The true nature of 'I': Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The true nature of 'I' » The true nature of 'I'

The true nature of 'I'

Lifegazer
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2002
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 429

Posted 05/18/03 - 03:05 AM:	#1
As I see it, 'thinking' is how existence is assertained - along with 'sensation-of-awareness'. Thus thinking is the source of knowing that 'existence is'. Therefore, it can definitely be claimed that 'thought' is evidence of existence. Since it is. Therefore, since am-ness equates to existence, we can definitely say that "I think, therefore I am.". Descartes was correct I think, about this. The only talking-point is the meaning of 'I'. "Who exactly am I?", is the only thing left to ponder. My last sentence is the reason for this thread. Can we identify 'I' in relation to its sensations and its ability to think & feel & will? Actually, this is exactly how we define ourselves - relatively to the things which we sense. But if we accept that existence can only be ascertained through ones own self (ones sensations; ones ability to think/reason; and ones emotions), we observe that things are identified within our own sensations - within ourselves. I.e., we see things within 'I'. This is significant. From the whole of I's sensations, the identity of the self is ascertained by regarding some parts of those sensations in relation to others. For example, your sensation of sight, which clearly exists within 'you', tells you that 'you' are separate from all other things within that sensation. But such knowledge is clearly nonsense; for how can 'you' be separate from something-else which resides within your own sensation? Awareness is not separate from itself. It is singular. And any thing which is seen within that awareness is clearly existing as a part of that awareness. Not separate to it. So; if 'I' is to make a true judgement of the self, then it clearly needs to encompass the wholeness of its sensations. The wholeness (fullness; truth; absoluteness; richness; whatever... ) of I resides within the wholeness of its sensations. I contend that if the mind can see a universe within itself, then that mind is the wholeness of that universe. Not a finite part of it. Hence, 'I' is the absoluteness of existence

Spaces
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 01, 2002
Total Topics: 62
Total Posts: 646

Posted 05/18/03 - 09:26 PM:	#2
Personally, I would go easy with the "definitely". Ascertainment in and of itself is not a problem since it is the standard currency of evaluating many an element but the difficulties are apparent when the value arrived at is proposed as a universal measure. Those that are prone to simple arithmetic won't be too much of a problem but with the afficionados of complex equations you're going to have a heck of a time. They'll say that the talking point of the meaning of I is in fact the initial consideration and not thought's equitability with existence. I'm sure you've seen this before, promotion of the self-construct before the impersonal construct; not an altogether unnatural approach but problematic when broaching universal accords. Relativity to those things that we sense invariably leads many to a circuitous route ending where we started, with ourselves. But that's only going to work a few times in any given situation because just as inevitably someone is going to make a case for breaking that stalemate and establishing something. Most of what we consider today as "essential" got its start this way and you'll find examples of it even in items like religion and science. Yes, science is not likely to just give up on a solution and accept any ol' thing just because of the tediousness and repetitiveness of a given project but there will always be a peripheral which can be established while the core may be pending. It's a psychological thing and makes for easier going in the one step forward, two steps back progression. You can see evidence of this in our very civilization and its social behaviors. Relations are difficult enough when it's just the perceiver and the object so it's not difficult to imagine the problems of gauging the relations between objects. It takes a type of establishment to be in operation for that positioning. Within one's own sensation is saying a lot provided I find correspondences with the particular sensation of whomever is expressing it. There are "givens" largely of a bio-psychological nature but they are rudimentary, cause and effect issues which make for the daily exchange we involve ourselves in. Separation already exists from one to the other and from the perceiver to the object, so when the issue of "residency" is mentioned neither party is going to have a clear idea as to where the "withins" and "withouts" are. Besides, when a really critical issue appears that has bearing on the group bio-psychology there's not going to be much time spent on the residential issues of individual sensation; the going term for that is subjectivity. Coherence is a wonderful thing but it's subject to the same ravages that other qualities are vulnerable to; with this in mind, "encompassing" is a tall order and wholeness more a desire than an encounter. I, is a particular of existence, existence on a larger scale than we can even imagine. There is a difference between the I of identity and the I of assertion. The first one is easy and let's others know who you are and where your standing. The other one let's others know whether you're attentive or living in a trance of your making. Mind you, the trance can sometimes be painfully real with consequences which are nearly indistiguishable from wide-awake situations. At that point, separation, sensations or otherwise, is the least of their concerns. If the I was the absoluteness of existence then we should most assuredly be conducting our affairs in a radically different manner than we are at the present. Now, in private, the I could even be superior to any term which attempts to define absoluteness. The question arises as to what kind of I would it be once the I-considering organism is no longer in operation? Yes, I know, that's another subject. Spaces

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Sacramentoish
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11832

Posted 05/18/03 - 11:12 PM:	#3
Therefore, it can definitely be claimed that 'thought' is evidence of existence. Since it is. "Evidence" and "definition" have different implications. The latter would apply here, but the former does not in any way imply. 'I' is neccesarily a subject involved in an observation, so I don't think 'I' is of much interest compared to the metaphysical self, which is not a subject. 'I' is a creation of the subject-object distinction. 'I' is whatever is in a relation to an object. 'I' is the observer standpoint of a relation which exists in some context which is unnoticed. To say "I am aware of thought x" is to say that thought y which my consciousness is dominated by at the moment is aware of thought x. There can be no objective 'I' since 'I' is by its definition a subject, and so trapped in the subject-object dualism. The metaphysical self is the totality of all experience, but this is not the same as 'I' since it is not in relation to an object. The metaphysical self is the objective nature of existence, but it involves no kind of inspection -- it's the context of the inspections. It is the appreciation of the subjects and objects as nothing beyond the relations which they consist of. The metaphysical self is the empirical perspective taken as is, whereas the use of 'I' always requires stepping inside of that empirical perspective and subscribing to rules of play within the system. The self is the category of all things in it, and is objective... 'I' is always a particular perspective, and so is empirical (non-objective). 'I' can be described, if with nothing else then at least with the notation that it is aware of the object, while the metaphysical self can only be indicated.
"We used to think that if we knew one, we knew two, because one and one are two. We are finding that we must learn a great deal more about 'and'." - Arthur Eddington

steveb
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 24, 2003
Location: vancouver bc canada
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 330

Posted 05/24/03 - 05:52 PM:	#4
You could say that you are the embodyment of "is". The only thing that can claim the title of "am" would be the thing that created "is".

hashpuppet
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 30, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/30/03 - 10:06 PM:	#5
Meat popsicles do not think yet they exist...

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.