# What is "I"



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

The thought "apple" is a thought. A concept. You cannot eat a concept. You cannot taste a thought.

But we know the thought apple refers to that which we thus label "apple." Which you can taste, and you can eat.

So, there is a thought, and the object it refers to.

The thought is not the thing.

In our head we speak of "me" and "I" - both thoughts.

What do they point to. What do they refer to?


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2010)

The Eye cannot See the Eye. Aye, Aye? Yes? Si? Sea? See? Eye, Eye? I??


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

ThoughtOnFire said:


> The Eye cannot See the Eye. Aye, Aye? Yes? Si? Sea? See? Eye, Eye? I??


That did not answer my question.

I am pointing this out, in case you thought you were answering it.

You were not. What you were doing, is jumping ahead.

Perhaps it is your experience. Or perhaps you are parroting non-duality bullshit. I don't know. This is the first post I've read from ya.

I agree, the eye cannot see itself. It is itself. I have in fact used that very quote to describe my own condition. Just 3 weeks ago in fact. So I had to smirk at it.

But it remains unrelated to my question. It did not even attempt to answer it, in fact.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2010)

You seem to be encouraging, like Ramana Maharshi, to delve into Self Inquiry.


----------



## ohwell (Oct 28, 2010)

meta_synthesis said:


> The thought "apple" is a thought. A concept. You cannot eat a concept. You cannot taste a thought.
> 
> But we know the thought apple refers to that which we thus label "apple." Which you can taste, and you can eat.
> 
> ...


Read about the 'Qualia', also this book would be a good start. It's a fundamental question and complex. A forum is not the place to find the answer.


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

ThoughtOnFire said:


> You seem to be encouraging, like Ramana Maharshi, to delve into Self Inquiry.


That may be true from your perspective.

Or perhaps you are just avoiding the question again. Well - you are, certainty, one cannot dispute a fact.

But I myself am not encouraging anything. I am curious. I do not know what I points to. In my experience it's like a mirror and it reflects itself endlessly. I don't want to get into it real deep here - as I am not clear on it myself, but I offer this to show I am not coming into your home and thinking I am "above all you guys" and trying to teach all you poor lost souls, who could use my Deep Wisdom.

Nah. Fuck that.

Just curious man. Just curious. You don't gotta answer. You can keep playing around it - you're free to do what you want. That's cool. I enjoy this too.


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

ohwell said:


> Read about the 'Qualia', also this book would be a good start. It's a fundamental question and complex. A forum is not the place to find the answer.


Not interested in the book. Thanks, but no thanks.



> A forum is not the place to find the answer


You assume I am looking to find myself. I am not. Re-read my post. I am asking you posters what in your experience "I" refers to.

I am curious. There's no alternative motive here in play, lol.

*holds up the peace sign*

I come in peace!


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2010)

It seems a little odd that you would ask a forum of depersonalized and derealized people that specific question. It is like asking somebody in a wheelchair advice on jogging. Maybe you understand where I'm coming from?


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2010)

meta_synthesis said:


> *holds up the peace sign*
> 
> I come in peace!


We exist here in peace. I didn't mean to not answer your question or to avoid it. Also I did not mean to offend your person. On the other hand this kind of spirituality does intrigue me.

Welcome to the forum.


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

ThoughtOnFire said:


> It seems a little odd that you would ask a forum of depersonalized and derealized people that specific question. It is like asking somebody in a wheelchair advice on jogging. Maybe you understand where I'm coming from?


Anything can seem odd, I suppose. Depending on the perspective you take on it.

Maybe the wheelchair dude is an expert on jogging. Maybe he used to be a jogger. Maybe he is faking being in the wheelchair. Maybe because he cannot run and has a passion for it, it gives him a unique perspective on its fundamentals to thus offer?

I understand where you're coming from. But you're assuming an awful lot.

All I did was ask the posters here what "I" refers to. And look what you've made out of such an innocent question!


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2010)

meta_synthesis said:


> Maybe the wheelchair dude is an expert on jogging. Maybe he used to be a jogger. Maybe he is faking being in the wheelchair. Maybe because he cannot run and has a passion for it, it gives him a unique perspective on its fundamentals to thus offer?


But what you are doing is asking a GROUP of people, not just one special case.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2010)

meta_synthesis said:


> All I did was ask the posters here what "I" refers to. And look what you've made out of such an innocent question!


I don't believe your question to be innocent. Why else would you put it in the SPIRITUALITY DEBATE section. You expected some heat. Maybe not in your conscious mind, but your subconscious knew there would be backfire.


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

ThoughtOnFire said:


> We exist here in peace.


Cool! But I knew that











> I didn't mean to not answer your question or to avoid it.


I don't require an explanation but thank you.



> Also I did not mean to offend your person.


I cannot be offended. So do not worry about it. I neither am a person nor have I ever had a person nor have I ever experienced "person."



> On the other hand this kind of spirituality does intrigue me.


To me it's always been about finding out what truth is.



> Welcome to the forum.


Thank you very much. *smiles*


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

ThoughtOnFire said:


> I don't believe your question to be innocent. Why else would you put it in the SPIRITUALITY DEBATE section. You expected some heat. Maybe not in your conscious mind, but your subconscious knew there would be backfire.


My question is an innocent one. I assure you, my good sir.

I didn't catch the part about "debate" and "non-debate." No other forum I've been apart has separated itself into these categories.

I did not expect heat. Nor do I feel any sense that I am experiencing what I know you mean by "heat." This is fun.



> Maybe not in your conscious mind, but your subconscious knew there would be backfire.


Nothing is backfiring because I didn't have any plan, lol. I love seeing how it plays it self out. Who could have ever saw this expression that is thus taking place between us. Not me!


----------



## drew-uk (May 22, 2009)

meta_synthesis said:


> The thought "apple" is a thought. A concept. You cannot eat a concept. You cannot taste a thought.
> 
> But we know the thought apple refers to that which we thus label "apple." Which you can taste, and you can eat.
> 
> ...


Well we are both concious beings and physical ones, The idea of "I" or "Me" What is differentiated between mind and body when refering to our selves? is there a difference, we use all our senses to identify the thought. An apple has a smell, feel, taste, look but no sound (well not one we can hear)

hmm too early i dont know....


----------



## Pablo (Sep 1, 2005)

meta_synthesis said:


> That may be true from your perspective.
> 
> Or perhaps you are just avoiding the question again. Well - you are, certainty, one cannot dispute a fact.
> 
> ...


I think that is the question you just phrased it in a different way, the question of what the imagination of "I" of "me" is relating to still comes back to the question "who am I?" you just asked it in a interesting way. By definition what you can witness or look at can't be you so I think the "me" or "I" can only be defined by what it isn't rather than what it is.


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

Drew. said:


> Well we are both concious beings and physical ones, The idea of "I" or "Me" What is differentiated between mind and body when refering to our selves? is there a difference, we use all our senses to identify the thought. An apple has a smell, feel, taste, look but no sound (well not one we can hear)
> 
> hmm too early i dont know....


Nah you guys really aren't seeing the specificness of the question. It is a very simple and direct one.

The thought "chair" refers to an aspect of our reality. That which we know of as "chair."

If I ask you what "chair" refers to in your experience, you will probably just answer "um, the thing I am sitting in right now..." or point to a chair in the room, or perhaps a image of a "chair" will come into your mind.

The thought "chair" itself is not a chair. It is a thought/concept. The thought/concept cannot be sat in, slept in, relaxed in, felt, enjoyed, experienced on a physical level. It is a thought.

Now, the aspect of reality of which it refers to, can be sat in, enjoyed, experienced on that level.

Everyone says "I am me" And we talk about ourselves, and experience life, and have a past, and hopefully (or not) a future.

So, what does the thought "I" or "me" refer to? You are not the THOUGHT itself, right? As the thought CHAIR is not a chair and the thought APPLE is not an apple. Therefore, what does it point to, or refer to?

LOOK!


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

Pablo said:


> I think that is the question you just phrased it in a different way, the question of what the imagination of "I" of "me" is relating to still comes back to the question "who am I?" you just asked it in a interesting way. By definition what you can witness or look at can't be you so I think the "me" or "I" can only be defined by what it isn't rather than what it is.


That's quite insightful. Honestly. And it is all true, within a context.

But what does "I" or "me" refer to in your direct experience? I am not asking for your take on it, or how I or me can be defined.

I am asking you what does "I" and or "me" refer to. Not your take on my question.

You have to look within. If you admit you are not the thought "I" / "me" / "Pablo" then what is it referring to that IS real, that is really you?


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

ThoughtOnFire said:


> But what you are doing is asking a GROUP of people, not just one special case.


I am only asking you. There is no group of people. I am asking you and you alone. What does I or me refer to?


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

Drew. said:


> Well we are both concious beings and physical ones, The idea of "I" or "Me" What is differentiated between mind and body when refering to our selves? is there a difference, we use all our senses to identify the thought. An apple has a smell, feel, taste, look but no sound (well not one we can hear)
> 
> hmm too early i dont know....


When you speak of "me" what are you referring to? What does the thought "I" refer to? For you? In your experience?


----------



## Tommygunz (Sep 7, 2009)

man, the mind sure is a fun little gadget, isn't it? it can take a simple term of self reference and turn it into an overcomplicated "ideal", in a sense, that somehow seems to deserves a more specific explanation. which it doesn't. it really is as simple as a term of self reference. if this question is proposed in a more technical sense. i or me are terms/words/thoughts that were conceived by the mind through numerous chemical reactions to accommodate a need for our advanced conscious mind to refer to itself in a self aware manner. i don't imagine less conscious animals have any concept of i or me because their less conscious minds don't have a need for self awareness in any other form than perhaps a survival sense.


----------



## drew-uk (May 22, 2009)

meta_synthesis said:


> When you speak of "me" what are you referring to? What does the thought "I" refer to? For you? In your experience?


But you are only looking at this from one point of view, the "apple" would have the same question if it had concious thought, the subject only come to debate as we are questioning ourselves. I can say to my friend "joe" you are joe, but it changes when i refer to myself.

I am a concious collective of thoughts memories and feeling, when i say "I" or "Me" i Refer to my concious self as my body is not me, we dont physically exist. the apple does but we dont. After we Die we no longer exist so "I" or "Me" is actually just a thought, well a lot of thoughts


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2010)

I think your position falls apart to, as the truth is, that the word "chair" is part of the whole entire "chair experience". Words and thoughts are not divorced from reality. In fact, the concept/thought/word "chair" is attached to what a chair is. This idea is backed up in the experience of being DP/DR. Because for many of us, our thoughts are affected by the experience of DP/DR, and we take note that our thoughts and reality come in the same package of experience, subjectively and objectively. An image in the mind of a specific "chair" is quantum mechanically connected to the "chair" in question. To assume that the thought/word/image/concept of the "chair" is removed in some mental void, separated from the fundamental objective actuality of the "chair" is a foolish, albeit common, misconception.

Subjective (Perceptions; Thoughts/words/images) and Objective (Fact/Truth/Essential) "chair" are as close as Yin & Yang. And Yin & Yang are sometimes mistaken as opposites, but that is far from true. Yin & Yang are complementary and married in a harmonious connective relationship of dualistic, paradoxical, and of a complementary nature.


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

Tommygunz said:


> man, the mind sure is a fun little gadget, isn't it? it can take a simple term of self reference and turn it into an overcomplicated "ideal", in a sense, that somehow seems to deserves a more specific explanation. which it doesn't. it really is as simple as a term of self reference. if this question is proposed in a more technical sense. i or me are terms/words/thoughts that were conceived by the mind through numerous chemical reactions to accommodate a need for our advanced conscious mind to refer to itself in a self aware manner. i don't imagine less conscious animals have any concept of i or me because their less conscious minds don't have a need for self awareness in any other form than perhaps a survival sense.


That was so brilliant.

You are soooooooooo intelligent. wow omgness. I am in awe of you. AWE. Pure aaaawwwweeeeeeeeeeee. Literally.

*stands in awe of you*

See?

You totally blew up my spot. Fuck! I didn't expect someone with a damn 190 IQ to be chillin' in the shadows, waitin' to blow my shit apart like that.

*snaps fingers*


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

ThoughtOnFire said:


> I think your position falls apart to, as the truth is, that the word "chair" is part of the whole entire "chair experience". Words and thoughts are not divorced from reality. In fact, the concept/thought/word "chair" is attached to what a chair is. This idea is backed up in the experience of being DP/DR. Because for many of us, our thoughts are affected by the experience of DP/DR, and we take note that our thoughts and reality come in the same package of experience, subjectively and objectively. An image in the mind of a specific "chair" is quantum mechanically connected to the "chair" in question. To assume that the thought/word/image/concept of the "chair" is removed in some mental void, separated from the fundamental objective actuality of the "chair" is a foolish, albeit common, misconception.
> 
> Subjective (Perceptions; Thoughts/words/images) and Objective (Fact/Truth/Essential) "chair" are as close as Yin & Yang. And Yin & Yang are sometimes mistaken as opposites, but that is far from true. Yin & Yang are complementary and married in a harmonious connective relationship of dualistic, paradoxical, and of a complementary nature.


My position doesn't fall apart because I don't have one, lol.

What doesn't exist cannot come a tumblin' down.

BTW, there's no such thing as chair or apple anyway. The label that attempts to define reality is just a label. Under the label isn't another label. Under the label there is just a seamless whole experience and no separate objects, well it is always that way but it may seem otherwise.

Thanks for the interesting post. You're very bright. And make some awesome points. (honestly)

But...

(no just fucking with you, there's no but, lol)

This has a lot in it:


> Subjective (Perceptions; Thoughts/words/images) and Objective (Fact/Truth/Essential)


In my experience all there is, is subjectiveness. I have a subjective reality. And you have a subjective reality.

Perceptions are therefore subjective. (is that not fact/truth to you?)

Thoughts are subjective (also, fact/truth to you?)

Words are subjective (I don't follow)

Images are subjective (not if someone walks in and catches me looking at porn)

No, honestly, I don't experience or grant any reality to anything "objective"

If I do experience an objective "something" then it is thus that I experience objective reality, subjectively. It's a legit experience. If you experience that sort of thing. A dream at night seems to be objective too, until we wake up and see none of it existed, let alone was in any sense real.

But I have a new question for you. What is Truth? WHAT IS TRUTH? Be as specific as you can, please, if you want to play with me.


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

Drew. said:


> But you are only looking at this from one point of view, the "apple" would have the same question if it had concious thought, the subject only come to debate as we are questioning ourselves. I can say to my friend "joe" you are joe, but it changes when i refer to myself.
> 
> I am a concious collective of thoughts memories and feeling, when i say "I" or "Me" i Refer to my concious self as my body is not me, we dont physically exist. the apple does but we dont. After we Die we no longer exist so "I" or "Me" is actually just a thought, well a lot of thoughts


Sup Drewwwwwww,

Have you ever experienced "apple" before? Does it have ANY reality, what so ever? The thought isn't an apple. So what is it apple? Does "apple" really describe the fruit in your hand? Does it really tell you what it is? Do you know the apple, or know ABOUT the apple? You know its shape. Its color. Its texture. Its taste. "it" is red. "it" is round. "it" is smooth. you are describing it. But do you know it? I can describe the experience of what water is to you, and how you can swim in it, and drink it, and how it's "liquid" and "moldable" how you can "put it on you" - this is what I might say to someone who has never experienced any liquid in their life. They could become a damn world expert on water, and have never seen it or experienced it. (it's actually quite possible, because all knowledge is conceptual) but do you KNOW apple? WHAT IS APPLE?


----------



## Tommygunz (Sep 7, 2009)

meta_synthesis said:


> That was so brilliant.
> 
> You are soooooooooo intelligent. wow omgness. I am in awe of you. AWE. Pure aaaawwwweeeeeeeeeeee. Literally.
> 
> ...


----------



## meta_synthesis (Nov 27, 2010)

> Lol, thanks for the ego boost!


My pleasure









I call shit how I see it.


----------



## gill (Jul 1, 2010)

meta_synthesis said:


> In our head we speak of "me" and "I" - both thoughts.
> 
> What do they point to. What do they refer to?


Objectively, "I" refers to your physical body. Subjectively, "I" refers to your self-image and sense of agency.



> What is Truth? WHAT IS TRUTH? Be as specific as you can, please, if you want to play with me.


That which does not depend on your mind's influence.

For instance, it does not matter what you believe, feel, think, experience, the computer you used to post your message will not operate unless it receives the correct voltage. Therefore, the physical nature of voltage, could be referred to as 'truth'.


----------



## ohwell (Oct 28, 2010)

That's a constructivist philosophy and I share that position too. There is no way we can remove from the chair our thoughts or the semantics.



ThoughtOnFire said:


> I think your position falls apart to, as the truth is, that the word "chair" is part of the whole entire "chair experience". Words and thoughts are not divorced from reality. In fact, the concept/thought/word "chair" is attached to what a chair is. This idea is backed up in the experience of being DP/DR. Because for many of us, our thoughts are affected by the experience of DP/DR, and we take note that our thoughts and reality come in the same package of experience, subjectively and objectively. An image in the mind of a specific "chair" is quantum mechanically connected to the "chair" in question. To assume that the thought/word/image/concept of the "chair" is removed in some mental void, separated from the fundamental objective actuality of the "chair" is a foolish, albeit common, misconception.
> 
> Subjective (Perceptions; Thoughts/words/images) and Objective (Fact/Truth/Essential) "chair" are as close as Yin & Yang. And Yin & Yang are sometimes mistaken as opposites, but that is far from true. Yin & Yang are complementary and married in a harmonious connective relationship of dualistic, paradoxical, and of a complementary nature.


----------



## ohwell (Oct 28, 2010)

I don't know Russian, but lets suppose I have a computer translator which has the capacity to translate it to me from Russian to English and English to Russian perfectly, I could then correspond with a native Russian.

I won't tell him I don't know Russian..., we will exchange and exchange..., the program will even translate to me Russian expressions from a database it has.

For that person, there is no reason to think that I have zero knowledge of Russian.

What makes me any different than him? Semantics!!!, while he is writting in Russian, he is expriencing that language, those words have all meanings for him. For me, those Russian words don't mean the slightest thing.

The same goes with the exprience of water you are refering to. I told you in the begining to check for ''qualia'', what is red? what is blue? This expriencing of reality is subjective and has a reality of itself.

Of course, nothing as an answer will satisfy you. While you ask for the personal answer of others, your replies act as counter-arguments. It is often easy to ask questions to then question others answers.

Since this particular subject is being intensily debated in the academia for decades, centuries..., even prior to ancient Greece, there obviously is no satisfying answer so you will always have something to criticise others reply.

That's why I picked a good book and suggested you to read it.



meta_synthesis said:


> Sup Drewwwwwww,
> 
> Have you ever experienced "apple" before? Does it have ANY reality, what so ever? The thought isn't an apple. So what is it apple? Does "apple" really describe the fruit in your hand? Does it really tell you what it is? Do you know the apple, or know ABOUT the apple? You know its shape. Its color. Its texture. Its taste. "it" is red. "it" is round. "it" is smooth. you are describing it. But do you know it? I can describe the experience of what water is to you, and how you can swim in it, and drink it, and how it's "liquid" and "moldable" how you can "put it on you" - this is what I might say to someone who has never experienced any liquid in their life. They could become a damn world expert on water, and have never seen it or experienced it. (it's actually quite possible, because all knowledge is conceptual) but do you KNOW apple? WHAT IS APPLE?


----------



## drew-uk (May 22, 2009)

What am I


----------



## sunyata samsara (Feb 18, 2011)

meta_synthesis said:


> Not interested in the book. Thanks, but no thanks.
> 
> You assume I am looking to find myself. I am not. Re-read my post. I am asking you posters what in your experience "I" refers to.
> 
> ...


I refers to the dream character. What I am in the deepest sense is nothing and it is conscious.


----------

