to for the benefit of a concept of ultimate divinity is a denial.

Self is good. :)
Kinda like doing nothing is actually doing something. That something is doing doing nothing. Lol

lemex
18-10-2015, 05:35 PM
What exactly is a self anyway?

I think the word implies separate-ness.



Wanted to say it is suppose to mean being separate. And this is how it all started. We may not want to accept it but what I was taught.

This is the concept of the you, self is soul. The original concept was the body was resurrected not the soul. It was the body that was the self. Soul came later and body was forgotten. This is the theme. Soul kept the characteristics and had a beginning. Soul is unlike spirit as spirit had no beginning. Everything seems to have a beginning, even angles. Soul is like anything else, now timeless and is (now) eternal.

This is what is suppose to have been meant as to what exactly was a self suppose to be. I am not saying this is correct but what originally what our ancestor thought. I am paraphrasing what I see from being told. It is still thought it is this way. Yes, the questions is simply a modern age conflict.

Was wondering, does input such as this hinder or help our discussion, learning.

BlueSky
18-10-2015, 05:46 PM
Wanted to say it is suppose to mean being separate. And this is how it all started. We may not want to accept it but what I was taught.

This is the concept of the you, self is soul. The original concept was the body was resurrected not the soul. It was the body that was the self. Soul came later and body was forgotten. This is the theme. Soul kept the characteristics and had a beginning. Soul is unlike spirit as spirit had no beginning. Everything seems to have a beginning, even angles. Soul is like anything else, now timeless and is (now) eternal.

This is what is suppose to have been meant as to what exactly was a self suppose to be. I am not saying this is correct but what originally what our ancestor thought. It is still thought it is this way.

It seems that what is meant by a self has many meanings and many origins. It seems like they originate from the fear that the possibility exist that you live and you die.

smilelaughenjoy
18-10-2015, 06:13 PM
The self is Awareness and everyone has their own level of Awareness, some more Aware (and therefore more considerate and compassionate to how others feel) than others.

More Love = More Awareness

Less Love = Less Awareness (of The Bigger Picture/Others)

Rokon
18-10-2015, 06:29 PM
What exactly is a self anyway? I think the word implies separate-ness. I think it implies that there is something separate that goes on after the body dies. I can't see where it implies anything but separate-ness.

Somewhere a distinction has to be made methinks. Who is writing these words? Rokon is, not you. I am separate from you all. Recognizing this then why is "separate-ness" stigmatized negatively by seekers?

I like the word "differentiation". Could it be used any where separate-ness is used?

BurningBush
18-10-2015, 06:42 PM
The feeling of self would not exist without other. To view through the lens of ultimate divinity, we are one with the universe. We are able to have the experience of the self because "other" automatically implies self. For example, "What is it that is seeing this other person?". If the universe was only you, could you even be aware that you exist? (Just a side thought)

Any idea that you should defend a certain image in your mind (of who you perceive yourself to be), is neurotic. Find the comforting sense of self in other. Other can be anything. Seeing other means that you exist. I don't even know quite how to explain myself. I'll just leave this here and maybe somebody else can elaborate.
Other and self are two inextricably joined ideas just like light and dark, hot and cold, etc., but stepping back, while differentiation is inherent in perception, other/self is not, yet it is there anyway. When I say that differentiation is inherent, I mean that all one has to do is open his eyes to see that some things are different than other things. While seeing self and other requires the capacity for differentiation, we could imagine a model of perception without it (i.e., if no hierarchy of preference or rank existed among the contents of perception). However, if differentiation is removed, perception becomes impossible altogether.

The idea of self likely results purely out of desires of the body, primarily the desire for self-preservation, acting on the mind. If you overcame the body's fears, you might experience no-self, but even that implies a will that is separate from the body.

Even if our current idea of self is merely the result of signals transmitted by the body and interpreted by the mind, if a self is perceived, it is real, is it not?

BlueSky
18-10-2015, 06:44 PM
Somewhere a distinction has to be made methinks. Who is writing these words? Rokon is, not you. I am separate from you all. Recognizing this then why is "separate-ness" stigmatized negatively by seekers?

I like the word "differentiation". Could it be used any where separate-ness is used?
I like inter-dependent.

Gem
18-10-2015, 11:43 PM
For me the canceling out of self, or "other" to for the benefit of a concept of ultimate divinity is a denial.

Self is good. :)

I don't agree. Isn't this 'ultimate divinity' an image? I claim it is, and there's a self image cowering to an equally imaginary God.

Gem
18-10-2015, 11:48 PM
So happens that last night I came across this unreal discussion on the image. Worth a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDxzB_oDPnw

naturesflow
19-10-2015, 12:23 AM
So happens that last night I came across this unreal discussion on the image. Worth a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDxzB_oDPnw

I am saving this, as I really enjoy J's discussions. I haven't got time to watch right now..

Mr Interesting
19-10-2015, 12:56 AM
Should I go back and see if I've already written in here? Maybe I have... I have a vague feeling I have but today is another day and I maybe have other ideas.

I think sometimes that we do it wrong by always trying to nails things down in the sense of defining the 'I', it is this it is that, but wonder why we can't just allow it to be un-nailed, pick it up and have another use for it.

To me the 'I' keeps expanding, I don't mind the sense of self and have some freedom from identity but still as the 'I' expands and joins the needs of others to exist that in turn becomes an identifiable thing, it exists even as measurable in some way... but at the same time, outside that instance where some reassurance of a place understood, a stance taken and considered, it doesn't mean it isn't changing into something else yet to be identified... if indeed the need arises to put a peg in the ground.

Actually I think I have written here and it's a vid about Neil Young stating his absence from having to be Neil Young.

Mr Interesting
19-10-2015, 01:03 AM
I think the feeling of self is existent and there's a distinction between being yourself and projecting self imagery. Self imagery exists in presence of an Other. I could elaborate no-end on self imagery and the Other, but it's not like a dissertation subject. It has to be talked through in real terms, which is not what people are doing, actually. The medium of this forum is already fraught with imagery. It's a forum for spiritual self images, and the hierarchy of enlightenment, progress, evolution, development etc already pegs these images in positions relative to others. These images pre-exist our arrival and we just come along an fill them. The community itself is already constructed with images of twin flames indigos christians and so on, and individuals fill those places. If I speak to my image of you, I am no longer talking to you. I am then talking to an imaginary character whom I conjured, and only conjured with respect to my own self imagery in a perverse exercise of validating myself. I.e. I paint you as portrait, not of my reflection, but as all that I am not, and you represent me by becoming all that is not me. You become a position that defines me - as the guru image I am not I can become the disciple - or vice versa. These images of self and the Other exist concurrently in my own head. In life, people are continually conjuring each other in terms of their own image. It's so common and so habitual and so normal that it occurs unconsciously, which means, it's actually pretty obvious but largely ignored due it being 'just acting normally'.
I did go back and I didn't do the Neil Thing here at all but found this by Gem who isn't Gem but is, of course, Gem,,, and indeed Gem, there is self, as the 'I' whether realised or not, and as such, the reciprocal of imagery. I like the idea of reciprocals because anything divided into one defines the answer as the reciprocal... anyways I do like, Gem, that you are so literate, your grasp of the ideas that you understand is 'reciprocated' in your choice of written words.

no1wakesup
19-10-2015, 02:09 AM
An "I", as in a separate moving body, harnessed by a conditioning long ago, and wich has only confirmed an identuty as such, no...that interpretation of "I" is only conceptual. That's the sleep portion in this whole expression.

What's left behind that perpetual interpretation of experience is a foundation which primarily serves to allow "me" and "other" to be. However, this foundation is really more like a relationship, itself formed the moment awareness unfolded in each of us as infants.This awareneness has an inceptive, containment, precipice and collapse. Once this awareness collapses, there is no "I" anywhere, since there are no longer any relationships of any kind. As if noticing all the space available, realized solely by a necessary degree of this same awareness expanding, we can now see the great devide between all the content which has coveted us and the authentic back drop of that which is noticing.

Classic
19-10-2015, 02:15 AM
I think the "I" is something more in depth and probably will never be found nor figured out.

Gem
19-10-2015, 02:29 AM
I did go back and I didn't do the Neil Thing here at all but found this by Gem who isn't Gem but is, of course, Gem,,, and indeed Gem, there is self, as the 'I' whether realised or not, and as such, the reciprocal of imagery. I like the idea of reciprocals because anything divided into one defines the answer as the reciprocal... anyways I do like, Gem, that you are so literate, your grasp of the ideas that you understand is 'reciprocated' in your choice of written words.
Yep, reciprocation is a thing, and it isn't a give and take were I first give and then you reciprocate. Reciprocation itself is mutuality and mutuality is the dissolution of the Other.

What I produce in a post, essay or speech is an articulation of thought, but my question is, do such thoughts imply anything about me, or is it merely that people construct an image of me based on what I think? To myself such thoughts don't reflect me or I'm not reflected in these thoughts. There is particular kind of thought that constructs imagery; the self referential thoughts - the stories that tell of this belief in myself and the imaginary figure which these thoughts describe. It's clear to see this imaginary figure is not myself in fact; it's entirely separate from the feeling of my conscious presence, or in other words, this existential intelligence that acknowledges thoughts.

This problem I experience with imagery is precisely that there isn't reciprocation between self images. There is necessarily division that defines one against the Other. In fact there is no such division. It's within the same distinction. I am only reflected in those thoughts when they belong to me, and as my thoughts they imply something about me. I question seriously if my thoughts are mine at all, or whether I produce them, or if in fact thoughts only occur to me and then they're gone into the past. Are these really my intellectual property? When I say they actually are, they reflect me or I am reflected in them, so I just pretend they are in this social game of commodities, and others see a reflection of me as the discursively constructed author and render themselves in relation to it so as to orient relative self imagery.

These positions in relation hold a tension, because if I act in a way contrary to your image you see your image of me isn't accurate and through relation your own self image is disrupted - that's very distressing because distress is wound withing the tensions that hold relations in position. It's actually very apparent that this is occuring generally throughout the social world. entire nations and religions are built of the relationship with the Other. Wars are instigated to force that Other to act in a way that props up the religious/national self image. They say war is waged to destroy the enemy, but it isn't; war is waged to subdue the Other and force it behave in a way that validates the nationalistic self image. Big countries are nothing more that an idea acceded by populace to construct their mutual self definition and move the Other beyond the borders - but the self and its Other still exist concurrently within ones own mind, and as the same overall image.

naturesflow
19-10-2015, 02:40 AM
Should I go back and see if I've already written in here? Maybe I have... I have a vague feeling I have but today is another day and I maybe have other ideas.

I think sometimes that we do it wrong by always trying to nails things down in the sense of defining the 'I', it is this it is that, but wonder why we can't just allow it to be un-nailed, pick it up and have another use for it.

To me the 'I' keeps expanding, I don't mind the sense of self and have some freedom from identity but still as the 'I' expands and joins the needs of others to exist that in turn becomes an identifiable thing, it exists even as measurable in some way... but at the same time, outside that instance where some reassurance of a place understood, a stance taken and considered, it doesn't mean it isn't changing into something else yet to be identified... if indeed the need arises to put a peg in the ground.

Actually I think I have written here and it's a vid about Neil Young stating his absence from having to be Neil Young.

I think the I makes things more clear. Less confusion, less ideas that, one size fits all, less conflict and confusion all around. Plus I suppose I bring people back to being responsible for their own actions and life unfolding.

In saying that I slip up sometimes and I don't hold it against myself, because underneath my intention their is always me present in my realization more often than not...SO the you is me as is I as is we.

But certainly interpretation will often create its own ideas out of something I know to be in me and present in the way I do.

Lorelyen
19-10-2015, 04:37 PM
I have two eyes.

Maybe we have two eyes for the purpose of other and self? See me, see you. I see you clearly, I see me clearly.

Eye-eye...I wondered if that would be said - and it's you!

(serious comment) I don't know if you're acquainted with Voodoo at all
but people whose "master of the head" (sort of "guiding spirit/spiritual principle) is a Ghedé (they're the family of Spirits who look after the dead, their knowledge, life experiences), are often seen wearing a spectacle frame with one dark lens, the other clear or just empty. This is so that they can attend to the astral or spiritual plane while also seeing in the material, always connecting the two. (Loosely speaking because it's difficult to put into English.)
An interpretation of what you've just postulated.

:smile:

Oh, and by the way, I didn't get a response to my question from the Timeless One. I fed the post through my bullometer and it registered 10 out of 10 as I suspected it would.
:wink:

Lucyan28
19-10-2015, 04:47 PM
Not an "I"
it is a "WE" :D
:love2:
:love2:

Miss Hepburn
19-10-2015, 05:29 PM
Oh, I just posted something about what a couple of 'gurus' said
about the "I"...
in 'Hinduism', topic about 'Ramakrishna and sugar'...if you want to take a peek. :smile:

Nettles
19-10-2015, 06:04 PM
One word: Flux