Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
tsuki

What am I?

713 posts in this topic

My mind runs through this question a lot lately and I need a place to chew through the thoughts.

So, what am I - or, what is "I"? Or maybe: who am I? Are these questions the same? No point in thinking about that.
So far, my line of reasoning goes like this:

I am not the monitor, because there is a distance between it and my body, which means that I may be my body.

As I started to touch my body, I became aware that the extent of my body is defined by short-circuiting of touch. Touch is a sensation that appears on the inside of my body, and in conjunction with sight, they define contact. As I look at my hand that touches my chest I feel the touch on the inside of my hand, and on the inside of my chest. This is how the extents of the body are defined - by touch on the both sides of the bodily boundary. 

Now, I became aware that touching something that is not-me is not really one-sided. The sensation of touch cannot really be fully located on the inside of the body. Touch just is, and it appears simultaneously with the visual cue of proximity. Hmm...

Anyway, I call my body 'mine', like 'my cup' and 'my monitor', so can it really be 'me'? Can I be the body if the body is mine? Is it just a linguistic twist?
Various things are 'mine'. What is the relationship between 'me' and 'mine'? 

There is definitely a degree of 'mine-ness'. The body is more mine than a cup, and my cup is more mine than my colleague's cup. But why is my body more mine than my cup? Is it because I move my body and I can't move a cup by itself? Well, the eyes blink by themselves and they are more mine than my cup, so it is not a matter of will/control. Is it about inseparability? Have I ever been separate from my body? Am I separate from my cup? No, I'm not. A cup is a cup because it's obvious and undeniable. It is self-apparent, even if there is nothing about this thing that makes it a cup. I recognize a cup to be a cup. So, perhaps - I am the recognition of what a cup is? That is an interesting way to put it.

If I am the recognition of what a cup is, then I am also the cup, the monitor, the keyboard, my body, this text, etc. I am everything.
It's like there is this duality between objects as concrete things, and actions that I can perform 'with them'. These actions are what these objects are, and I am all of them? But isn't a cup defined by its ability to hold liquid? Is this still a cup? Yes, in negative space of actions.

hmm...


Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, ever since it came to me that I may be the obviousness of things (their -ness), I found myself in a new perspective.
Whereas before, I've been kind of 'stuck' behind the eyes, inside of the body - now, I'm 'out there', intertwined with things that "I" perceive.
It is not a new state for me, but the last time I've been this way, it lasted for several hours. Now, it's the second hour and I can't shake it off.

As I look around, it seems like the things that "I" look at are somehow accented. Everything seems to 'stick out' from its background (unless I look at the background). It kind of reminds me of videogames where the hud is contextual and objects are highlighted when you hover your crosshair over them (minus the explicit glow). 


Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is obviousness a product of the functioning of my body? There is a brain, but the appearance of this 'solution' is not rooted in anything. It just is. It is obvious that the brain creates consciousness. That is, until it is obvious that it is doubtful that it does and I start to question this assumption. This questioning of the assumption is not questioned, however. When I am convinced that it is not obvious at all that the mind creates consciousness, I do not ask questions about whether I should question it or not. I just do. So, obviousness is something prior to body - body is rooted in obviousness.

When I try to locate the feeling of I, I usually focus on my sight. Then, everything I look at is not-me, so 'me' is located to the space orthogonal to sight (like touch, hearing, thinking).

It is strange how touch is conflated with sight when it comes to the feeling of spaciousness of the body. I can see my hands move to touch my keyboard and I can feel the pressure of the keys. It seems however, that sight and touch are somehow separated, orthogonal. Like they occur in different spaces, even if the sensation of touch is exactly where I would expect it to be given the motion of my hand. Touch is somehow on the inside of my body and sight is external. And yet - I feel the touch in the same field where I see. In space (?).


Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inner voice is a different thing, because it has no locality. It is not conflated with sight in the same sense as touch.
As I look at my hand that touches a keyboard, I can see where I feel. With the inner voice however, there is no such place wherever I look. Or rather - all places speak equally. There is no difference between how I hear my thoughts, regardless of what I see. If that is the case, then why do I (again) locate my thoughts in the space orthogonal to sight? I usually perceive my thoughts as if they were behind my eyes, inside of my skull.

Does the inside of my body have any sensations? There is a sensation of movement when I tense my muscles and it is often conflated with sight (I can observe my body moving). There are other feelings however that are not observable via sight. I used to describe them in terms of spaciousness in this thread: 

Again, these feelings are not conflated with sight in the same sense, as the inner voice. Their intensity is not directional and I recognize them to be inside of my body. There's been a progress in development of these feelings. They are not only located inside of my skull and stop at the throat, but also expand down to the base of my spine. I can shift these to my arms and to my legs. They seem to be conflated with my breath, because when I focus on inhaling and exhaling, I can make these feelings more intense. They can become so intense, that I cannot stop myself from tightening my chest, the back of my neck, and my anus.


Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, that I think of it, these 'inner' feelings actually do have a kind of directionality if I can shift them around on the inside of my body. This directionality is defined, again, by touch. I can see my hand touching my chest, feel the touch on the hand and on the chest and induce the inner feeling in this area.

The inner voice also has a kind of directionality, because of reading. hmm...
Does this somehow help me answer the original question?


Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shit. I just realized what direction is. It's a short-circuiting of senses! What the fuck!
There is this obviousness related to where sensations occur. They occur in one field, but this field is partitioned into various categories such as sight, sound, thoughts, etc. Direction is the obviousness of simultaneity of sensations. Hahaha what the fuck?!

Direction is a paradox. It doesn't exist!

Edited by tsuki

Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this influence my notion of what I am? Not really? Kind of? I feel differently.
Am I my body? Why is the touch so important to me? It fascinates me that there is this visible surface area around 'me' that I can feel. I can see two cupboards that touch in front of me, but I can't feel it the way I feel when I touch something with my hand. Do they really touch if I can't feel it?
What does it even mean that two things that are not me touch? Do they? I'm getting sidetracked again...

Why do I so stubbornly insist that I am the body? Oh right - I don't. I just flipped back to being obviousness, huh?


Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what am I? A thought came up that I am a thought. Lets investigate that.

What is a thought? There is the inner voice, inner sight and inner hearing (like a catchy song gets stuck in the mind). To some extent, I can conjure a taste of yesterday's dinner, or the smell of my wife's hair. So - thoughts are a space of sensations. How are these sensations distinct from the 'outer' ones, so that I classify them as thoughts?

There is the social aspect - the imaginary sensations are not shared with others. People do not hear my inner voice. I can call them all kinds of names and they do not react to them. They do not react to what I imagine. I can visualize all kinds of situations and they stir emotions within me, but others do not seem to be receptive to them. 

Are emotions thoughts? I can bottle up my emotions and not let others see them (up to a certain point), so they can be private. However, I can see somebody else's emotions if I know them well enough. I can also share what I feel by talking, or through actions - like displays of affection/love, or outbursts of anger. It is then immediately clear what I feel even if I do not describe it. In intimate relationships, my emotions can even get interlocked with other people. Their sadness is my sadness. Their anger is my anger.

Emotions seem to be this grey area between private and public sensations. Are they special in this regard? Perhaps there are also inner and outer emotions, like there is inner and outer voice? That is an interesting way of seeing it, I have never thought about it before.

There seems to be a connection between emotions and this inner feeling that I can induce along the spine. When I'm being mindful when I am angry, for example, I can feel the boiling sensation in the area of my chest. I even successfully extinguished my anger/fear/anxiety in the navel area once by stirring the inner feelings. So, maybe the inner feelings should rather be called inner emotions?

Again, it hits me how strange it is that I can locate sensations between orthogonal spaces such as touch and emotions. Anger in the navel area. What?!

So, sensations seem to be divided into two spheres - inner and outer. Private and public. The private sphere is what I call thoughts.
Am I a thought? If thoughts are defined like that, then no - I am not a thought because other people seem react to what I do. If that is the case, then I am not private (at least not entirely). So, perhaps there is the inner I and the outer I? This reminds me of the Jung's model of the psyche:

94e779ebbcd1e31efedf52ef97beea40.jpg

EDIT:
Now that's an interesting thought: maybe, 'the social aspect' is a way to divide 'me' into inner and outer sphere?

Edited by tsuki

Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Is the inner and outer sphere of "Me" really separate?
  2. Since there is an inner and outer "I", and all senses seem to have an inner and outer counterpart, then maybe I am my senses?

 

 

 


Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tsuki short circuiting? :)

i really wanted to answer, but it would be too rational. can’t bring it about.

what is a touch tsuki?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tsuki said:

Why do I so stubbornly insist that I am the body? Oh right - I don't. 

Because you are your body and "you" are "nothing" - can you "be" both (and enjoy the paradox) at the same time? 

Hehe, looks like I'm still having trouble enjoying this paradox, otherwise I wouldn't be triggered to jump in here, would I?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, now is forever said:

@tsuki short circuiting? :)

  1. Close your eyes.
  2. Touch your index finger to your thumb and start moving them in circular motions.
  3. Concentrate on the feeling of touch.
  4. Stop touching your fingers and listen to your thoughts. Concentrate on them and notice the chatter.
  5. Open your eyes. Look around. Notice that you are seeing.

For me, these are three distinct areas of senses. Normally, I think of them as separate spaces that are disjoint.
Sight does not appear in the space of touch. Thoughts do not appear in the space of sight. Etc.

Now, start touching your fingers again, but with your eyes open. Look around. Can you see where your fingers touch?
The assumption that senses are disjoint is false. You can clearly see where the sensation of touch occurs. This knowledge is not 'visible' and you cannot 'touch it'. It is simply obvious where your fingers touch. The intersection between the sight-space and touch-space is what I call a short-circuit. This particular sight-touch short-circuit is what I recognized to be direction. There are other short-circuits, such as sight-voice. There are sights that you can witness that will trigger an inner dialog. This very text is a sight-voice short-circuit because (at least for me) it triggers an inner dialog that I recognize to be this text.

You can start touching around things and seeing where they are in the touch-space. This is how you can know the extents of 'your' body. Touch is only associated with a certain shape in your sight-space.

10 hours ago, now is forever said:

what is a touch tsuki?

It is a sensation. I cannot explain it in terms of anything else.

Edited by tsuki

Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zweistein I can't really say that I am nothing, because I cannot locate it in my direct experience for now.

Anyways, thank you for reading my journal @Zweistein and @now is forever.
It is a pleasant feeling to know that some people find my thoughts interesting.


Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tsuki What is time? What is direct experience?

Love contemplating with you "two" ?

Edited by Zweistein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, tsuki said:

 

10 hours ago, now is forever said:

what is a touch tsuki?

It is a sensation. I cannot explain it in terms of anything else.

yes it is a SENSATION. and what does a touch depend on?

 

thank you for the practical advise and explanation of short circuiting - i’ll try that. and tell you!

(don’t forget there is not only electricity and physics in the loop, chemistry is also a part of it)

Edited by now is forever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tsuki the short circuiting is interesting - it was especially interesting that the thought thought: there is no thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, now is forever said:

yes it is a SENSATION. and what does a touch depend on?

@now is forever Nothing. It just is.
I suppose that I've chosen sensations as a framework to describe myself with. Touch is one aspect of 'me'.
In this perspective, everything is reduced to one from of sensation or another and I establish relationships between them. I have already convinced myself that short-circuiting is the experience of falsehood of this perspective, a paradox. Senses are not disjoint like this perspective assumes.

Short circuiting is a form of obviousness and in this particular instance - obviousness masks a paradox.
If I am the obviousness of things, then am I a paradox? A false assumption?
Do I feel this? Kind of... It is mostly a logical reasoning for now.

 


Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tsuki i don’t get what you are saying completely.

i don’t think that short circuiting is falsehood - it is just a perspective and an interesting one, too.

sensation for me points to a quality and to an intensity of the sensation - so watching the different chanel’s of sensation is interesting as you get aware of them.

is there something bad in being a paradox? life is a paradox.

why should you be a false assumption??? because no one perceives you the way you do yourself? or because you can’t locate the i somewhere in the body, like the soul or the chemistry/alchemy of sensations? 

what do you mean by “false” is it something like an error? or is false just a perspective? or are you saying you feel this is like the devil of your true self?

you say you are masking something - is there a way in not masking? is there a way in being less obvious by being more obvious?

Edited by now is forever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@now is forever If you find my insights useful somehow, then I'm glad that I could be of any help to you. However, if they create confusion, then you must understand that they are contextual to what I experience. There is no way to translate them for you and I'm not going to attempt to.

I write this journal for myself as a way of extending the lifespan of my insights and integrating them into my everyday life.
Explaining them to others (even if I find them to be wonderful people) is not my priority if it doesn't serve the above purpose.

Edited by tsuki
People do not serve any purpose!

Bearing with the conditioned in gentleness, fording the river with resolution, not neglecting what is distant, not regarding one's companions; thus one may manage to walk in the middle. H11L2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tsuki hahaha - i didn’t see it was a journal - O.o sorry. have fun.

(beuys once said: never again without disturbancies, distractions, disruption or disorder, depends on how it’s translated)

Edited by now is forever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0