[Elizabeth]

Are you not part of the whatever? Is the whatever not also in you? If you are only part of the whatever rather than the whole whatever, that does not mean that you are not also you as well as part of the whatever, even if the whatever in you is not distinguishable from the whatever, does it?

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth Are you not part of the whatever? Is the whatever not also in you? If you are only part of the whatever rather than the whole whatever, that does not mean that you are not also you as well as part of the whatever, even if the whatever in you is not distinguishable from the whatever, does it?

If you put it that way Elizabeth,then I suppose I am part of whatever!Whatever you say
whatever I say,will in the whatever be part of the altogether whatever?



regards michael.

[jim barlow]

I can't help being fascinated by the "me" structure. Is it a composite which when copied over to the computer would make the machine think it is "me"?
But that kind of eternal life would be horrible. Imagine, "you" wake up with no arms, no legs, no interesting organs probably suffused through a boring Buddhist heaven.

I think there is a me. The animals have it too though not quite that conscious.

There is a kick in this whole thing. It exists because it can. No other purpose. I think it is the spiritual equivalent of the body.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by jim barlow Contraries are equally true they do not zero each other out (as I used to think) but determine a new concept not available on either horn of the dilemma. Transcending the opposites - another way to play this. What are contraries to what? There is one rub. Music walks on counterpoints, colors have theirs, paintings their canvas, feelings their unconcious component. It is like superposition in quantum physics. The reason I bring this up is: the ME and the WHATEVER contrary coexist. From them arises a structure that does include the ME and the WHATEVER plus possibly more. It cannot be arrived at neither thru ME nor its complement. One has to do some other thing then it hits one from above. To tell the truth whatever hit me there was no trace of the ME in it but I didn't miss it. Hope this makes sense? Does it have to?

Thanks Jim,does it make sense,yes and no?I think we need a balance of the rational and
the irrational,that way we get a clearer picture of the "subtle" differences,we are in fact
three-fold expressions of force,mental,physical,spiritual,beings,maybe these can be expressed as "I" "self" "me"?
What do you think Jim?

regards michael.

[jim barlow]

I can't find your post Michael, still I got it in the mail.

It was about the contrary possibilities of the manifestation called "me".

While I'm sure one can come up with wondrous structures (like symphonies) on the theme, I like to look at these things with the eyes of a simple peasant. He (the peasant) has to be practical (nowdays called scientific) otherwise he'll starve. He also has to be fairly frugal with his time and effort otherwise he'll never hit the sack in time. The answers he gets are in some way reinforced by his immediate environment and what more can a philosopher ask?

In the spirit of this I would confine myself solely to the appreciation of the ego structure and its relatives in the cosmos: structures. Planets, bugs, atoms all kinds of bunching up. What is in this bunching up picture? Imbalance between matter and anti matter? A new beast crawling on the sands of Lebanon?

There is also a possibility this "private avenue" open to each individual (not communicable for the same reason) is the main frontier on which to press on. The danger of course is mental inadequacy causing freeze-ups, wish fulfillment etc blind alleys...

This ego thing is maybe like a magic horse. It'll take you anywhere but if you can't ride it will follow its own nose which goes in circles like the planets and other seasons.

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Jim,I enjoyed your most thoughtful post.Of course the ego plays a big part in the
self analysis exploration of our psyche,and as you rightly say Jim,it can lead one down many a blind alley,and cul-de-sac,I know that for certain for I have traveled down a few
of these dead ends myself!

The ego seems eager to cooperate with this introspection until it reaches a certain point
along that road,then it begins to falter,this is because it begins to sense its self being made redundant!And promptly starts to try and cause a distraction to lead you away from
further inquiry!

One begins to discover that "I AM" seems valid,and causes no resistance within the ether,
while still claiming to be me,after a certain level of realization has been reached,causes a
jarring and an uncomfortable sensation to arise within?

The "I" then seems to expand expeditiously and become more inclusive by nature.


regards michael.

[Elizabeth]

Michael,

Although I agree with your above post, I have issue with the first part of following quote from your previous post:

I think we need a balance of the rational and the irrational,that way we get a clearer picture of the "subtle" differences,we are in fact three-fold expressions of force,mental,physical,spiritual,beings,maybe these can be expressed as "I" "self" "me"?

I don't think that having a balance of rational and irrational is congruent with finding ultimate truth. Understanding the irrational, as concepts, is important because irrational concepts are part of the whole of reality - but having any irrationality in ourselves opens the door for illusion and delusion rather than lighting the path for what is real in the dualistic sense of the term.

The second part of that quote is quite good - but that is not truly irrational. Reality has many more layers to it than what is readily appearant, but the only way to determine if the gossamer layers of reality are woven from reality or delusion is to examine them for rationality, with rationality.

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Elizabeth for your comments,The balance is about maintaining a balance of both
the rational,and the irrational,as this is a healthy state to foster.Prehaps another two words,that of positive and negative would reveal a polarity that is more in alignment with
balance than rational and irrational?

regards michael.

[Elizabeth]

I could accept a healthy level of negativity better than I could accept the concept of a helathy level of irrationality.

If there were a condition when it would be better to be irrational, then that would make it a rational decision to be irrational - making it an oxymoron.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I could accept a healthy level of negativity better than I could accept the concept of a helathy level of irrationality. If there were a condition when it would be better to be irrational, then that would make it a rational decision to be irrational - making it an oxymoron.

Interestingly Betts,I often make a rational decision to behave irrationally,as I find
this extremely helpful in working with certain individuals who have profound mental
health difficulties?This irrationality that arises from within me,somehow seems to cancel
out the mixed up jumble that spills out,and provides an opening/window/opportunity,
to engage in some meaningful dialogue.


regards michael.