The elusive "I"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How can an experience “just happen” without a subject to do the experiencing?
Just think that matter has the capacity to reach a conscious state. There is no subject because matter cannot create the subject but there is the awareness.

Actually it was first Georg Christoph Lichtenberg who coined the idea. He said that we can say that thunder is going on instead it thunders. You can think in the same way and say experience happens instead saying that I experience. What is the truth? We cannot know because we don’t have access to “I”.

I know that it is hard to grasp the idea, but you can if you try. I did it without knowing Georg Christoph Lichtenberg.
 
You misunderstood me. I meant there could be many realms in the spiritual world. Why choose these two?
Have you heard of the phrase cognitive dissonance? If one holds to two different views, eventually one must give way to the other. Personal integrity is paramount. People don’t like having to deal with contradictions in their lives, when it comes to ethical and moral issues.

Evil and good are contradictory. Plain and simple.

If one is evil, they’ll continue to choose evil until they meet their personal integrity in evil. Holding on to any good, is just contradictory to their personal integrity.
If one is good, they’ll continue to choose good until they meet their personal integrity in good.
Holding on to any evil , is just contradictory to their personal integrity.

There is no other choice. Either we choose good or evil, and then move on from there along either path.

The “gray area” where people have both good and evil - that’s cognitive dissonance and a lack of integrity. This is where we are here on life, we must choose one side, and we can’t play on both teams. We must choose.

If we can “choose” to be on both teams, then we have no choice. There is no choice. There is no integrity.

Imagine you’re working for a company doing evil (let’s say the Umbrella corporation of “Resident Evil”), but you must feed your family and look the other way to keep your job.
The company is making a virus that is capable of wiping out the entire human race (in the movie series “Resident Evil”, it does wipe out humanity). In the high paying position you’re in, you have access to all the company’s records and could easily leak them to the authorities (and Wikileaks as well) to warn the public.

How long would you work there before you blow the whistle and risk unemployment and possibly being blacklisted in your profession and never being able to work again? How would you feel during the time you didn’t make a choice to do good or stay evil? You’d feel conflicted, you’d feel like you can’t keep this up. This is not right, I must do something. Either I must accept the evil the company does, or I must fight back against this evil and expose the truth to the public and warn them. There is no middle ground here.

We will always have the choice between good and evil in life.

If not, we will have the choice between a greater good and a lesser good. But if we choose the lesser good, then the next choice will be lesser good versus even lesser good. Then even lesser good and a small evil. Then a small evil and a larger evil. And so on and so on, until we become very evil.

Or we go in the other way. We choose a greater good and an even greater good. Or a greater, greater good and a greater good. And so on until we become very good.

Choose your team wisely.
 
Just think that matter has the capacity to reach a conscious state. There is no subject because matter cannot create the subject but there is the awareness.

Actually it was first Georg Christoph Lichtenberg who coined the idea. He said that we can say that thunder is going on instead it thunders. You can think in the same way and say experience happens instead saying that I experience. What is the truth? We cannot know because we don’t have access to “I”.

I know that it is hard to grasp the idea, but you can if you try. I did it without knowing Georg Christoph Lichtenberg.
Something certainly happens but it is not “experienced” without a conscious subject.
 
Not if something is experience.
Think of it this way: An agent can experience something meaning that it is aware. Experience can happen to an agent meaning that the agent is aware. We are only 100% sure that we are aware but not more. So two scenarios are completely open.
 
Think of it this way: An agent can experience something meaning that it is aware. Experience can happen to an agent meaning that the agent is aware. We are only 100% sure that we are aware but not more. So two scenarios are completely open.
I sounds to me like you are confusing yourself.
 
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.
Well, at least this is true: You just say things. You don’t show, nor argue, nor prove anything; you just say. Of course, you dare to say afterwards that you have argued, or that you have shown something; but that is not true. 🤷
 
It sounds to me like you are confusing yourself.
Not really. Let me ask you this question: Is the awareness the sole thing that we depend on? Of course, yes. Is there anything more than that that we are 100% sure about? Of course, no. How we could have awareness: (1) By an experiencer who experience its surrounding and (2) By experience happens to an agent.
 
Well, at least this is true: You just say things. You don’t show, nor argue, nor prove anything; you just say. Of course, you dare to say afterwards that you have argued, or that you have shown something; but that is not true. 🤷
That is the whole point of this thread: We cannot be sure that there is an experiencer or not. There are people who have problem with this so it would be nice to explain the problem to them.
 
That is the whole point of this thread: We cannot be sure that there is an experiencer or not. There are people who have problem with this so it would be nice to explain the problem to them.
But, do you say this based on your experience?
 
But, do you say this based on your experience?
No, it is not based on my experience only. We know that we don’t have any evidence for experiencer otherwise people believe that soul exists. We also provide argument that shows that it is possible that an agent be aware without having an “I”. We also provide argument to show that it is impossible to experience “I”. I think these are important.
 
No, it is not based on my experience only. We know that we don’t have any evidence for experiencer otherwise people believe that soul exists. We also provide argument that shows that it is possible that an agent be aware without having an “I”. We also provide argument to show that it is impossible to experience “I”. I think these are important.
Ok, it is not based on your experience only, but does it have support in your experience as well? I am understanding that it finds support on the experience of other individuals. Is that correct?
 
To be means to be an experiencer. To experience means to be an agent which experience happens to him.
Using your definitions, would you say that those individuals whose experience support your belief that “we cannot be sure that a experiencer exists”, do exist?
 
Not really. Let me ask you this question: Is the awareness the sole thing that we depend on? Of course, yes. Is there anything more than that that we are 100% sure about? Of course, no. How we could have awareness: (1) By an experiencer who experience its surrounding and (2) By experience happens to an agent.
Ow do the two differ in reality?

1 by an expereince (agent) who experiences the surroundings.
2 by the expereince happens to the agent.

Same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top