On Friday, October 11, 2013 2:58:13 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Nice post. Why can't is-ness be the reconciliation of both object and 
subject instead though? Not an absence, but the presence of the sense of 
absence from which all implicit and explicit experience is appreciated in 
solitude/solace/peace. The vocable "I" may be ignorant of its agency, but 
the noumenal privacy which dreams the I may not be ignorant, and it may not 
be fundamentally different from the representations of itself that it does 
experience. Greater, certainly, but not alienated from it absolutely. We 
need not doubt our own agency, even if the doubter is not identical in 
every way to the agency that it doubts. Human consciousness is multivalent 
and only semi-unanamous, but that doesn't mean that awareness itself is 
similarly fragmented split off from itself. Volition is not an illusion, it 
just has incomplete access to knowledge of itself. The is-ness of the 
objective world would not be very convincing if everyone walked around as 
omniscient immortals.
 

>  
> I could never be anything, I CANNOT EVEN BE I, for all being is 
> determined. 
>

Who could determine anything other than you/us/awareness?
 

> 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." 
>

I don't know about that. I am speaking to you know through these objective 
characters on your objective screen. Why make yourself a nothing? Nothing 
is what is not even "is-ness". Nothing is an idea that something has about 
the absence of everything. But there is no such thing as the absence of 
everything. There can be no "is-not-ness". In my estimation, you are the 
experience of every Homo sapien that has ever lived, every cell and 
molecule that has ever been, every mind who has every contributed to 
civilization, etc., plus you are an unrepeatable instantiation of pure 
uniqueness - a tendril extending from the Absolute improbability of 
awareness itself (primordial pansensitivity).

Thanks,
Craig

 
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to