Comments in between
--- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thank you Irmeli for your thoughtful post. In reading your response, I
think semantics, treating words with somewhat different meanings and
flavors, is the primary difference between our experiences. Perhaps
there is one point of substance that we experience differently, as
discussed below.
> > > 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:
Sorry this was a typo. I mean't to say: "Yes, individuality CAN be
seen as different things (or non things).
The point being that people view and experince individuality
differently. And for some, though they aresocially projected personas,
a subjective sense of individuality, or defined, discrete, bounded,
self-image is not there. So semantically miscommunication can arise
when the same word is used to describe different experiences 9or
absence of such).
>
> 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:
Yes, perhaps we are experincing things in similar way. There is a
localized entity, consisting of various components, which projects a
social persona, that could be viewed (mentally organized, or labeled)
as "I". A part of the linguistic structure of "I" is "me" and "mine",
thus possessiveness/ownership appear to be inherent in the term "I".
Thats the connotation that comes to "my" mind, but a different
connotation, it appears, arises in your mind.
�
� Irmeli:
� Yes this organizing " I" can project a social persona in the
everyday interactions. When this happen I feel it as a tension in my
body. The organizing principle of the mind, that I call "I" in inner
and outer dialogues don't get any possessive/ownership function in my
experience. At least I don't have any conscious observation of such.
> Akasha:
> Do you create the
> thoughts that come to you? >
> Irmeli:
> This I doesn't create the thoughts.
Akasha:
Similar experience on this.
Irmeli:
>But it observes them, evaluates and integrates them to a larger context.
Akasha:
This is where the experiences, or interpretation may differ, between
us. There is something, a component, that has the function to observe,
evaluate and integrate. However, that, which I will term intellect or
buddhi, appears to work quite well by itself. There used to be an "I"
who thought/felt/experienced controlling and directing that intellect.
And the intellect bought into that myth. That intellect has now seen
that to be a fiction.
In a sense, that intellect has grown up and simply acts
self-suffiently, without a director, without a driver, without a
contoller. It always did, but got into a sembiotic dyfunctional
relationship with a "poser" / imposter, ghost, posing as its driver,
parent, contoller and/or owner. That intellect came to realize there
was no one behind the curtain, that it was not a slave. This was a
transformation of buddhi to Buddhi. It acts, and interacts with other
local components in a self-sufficient, grown-up manner.
�
� Irmeli:
� I have no memory of having an "I", who tried to control or direct
the intellect.
� It is a self-sufficient, freely associating intellect inside the
organizing I. I have never had a conscious controller or director for
the emotions either. Which doesn't mean that I don't have suppressed
emotions. The organizing "I" understands the importance of uncovering
them and allows and encourages the intellect on its own gradually to
expose them.
� My intellect is focused on observing. It doesn't make theories,
which it then tries to get this system to follow. These observations,
also apparently sometimes on a subconscious level lead to spontaneous
changes in functioning. Theoretical, conceptual understanding how this
organizing "I" functions comes regularly much later, when the new
functioning is already established. This understanding comes through
internal observation. Generally the intellect intervenes very little
as a controller or driver in my behaviour. It is focused on
understanding why things work as they do. And it feels very happy with
that work. I t doesn't need other functions.
�
>
> 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:
Sorry for the twisted language. I was simply trying to get to the
point in the above paragragh. However, I asked it in a question, which
i will try to reformulate: On your side of things, is there an
experience of a "you" controlling and directing the intellect, or the
intellect, in-and-of-itself deciding, evaluating and integrating things?
�
� Irmeli:
� The function of the observing intellect I described above. The
deciding, evaluating and integrating is a complicated process, that my
intellect hasn't fully understood yet how it works. Generally it
happens through allowing the intellect to take many different
positions or angles from which to look. If there are emotions also
present the organizing I usually spontaneously focuses on transforming
them instead of intellectually figuring out things. On the other hand
this focusing is a result of an improved understanding of the role of
emotions. When the involved emotions are worked through things usually
spontaneously start to gravitate to a certain direction. And the
intellectual understanding is usually is in harmony with this direction.
� This is quite simple actually, and works spontaneously quite well.
And this kind of functioning has not been consciously designed by my
intellect at least not in this life time. Maybe improvements to this
functioning has happened through better understanding the meaning and
function of emotions and in learning better to do transformative work
with them. What you put your focus on gets stronger.
> 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.
Akasha:
The intellect, interacting with mind a bit, can do this by itself,
without a supervisor.
Irmeli:
> 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.
Akasha:
Agreement of skills acquire through learning. Which the intellect and
mind can do on their own.
> 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:
Similar experience between us, it seems. The only difference is your
interpretation of the organizing principle as "you" / "I". From here,
it is like the operating system -- it coordinates flows between
intellect, memory and senses, and upgrades itself when new
capabilities are needed. Its as "personal" or "mine" as the PC on the
desk doing the same.
> 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.
Yes.
> 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: So the difference in experience or its interpretations seems
to be again centered on identity with the organizing principle.
�
� Irmeli:
� My intellect starts to get tired and dull and I don't quite get the
meaning here.
�
> 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:
Yes. And the person collapses if the heart is malfunctioning, the
lungs, the liver. Yet, I don't seek identity from my liver.
�
� Irmeli:
� That is good. Many people identify identify their self with the
organizing "I". It takes a lot of evolution for a human being to stop
identifying the self with the organizing "I" , that is movable, the
movement, the doing.
> 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.
Akasha: So the difference in experience or its interpretations seems
to be centered on whether there is identity with the organizing principle.
�
� Irmeli:
� Yes
> 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.
We seem to end of in the same place. A useful distinction may be that
the operating system simply organizes the components and faciltates
interaction between them. You see the same thing but add a layer of
identity to it. Thats seems to be the main difference between us.
�
� Irmeli:
� I don't perceive this organizing "I" as an identity. It is not a
doer that is craving credit for the doing, it is the doing.
� The problem here is also the ambiguous meanings we have for these
concepts. And in my case also the system seems to be functioning
fine, but my conscious intellect don't understand how it all happens
in detail. I know for sure only that I have internally no image of
myself. And I feel very stable and happy, have been like that since
the trying to adapt to an image of myself or trying to be somebody,
ceased. I feel also I'm evolving and progressing. And I feel
completely comfortable using the term I here.
> *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."
Yes, my terms may be "off". The key is finding words that mean the
same, experientially to each.
.
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/
