Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Namelesss
Posts: 447
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Namelesss » December 10th, 2017, 6:57 pm

Tamminen wrote:
December 10th, 2017, 5:55 am
Namelesss wrote:
December 9th, 2017, 7:11 pm
Who is I?

~~~ 'I' is a soap bubble, reflecting the entire Universal Self!
Forever!
When you look at this soap bubble, you see the display on the surface and imagine 'stuff' (spirits, souls, minds...) 'within'.
That is 'me' (as distinct from 'you').

When the bubble of (ego) shifting images pops/dies, what happens to that which is within?
You are not me, so it seems. Your experiences are your own, I am not having them here and now, they are absent. So there seems to be a violation of symmetry here.
Your limitations, as you describe, are ephemeral, 'imaginary'.
Like the released prisoner who cannot take more than ten paces at a time in the open.
All Knowledge/experience is perceived by the same One Universal Consciousness!
All experience, any and everywhere and everywhen, is available to access Here! Now!
That apparent 'bubble' is no limitation unless one 'believes' that it is.

When the bubble that I am vanishes, what is left? Other bubbles. But what are those other bubbles? If there is symmetry between all bubbles, I must be another bubble after vanishing.
I understand and live, for the most part, like everyone else, in a 'linear' mind.
But Reality, although experienced linearly is actually Holistic; all moments of Universal existence exist Here! Now!
"Reality is a synchrony of moments!" - n
We Are all 'bubbles', have access to all as we have access to 'this' experience.
The entirety of the Universe, ever, exists no more than a single Planck moment.
Of insufficient 'duration' for 'motion' or 'time' other than as 'beliefs'.
A Planck moment is a single unit of 'perception', a 'percept'.
The 'life' of a Soul.
So, yes, we are all 'bubbles' united within the same One Consciousness, as water molecules in the ocean; from a certain Perspective, those molecules appear individual and independent from all else, but science/physics admits to not ever finding a definitive place where one 'thing' leaves off and another begins.
(We need a legal system to determine that, for pragmatic reasons.)

So, if there is something after my death, I cannot vanish.
It depends to whom you refer when you use words like "I" and "me".
Common notions of 'I' and 'me' refer to the bubble of thought/imagination/ego, and 'death' is the popping of that bubble.
What doesn't 'pop' is all that is 'within/without'.
We come into Being along with the Universe and extinguish at the same moment as the Universe.
There is no 'before', no 'after', just Here! Now!

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

Like matter and antimatter self-annihilating when they come into contact, so does the Universe when all opposite Perspectives arise to Consciousness!
Those old Eastern thinkers were not stupid.
We Are 'those Eastern thinkers'/Enlightened'! *__-

Namelesss
Posts: 447
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Namelesss » December 10th, 2017, 6:58 pm

Is there no way to edit a post once submitted?

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6459
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Greta » December 10th, 2017, 7:01 pm

Nameless, if you post a corrected version, I'll delete the prior post.

Tamminen
Posts: 392
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Tamminen » December 11th, 2017, 5:35 am

Greta wrote:
December 10th, 2017, 5:27 pm
In other words you are saying you are the universe. Re: #1, unless you are referring to yourself as the universe then, if you did not exist, there would still be everything and everyone else rather than nothing.
In fact the "syllogism" should go like this:

1. If I did not exist, there would be nothing.
2. There is something, also after my death.
3. Therefore my nonexistence is impossible, also after my death.

What you say is included in sentence 2, and I totally agree with you, as will everybody. But what I say in sentence 1 is something else: it is a statement that has nothing to do with the material universe. It is a phenomenological statement, expressing something immediately obvious, at least for me. And it must be noted that it says something about being in general, not only about my personal existence.

To better understand what I am trying to say, we should see the relation between being and time. Time is a basic property of being, as space-time in the material world, and as subjective time in our immediate reality. This means that being does not depend on time, so that now there is being and then there is not. On the contrary, time depends on being.

And you are right in a way: I am the universe in the sense that the subject-object relation is fundamental. Without the subject there can be no universe.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1532
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Wayne92587 » December 11th, 2017, 6:30 am

Who is I? I is me!

The real question should be, am I Spirit or am I Flesh, a Material Reality or a Spiritual, an Immaterial Reality, is I a priori Reality????

A priori Reality being that it can not be experienced is an Entity the has no Mass, that is immaterial, a Spiritual Reality.

Funny how many antheists will spend so much Time Talking about Conscious as though it exists outside of our Flesh Body
Consciousness is simply our Spiritual Being.

No wonder you people have not understanding of the ignorant Ancients with their religious myths and symbols.

If you have not heard about the battle between the Spirit and the Flesh, perhaps your have heared of the Mind Body Problem, which gives to the Question, Who Is I ??????.
What happens to me, I, when I Die ?????

Wayne92587
Posts: 1532
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Wayne92587 » December 11th, 2017, 7:04 am

What makes up ME, without the addition of mind, spirit and body?
That is my quest. To find that out.

As above so below, as below so above.

This gives definition to Mind and Body, Spirit an the Flesh, when the two act as the Whole of a Single Reality.

If that which is above becomes greater than that which is below, the Whole being a Singularity having a Dual quality, the Whole Singularity then become Irrational Number.

The Rule on Fractions is the Mathematical wisdom of the Ancients.

The Whole is greater than the sum-total of its two parts acting as individualizes, One acting independent of the other.

The mind and the Body should each stop saying that I am Independent.

Tamminen
Posts: 392
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Tamminen » December 11th, 2017, 8:35 am

Namelesss wrote:
December 10th, 2017, 6:57 pm
All Knowledge/experience is perceived by the same One Universal Consciousness!
Yes. But I see some lack of concreteness in your scenario. I share your idea of universal consciousness, but we cannot escape temporality. We can be conscious of the universe only through one bubble at a time, and when that bubble pops, there must be a transition to another bubble. The old Eastern thinkers called it transmigration.
It depends to whom you refer when you use words like "I" and "me".
'We' is a word we use in our everyday communication with each other, and it is necessary as such. But in deeper sight we are successive manifestations of one and the same 'I'. This is my hypothesis.

User avatar
RJG
Posts: 846
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by RJG » December 11th, 2017, 12:00 pm

Tamminen wrote:I would define language as a tool for communication. So we must have something to communicate: thoughts and other experiental phenomena. We express our thoughts with language. Even if our thoughts are made for communication in the first place, there must still be the sequence of thought and its expression. How this all happens is a scientific question, not philosophical. But all this depends, of course, on how we define language. There has been a need to separate the concepts of thought and language, though.

The structures of thought and the structures of language are similar, but this is just because language expresses our thoughts.

I can remember a thought structure without words. I would not say this is language.

Also I would say that thoughts have meaning and language expresses that meaning, if we define the concepts as I suggested.
Tamminem, okay, I can't really disagree with what you say, since the meaning of 'language' (or anything else) is ultimately dependent on it's understood definition.

But from my understanding, I see no difference between the formation of thoughts and the formation of words, as "words" and "thoughts" are really the same thing. The only difference is that one has a 'name' given to it, and the other has yet to be named. The 'meaning' of the word/thought is established through the association of sensory experiences. As a small child, when your mother said "c-aaa-t", and showed you a picture of a 'cat' (or put a furry creature in your lap), then the thought of 'cat' was born!, ...as was the word; the name-of-this-thought. The audio sensory experience associated with the visual (and/or tactile) sensory experience created the 'meaning' (i.e. the 'thought') of "cat".

Words are just thoughts with 'names'. Un-named thoughts are just called 'thoughts'. Thoughts are just 'meanings' created by sensory associations.

So my understanding of your understanding, is that language is the set of rules for 'naming' (or expressing?) these thoughts, and not necessarily the 'forming' of these thoughts. ...this, I can't disagree with.


******************

The important point that I wanted to make is that "thoughts" are not comprised of some pure and autonomous magical fairy dust, which then stands alone in a spiritual essence within a universe of existence.

Thoughts are a product of (physical) bodily experiences. They are comprised of bits of sensory experiences and associations. They are fabricated through physicalism. Contrary to wishful thinking, there is nothing 'magical', nor 'spiritual', when experiencing one's own thoughts.

There is no separate I/mind/spirit. There is only an experiential 'body' that experiences the thoughts and perceptions that are attributed to the make-believe spooky entities called I/mind/spirit. I/mind/spirit all hit the fast train out of town (they 'vanish') while the physical body 'remains' during a deep sleep, or under anesthesia, or when it ceases to be alive. The 'body' remains, while the notions of I/spirit/mind fizzle into nothingness.
Last edited by RJG on December 11th, 2017, 12:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1532
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Wayne92587 » December 11th, 2017, 12:50 pm

Language is based upon metaphors, symbols an innuenda, is Blasphemous, just so much Babble, hogwash, BS.

Tamminen
Posts: 392
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Tamminen » December 11th, 2017, 5:23 pm

RJG wrote:
December 11th, 2017, 12:00 pm
There is no separate I/mind/spirit. There is only an experiential 'body' that experiences the thoughts and perceptions that are attributed to the make-believe spooky entities called I/mind/spirit.
I see things differently. The I is the universal, non-substantial precondition of all being. It is not part of the world. It is like a reference point from which the world is seen and experienced. The mind is my mind, constituting my consciousness of the world. The body is my body. My body cannot experience anything. Only I can experience, with the help of my body. My mind, or consciousness, is the subjective side of my relation to the world, and my body is its objective side, being on the same ontological level as the material world. My mind and my body are conceptually incompatible, although they are factually the same thing seen from different angles.

But there is no spiritual substance.

Namelesss
Posts: 447
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Namelesss » December 11th, 2017, 8:14 pm

Tamminen wrote:
December 11th, 2017, 8:35 am
Namelesss wrote:
December 10th, 2017, 6:57 pm
All Knowledge/experience is perceived by the same One Universal Consciousness!
... but we cannot escape temporality.

And yet 'We' can/do! *__-
The simplest example is Zen (thoughtless) meditation.
'Time' and 'space' and 'life' and 'death' exist solely in/as 'thought/ego'.
The successful practitioner of Zen, the Enlightened/unconditionally Loving, transcend all the limitations that only exist in their 'imagination/thought/ego!
Thus, 'timeless' existence can be perceived by Consciousness, Our ultimate Reality.
It is not about 'thinking outside the box', 'thought' IS the box!

"To escape one's illusions is to plunge headlong into chaos!" -Iota
We can be conscious of the universe only through one bubble at a time, and when that bubble pops, there must be a transition to another bubble.

When all We 'bubbles' share One Consciousness, there is no real distinctions, no real limitations other than what you believe to be.
When a bubble pops, the components are recycled.
It's what is inside that illusive bubble that is forever unchangeable. Goes not anywhere when the bubble of ego pops/dies.
Not anything, ever, goes anywhere. 'Motion' and the 'time' theorized to explain it is scientifically and philosophically impossible.
The old Eastern thinkers called it transmigration.
The ones that accepted the 'appearances'/mirage as Reality, perhaps.
Those unaware of the Holistic nature of Reality; a "synchrony of moments"!
It depends to whom you refer when you use words like "I" and "me".
'We' is a word we use in our everyday communication with each other, and it is necessary as such. But in deeper sight we are successive manifestations of one and the same 'I'. This is my hypothesis.
All that exists is manifestation of the One Self! Existence IS Self! Knowledge/experience!
But all Here! Now!; Holistically, rather than 'linearly'.
Every moment is Here! Now!
See for yourself, do the experiment...
At any moment of your life stop and ask yourself, where am I, when am I?
The answer is always (Universally), ultimately, Here! Now!

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6459
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Greta » December 12th, 2017, 2:10 am

RJG wrote:
December 11th, 2017, 12:00 pm
But from my understanding, I see no difference between the formation of thoughts and the formation of words, as "words" and "thoughts" are really the same thing. The only difference is that one has a 'name' given to it, and the other has yet to be named. The 'meaning' of the word/thought is established through the association of sensory experiences. As a small child, when your mother said "c-aaa-t", and showed you a picture of a 'cat' (or put a furry creature in your lap), then the thought of 'cat' was born!, ...as was the word; the name-of-this-thought. The audio sensory experience associated with the visual (and/or tactile) sensory experience created the 'meaning' (i.e. the 'thought') of "cat".

Yet, if no one gave the child language, she should still have a mental construct of cats if she encountered them - as "things that are like that".

Tamminen
Posts: 392
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Tamminen » December 12th, 2017, 4:41 am

I must clarify a sentence I wrote concerning my "syllogism of existence" above, because it was a bit misleading. I wrote:
...it is a statement that has nothing to do with the material universe.
The sentence I referred to was: "If I did not exist, there would be nothing."

What I tried to say was that the existence of the material universe is put into "brackets", a common method in phenomenology. Then a question is asked: "What is the state of the material universe if I do not exist?" And the answer is: "It does not exist, either." So we ignore the obvious fact that the material universe will exist even after my death. We are in front of a paradox, and the solution of the paradox is the conclusion attained in sentence 3 of the syllogism; "My nonexistence is impossible, also after my death." Therefore we must make a distinction between the empirical subject and the transcendental subject. The empirical, individual subject, 'Tamminen', will vanish away, but the transcendental, metaphysical, absolute subject is eternal. And all individuals are manifestations of this absolute subject. It migrates through all of us.

This is a hypothesis, of course.

Tamminen
Posts: 392
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by Tamminen » December 12th, 2017, 5:03 am

Namelesss wrote:
December 11th, 2017, 8:14 pm
The answer is always (Universally), ultimately, Here! Now!
Yes, I am here and now, but this here and now flows through all the bubbles. It cannot be everywhere at the same time, even though it can possibly be conscious of everything at the same time, if you are enlightened.

Being and time cannot be separated.

User avatar
RJG
Posts: 846
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Who is I? The possessor of my body, mind, and spirit?

Post by RJG » December 12th, 2017, 1:17 pm

RJG wrote:But from my understanding, I see no difference between the formation of thoughts and the formation of words, as "words" and "thoughts" are really the same thing. The only difference is that one has a 'name' given to it, and the other has yet to be named. The 'meaning' of the word/thought is established through the association of sensory experiences. As a small child, when your mother said "c-aaa-t", and showed you a picture of a 'cat' (or put a furry creature in your lap), then the thought of 'cat' was born!, ...as was the word; the name-of-this-thought. The audio sensory experience associated with the visual (and/or tactile) sensory experience created the 'meaning' (i.e. the 'thought') of "cat".
Greta wrote:Yet, if no one gave the child language, she should still have a mental construct of cats if she encountered them - as "things that are like that".
Yes, but this “mental construct” cannot exist without being identified (recognized) somehow, either by ‘name’, or by the ‘names’ of the descriptive sensory pieces.

If no one gave this child language, then she would make up her own word(s) in which to identify this thought or thing that you and I call “cat”. Otherwise, she could just identify (name) the sensory pieces (soft, and fluffy, and purrs, and orange color, and etc etc) that make up this “cat”.

Words and thoughts are the same thing. One has a name, the other has yet to be named.

Tamminen wrote:The I is the universal, non-substantial precondition of all being. It is not part of the world. It is like a reference point from which the world is seen and experienced. The mind is my mind, constituting my consciousness of the world. The body is my body. My body cannot experience anything. Only I can experience, with the help of my body. My mind, or consciousness, is the subjective side of my relation to the world, and my body is its objective side, being on the same ontological level as the material world. My mind and my body are conceptually incompatible, although they are factually the same thing seen from different angles.
No offense Tamminen, but to me, you seem to be indulging in a bit of ‘fantasy’ or ‘feel-good religion’ rather than in logical reasoning. If “I” is just the experiencer, then it is just the thing (entity) that experiences. Period. Nothing more! Creating or adding to the storyline only seems to be departing from philosophy and entering (indulging in) religion/fantasy.

I don't wish to argue/discuss religion, as religious beliefs are based on "blind faiths", of which there can be no argument against.

Post Reply