The vocable "I" becomes attached to each impulse that arises in a psychic 
complex, no matter how mutually contradictory such impulses may appear to 
be. From this process springs the idea of a multitude of "me"'s. 
The impulses in question are affective, so that the inferential "I" is 
affective rather than intellectual. 
What is the origin of the vocable "I"? Every "living" phenomenon, every 
sentient complex must necessarily have a centre, call it "heart" or "head". 
Such centre in itself is as phenomenal as the appearance of which it forms 
the "heart" or "centre", but its necessary function is the organization and 
care of the phenomenon which it controls. Emotions such as fear, greed, 
love-hate arise on behalf of the phenomenon for which they constitute 
protection and stimulate survival and perpetuation in the space-time 
context of manifestation. Consequently the vocable "I", representing this 
"centre", represents the physical body, and this representation is 
responsible for the identification which constitutes bondage. 
This "centre", then, is the phenomenal basis of an I-concept or ego or 
self, which is inferential and has no existence in the sense of being 
capable of independent action as a thing-in-itself. On account of the 
emotions of physical origin for which this I-concept assumes 
responsibility, the whole complex has the appearance of an independent 
entity which it is not-- since it is totally "lived" or "dreamed" by the 
noumenality which is all that it is.
It is this "centre", and every impulse that arises in a psyche, to which is 
attached the vocable "I", and this it is to which is attributed 
responsibility for each thought that arises in consciousness and every 
action of the apparent "individual". It is this, of course, to which the 
term "ego" is applied, whose functioning is known as "volition". In fact, 
however, it merely performs its own function in perfect ignorance of what 
is assigned to its agency.
It was never I and never could it be I, for never could any "thing", any 
object of consciousness, be I. There cannot be an objective "I" for, 
so-being, it would have to become an object to itself and could no longer 
be I. That is why "Is-ness" must be the absence of both object and subject, 
whose integration in mutual absence is devoid of objective existence.
I could never be anything, I CANNOT EVEN BE I, for all being is determined. 
Nor could I ever be identified with anything objective, and "an I" is a 
contradiction in terms. I am no "thing" whatever, not even "is-ness." 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to