The I exists only through sensation.


china
#1
The body of mine (and yours ) has its sensations of hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting, and feeling. This group I'll call sensation. Then there is perception, the power to create images, imagination. There is the mind which thinks, and there is consciousness. (I am dividing them for convenience, not to create a new system). All these: body, sensation, perception, thought, consciousness, go to create the I. It is not the I which creates them, not the I which thinks, which feels, which perceives, which is conscious. The I begins to acquire, grasp, hold, and through this grasping, holding, self-consciousness is created. Thus all self-consciousness is
acquisition.
The I does not exist by itself, it exists only through sensation. To me there is no I; it is but sensation, body, perception, thought, consciousness, that create the I; and because it must live in separateness, that I must acquire, must possess. So consciousness, that I, must hold, must grasp, must acquire, and in opposition to that, death seems like annihilation. Now this acquiring, grasping I, thinks that through these accumulations it will acquire happiness, completeness. Through that desire of acquisition it sets up the idea of continuity and the fear of annihilation. So the I is created in the mind, the I does not exist by itself. For its well-being, for its maintenance of separateness, it demands the standardization of thought, with all its implications, and evades all changes. Then there is the standardization of morality, laws framed to check the I from becoming too greedy in acquisition, and from this arises fear, the fear of that independent thought which leads man to become his own law. Naturally, from all this, there is the emphasis on individuality in the wrong place; that is, you think that because the individual is separate and the quality of individuality is acquisition, you should emphasize that quality of acquisition in work. You think that through work the individual will gain more and more for himself and become more possessive in qualities, friendships and objects. The emphasis is laid on the gain to the individual through work. Work must be collective, not individualistic. There must be the planning of cooperative work for the whole and not for the individual alone. We must plan together for the whole of mankind, and in that there cannot be separation into countries, nationalities, peoples. On the other hand, there is the individual who must free himself, through his own effort, from his I, self-consciousness. For that there can be no authority though there must be an authority in work. Authority must be in the right sphere and not in the wrong sphere as it is at present. You have spiritual authority, that is, you follow someone, a saviour. There can not be authority towards the freedom of self-consciousness, because Truth is purely an individual perception and in that perception you must become a law to yourself and cannot follow another. Because of the false emphasis on individuality, there is the idea either of annihilation or of continuity. The mind is all the time occupied with the I: whether I shall always exist, whether I have enough possessions, power, glory, comfortall the time grasping, acquiring, growing, and this kind of growth is entirely based on sensation. The I exists in that consciousness which depends on sensation, so the mind is occupied with all these longings; and you imagine that the more you acquire, the happier you will be. Examine your systems of life and you will see that everything is based on this. While you are caught up in this division of yours and of mine, there are many ways of deceiving yourself. But when the mind is free of the I, it can begin to renew itself, to recreate itself.
And that to me -it's just the way It Is .
Your thoughts as usual.

PS
Obviously you don't have to agree on anything placed above.
 
iARTthere4iam
#2
I am going to have to disagree with pretty much everything here. I do not believe that "I" is created in the mind but rather is a function of language. The fact that if I fall down I feel the pain not you makes me not want to fall down. I know from experience that when I fall down and get hurt my mother seems to feel my pain, other times when I get hurt and people around laugh at my pain I am sure I am alone in my pain. When I am hungry my natural reaction is to want to eat to ease my hunger. If I was hungry and you gave me food without being asked I would assume that you felt my hunger and were giving me food to ameliorate the hunger. For example If it is freezing cold in my house and everyone in the house is cold and I build a fire it would be assumed by all that I built the fire to make everone warm when in reality I only wanted to get warm and though I built the fire to warm myself my action resulted in us all being more comfortable. Thus the individual's action (though basically selfish) turns out to be good for all.The emphasis is laid on the gain to the individual through work. Work must be collective, not individualistic. There must be the planning of cooperative work for the whole and not for the individual alone. We must plan together for the whole of mankind,Why? You give no evidence that this is so. I would argue that such a work structure is very cumbersome. As an Artist I must work alone lest any idea I have be corrupted. What would I be if my studio was crowded with other people? Have you given no thought to the idea that a million people working on a project may be working on a single unimportant or wrong assignment whereas a million people working on separate projects may just have the ability to find a) more fulfilling projects and b) a project with more far reaching though unthought-of consequenses? I believe it is through individual efforts that society reaps it's greatest rewards. Finally, consider the individuals and what their own lives mean to themselves. For some reason some people like NASCAR racing, or baseball, or hiking or reading or music, or science or speed dating, or kung fu or wine or kayaking. What makes you think you can know what will bring happiness to anyone. There is no universal recipie for fulfillment. That is up to individuals to decide.
 
china
#3
Thanks for a wonderful post .
 
iARTthere4iam
#4
My pleasure.
 
darkbeaver
#5
The individual dosn't exist. The illusion of individuality cannot create what it cannot sense or feel, we only assemble or create from existing bits and pieces I think.I could be totally wrong and my comment may not even be revelvant.
 
iARTthere4iam
#6
What makes you think you don't exist? I am sure I exist, but I can't be sure about you. So, If you can't or choose to not at least suggest that you exist I am left thinking " mabey I exist but am just insane". That is fine too.
 
darkbeaver
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by iARTthere4iam View Post

What makes you think you don't exist? I am sure I exist, but I can't be sure about you. So, If you can't or choose to not at least suggest that you exist I am left thinking " mabey I exist but am just insane". That is fine too.


I do think I exist, but not as an individual separate from the rest of the universe, I am it examining and experianceing itself.
 
Sal
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

I do think I exist, but not as an individual separate from the rest of the universe, I am it examining and experianceing itself.

Then how do you have a separate consciousness, or do you?
 
darkbeaver
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Sal View Post

Then how do you have a separate consciousness, or do you?

I don't think I do. How could it be separate, seriously, it's borrowed, I mean what your conscious of is what, position, velocity, mass charge light. The only reason I'v got this position about the I is because I can't even concieve of separation from it.
 
iARTthere4iam
#10
You're losing me a bit here DB. How did you borrow your conciousness? From whom did you borrow it. How would someone borrow your consious? I am of the earth, and share a great deal with all life that is also of this earth, but my consiousness is one thing that I can't really share. Consiousness is an combination of biology (from the brain and it's development to the entire physiology of the body), experience and chance. If there is no individuality, what is your opinion about individual happiness; does it matter, can society experience happiness if individuals don't? I see my own happiness as an issue that is very close to me, and something that is almost entirely my own choosing. My wife's happiness is also something of great importance to me, although I can affect her happiness or decide what will make her happy.
 
Dexter Sinister
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

Work must be collective, not individualistic.

Ever think that maybe you've been living in a communist society for too long?

I think it has to be both. If there's no personal benefit to you from work, why would you do it? And if you're not part of something larger than just yourself, what good are you to your fellow creatures? Humans are social animals, we have personal needs and interests and group needs and interests, and we all have to learn to balance them somehow. Get it wrong and you'll end up a hermit, or a parasite, or a derelict, or a tyrant, or something else few people approve of.

I don't think I buy the significance of your starting premise either, that the "I" exists only through sensation. The sense of self seems to be a pretty basic brain function, according to what I've read about such things (still looking for a link...). It can be distorted by drugs and injuries and electrical stimulation of the brain, by manipulating the information the brain receives with techniques like sensory deprivation, with certain meditation techniques, and sometimes the brain does it to itself with what are called hypnopompic and hypnogogic hallucinations, which appear to be the source of out of body experiences, a disconnection of the sense of self from the body at the moment of just waking up or just falling asleep. In that context, the premise becomes either trivially true, or pointless. Or maybe both. A brain that doesn't receive any sensory information invents some, and hallucinates.

I'm pretty sure though that I exist, and you exist, and everybody else who's post in this thread exists, quite independently of any sensations we give each other.
 
china
#12
darkbeaver ,
The individual dosn't exist.

Hi db ,perhaps, though your EGO would disagree with that statement.
 
china
#13
Dexter Sinister,
Quoting china Work must be collective, not individualistic.

Quote:

Ever think that maybe you've been living in a communist society for too long?

HaHaHa Dexter , Got myself into this one .
 
darkbeaver
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by china View Post

darkbeaver ,
The individual dosn't exist.

Hi db ,perhaps, though your EGO would disagree with that statement.

Shaadup China, I'm arguing myself to death, it's only a matter of time before I demonstrate that I'm not here. I don't think there's a break anywhere in the circle, you can see me eating myself.
It hurts to think to much, it's a lot of work but fun. I'v been arguing with my obstinate ego longer than you have, it's record is 700,000,038 to 54 most by TKOs.


The sensation exists only through the I.
 

Similar Threads

6
Scientists Admit Lightning Exists On Mars
by darkbeaver | Jun 21st, 2009
0
Veda Says Unimaginable God Exists
by dattaswami | Feb 3rd, 2009
0
Sensation
by china | Nov 24th, 2006