Memory, the Masculine and the Feminine “I”

[Leyla Shen]

Recently, I have been organising a (very fucking expensive) trip to Queensland. A friend of mine is returning here for a holiday at the end of this year.

As I was working out how to distribute the combined savings (consequent to us travelling as a party rather than as two individuals), I thought to myself, “What would happen if I couldn’t remember a calculation I had just performed and the reasoning behind it?” I’d have to do that calculation--assuming that I could at least remember that part in each new moment--over and over again every time I wanted to explain how I arrived at the figure/s. If I couldn’t remember the calculation and the mathematical logic behind it, each time I looked at those figures, they’d be meaningless. Lacking any such meaning, I would then have to apply mathematical logic to discover same even though I had already done so the first time, apparently, because I know--at least--that I created the document in which those calculations appear. But what if I couldn’t remember even that? In what sense could I even consider that I exist? In the feminine sense. In the sense that I know that “I feel, therefore I am.”

So, when someone says there is no “I,” I tell you it’s a bald faced lie! For what they actually confess by their very position is this: “I feel, therefore I am not.”

[Sapius]

Leyla,

So, when someone says there is no “I,” I tell you it’s a bald faced lie! For what they actually confess by their very position is this: “I feel, therefore I am not.”

Well.. I could never possibly be not while I think that "I" am not, so at least I have nothing to contribute here. However, a "feeling" itself is a thoughtful deduction, which is necessarily in relation to "something", which I deduce as “I”, so I really don't know what you mean.

...and I don't think others will have much to say either, unless they speak from a different perspective; philosophically speaking. :D

[Ryan Rudolph]

Oh come on Leyla, you’re still beating on this old drum. There is no “I” in the sense that the false-ego must come to an end – but there is still a true self or authentic self. It’s a paradox. Some philosophers dont use the term self at all, instead they use phrases like emptiness, or nothingness, or as UG krishnamurti stated "There is no mind at all" All statements are attempts at pointing to that state.

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius:

Well.. I could never possibly be not while I think that "I" am not, so at least I have nothing to contribute here. However, a "feeling" itself is a thoughtful deduction, which is necessarily in relation to "something", which I deduce as “I”, so I really don't know what you mean.

That’s because you think such people who say the self does not exist think themselves there. But they don’t. There is no individual. No identified and anchored position. Just a sense of being the effect of things. This is why, “I feel, therefore I am not” makes perfect sense to, and about, them because it: 1) accurately describes the contradictory nature of their mentality; and, 2) is a true reflection of that mentality since the “I” is the individual--the memory; the conscious position in thingness.

It’s quite extraordinary, really, to watch them pronouncing such a grand “truth,” pushing it off all over the place, whilst engaging in all sorts of activity they are conveniently oblivious to.

...and I don't think others will have much to say either, unless they speak from a different perspective; philosophically speaking. :D

Heh. I’ll let you in on a secret: I did not expect many replies to this post. :)

[Leyla Shen]

Oh come on Leyla, you’re still beating on this old drum. There is no “I” in the sense that the false-ego must come to an end – but there is still a true self or authentic self. It’s a paradox. Some philosophers dont use the term self at all, instead they use phrases like emptiness, or nothingness, or as UG krishnamurti stated "There is no mind at all" All statements are attempts at pointing to that state.

And it's a drum that needs a good ol' beating--especially considering blind men like you.

[DHodges]

As I was working out how to distribute the combined savings (consequent to us travelling as a party rather than as two individuals), I thought to myself, “What would happen if I couldn’t remember a calculation I had just performed and the reasoning behind it?” I’d have to do that calculation--assuming that I could at least remember that part in each new moment--over and over again every time I wanted to explain how I arrived at the figure/s. If I couldn’t remember the calculation and the mathematical logic behind it, each time I looked at those figures, they’d be meaningless.

In a very practical sense (which you probably don't care about), you can address this problem by doing your calculations in Excel, and adding comments to any calculations that are not immediately obvious. You can write things out in such a way that someone else can read it and know exactly what is going on.

I do many calculations and they ideally should be transparent not just to me (and I can't be bothered to remember all the details), but to anyone looking at them - that is, they should not require any further explanation from me.

In a sense, this is kind of like the Chinese Room problem. A great deal of mathematical logic has already been captured in the program, so you don't need to revisit it constantly - or even understand it fully - to follow the calculation and verify it.

So, if you can convince yourself that Excel works, get "Excel works" tattooed on your arm so you don't forget, and you are good to go.

[Sapius]

Leyla,

That’s because you think such people who say the self does not exist think themselves there. But they don’t.

Are you one of those people? Hehehe

They don’t need to think themselves as being there or not; they can’t help the sense of being in any case.

There is no individual. No identified and anchored position.

That is impossible. Are they saying there is no consciousness? If there is no individual - identified - anchored - position, for them, then I don't want to hear anything from such a non-certain, non-position.

Just a sense of being the effect of things.

Sure, one can have a sense of being the effects of things, but that too is a logically deduced one in our case. Even an animal who does not think itself to be, nevertheless carries it and operates through a sense of self.

This is why, “I feel, therefore I am not” makes perfect sense to, and about, them

That can be nothing other than an illogical or insane statement. I do not exist inherently is totally different than claiming that I do not exist. The I and Self are no two different things.

because it: 1) accurately describes the contradictory nature of their mentality;

I don’t think so… there are actually no contradictions in such a persons mind. I do not exist inherently, and there is no way that I could know that unless there is an “I” (Self) to know it. Where is the contradiction? Without the kind of consciousness that we have, nothing can be known.

and, 2) is a true reflection of that mentality since the “I” is the individual--the memory; the conscious position in thingness.

There is nothing beyond a conscious position in and of thing-ness (duality). A “true reflection” of that mentality, whatever that it may be, is necessarily based in and of consciousness, duality, thing-ness.

Deducing ‘I feel, therefore I am not’, does not and cannot leave the “I” mentioned in that very sentence itself high and dry. That sense of existing cannot be dissolved even through not thinking, so to speak. One can only think that ‘I am not’, but being not is impossible for one would never know such a thing then. In other words, he is saying that consciousness is not, which essentially is a sense of being that one cannot get rid of.

Consciousness does not exist because I think it does, but I can think, because it does. Thanks to logical deduction.

[Shardrol]

Somewhat irrelevantly, getting an 'Excel works' tattoo reminded me of the movie 'Memento' where the guy who lost his memory tried to get a grip on things by having important info tattooed on his body. Very interesting film, I thought.
.

[DHodges]

getting an 'Excel works' tattoo reminded me of the movie 'Memento'

That's exactly what I was thinking of.

[Leyla Shen]

Dave:

In a very practical sense (which you probably don't care about), you can address this problem by doing your calculations in Excel, and adding comments to any calculations that are not immediately obvious. You can write things out in such a way that someone else can read it and know exactly what is going on.

:)

It's just that I don't really find philosophy to be about pragmatism, that's all. And I agree with Searle's idea of AI as "mindless manipulators of symbols," which I see as the complete opposite of philosophy.

I have not seen Memento, but I have seen 50 First Dates; does that count?

[Leyla Shen]

Dear, dear Sapius, once again you are arguing with your own linguistic ghosts:

You quoted and responded to me as follows:

L: This is why, “I feel, therefore I am not” makes perfect sense to, and about, them

S: That can be nothing other than an illogical or insane statement [or state of existence--yes, that's what I'm highlighting]. I do not exist inherently is totally different than claiming that I do not exist. The I and Self are no two different things.

L: because it: 1) accurately describes the contradictory nature of their mentality;

S: I don’t think so… [Yes you do, you just said so above.] there are actually no contradictions in such a persons mind. I do not exist inherently, and there is no way that I could know that unless there is an “I” (Self) to know it. Where is the contradiction? Without the kind of consciousness that we have, nothing can be known.

No part of the complete idea "I feel, therefore I am not" implies "I do not exist inherently." Beware! straw man.

I’ll give it to you again:

But what if I couldn’t remember even that? In what sense could I even consider that I exist? In the feminine sense. In the sense that I know that “I feel, therefore I am.”

So, when someone says there is no “I,” I tell you it’s a bald faced lie! For what they actually confess by their very position is this: “I feel, therefore I am not.”

There is a big difference between the memory of a thinking and a feeling entity. One is conscious of mind, the other conscious of things as objects and, thus, as an object of effect. It’s actually from the latter that we derive the notion “feelings.” For instance, it’s the difference between understanding Woman as one’s own personal philosophical abstraction or as an objective declaration about all females from which certain feelings are derived; the difference between understanding what terrorism is and having an emotional reaction to all Middle-Eastern males.

The thinking person arrives at conclusions based on thought, not experiences (though experiences are always a part of their mind). The thinking person, in the case of terrorism for example, is aware that it has many faces; the feeling person is totally consumed with the face it currently sees. The thinking person understands Woman as part of themselves; the feeling sees, and looks for, her outside of him.

What kind of grand folly is it to think that all females are unconscious and all males conscious and yet to unrelentingly cast what one holds up as a discerning eye onto females? What could one possibly see there that is not to be seen in one’s own mind? It is a folly of equal magnitude to the idea that females will do a better job at running a country because males have made such a mess of it, and because they are not males.

The feminine I does not think “I feel, therefore I am.” That is a distinction made by one who knows both what it is to feel and to think. But it is only the feminine I that lies about the truth of their existence because it hurts too much (“there is no self”) . To say the self/I does not exist is to say exactly that and is entirely different to saying the self does not inherently exist. If all things exist through their causes, then all things exist through their causes. A thing does not suddenly cease to exist because a thing proclaims such.

The “I” in the “I feel” part of the quote represents the feminine I and the “I” in the “therefore I am not” part of the quote represents the masculine I. So all we have in the standalone proclamation that the self does not exist is a confession that one is caused to exist through their feelings. After all, it’s not me making such a proclamation. This is exactly why you end up with such superfluous qualifiers as “false” ego. There is no need for it. There is self, and there is ego.

Is one’s ego so elusive that it must create its very own evil counterpart for elimination?

[Sapius]

Dear, dear Sapius, once again you are arguing with your own linguistic ghosts:

Dear Leyla; you are most probably correct, but however, I would still like to have certain clarity as far as such things are communicatively expressed. You will agree, that such things may be easy to express as one understands it, but it is the “understandings” that have to match for communication to make coherent sense to another.

If nothing else, I will learn from my ignorance by sorting it out. So please bear with me.

No part of the complete idea "I feel, therefore I am not" implies "I do not exist inherently." Beware! straw man.

I will remain cautious.

I’ll give it to you again:

I thank you for the effort involved.

There is a big difference between the memory of a thinking and a feeling entity.

I understand that there is a big difference between thinking entities, as opposed to what we consider just a feeling entity. But I am of the mind that “feelings” are necessarily a result of an active “consciousness” based in and of an active A=A (recognition through [sensual] differentiations and that leads to reactions, because that maintains the continuity of an already dynamic causality). So how "feminine" is that to begin with? And however, a thinking entity is never devoid of feelings, so how un-feminine is a “thinking” entity any ways?

I have no problems with how masculinity/femininity is defined philosophically, to a certain extant, and I agree to them, but only on a comparative level that help us understand either, but what has that got to do with getting rid of any one of those, when at the core of “logical” thinking (considered masculine), lies a (supposedly) feminine foundation, so to speak?

It is the A=A (process) turned into a “feeling”, (considered as femininity in a blind sweep of generalization, which is not the same as emotions that emerge through unreasonable attachments of what one values, without logically deducing what is it that I am all emotional about?). The “feeling” - “I”, that emerges through the process of A=A, which essentially is what being conscious means, because of THAT (A=A) dynamic process, is the strength of a thinking (masculine) entity at its core; which turns the finding of truth into an unfaltering passion.

This has nothing to do with physical sexuality, and all the “qualifiers” we logically attribute to them through understanding how the psychology of a feminine and a masculine mind is dominated with, and is in accordance to their own “physical” or mental reality. This splitting of the masculine/feminine is well and fine on a comparative level, but as an human ENTITY, there is no such thing as one being totally devoid of either; it is but a matter of degree.

You think it does not take a highly passionate (considered a feminine trait) personality to logically (considered a masculine trait) search and then hang on to Truth with equal amount of passion? And that “passion” is not feminine just because it is directed towards truth, and hence is justifiably masculine in this instance? But the sense of “I” begins with no more than a feeling that remains however one tries to destroy it. One cannot live to say I have destroyed my “I”. Absolutely impossible!

So in that sense, one is necessarily denying the fact that the legs of masculinity is femininity itself, and he does that because of the hate he has developed through recognizing the pit falls of unreasoned emotional attachments, and equates that to femininity in general. Which are not one and the same thing in my book.

One is conscious of mind, the other conscious of things as objects and, thus, as an object of effect.

You mean, thus through reasoning one can say that “I” am but a result of ‘effects’? But of course, I agree, but it is necessarily a particular “effect” (that holds such an unfaltering realization [that remains irrelevant of ongoing changes] supported by the kind of memory ‘one’ has, irrelevant of a dynamic causality that is perpetually on the move) and that particular ‘effect’ is the “I” that remains, irrelevant of a changing body, brain, or totality.

It’s actually from the latter that we derive the notion “feelings.”

Yes, we derive the “notion” “feelings” through logical deduction, reasoning, but my logical deductions say that at the core of it all, lies a dynamic A=A experience, and that is neither masculine nor feminine, and it takes certain passion combined with logical thinking, (a certain balance where both [femininity and masculinity] are necessarily required), to achieve certain clarity in understanding existence itself.

These are but the first three sentences of your first paragraph, and I can go on in a similar manner with every sentence thereon, but I think it will then be just an "argument" unless we really understand where each one of us actually comes from; what are one’s overall understandings as realized by him/her; to have some clarity of communications.

Yes, my English is not that good, so please try to keep it simple. If I don’t get it, I will ask for clarifications, and one thing can be said in many other ways too. Sorry for the trouble you may have to endure on my behalf.

I am not trying to avoid all else you wrote, but I have to go shopping for food. I do all my work as far as living is concerned; and will, until the day I will have a need to hire a helper/maid/nurse to look after me. I already have a system in place that will provide ample of financial recourses to take care of that, or any unforeseeable problems, and a few good friends who might look in on me from time to time. They have nothing in common as far as my thinking goes, and that does not agitate me in any way. Each finds his own way, in and of existence. I remain, :) in any case.

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius:

These are but the first three sentences of your first paragraph, and I can go on in a similar manner with every sentence thereon, but I think it will then be just an "argument" unless we really understand where each one of us actually comes from; what are one’s overall understandings as realized by him/her; to have some clarity of communications.

An excellent idea.

So, I‘ll start with the essence of the first paragraph of your response:

1. There is a big difference between thinking entities, as opposed to what we consider just a feeling entity.

I find this sentence interesting because of the qualifier “what we consider just a feeling entity.” I take that to mean you do not consider there to be any such entity that is all feeling and no thinking.

2. But I am of the mind that “feelings” are necessarily a result of an active “consciousness” based in and of an active A=A (recognition through [sensual] differentiations and that leads to reactions, because that maintains the continuity of an already dynamic causality).

I’ll break this down as follows:

2a. Defn. feelings a product/result in a living (“actively conscious”) organism caused by the interaction of that organism with its environment through a recognition by that organism of various sensory information (differentiation). Thus,

2b. Feelings maintain the continuity of an already dynamic causality.

I think you are saying here that humans, particularly, have the potential to understand the nature of reality primarily because they are--unlike rocks, for example--feeling entities. Though I’m not sure in what sense you propose that such a thing maintains the continuity of an already dynamic causality?

3. So how "feminine" is that to begin with?

More “feminine” than a rock and less “masculine” than a thinker.

4. And however, a thinking entity is never devoid of feelings, so how un-feminine is a “thinking” entity any ways?

So, we have the situation now where because it is posited that in any given moment every entity that is (by the definition above) a feeling entity is also a thinking entity and in any given moment every entity that is a thinking entity is also a feeling entity. Hence, you put the word “thinking” into quotation marks and state that there is a difference between the two at the commencement of your reply but end with quite a contrary conclusion. From this, one concludes that the angry man punching the shit out of a woman, or a dope addict on a trip is just as thinking an entity as you.

[Sapius]

Leyla,

1. There is a big difference between thinking entities, as opposed to what we consider just a feeling entity.

I find this sentence interesting because of the qualifier “what we consider just a feeling entity.” I take that to mean you do not consider there to be any such entity that is all feeling and no thinking.

No, not at all. I did not deny the difference, did I? I am trying to show that “feelings” too are a result based in and of A=A, on which any kind of “consciousness” rests upon, even at a non-thinking level.

Take a rabbit for example, which does not need “thinking” as in how we verbally define and THINK, but the rabbit is fully aware of a Self (his self) without ever reasoning the difference between him and what it eats. One might say that he is operating through just a feeling, or instinct, but is it not plain enough by the mere fact that it does not act like a lunatic, and has precisely calculated moves, and hence is reacting in a logical manner? Which tells me that it is conscious, simply because it can recognize through differentiation and hence react coherently, based in and of A=A; which our kind of consciousness is also based in and of too. I am not saying that it has the same type of consciousness that we have, but it is “consciousness” at a different level, where reasoning does not occur due to genetic limitations.

A chimp’s DNA and ours have hardly a big difference, and yet that tiny difference is what makes our consciousness different than his. The big difference that there is between thinking and feelings, is indeed a difference, but feelings too are an already pre-calculated results of A=A. Where we go wrong is in how we reason what feelings are. Feelings arrived far before thinking did and it is true that feelings alone cannot be fully relied upon, hence enter reasoning.

A human can survive far better with reasoning at its disposal than a chimp. But he too (the chimp) operates through the same process, based in and of A=A.

2. But I am of the mind that “feelings” are necessarily a result of an active “consciousness” based in and of an active A=A (recognition through [sensual] differentiations and that leads to reactions, because that maintains the continuity of an already dynamic causality).

I’ll break this down as follows:

2a. Defn. feelings a product/result in a living (“actively conscious”) organism caused by the interaction of that organism with its environment through a recognition by that organism of various sensory information (differentiation). Thus,

No, “feelings” are that organism’s “consciousness” so to speak, which are a result due to a dynamic process (causality), which (feellings) is a dynamic interaction itself that happens through A=A. Otherwise, the world of that organism would necessarily be an absolutely incoherent one, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

2b. Feelings maintain the continuity of an already dynamic causality.

No, it is not the “feelings” that maintain continuity, but the entire process including the RESULT which ensures it – Recognition through differentiation – which is a dynamic process happening – and then the REACTION – a dynamic RESULT – dynamic because the Result is but an EFFECT – which in turn becomes a Cause, hence ensuring the continuity of an already dynamic process - causallity.

I think you are saying here that humans, particularly, have the potential to understand the nature of reality primarily because they are--unlike rocks, for example--feeling entities. Though I’m not sure in what sense you propose that such a thing maintains the continuity of an already dynamic causality?

No, humans are not only or just feeling entities, a rabbit is, but we share that trait - feelings.

I think what I mean by ‘continuity’ is clear enough in what I have said above.

3. So how "feminine" is that to begin with?

More “feminine” than a rock and less “masculine” than a thinker.

Well, I can’t argue with that, if you put it that way :)

4. And however, a thinking entity is never devoid of feelings, so how un-feminine is a “thinking” entity any ways?

So, we have the situation now where because it is posited that in any given moment every entity that is (by the definition above) a feeling entity is also a thinking entity and in any given moment every entity that is a thinking entity is also a feeling entity.

No, a feeling entity is not necessarily a thinking (that which can reason) entity, but a thinking entity (that which can reason) necessarily has feelings TOO. And one of the feelings is, that feeling of an "I", which cannot be removed irrelevant of an intense logical reasoning that might say otherwise.

This discussion started with...

So, when someone says there is no “I,” I tell you it’s a bald faced lie! For what they actually confess by their very position is this: “I feel, therefore I am not.”

And to that I say, that I feel (conscious - as discussed above), therefore I am, for if I am not, even through logical reasoning, the "I" yet remains, and that is not an illusion, (but illusory from a different point of philosophical view), and is a fact maintained in and of causality, through A=A. I will not be only when the continuity (in and of memory) of the present "I" does not remain, and I will not be there to actually know that.

Hence, you put the word “thinking” into quotation marks and state that there is a difference between the two at the commencement of your reply but end with quite a contrary conclusion.

What contrary conclusion?

Let me remove the quotation marks then.

- And however, a thinking entity (one that can reason) is never devoid of feelings (considered a feminine trait), so how un-feminine (or a totally masculine) is a thinking (considered masculine) entity any ways? -

From this, one concludes that the angry man punching the shit out of a woman, or a dope addict on a trip is just as thinking an entity as you.

I don’t know how you concluded that, but yes, he is a thinking entity, but what makes you think that his line of reasoning would be the same as mine, or yours? What has the mere fact that all humans can THINK (unless brain damaged); got to do with the line of reasoning each one adopts, and thence reach their own conclusions or reactions thereof?

I think you are taking ‘thinking’ to be the same as ‘logical reasoning’, which is not the same according to me. Even a retard thinks to a certain extent. I can give an example, but I might not be politically correct in pointing out a politician :D

[Leyla Shen]

Sapius,

I think what you are pointing to is that living organisms all have an instinctive sense of self and otherness which--whether impressed phonologically, visually, through the sense of smell, temperature, and so on--necessarily exists because of this. This is in contrast to an inorganic object, such as our trusty ol’ rock, for which such a self/other-aware existence is impossible.

The “I” doesn’t feel. That’s like saying memory thinks. The I (self contrasted with other/ness) can be inferred through feeling and thinking, or through thinking alone. In the case of through feeling and thinking, one doesn’t feel such an “I,” one is its existence as a person (limitations imposed by one‘s own physical body) with feelings/sensations and infers such a thing from the self/other split (I don‘t think a rabbit quite gets this far, though). In the case of the “I” inferred strictly in the same vein as memory, where are the feelings?

[Sapius]

Leyla,

I think what you are pointing to is that living organisms all have an instinctive sense of self and otherness which--whether impressed phonologically, visually, through the sense of smell, temperature, and so on--necessarily exists because of this.

Yes, but if you look a bit deeper and question; what is this ‘instinctive-ness’ itself based on? How does it actually occur? On what principle does it rest and operate through? How the hell does instinctive-ness come about?

Is not ‘recognition through differentiation’ a necessary prerequisite, in other words, A=A? For such an instinctive-ness to come about? The organism need not necessarily KNOW (through reasoning) what the principle is through which it operates, but we have the capacity to logically reason and see that; and even define such a principle, for the simple reason that have the capability of abstract thinking.

This is in contrast to an inorganic object, such as our trusty ol’ rock, for which such a self/other-aware existence is impossible.

Well…. yes. But please give me a moment here to go a bit deeper, philosophically speaking.

It seems, you place your trust in the good ol’ rock because you trust your eyes as in how you directly perceive it, in contrast to what can move on its own; hence the rock is a dead thing, and the things that move are alive. Which is true comparatively speaking. But on the other hand, our knowledge tells us that a rock, or anything for that matter, is nothing more than a bunch of atoms, or waves/particles. Now how dead is a structure of every atom, a wave/particle. Isn’t absolutely everything on the move, in and of causality, including the things we assume are not moving on their own in relation to our direct perspectives?

The Hindus are not actually wrong in thinking that absolutely everything is alive. Their worshiping thence of every thing is a different story though.

It is the limitation, which is also a boon at the same time, of the dimension that we exist in, experientially. A limitation because it can give rise to false notions, and a boon because without this limitations, we could not experience things as they are, and THINK about it. But these limitations are according to this particular dimension only, whereas we are capable of logically reasoning out this dimension that we do directly perceive, and those that we don't, AND gain abstract knowledge of why things are the way they are as perceived, and also know that essentially, they do not exist on their own, but seem to because of the dimension we both belong to, experientially.

Hence a rock is dead because we perceive it according to the dimension that the rock and me are bound to. If we didn’t perceive it so, we could have never known the difference, or be able to define any thing at all, including consciousness against non-consciousness, but essentially there is no difference, which we CAN understand through logical reasoning, philosophizing, abstract thinking; that causality without things is nothing, and vice versa, and so is true for consciousness. Hence consciousness and things are but the same in essence.

And since 'consciousness' cannot exist without things being around, so can things not exist without consciousness being around; now the question arises; since existence has no beginning or end, then where and when did either begin on its own, or when will either cease to exist. Things and consciousness are one and the same thing in essence, but not the same in and as their perceivable forms.

Please note; I am NOT talking as in relation to MY particular conscious - I, me, and myself - against that which "I" am not; For what is it that consciousness itself is NOT; devoid of my particular "I"; existence would yet remain.

Philosophically speaking, I don't see that either could have a beginning or an end on there own. For it is not possible for existence not to be, and existence depends on both interdependently, and in fact is just that - interdependency in and of duality.

The “I” doesn’t feel. That’s like saying memory thinks.

Where did I say that the “I” feels? It is the ‘feeling’ ITSELF, which is the “I”. The “I” (Self) exists because of that logical (based in and of A=A) instinctual “feel” - so to speak. And that logically derived instinctual fell cannot be removed even by thinking it out of existence, by any far-fetched logical imagination.

The I (self contrasted with other/ness) can be inferred through feeling and thinking, or through thinking alone.

Well… what about a ‘feeling’ (instinctively) entity that does not and cannot reason? And what exactly has my inference got to do with the fact (the existence of a logically pre-calculated "instinctual" “I”) that has to necessarily exist prior to my inferences taking place? An animal does not need to “infer” to be what it is - conscious. Do I need to infer to be conscious, or do I simply define that which is already THERE; and confirm its existence through inference? I logically KNOW that I am conscious, and through the same KNOWING I know that an animal is conscious too, but does not KNOW it.

The difference is in but knowing and not-knowing, and I am thankful that I have been made capable of knowing, as an individual. And the fact that all of us don't exaclty KNOW what each other know's, tells me we are not one and the same thing, and ecah one of us has the freedom to reach his own conclusions as an individual, hence follows his own will to freedom in KNOWING, although operating through and under the same core principle of causality, but each and every individuals line of causality is absolutely unique, hence, making him free-in-will. The process (causality) itself leads to uniqueness in and of things, and that uniqueness is selected rather than forced upon BY causality, becaseu causality does not really create anythng at all. Enter free-will!

A thing, as a thing, and does exist as and what it is, is totally and solely responsible for the immediate effect it creates, through the principle of causality of course, hence making the thing actually responsible for the immediate effect IT creates through causality, rather than the Principle itself that IT operates through. Otherwise, what is it that reasons in and of causality? The thing, or Causality? If one removes the factor of a thinning thing, "I", then thinking falls directly on causality, and we know through reason that all things DO NOT reason in the same way, nor conclude with the same conclusions, although all operate through the same principle – causality!

Keeping this offshoot of a though aside, what I said before that, essentially is, that THINKING, logical reasoning, is not necessary for an “I” to exist. It exists no matter what.

In the case of through feeling and thinking, one doesn’t feel such an “I,” one is its existence as a person (limitations imposed by one‘s own physical body) with feelings/sensations and infers such a thing from the self/other split (I don‘t think a rabbit quite gets this far, though). In the case of the “I” inferred strictly in the same vein as memory, where are the feelings?

I don’t understand this… “I” in not the product of inference, but "I" is really already there (a Self) according to the dimensional relationship that exist between one thing to another; however, abstract thinking gives us the glimpse of what one can KNOW, through abstract conceptualization, which is not an illusion in its self, of what lies at the core of existence, and that all that is perceived in any particular dimensional relationship is true as far as THAT dimension is concerned, but THIS, as and what we directly perceive, is NOT the ONLY dimension there is.

I cannot show you that except in pointing to what abstract thinking can achieve, irrelevant of which dimension is exists in, as perceived.

In the above sense too, one can say that an “I” does not inherently exist, but it really does in accordance to the dimension it really exists in; And one can abstractly discover causality, and say the same thing. Those that really understand causality, will never say that an “I” does not exist at all, for that would falsify the nature of causality it self, and what they say about the Self it self.

Does not causality cause an “I”? But what we fail to recognize that things cause things, and we call that process causality, but causality is not a “thing” in it self to cause absolutely anything at all, but things cause other things, and causality is simply a process, which cannot exist without things being around, hence causality is no more than a process, in and of and by and seen through change - change of one thing leading to another.

Hence, it is but ‘change’ that is permanent, not that which changes, which we see and call such a process of change – causality; but that cannot exist without any perceivable things that are subject to change; hence causality ITSELF cannot and does not change any thing at all. And we hold THAT (causality) responsible of change, making a God out of IT. In the sense, that it is, and is not at the same time, hence let me call is “emptiness”, “nothingness”, Tao, and god knows what! We are simply chasing our own logical follies by placing them on a lofty pedestal, egotistically created, whereas it is perfectly understandable if one thinks deep enough.

IF, we could not perceive that temporary halt (things that are perceivable), and the capability of abstract thinking that we have, we could have never known what change or consciousness means; meanings and conclusions that are retained in and of memory, irrelevant of on going perpetual changes all around. The realization of such an understanding remains permanently, irrelevant of ongoing changes that do not and cannot halt in any sense of time related split units; and yet things are perceivable, and realizations retained.

I see all of the above as one whole big picture made up of individual pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, where each piece needs to be partially understood as to how and where it logically fits, since they necessarily need to be connected for a picture to emerge and make sense; and this can happen in and of conceptual, abstract thinking, that leads to a complete logical sense of what existence is; and that is where I come from, and generally speak through, hence am misunderstood.

It takes me real good time for me to express this as coherently as I can, but the fact is, it is obvious that a big picture is not so easy to explain as one sees or understands it, because understandings, realization, differ from a being to a being. I think many have the same problems, otherwise, there would be no effort required one ones part to understand any thing that another says, and I have placed all my efforts to help me understand others, and that includes all that is not “I”. However, a realization could gradually coincide perfectly with existence, as in understanding it; be it delusional according to and in comparison to someone else’s realizations, but there is no such thing as delusional at the very core of existence, at all.

You don’t need to pay much attention or importance to the last sentence of the last paragraph, and break that down academically :D (just a jest)

You know what, I keep changing and adding things even after I have posted it, because I find it myself not explained well enough when I see it as a whole, but that "last edited by..." does not appear because I do it immediately after posting, and that does not appear unless someone else has posted in the same thread after my post. Hehehee...

It is really not that easy to explain such a thing as a whole... But can be understood on ones own. That is what I think "pointing" really means, for it cannot really be understood through someone else’s explanations. One has to delve deep into it on ones own, to actually realize.

All I can say is... all the best to all... :)

[Nick]

As with most of Leyla's posts it's hard to understand exactly what she is implying. In this instance is she implying that there is an absolute identity of the self that we can point to and say, "there it is", or is she using A=A in a more than complicated way, as a way to say that we are conscious, therefore there is an "I"?