--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:
Thank you Irmeli for your thoughtful post. In reading your response, I think semantics, treating words with somewhat different meanings and flavors, is the primary difference between our experiences. Perhaps there is one point of substance that we experience differently, as discussed below. > > > Irmeli: > > > An I, who observes, makes interpretations, creates plans, acts, > and reacts, and often quite differently than the others. > > > > > > > > > Akasha: > > > Why do you necessarily subjectively equate that which observes, > makes interpretations, creates plans, acts, and reacts, and is > different than other entities with "you"? > > > > > > > Irmeli: > > I think here is a confusion with the concepts. I seem to mean a > > different thing with the individual I than you. For me the I > includes the other entities in me. > > Akasha: > Yes, individuality and be seen as different things (or non things). > > Irmeli: > I don't understand this sentence. Akasha: Sorry this was a typo. I mean't to say: "Yes, individuality CAN be seen as different things (or non things). The point being that people view and experince individuality differently. And for some, though they aresocially projected personas, a subjective sense of individuality, or defined, discrete, bounded, self-image is not there. So semantically miscommunication can arise when the same word is used to describe different experiences 9or absence of such). > > Akasha: > You seem to be aware of something that decides, creates plans, acts, > and reacts. The question is: why does that intellect or any part > claim ownership of those things. Did you create them? Do you know how they really work -- the physiology or it all? > Irmeli: > I don't claim ownership of these things. I mean by I here as > organizing principle, that does integration of thoughts, > observations,and sensations. That doesn't mean ownership of these > things. The I in this sense doesn't mean owning, it is a function. > This I doesn't claim owning something, it is a function. It is > similar to the running of water, or the blowing of wind. Akasha: Yes, perhaps we are experincing things in similar way. There is a localized entity, consisting of various components, which projects a social persona, that could be viewed (mentally organized, or labeled) as "I". A part of the linguistic structure of "I" is "me" and "mine", thus possessiveness/ownership appear to be inherent in the term "I". Thats the connotation that comes to "my" mind, but a different connotation, it appears, arises in your mind. > Akasha: > Do you create the > thoughts that come to you? > > Irmeli: > This I doesn't create the thoughts. Akasha: Similar experience on this. Irmeli: >But it observes them, evaluates and integrates them to a larger context. Akasha: This is where the experiences, or interpretation may differ, between us. There is something, a component, that has the function to observe, evaluate and integrate. However, that, which I will term intellect or buddhi, appears to work quite well by itself. There used to be an "I" who thought/felt/experienced controlling and directing that intellect. And the intellect bought into that myth. That intellect has now seen that to be a fiction. In a sense, that intellect has grown up and simply acts self-suffiently, without a director, without a driver, without a contoller. It always did, but got into a sembiotic dyfunctional relationship with a "poser" / imposter, ghost, posing as its driver, parent, contoller and/or owner. That intellect came to realize there was no one behind the curtain, that it was not a slave. This was a transformation of buddhi to Buddhi. It acts, and interacts with other local components in a self-sufficient, grown-up manner. > > Akasha: > Do you (something other than your intellect) direct your intellect on the methods and style that it > will decide things? > > Irmeli: > Again I don't get the meaning of this sentence. Akasha: Sorry for the twisted language. I was simply trying to get to the point in the above paragragh. However, I asked it in a question, which i will try to reformulate: On your side of things, is there an experience of a "you" controlling and directing the intellect, or the intellect, in-and-of-itself deciding, evaluating and integrating things? > Akasha: > If not, why do you claim ownership of such. Why do you claim to be > running the show? > > Irmeli: > I don't claim ownership or running the show. This I is just a > function, an organizing and integrating principle. I use the term, > when I speak of this principle. I don't know any other concise term > for that function(*). And the term I is generally used for this > function. With individuality I mean a quality inside this I, which > makes possible for it to take a different course from others around > you and be functioning independently of their expectations. Akasha: The intellect, interacting with mind a bit, can do this by itself, without a supervisor. Irmeli: > The I has > acquired this capacity through learning. Not all living beings get > there, not even all human beings. Individuality requires rather > complicated functioning in the organizing I. Akasha: Agreement of skills acquire through learning. Which the intellect and mind can do on their own. > Irmeli: > > I think the comparison with computers is a good one. With the I, who observes, makes interpretations etc, I mean the operating system of the computer. Computers can have many kinds of operating systems, but it must have one to be capable of functioning. > Akasha: > Your operating system seems to be working fine in that things are > getting done, aren't they? Did you create your operating system? Do > you know how it works -- line by line of code? > Irmeli: > The organizing principle, is a learning entity. While learning, at > some point it starts to perceive severe limitation in its > functioning. Then a reorganization of it can appear and a more > advanced operating system with wider integration and differentiation > capabilities can appear. But the old I (organizing principle)don't > create the new one, it just drops away some rigid structures and then aligning with one step more inclusive operating system becomes > possible. These operating systems seem to be readily available in the server. It depends on the learning of the organizing I, and its > truthfulness in functioning, to which of the server's operating > systems it can align with. Similar experience between us, it seems. The only difference is your interpretation of the organizing principle as "you" / "I". From here, it is like the operating system -- it coordinates flows between intellect, memory and senses, and upgades itself when new capabilities are needed. Its as "personal" or "mine" as the PC on the desk doing the same. > Akasha: > If not, what does it have to do with who you are? Windows XP runs the PC here. But it would be silly to claim "I am Windows XP". > Irmeli: > As we in language use I, it has at least two different contexts or > meanings(*). > One is I as an organizing principle. Another is I as a self-image. > This second type of I is partly dependent of the first, but still > they are quite different things. The question who I am refers to the > second type of I. And it has very little to do with the organizing > principle. This I is often perceived as an image. In Self realization > the image drops away, what is left is just infinity, or Self that is > present everywhere. There the limited, individual I image (also a > owner) has dropped away. When this limited I has dropped away, it is > impossible to create an image of yourself internally. I have > sometimes participated in guided meditations where I was asked to > create internally a picture or a statue of myself. It is impossible. > Once I managed to create one toe for a few seconds, and then even > that was gone. Yes. > Irmeli: > > And it seems that at least we humans can consciously also partly > share our operating systems. My operating system can be strongly > influenced by yours. But it is still an operating system that uses > this physical body as an instrument. > Akasha: > But did you create the body? If not, why do you claim ownership of it? > Irmeli: > I, as the organizing principle, have not claimed creating the body, > at least not consciously. Even if the well-being and many qualities > of the body are dependent of the functioning of this organizing > principle. There is deep connectedness between the psyche and well- > being and health of the soma or body. The psyche I would define to > include the organizing principle and the imprinted conclusions it has > made that have often become automatic functions. > These conclusions are not always correct, not corresponding with > reality, or too simplistic generalizations. Akasha: So the difference in experience or its interpretations seems to be again centered on identity with the organizing principle. > Akasha: > You are right, the operating systems can influence each other. They > can and do provide feedback to each other. This is how they learn and adapt. That is its nature. > > Some fear that the operating system will shut down and the PC will > stop if they don't claim ownership of either or both. Its kind of a > silly concept when you think about it. > Irmeli: > Without properly functioning organizing I, a human being does > actually collapse. It is clearly seen in mentally ill people and in > their suffering. There the organizing I is functioning erroneously. Yes. And the person collapses if the heart is malfunctioning, the lungs, the liver. Yet, I don't seek identity from my liver. > Akasha: > Some fear that if there is now owner, no driver, then total > licentuousness will occur -- its an excuse to do anything. Can your > body or mind do anything not inhernet in the operating system and > software? The operating system has learned there are consequences for actions and seeks to navigate its mission efficiently. Most operating systems realize that doin any ol' crazy thing isn't a good strategy. > > Irmeli: > Yes that is the proper function of I as an organizing principle. Akasha: So the difference in experience or its interpretations seems to be centered on whether there is identity with the organizing principle. > Irmeli: > > And then there is apparently also a much bigger server to which > these individual computers are connected to. > > Akasha: > Perhaps that larger server is the owner. Why steal ownership from > that? > > Irmeli: > I have never claimed to be the owner. But the I who is writing this > is the organizing principle not the Self. We seem to end of in the same place. A useful distinction may be that the operating system simply organizes the components and faciltates interaction between them. You see the same thing but add a layer of identity to it. Thats seems to be the main difference between us. > *A quotation from a psychoanalytic textbook: "For a reader, who is > not familiar with psychoanalytic concepts, it can be difficult to > discern from each other the I that is an image of oneself that gets > integrated in the inner referent system and the I that functions as > an organizing principle." Yes, my terms may be "off". The key is finding words that mean the same, experientially to each. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
