--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Irmeli: > > An I, who observes, makes interpretations, creates plans, acts, and reacts, and often quite differently than the others. > > > > > > Akasha: > > Why do you necessarily subjectively equate that which observes, makes interpretations, creates plans, acts, and reacts, and is different than other entities with "you"? > > > > Irmeli: > I think here is a confusion with the concepts. I seem to mean a > different thing with the individual I than you. For me the I includes the other entities in me. Akasha: Yes, individuality and be seen as different things (or non things). Irmeli: I don't understand this sentence. Akasha: You seem to be aware of something that decides, creates plans, acts, and reacts. The question is: why does that intellect or any part claim ownership of those things. Did you create them? Do you know how they really work -- the physiology or it all? Irmeli: I don't claim ownership of these things. I mean by I here as organizing principle, that does integration of thoughts, observations,and sensations. That doesn't mean ownership of these things. The I in this sense doesn't mean owning, it is a function. This I doesn't claim owning something, it is a function. It is similar to the running of water, or the blowing of wind. Akasha: Do you create the thoughts that come to you? Irmeli: This I doesn't create the thoughts. But it observes them, evaluates and integrates them to a larger context. Akasha: Do you (something other than your intellect) direct your intellect on the methods and style that it will decide things? Irmeli: Again I don't get the meaning of this sentence. Akasha: If not, why do you claim ownership of such. Why do you claim to be running the show? Irmeli: I don't claim ownership or running the show. This I is just a function, an organizing and integrating principle. I use the term, when I speak of this principle. I don't know any other concise term for that function(*). And the term I is generally used for this function. With individuality I mean a quality inside this I, which makes possible for it to take a different course from others around you and be functioning independently of their expectations. The I has acquired this capacity through learning. Not all living beings get there, not even all human beings. Individuality requires rather complicated functioning in the organizing I. Irmeli: > I think the comparison with computers is a good one. With the I, who > observes, makes interpretations etc, I mean the operating system of > the computer. Computers can have many kinds of operating systems, > but it must have one to be capable of functioning. Akasha: Your operating system seems to be working fine in that things are getting done, aren't they? Did you create your operating system? Do you know how it works -- line by line of code? Irmeli: The organizing principle, is a learning entity. While learning, at some point it starts to perceive severe limitation in its functioning. Then a reorganization of it can appear and a more advanced operating system with wider integration and differentiation capabilities can appear. But the old I (organizing principle)don't create the new one, it just drops away some rigid structures and then aligning with one step more inclusive operating system becomes possible. These operating systems seem to be readily available in the server. It depends on the learning of the organizing I, and its truthfulness in functioning, to which of the server's operating systems it can align with. Akasha: If not, what does it have to do with who you are? Windows XP runs the PC here. But it would be silly to claim "I am Windows XP". Irmeli: As we in language use I, it has at least two different contexts or meanings(*). One is I as an organizing principle. Another is I as a self-image. This second type of I is partly dependent of the first, but still they are quite different things. The question who I am refers to the second type of I. And it has very little to do with the organizing principle. This I is often perceived as an image. In Self realization the image drops away, what is left is just infinity, or Self that is present everywhere. There the limited, individual I image (also a owner) has dropped away. When this limited I has dropped away, it is impossible to create an image of yourself internally. I have sometimes participated in guided meditations where I was asked to create internally a picture or a statue of myself. It is impossible. Once I managed to create one toe for a few seconds, and then even that was gone. Irmeli: > And it seems that at least we humans can consciously also partly share our operating systems. My operating system can be strongly influenced by yours. But it is still an operating system that uses this physical body as an instrument. Akasha: But did you create the body? If not, why do you claim ownership of it? Irmeli: I, as the organizing principle, have not claimed creating the body, at least not consciously. Even if the well-being and many qualities of the body are dependent of the functioning of this organizing principle. There is deep connectedness between the psyche and well- being and health of the soma or body. The psyche I would define to include the organizing principle and the imprinted conclusions it has made that have often become automatic functions. These conclusions are not always correct, not corresponding with reality, or too simplistic generalizations. Akasha: You are right, the operating systems can influence each other. They can and do provide feedback to each other. This is how they learn and adapt. That is its nature. Some fear that the operating system will shut down and the PC will stop if they don't claim ownership of either or both. Its kind of a silly concept when you think about it. Irmeli: Without properly functioning organizing I, a human being does actually collapse. It is clearly seen in mentally ill people and in their suffering. There the organizing I is functioning erroneously. Akasha: Some fear that if there is now owner, no driver, then total licentuousness will occur -- its an excuse to do anything. Can your body or mind do anything not inhernet in the operating system and software? The operating system has learned there are consequences for actions and seeks to navigate its mission efficiently. Most operating systems realize that doin any ol' crazy thing isn't a good strategy. Irmeli: Yes that is the proper function of I as an organizing principle. Irmeli: > And then there is apparently also a much bigger server to which these individual computers are connected to. Akasha: Perhaps that larger server is the owner. Why steal ownership from that? Irmeli: I have never claimed to be the owner. But the I who is writing this is the organizing principle not the Self. *A quotation from a psychoanalytic textbook: "For a reader, who is not familiar with psychoanalytic concepts, it can be difficult to discern from each other the I that is an image of oneself that gets integrated in the inner referent system and the I that functions as an organizing principle." To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
