The "I" as a means of Coercion; or: Transcendence or Integration?

When the word is written, spoken or otherwise made to be perceived by an observer, it forces that observer, provided they are capable of consciously perceiving it, to identify with the statements so made, that they might then be able to relate to it and gauge it's accuracy and validity, or worth.

Fig.1: "I flew over the moon on my skateboard with a cow wearing rocket boots." If you read that sentence you invariably read it as in, "you" did it. I wrote "I" and was speaking of me, fictionally- but by it's very nature forced you into identifying with it, even if at the purely nominal level.

This has very serious implications- without even stepping outside, our thoughts certainly do influence our inner realities, by the way they can define us by altering our actions, or the way we affect the world. Further they interact with our conscious image of the world by the way they can influence our thoughts and feelings, but also by merit of construction- is you manifested the image of Fig1, either with your imagination or by merit of speaking/thinking them.

What if this is true not just of a projected "I" but if the actual "I" which we experience of ourselves? Our personalities which comprise or values and our hangups, our qualities virtuous and corrupt, and which dictate our perceptions and dominate our realities. Is it really something that gets in the way and must be entirely ignored, or "killed" as is the common euphemism? Is it truly beyond redemption? If we are capable of exerting influence over this structure we must necessarily do so from "beyond" it.can we manipulate the structure of our selves in such a manner as to be freed of the problems that they create for us? Or should we get rid of them entirely and dwell purely in the "beyond"?

It seems to me this is the fundamental difference that is being begged on the sides of the "I" fence- thosr that claim that the "i" is completely an illusion that should be dispelled" and those that claim we must redeem ourselves with actions that align with where we wish to go at this most important level.

Is there really any difference between the two? On the one hand, being able to influence our self concepts, this "I" which is within us, or which we are within would suggest free will. Whereas the other hand, the "beyond illusion" camo would seem to suggest that free will is an illusion because everything is always happening exactly as it happens and it can't be changed, least of all by any "I" because those don't exist.

But is there really any difference in alchemizing our souls, so to speak, this essence of who we are, and essentially "giving up" any concept of worth or attachment, beyond the way that they would seem to manifest? Either way suggests a concept of beyond which is acted from- I guess what I am truly asking here is, can illusions serve a purpose to those who live in them? Or must they be dispelled entirely?

Firstly my problem with the dispelling illusions side is that I doubt it can even be done. But secondly: if we live in and are illusions, does that not make them real to us? The answer to which would depend on if we could live in truth by some manner of experience or awareness beyond the purely nominal experience of saying "there is no "I". Even if we could resident truth, and dwell outside of the illusion- you would still reside as an illusion. At which point you could use illusions for benefiting the overall state of things. However what I am trying to get at, is would this not be possible even if you couldn't reside in truth? A lot harder to be sure, but isn't the mainstay of consciousness the ability to proceed from a hypothesis as if it were concrete, and vice versa? Even without knowledge of any truth beyond the experienced "I" it is possible to recognize the malfunctioning of the "I" and thus begin to try and change it?

This in turn spawns several other questions: are we capable of effecting change upon ourselves being fully grounded in that illusion beyond the determination to change? Or is a transcendent experience of truth required prior to the process of transcendence from this ego? The latter presents us with a catch 22 resulting in the conclusion that such a transcendent experience must needs come to us, as by it's very nature we couldn't go to it. While the former begins with a point of transcendence caused by the realization of the "I"s iniquity and subsequent desire to either improve or escape. So the answer is both/and: the catch 22 begins and ends with us, and what we do,how we act and react.

Since I have (IMHO) established that change from within illusion is thusly possible, the question then arises: how do we act upon our reaction of illusion as corrupt, in such a manner as to purify it/them/us? I shall here loop in a manner back to the beginning of this the OP in referring back to words: by forming them in such a manner as to shift in a positive direction of growth, we can structure the internal reality we experience as "I",which governs our thoughts habits and actions to an alarming state in the common human as the rule rather than exception, in such a manner as to impose a alternate structure upon the existing one, and by the conscious attention to and observance of(by actions and mental attention) thusly begin to lay bricks into this new structure until you have built enough to where you can abandon this old one for the new one of your creation.

I believe this offers not just the method of surplanting corruption not only within the self, but also in the world. If there is a corrupt regime, be it physical or metaphysical, it can be ignored and surplanted by the conscious manifestation of an alternate reality. On the group level, this also ties into 'mob mentality, or how consciousness grows stronger with more people.

a reply to: LucidWarrior

Manipulating public opinion is an extremely advanced science:

www.youtube.com...

and

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: LucidWarrior

The 'I' is nothing more than an 'eye'. The I/eye is all seeing. However, I/eye is not a thing. Without the I/eye nothing could appear - there would be no existence.
Existence is because seeing is.

But because I/eye seems to be looking out from a body, there has been an identification with that body. Instead of there being the understanding that I/eye simply is (I am), there maybe the assumption that I am the body/mind.
But it can be noticed that the body (appearing as sensation) and mind (appearing as thought) are seen by I/eye.

What you really are is what is seeing whatever appears. You (I/eye) are the seeing of what you are not. When the false you has been lifted away/removed from the picture (the person/solid thing you once believed yourself to be - who the false you judged and condemned) there will be peace 'within' and harmony 'without'.

The true I/eye is all seeing and simply knowing what is arising always presently.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Yes but Bernays latched onto the already existing network of public manipulation... Or whoever was behind senator Joseph McCarthy and his Red Scare which has left the public still to this day to think of communism as something vile ... Y'know, Werner Brauns 4 stages of control? Whoever came up with that

a reply to: Itisnowagain

You come from the (as I call it) dispelling illusion camp, seeing as how you believe the I/eye as you call it can and should be perceived as false (your own word) And removed. However there is a confusion between us. What you call 'The I/eye' is what I refer to as 'The Beyond' in my OP; what you refer to as 'The false you' I refer to as the personal and experiential "I". In other words you think it is empty and formed only by the delusion of our "I/eye" into misdentifying itself with the mind and body. I believe that the 'eye' to which you refer to is exactly that which is operated from when we construct our "I/ego" which I positive to be an entirely seperate and just as real structure. I am not questioning whether one should operate from this Beyond. Only How. You believe this ego structure must be abandoned. I believe it should be transformed.

The other side of that very stance you take is the belief that, rather than be abandoned, this construct, this false construct by your very admittance,must be integrated with the Self which is simply another term for Beyond. Far from getting rid of or seeing through, this stance believes that one must grab and hold onto ones eye and begin to change.it to reflect what you will it to rather that what it's will is.

Think of it like this. Somehow, you have a magic canvas. This canvas is your mind generated "I" construct. It gets pretty dirty and messy pretty quickly on its own, it seems out of control. In your opinion, it is false and must be removed. Ie you must dwell purely in Beyond, the "I" is beyond redemption.

Whereas the other camp believes that yes, the canvas paints a mess on itself. But that rather than abandoning ship(Or settling for a completely blank canvas(or screen like your preferred example)) the.answer is to take the brush back and paint things of beauty. To wrestle control back of this "I" and transform it, alchemizing it if you will, from the base elements into gold.

Simply put? Like I said in the OP I don't really think there's very much difference between the two. I'm not disagreeing with you in terms of result- operating from Beyond. My only contention is in method. After all, even if you were able to completely drop thesis false self and operate from Truth, is from Beyond, You would still live here in illusion however much you know and perceive the Beyond, this absence of confusion and falsness. The appreance that lead to the original fault (as you say it "identification with mind and body" will still be there. You would still have an "I/Ego" concept. In your view it's defunct and powerless at that stage and should and will remain such.

My question is, could you not still use this I concept for benefit? Even if you know it and perceive it to be illusion could you not still plant seeds in this garden since it is freed of weeds? Further in my opinion I believe to have demonstrated that 'droppimg the false i' is an unnecessary procedure and results in wasted effort. Because the soul, this 'ego concept'(for that's what really gets twisted into I/ego, it's not the 'i/eye' but the soul, the individual spark of the 'i/eye') can be alchemized even if one has not dropped their illusions.

It comes down to, upon realizing that the ego construct is flawed, whether ones urge is to begin the arduous process of Integration or transformation upon it, or whether ones instinct is to abandon ship. Like I said in my OP I don't even think that's possible. I mean, yourself. You always speak these things and yet I have not once ever seen you give an actual method of perceiving this experience you dance around. Whereas the method of Integration is simple: (to quote my OP yet again)words: by forming them in such a manner as to shift in a positive direction of growth, we can structure the internal reality we experience as "I",which governs our thoughts habits and actions to an alarming state in the common human as the rule rather than exception, in such a manner as to impose a alternate structure upon the existing one, and by the conscious attention to and observance of(by actions and mental attention) thusly begin to lay bricks into this new structure until you have built enough to where you can abandon this old one for the new one of your creation

originally posted by: LucidWarrior
a reply to: Itisnowagain

You come from the (as I call it) dispelling illusion camp, seeing as how you believe the I/eye as you call it can and should be perceived as false (your own word) And removed. However there is a confusion between us. What you call 'The I/eye' is what I refer to as 'The Beyond' in my OP; what you refer to as 'The false you' I refer to as the personal and experiential "I".

There does seem to be confusion.
The I is really the all seeing eye - the true I is seeing what appears. I did not say it should be perceived as false or removed. The person is not the true I - it is that which is not the true I and must be seen (recognised )as such. That which appears is not the true I. All appears within the seeing.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I did not say it should be perceived as false or removed.

Yes, you did say that. You said exactly that:

What you really are is what is seeing whatever appears. You (I/eye) are the seeing of what you are not. When the false you has been lifted away/removed from the picture (the person/solid thing you once believed yourself to be - who the false you judged and condemned) there will be peace 'within' and harmony 'without'. 

a reply to: LucidWarrior

There seems to be some confusion.
I will break down the paragraph:
This bit is about the REAL eye/I - which will never lift away and is the only bit that cannot be perceived as false (because it is what is perceiving).
'What you really are is what is seeing whatever appears.' What you REALLY ARE is what is SEEING whatever appears.

' You (I/eye) are the seeing of what you are not.' - The REAL you is seeing what you are not.

This next sentence is about the FALSE you (prior to this sentence - I was speaking about the true I/eye):
When the false you has been lifted away/removed from the picture (the person/solid thing you once believed yourself to be - who the false you judged and condemned) there will be peace 'within' and harmony 'without'.
The FALSE you is the one that APPEARS (the person that is seen - it is that which is perceived). The REAL you does not appear.

Sorry if I had not written it clear enough previously - I hope you get what I mean now.

a reply to: LucidWarrior

I is a concept, you is a concept when reading there are concepts as subject... no you or I? Then one reads the concept as a subject not oneself as an existing object unless one exists.

When eating, is there an I tasting? No there is a tongue sensing what it senses as taste? Relative to ones programming or conditioning whether that good or bad, no one else can tell you what your tongue senses unless you agree to that sense being shared.

Someone may say hey this tastes good and even if you agree yes it is good; both of you could be eating something entirely different in unawareness of it's difference the only agreement is "good" you could think you both are eating spaghetti not having asked what is this? They just eat it, you made it so you think hey this is spaghetti but them not having asked? They could see steak. You enjoying your spaghetti and they enjoying their steak... how would they know what it was you were making unless asked or planned?

Even with the term good there is a doubt to what it is both are agreeing too, with the subject... they could just be speaking of the company and the food terrible.

So the assumption is made from an attachment to a subject one thinks they know in their own egotistical bubble of awareness of an assumed reality. Is it the absolute reality? No never could be. It always is just as it is... of course someone running around going this is spaghetti, do you like this spaghetti testing that self assumption is control and paranoia.

So leave concept to concept, it is considerate to ask what they may want to eat first if they are even hungry, but it is just as inconsiderate to turn ones nose up to whatever it is. Of course the more one "knows" someone the more they can be considerate knowing what they like to eat and enjoy... instead of some random crap they would never buy or eat.

But selfishness doesn't consider anyone except themselves, thats why self acceptance is easy other acceptance is one of the most difficult things there is when ego is involved.

So leaving the assumption and expectation out of things; then less fault occurs... things can be just left as they are.

Trying to tell someone how they comprehend things or the point of view in which they do? Makes the assumption someone is your subject instead of the material or topic at hand... if you are making someone your subject it is very rude to assume they want to be the subject and then expect them to answer you. Most people do not listen to anything other than the conversation or inner dialog that they have assumed is them, identifying with those things floating around no where called thought as a self...

None of that is a self, it is empty bubbles of concepts and ideas others have given to allow a construct to communicate and understand a system, leave it as a subject and no one need become subject or slave to it... it just is what it is, no self does anything to make it different... the conglomerate of concepts alters, twists and is fractal in nature... blending and twisting reality into a subjective one, instead of the one unaltered.

Such is the nature of grasping; trying to control what cannot be controlled because it cannot even but known only relative to a perception... eyes see, all eyes only see that is their function it never changes... the concept the eye sees changes no where but in the one holding concepts... cease the concept and the eye goes back to just seeing nothing arises in the seen as a concept to mirror some past grasping that is false, not true not reality... that grasping is a personal truth and only a relative personal truth, no one else could ever share it, it is unique impermanent always arising and always passing.

The collusion that it exists is a conspiracy that there is a sameness, when there is no sameness in the thing itself, just the concept that it is...

What is an I? That conglomerate attached to concepts as real and tangible, but they cannot be found... when does wood cease to be wood? From tree to chair to table... it never does, the illusion says it does. All of these concepts arise and pass not permanent not absolute truth, but in trying to make them absolutes when they are just variables is a futility.

It is an attempt to control the uncontrollable, it makes all life subject to nothing but subject itself, a conceptual construct in the agreement of slavery to the unreality instead of the actual reality underneath all things.

Seeing this clear in experience directly, not just rote understanding or grasping of it... is the experience of truth... it is a void and yet not void, it is subject and object from an awareness not either. In such a manner it is and it isn't because the awareness is neither, it just is and undifferentiated in all things except by the holding onto as something as real and existent when it just is... what it is matters not, the thinking it does is the biggest joke and yet the saddest thing there is. It gives rise to all joy and all suffering right behind it... letting it go? Freedom, death and life still occur but it is not experienced as thought. Moment to moment as no subject can be subject unless subject, otherwise it is and it isn't...

I'm not trying to be complicated; it is just a state of being and awareness where all grasping and concepts must be lay down where no consciousness of any sense dwells and only awareness remains... things arising and things passing countless but known seen but not grasped heard but no dwelling felt but no differentiation.

Some would say such a state is love just because it accepts all that is as it is; but in non reciprocation then it is a rock to a bare foot, a thorn to a side... and in empathy? One bares such knowing that at some point the ones grasping the most at empty nonsense as full will empty those senses and then truly live.