“I” “ME” “MY” “SELF” What does it mean?

[Navigator]

God

What is the point of God?

Is that a question or a statement and what does it matter because most individuals and groups of individuals have an opinion about it.

Sometimes I amuse myself thinking that the word God begat as an expression which in today’s language would be interpreted as “I Don’t Know”

There are easier things to ask ‘what is the point of’ because they are observable.

What do people mean when they say ‘God’?

Wait a bit and before long, answers flood in and a lot of those answers are quiet different from each other.
That is the nature of the subject of the question?

It is indefinable in an objective way.

Even if those who agree that (among other things) ‘what God is’ created this universe, then yes – we have a solid observable reaction of time and space and matter, to measure and wow about. But whoa them horses! We hardly know enough about the physical effect to make concise and reasonable conclusions about the invisible cause.

To say GOD IS this or that is premature to say the least. Obviously there was a cause to the universe, and surely to say God said ‘Let there be’ (and there was) is no different than someone saying that something smaller than an atom begat all that is observable.

Both ideas seem infused with human belief systems

If it could, would the mite on the back of the mite on the back of your arm, be able to explain with all truth and accuracy, what you are?

Which leads into the question…what do ‘we’ mean when ‘we’ use the words “I” “ME” “MY” “SELF”

?

[Ichneumonwasp]

A pluripotent pattern of potential physical stuff that eats ice cream?

But I still don't get what "The Emperor of Ice Cream" is about. Damn Wallace Stevens.

[Marquis de Carabas]

What do people mean when they say ‘God’?
I mean “I” “ME” “MY” “SELF”.


Which leads into the question…what do ‘we’ mean when ‘we’ use the words “I” “ME” “MY” “SELF”

?
I mean 'God'.

[fuelair]

Sometimes it means they are IAMME or Bagasockdodo - but this is not that time!!

[Beerina]

"ME" = a bundle of conscious experiences tied together through contigous, continuous temporal proximity and reinforced by similarity to previoulsy-stored experiences, again contiguously experienced via a recall (i.e. reproduction) mechanism.

[Beerina]

"Death" = a shutdown of this conscious continuity mechanism with no re-ignition later. That consciousness appears to arise from physical "stuff" that can be easily destroyed, and can only be repaired, currently, in theory, is merely an engineering problem.

[epeos76]

"ME" = a bundle of conscious experiences tied together through contigous, continuous temporal proximity and reinforced by similarity to previoulsy-stored experiences, again contiguously experienced via a recall (i.e. reproduction) mechanism.


I like the fact that with a very little effort, this definition works for units bigger that an individual person.

Appropos of what I wish this thread were about: Darly Gregory wrote a great short story called, Second Person, Present Tense (http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0702/Secondperson.shtml) about a drug that interfered with the mechanism that gives us the illusion of continious personality.

[Dancing David]

Labels?

[NoZed Avenger]

"Me," a name I call myself.

"Fah," a long, long way to run.

[Navigator]

"ME" = a bundle of conscious experiences tied together through contiguous, continuous temporal proximity and reinforced by similarity to previously-stored experiences, again contiguously experienced via a recall (i.e. reproduction) mechanism.

I see that this could be so, that I am (or we are) a bunch of experiences strung together sequentially.
A newborn certainly has few experiences and no language skills or events to compare against.
A newborn then has no understanding of the concept of itself as ‘itself’ – but then again, those events of experience continue and before long it is crying for attention. This attention seeking may therefore be a language which essentially says “Feed ME”

Once that hurdle is over with, the progression of experience is mostly defined by external influences.
Eventually resulting in expressions such as ‘you are just like your mother/father’ – but often this is years down the track.

Is it unavoidable that individuals are fashioned by those closest to them, who likewise have been fashioned by those closest to them…?

So ‘who I am’ might = “That which I have been fashioned to be”

“I Think, Therefore I Am” - This supposes that we each are the sum total of our thoughts.

Yet, we are each also a product of our experiences.

Does this really explain accurately “Who I Am”?

Indeed, there is a subjective view, which defines for the individual (mostly in a general way) who they are. Who I am is who I want to be.

Is the question “Who am I” different from the question “What Am I”?

If so, will the answers be different…

The objective view is external and involves the processes of who and what others think you are and often uses a vast variety of method to try and make you what they want you to be.

All for reasons which often have something to do with how they view themselves and what advantage such manipulations may have to that self.

"Death" = a shutdown of this conscious continuity mechanism with no re-ignition later. That consciousness appears to arise from physical "stuff" that can be easily destroyed, and can only be repaired, currently, in theory, is merely an engineering problem.

This is a belief, and one your self is explaining to my self. I can understand that if you thought of your Self as being the sum total of your thought and your experience (and of course, the instrument through which that thought and experience has traveled) then yes, the death of that instrument is the end to your I Me My Self.
I respect that you might have invested large amounts of your mortal time investigating this point of view, and reaching that conclusion.
What other conclusion could you have come to based on what you believe you are?

I myself cannot reach that conclusion because I don’t know for sure, although I have seen dead relatives and friends, what I notice immediately is that it is not them. Yes it was the body they lived in, but they are definitely not in that body.

Now to be sure, if what you say you are is all about the body, then you are the body, and I would imagine that when you speak of yourself, you never use expressions such as “My body” and such, because that would be erroneous to your particular belief system.

It is not the body you live in it is the body you are, right?

If that were the truth, then yes, those deceased loved ones would have simply shut down and that is that. But as I say, I don’t know.

What and who we believe we are is possibly un-testable. I don’t know.

I like the fact that with a very little effort, this definition works for units bigger that an individual person.

Apropos of what I wish this thread were about: Darly Gregory wrote a great short story called, Second Person, Present Tense about a drug that interfered with the mechanism that gives us the illusion of continuous personality.

Is there in reality such a mechanism, and is continuous personality an illusion?

Labels?

Sure they are labels.

"Me," a name I call myself.

Yes, a label, and you are not alone – most individuals use the “Me” label but standing alone it is not adequate to describe the “Me” and what do YOU mean when you say ‘I’ etc…

There are as many answers as there are individuals, and there are groups of answers depending on how individuals see themselves, and align with other individuals who have similar beliefs.
It is a label of identity – but alone is mostly useless? Defined, it presents a more cohesive thing.

[epeos76]

Apropos of what I wish this thread were about: Darly Gregory wrote a great short story called, Second Person, Present Tense about a drug that interfered with the mechanism that gives us the illusion of continuous personality.

Is there in reality such a mechanism, and is continuous personality an illusion?

The story is an extrapolation from existing research suggesting the answers is "yes" and imagining the consequences. It's short and worth a read.

[plumjam]

two egos

http://home.online.no/~solibakk/twoegos.html

also, reading this whole discourse casts a lot of light on the whole ego/God set up:

http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/v2-59.php

[Navigator]

The story is an extrapolation from existing research suggesting the answers is "yes" and imagining the consequences. It's short and worth a read.

Well I read the story and it suggests that consciousness is the thing that gives the ability to have personality, or indeed, consciousness is the personality.
It also suggests that it is the brain that has created consciousness, in order that it the brain can cope with the myriad of decision making.

If this is the case then the brain is separate from the personality and has created the personality in order to cope with the reality it finds itself within, which is to say, the body, and the situation the body is within, which is to say – the Universe, and specifically the experience of a life form on a planet of life forms.

As in the story, the drug taken by the personality named “Therese” dethroned the personality/consciousness (Queen) and when the body came back from the drug overdose, the brains messenger (Page) lost the way to that character and had to enthrone another personality, which called itself “Terry”.

The Page appears to be an intermediate creation between the brains decision making processes (the Parliament which immediately sends the message to the rest of the body, ) and the personality – the personality is under the illusion that IT makes the decisions and commands the bodies reactions, when all along it is the brain.

This perpetuates the idea that the brain is the creator of personality and maybe even consciousness.

If this were so, then why would the brain create such a thing?
Is it because it is in the driver’s seat of a vehicle that it finds itself within and in order to have a purpose it needs to have a personality?

This would suppose that the brain decides that it needs a purpose other than driving the vehicle.
Yet driving the vehicle would be an instinctive reflex. Creating a personality may be a reflex to do with things outside its immediate control.
There are other vehicles driven by other brains, and without a personality the brain of one cannot directly control the actions of another, and thus personality is created.
Personality might be a reaction to consciousness, rather than the same thing as consciousness.
Would the brain be aware of itself as an individual consciousness?
Is there any advantage to a personality controlling something that has no personality?


While it may be true that brain creates consciousness, it might be true that consciousness is not a creation of brain, but utilizes brains and bodies
What seems to be clear about this story is that the brain is of little use without a personality. This can be seen by how the girl recovers from the overdose and builds another personality – why then – above the daily chores of the brain in relation to the body…why is it necessary to have some kind of personality?

Well, I think personality is more complex a creation than just a brain squeeze –

Thanks for the link to the story.

[Navigator]

two egos

"SNIP" But when this ego is annihilated a transformation takes place: the false "I" is replaced by the real "I," and the experience, "I am free from desires and wanting, I am infinite, I am one with God" is gained. That is the Real Ego.

What do people mean when they say ‘God’?..................


..........................It is indefinable in an objective way.

also, reading this whole discourse casts a lot of light on the whole ego/God set up:

Is that what you mean when you say I AM ME SELF?

[plumjam]

two egos

"SNIP" But when this ego is annihilated a transformation takes place: the false "I" is replaced by the real "I," and the experience, "I am free from desires and wanting, I am infinite, I am one with God" is gained. That is the Real Ego.



also, reading this whole discourse casts a lot of light on the whole ego/God set up:

Is that what you mean when you say I AM ME SELF?

hmm.. I'm not quite sure what you're asking me here. Basically within consciousness and reality there are two selves. The real self of God or the divine, plus the unreal, illusory, temporary self of the individual ego.. which is currently what you and I are believing we are. The individual ego arises in order to organise individual experience into a coherent integrated whole allowing forward planning, reasoning, a complex and higher response to life, etc.. but it is only useful for a certain time during the evolution of consciousness. At some point it has to be left behind and transcended. This is the start of the process in which the ego becomes attenuated, weakened, we become less selfish, more compassionate, empathic and loving. It culminates in the disappearance of the individual ego.. yet consciousness remains, and reveals itself to all along having been the consciousness of God. The 'shell' around our consciousness is broken, and consciousness becomes infinite.

[Navigator]

hmm.. I'm not quite sure what you're asking me here.

I am asking ‘what do we each mean when we talk of the ‘self’ or use the words I ME MY SELF…

Basically within consciousness and reality there are two selves.

This is belief yes, but not a proven thing.

The real self of God or the divine, plus the unreal, illusory, temporary self of the individual ego... which is currently what you and I are believing we are.

So which of those two am I having the communication with? The illusion of the real?

The individual ego arises in order to organise individual experience into a coherent integrated whole allowing forward planning, reasoning, a complex and higher response to life, etc.. but it is only useful for a certain time during the evolution of consciousness.

Oh – something useful that is illusion...

At some point it has to be left behind and transcended. This is the start of the process in which the ego becomes attenuated, weakened, we become less selfish, more compassionate, empathic and loving.

Why is it necessary for this individual self called ego to be left behind? Is it just a parable to explain something less explainable?
I don’t understand why an individual personality is not able to ‘be less selfish, more compassionate, empathic and loving’ and needs this personality to be sacrificed on the alter of a gods personality.

It culminates in the disappearance of the individual ego.. yet consciousness remains, and reveals itself to all along having been the consciousness of God.

What is the ‘consciousness of God’? Is this consciousness able to say “I ME MY SELF”?
Which ‘I’ are you at the moment

The 'shell' around our consciousness is broken, and consciousness becomes infinite.

The egg hatches?

[Navigator]

Is the question ambiguous

[Robin]

That animal that grins back at me from the mirror.

[fuelair]

God

What is the point of God?

?
Control by some people of lots of people.:)

[Furi]

I first became familiar with the concept of Me, My, Self & I in 1980 whilst listening to Joan Armatrading,