The elusive "I"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The “I” and “me” are the same, if you know one, you know the other.

The difference is that “I” is the active being, “me” is passive.

I do stuff, stuff happens to me.

ICXC NIKA
 
No, I have never meditated. How it is? Can you explain it to us? Is it consistent with what I augured?
Well I liked your last statement, "Just Close your eyes and dont let anything scatter your mind. What you experience in the background is “me”’. But the distinction between “I” and “me” is only grammatical, subject and object of the same reality. What is that reality? Consciousness. Can consciousness be conscious of itself? Yes.
 
Well I liked your last statement, "Just Close your eyes and dont let anything scatter your mind. What you experience in the background is “me”’.
Good. So my understanding was correct.
But the distinction between “I” and “me” is only grammatical, subject and object of the same reality. What is that reality? Consciousness. Can consciousness be conscious of itself? Yes.
I make distinction between “I” and “me”. “I” to me is the experiencer whereas “me” is the reference point created by brain which allows us to perform our activities. “me” is the person/identity and “I” is the soul/mind.

I don’t understand what do you mean with the bold part. Could you please elaborate? It is kind of strange to me that a Catholic believe in consciousness rather than soul.
 
Good. So my understanding was correct.

I make distinction between “I” and “me”. “I” to me is the experiencer whereas “me” is the reference point created by brain which allows us to perform our activities. “me” is the person/identity and “I” is the soul/mind.

I don’t understand what do you mean with the bold part. Could you please elaborate? It is kind of strange to me that a Catholic believe in consciousness rather than soul.
The soul is consciousness. I do not see why “me” is a difference reference point than 'I" especially if you are talking about performing activities requiring a subject (I).

Consciousness is what it is all about. God is consciousness and we are created in that image. Consciousness is light. We share in the light and consciousness of God like spinoffs or reflections.
 
The soul is consciousness.
Consciousness is defined as the state of being aware of one’s surroundings so to me it was strange at first place that you believe in consciousness rather than soul.
I do not see why “me” is a difference reference point than 'I" especially if you are talking about performing activities requiring a subject (I).
I already explain that. “I” is the experiencer where as “me” is the reference point generated by your brain which allows you to perform activities. Without me we could distinguish ourselves from environemt so we could not perform any activity. There is a nice talk about the importance of “me” in TED which you can find it here.
Consciousness is what it is all about. God is consciousness and we are created in that image. Consciousness is light. We share in the light and consciousness of God like spinoffs or reflections.
That is off topic so lets put it aside.
 
Consciousness is defined as the state of being aware of one’s surroundings so to me it was strange at first place that you believe in consciousness rather than soul.
Nor rather than. The soul is conscious. Consciousness is its nature.
 
“I” is the experiencer where as “me” is the reference point generated by your brain which allows you to perform activities. Without me we could distinguish ourselves from environemt so we could not perform any activity. There is a nice talk about the importance of “me” in TED which you can find it here.
So, the “I” is the experiencer which directly and with no doubt experiences the “me”. And the “me”, on its side, thinks -or “deduces”, according to you- that the “I” exists; but it could be wrong -always according to you.

So, let’s suppose that the “me” is wrong on its “deduction”, and then the “I” does not exist. Therefore, it does not experience the “me”. So, there is no experience of the “me”. However, it is indubitable -according to you- that the “me”, is experienced. Therefore, it is not true that it could be wrong on its “deduction” of the existence of the “I”. Therefore, there must be no doubt that the “I” exists.

Ah!, the elusive “I”…
 
Actually I watch the movie so I know what you are talking about.

The external world as you mentioned could be fake but the experience itself cannot be fake.
Well, the problem is that my experience contradicts what I’m told about God.

God apparently cares about me, but keeps passing me by, and not wanting to help me find a job, or heal my son (regardless of how many healing services I go to, where OTHER people are healed, but I get the bypass again).

God apparently loves me but my experience does not confirm this.

God apparently wants to be with me, but every attempt I made to get closer to him failed, so my experience does not confirm this.

Clearly my experience must be wrong. Or God really is not as good as people say he is. I can’t go in the latter’s direction, but I can’t discount my experience either, so I’m stuck.
 
:twocents:

I exist in the knowing and doing. The knowing as I would use the word here would include perception and feeling, in addition to thought.

There is no “I” that exists in isolation from what is “not-I”. Our being is self-other in nature.

The knowing, consciousness, awareness, perception, emotion and so forth are what give light to the known.

I terms of ourselves, we create an image of who we are from our connection with what we understand as other. Elements of consciousness are identified and related, forming a self-image in the context of the larger world in which we participate. Mom, dad, brother, sis, others and me. The sense of who I am, the me I know is formed from what is mirrored back to me, a hodgepodge of “good boy”, 'bad boy", “smart lad”, 'idiot", quite a long list of qualities reflecting relationships over many years. Another aspect of self-image has to do with identification. Philosophically, the person out there has a brain, so I must have one too that governs what I experience and do. In a different vein, someone may personify the qualities I admire, and I try to be like them. Conversely, seeing negative qualities in another, would likely lead me to behave differently. Last but definitely not least is that we construct understandings of who and what we are through our sharing of ideas, as we are doing here.

What we are is in the form of a triad, the mystery of self existing in relation to the mystery of what is other.

You and I know there is a self because I am not you. When I stub my toe, the cells that are banged up and release molecules, the cells in my leg and spinal cord and in my brain shape the experience of pain that only I can know and you can only imagine.

The I is not elusive, it is in fact more real than any thoughts about it. Some people believe that the unfathomable “I”, that which does and knows, is in fact one, at the core of each and every one of us. Brahman is Atman according to Hinduism. This is easy to buy if you simply meditate, each of us a manifestation of the one unknowable knower, the supreme identity. But, love teaches us something quite amazing. The beloved is unique, albeit an expression of one humanity. An individual soul existing in time and space as the unity of spirit-body, relating to what is other, is a fundamental reality of our nature.

The structure of the knowing is shaped in accordance to our physical and psychological nature. The totality of our being is held within a spiritual structure whose Ground is God Himself. If one pursues love, one realizes that we move in an ocean of compassion that gives us existence. As we give ourselves over to the Divine, we commune with the one Love from which this wonder comes into being.
 
So, the “I” is the experiencer which directly and with no doubt experiences the “me”. And the “me”, on its side, thinks -or “deduces”, according to you- that the “I” exists; but it could be wrong -always according to you.
Yes.
So, let’s suppose that the “me” is wrong on its “deduction”, and then the “I” does not exist. Therefore, it does not experience the “me”. So, there is no experience of the “me”.
It is possible to have experience of the “me” without the “I”, experience of “me” happens.
However, it is indubitable -according to you- that the “me”, is experienced. Therefore, it is not true that it could be wrong on its “deduction” of the existence of the “I”. Therefore, there must be no doubt that the “I” exists.
I cannot follow here.
 
Well, the problem is that my experience contradicts what I’m told about God.
Why you keep your faith if you think so?
God apparently cares about me, but keeps passing me by, and not wanting to help me find a job, or heal my son (regardless of how many healing services I go to, where OTHER people are healed, but I get the bypass again).
Suffering is a part of life that cannot be avoided completely. We are responsible to reduce each other suffering so that is our fault not God’s because we are intelligent and can take care of situation in many times.
God apparently loves me but my experience does not confirm this.
I can’t help you on this part because I cannot confirm that God exists.
God apparently wants to be with me, but every attempt I made to get closer to him failed, so my experience does not confirm this.
Your attempt of course fail if there is not God. So why don’t you set yourself free?
Clearly my experience must be wrong. Or God really is not as good as people say he is. I can’t go in the latter’s direction, but I can’t discount my experience either, so I’m stuck.
Hopefully the doors will open to you when it is your time.
 
Why you keep your faith if you think so?
Because I hate the other guy, with the red suit and pitchfork, and his minions. No, I’m not talking about Gru in a Santa suit. 🙂
Suffering is a part of life that cannot be avoided completely.
I understand that, that’s why I reject the “health and wealth gospel”
Your attempt of course fail if there is not God. So why don’t you set yourself free?
More than sufficient information has been provided to me through various means (natural and supernatural) which prove to me, that God exists, and it is the God that is of the Bible, with the Catholic Church as the body of Christ. I hope you will also find similar, if not better, proof for your journey.

I am set free, but I’m still here waiting on the dock of the bay, waiting for my ship to come take me home.
 
Because I hate the other guy, with the red suit and pitchfork, and his minions. No, I’m not talking about Gru in a Santa suit. 🙂
Why do you think that these two all your only options? Spiritual realm could be so vast.
More than sufficient information has been provided to me through various means (natural and supernatural) which prove to me, that God exists, and it is the God that is of the Bible, with the Catholic Church as the body of Christ. I hope you will also find similar, if not better, proof for your journey.
You should be very happy to have such a gift. You at least don’t have any doubt that God exist.
I am set free, but I’m still here waiting on the dock of the bay, waiting for my ship to come take me home.
Wherever you go it is your home. I don’t believe that the after life is essentially better than the life since otherwise God wouldn’t keep us here. I think that the after life is just different.
 
Why do you think that these two all your only options? Spiritual realm could be so vast.
Because both sides are mutually exclusive. Can’t be good and go to the evil side, can’t be evil and go to the good side.
You should be very happy to have such a gift. You at least don’t have any doubt that God exist.
For this, I am grateful.
Wherever you go it is your home. I don’t believe that the after life is essentially better than the life since otherwise God wouldn’t keep us here. I think that the after life is just different.
I like to see it as this.

You’re taking final exams at your school. They are grueling, difficult, challenging, and fifty other hard words to describe them. This is life on this planet.

Graduation, will be much better. You’ll have a decent job at your dad’s business. This is the afterlife.
 
Because both sides are mutually exclusive. Can’t be good and go to the evil side, can’t be evil and go to the good side.
You misunderstood me. I meant there could be many realms in the spiritual world. Why choose these two?
For this, I am grateful.
Cool.
I like to see it as this.

You’re taking final exams at your school. They are grueling, difficult, challenging, and fifty other hard words to describe them. This is life on this planet.

Graduation, will be much better. You’ll have a decent job at your dad’s business. This is the afterlife.
But life without challenge is boring. Perhaps you are just exhausted by your current life. You are gifted to have access to spiritual world and that could be because of your hardship on what you believe.
 
Yes.

It is possible to have experience of the “me” without the “I”, experience of “me” happens.

I cannot follow here.
The argument I just gave to you is a reductio ad absurdum. In combination with just some intellectual honesty on your side you have no exit.

You said before that the “I” is the experiencer, and now you prefer to say that the experience of “me” happens. That is another absurdity, unless you mean to say that the “me” experiences itself. But in that case you would fall into what you have denied: that the subject can be its object.

I am aware that the topic of the thread is not of your authorship. I would suggest that you read and assimilate carefully what you read (Wikipedia?) with a critical mind, before you try to engage into a controversy. Otherwise, it might be that you will need to go from one absurd answer to another when you feel in trouble, because in reality you have no position that you would like to defend.

Take care!
 
The argument I just gave to you is a reductio ad absurdum. In combination with just some intellectual honesty on your side you have no exit.
I see, but your argument unfortunately doesn’t follow.
You said before that the “I” is the experiencer, and now you prefer to say that the experience of “me” happens. That is another absurdity, unless you mean to say that the “me” experiences itself. But in that case you would fall into what you have denied: that the subject can be its object.
I said that “I” is the experiencer but I have never argued in favor or against it, or provide any evidence in favor or against it. All I am saying is that the experience can just happen so in principle there is no need for experiencer. What is the truth? I doubt we can ever know.
I am aware that the topic of the thread is not of your authorship. I would suggest that you read and assimilate carefully what you read (Wikipedia?) with a critical mind, before you try to engage into a controversy. Otherwise, it might be that you will need to go from one absurd answer to another when you feel in trouble, because in reality you have no position that you would like to defend.

Take care!
Thanks. But the idea just came to my mind first. It was latter that I realized that other people have already discuss the same issues. I think that my position was firm, perhaps some misunderstanding or problem with my English.
 
All I am saying is that the experience can just happen so in principle there is no need for experiencer.
How can an experience “just happen” without a subject to do the experiencing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top