Thank you very much to both of you! This greatly clears up or clarifies the distinction between a free Self and the doer illusion for me.
All the Best, Jim --- In [email protected], "Irmeli Mattsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- 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/
