I'd like to show you first chapter of my forthcoming book I'm writing. One of things, I'm explaining in it, is, that so called I (me) is just a fuzzy concept. There is no one "I", there's lots of them. More than seconds in your life. And what about consciousness? I will explain it in a ways, you’ve never heard before. It's ment for all audiencies, so it’s easy to read. Weak minded, beware, this will change everything.. http://hoito.org/writings.html And while you are there, why don't you see what else there might be for you at my website.
good for you for undertaking the beginnings of a book! keep up with it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! the i's you speak of are probably just egos? ..just a guess.
Nice opening for a book. We have been talking of similar concepts in a thread debating the validity of the concept of a 'soul'. I think the idea that a split brain would have two states of consciousness is particularily mind-bending. So...who am I? I am a sum of neural activity.
nope? welp, maybe they are just what Junge refers to as "shadows" ..those repressed and unconscious parts of our personalites..the underdevloped side of any pair of characterisctic traits of ours. how about that? is that what you mean?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The "I"s are just descriptions of the thoughts and feelings being experienced? And since at any given millesecond there are different thoughts and feelings, there are different "I"s? Another guess...
That is correct or atleast very close to the answer. I systematically italicized all the "I"s and "you"s, so reader wouldn't forget that the every time "I" or "you" is used, they are been used in different ways than pronouns I and you would have been used. But don't worry. After you have spent some time with normal people in so called real life, and used "I"s and "you"s in ways they use, you will forget everything I've said and start again using "normal" ways of using I and you. Well, atleast for a moment. Like Wittgenstein put it, one should live in instinctive revolt against language.
Imagine if we started living every second based on that theory... Thing would pretty different... And second chances would be alot more common...
Carefully now.. It isn't a compact final theory. Like I said in the beginning of the writing: "This all is leading of thought. My explanations, that I use to move on in this writing, might get denied later."
Have I accidently hurted your feelings, or why do you feel need to say that? It sounds like you were a bit irritated, when writing that..
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! yes, you did hurt my little feelings. i felt like a ghost.
Sorry, I didn't mean to. About Jung.. well, what I'm saying is quite different. What I'm saying, is, we all are constantly changing. When comparing second after me and second later me, they are different. There should be consecutive number attached to word "I" (me), starting from I0 and then would come I1, I2.. I435.. I76436. But no, we use to attach everything we think as being done by ourselves to simple "I" (I did it, not I364 nor I346363.. I did it.).
This is usually the kind of quote that prompts me to close the book, change the channel, or get up and walk out. - Warren
Oh, I feel obligated to note the following: Your grammar is absolutely atrocious. I am fully unable to read anything you write because of the glare of poor grammar. If English is not your primary language, please have someone else proofread and correct your writing. If English is your primary language, I suggest that you spend your time learning how to write before you spend your time trying to recreate basic philosophical discourse. - Warren
No, not here, but my intention is to bring in schizophrenia, attention deficit disorder and couple of others too, in following chapters. I ment that, at time 10:31 your consciousness is full of something, but minute later your consciousness is filled with different kind of stuff. So it can be possible that at one moment you are aware of food in microwave, but minute later you aren't because there's so many things going on in your consciousness, that there is no room for a thought about food in microwave. I've also explained in the writing, that there's nobody sitting on edge of consciousness, so "I" (me) must mean something else. Here's excerpt from the writing: And when you read this text, it was me, who wrote it. Or was it really me, who wrote it? About 6 hours ago, I couldn't possible create anything like this. I was dead tired and my thoughts felt very dizzy. I'm positive, that I couldn't have written anything agreedable as sane. Or let's just pretend that when I this morning read my last night's writings, which were wrote in senseless state of being drunk, I couldn't recognize it written by myself. Even with knife on my throad, I would say for sure, that it was not me, who wrote it. Should I then say, it was I2, who did it? Or what about if I would have written the same text and be a little less drunk, would it then be I3, or some other me differing from my other mees? What about if I would have written the text right after my first whiskey, would then the created text be so near my sober me, that I couldn't even think about it been written by somebody else? It's actually a bit triggy to discuss about this, as I'm actually going explain consciousness.. away. It's an illusion.
Yes, my skills in english aren't good enough. Original writing is written in finnish. Better translation will be done by somebody else.
bi-lingual good for you, Smarko...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! btw...most english-speaking people can't command the english language half as well as you just did...and, you aren't even english.
