The “value†of the “I†cannot be debated because it will necessarily be the point “I†from which you debate, hence the “I†is already a pre-sensed judgment call, that I am I, and not not-I. Does a cow need ontological realization to make such a judgment call? Unless it does not sense it to be true, it cannot operate coherently.You are waxing too poetic. "I" is not a value judgement in the slightest. It is simply a term. That the "I" is what it is and not something else is an ontological realization, which by the way, not everyone is equipped to make. And yet it is not a value judgement in the sense that its value can be debated.
I not sure if my line of thinking should make sense to you… because I do not necessarily follow pre-established traditional meanings, hence it needs more elaborate explanations, and at times invent new words.
Then, I’m afraid you are talking about a rock.Meaningless to everybody. It's possible that a seemingly inexplicable action had meaning to the actor, and it's also possible it may have "felt" good to the actor. It's also possible that neither the last two statements applied.
I think I have not been clear enough, and although Dave has explained my point of view quite eloquently, simply speaking, all I’m saying is that unless there is some self-satisfying-interest, a self cannot be motivated to do any thing at all. All actions necessarily pre-consider an “Iâ€, which is self-centeredness to begin with, so any selfless action has to necessarily be at least a least “self-centered†in nature. (I think you don’t like the word ‘selfish’, and you may be right, and I can understand that, so I will leave it out)S: Friendship perhaps?
Yes, indeed. But lumping such a selfless act in with other activities that are plainly less selfless and have more of a clear-cut self interest behind them is to make a philosphical statement which obfuscates the difference. To what end? Saying that pure altruism as such does not exist, and that such friendship somehow contains a selfish component is confusing a very simple thing.
To make myself further clear; Just as an absolute selflessness is not possible, an absolute selfishness in not possible either, because a self necessarily collaborates with all that it is not, otherwise it cannot be either.
Am I making some sense?