Only if had to

Work with the modern definition:

I-

the self; the ego; the meaning (the intending, the defining, the desiring, the favoring); the mind; the will; the have (the own); the moment

^^Basic words with mega rich, seperate, unique defining implications per individual. So indeed "; the specifying" is an 8th addition to the modern definition, since it serves a magnificational examination to the chemistry, the webbing, and the workings of the other listed components serving an individual oneness.

Topic:

Since an individual is an "I," whether or not, they deem it their's: Tell me what I listed you prefer dropped from you (a specific individual) if you had to drop just one indicated division of an "I" that is you.


Note: Since an individual is not bound to any circumstance, it may drop or add to it any kind of inner seperate division. Only "The World" can subject an individual, temporarily, to circumstance that certain say is an indirect individuality orginally meant to face by such an individual who is temporarily hiding away from a direct wise in that indirect wise in a field it set up the world in to plant itself in.

Self, an irresolute position of esteem in a manner fitting only the hive,directionwise and not beneficial to individuality as a whole in the microcosm of the uniqueness of life. There is no individual oneness since the overlapping plaits of the super ego conflict with the underlying direction of the oneness of life.

Right on Brother.

maybe if you substituted i with me. if we use me instead of i then it is perfectly clear that the 13th definition of the book of donald trump who refers to me much more often than i in that book,
using your own words in your opening post you say the meaning which starts with me.
also the word megarich. that starts with me also.

i think i might be onto something. if you use the word on the 39th parallel then you must say the word eh after it. if you say it at the equator you have to say yah mon after it. so if you take the number of letters in eh and yah mon you get 8 as in the 8th addition. if you add in the 24 hour rotation of the earth and multiply it by the 93,000,000 miles away the sun is and divide it by the number of times a kangaroo bounces in a 36 hour period then find the square root of the mark of the beast 666 which i know you said before is really 777 you come up with a number 9135. using the numeral to alphabet ratio that would = iace. but if you put in the comma before the 1 then it would be 9 13 5 which would mean i me. in other words i = me. i is not you. i is me. you is not me. you is you but to you i is you. to you i is the same as me but to me when speaking of you you is different than i or me. i think your onto something

I gotcha. Meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Without personal belief in the importance of things, there wouldn't be much of a meaning. If everything is temporary, how can anything really be that important?
Will an American Revolution be permanent? Will peace reign supreme for all time within creation? No. It will return to the state it was in before peace eventually. It will return to struggle and the pursuit of peace, because once had, the things we seek lose their meaning.

True love is letting go and being at peace with what is and what isn't and what will always be, which is change of all things into something different. It's not going to get any better if you think that one thing will bring you more fulfillment than another. Trivial pursuits are what make life mean something. Love is not conditional. Love is all encompassing. The fact of the matter is the almost all beings live lives based upon selfishness. Love is not selfish. It is eternal. Love is peace. Peace is hard to be comfortable with.

So... whenever someone asks the meaning of life... they should be careful of finding the answer in which they seek.

It would disappoint them.

The meaning is in the self definitions one appends to the I, and the importance one learns about the separate parts. The higher self must loath the low self, yet cannot function without it. Because the we are bound in the oneness, part of the whole, we cannot be divorced from the Cosmic Unity, neither on the maco or micro levels. Just as the id is bound to all levels, the composite is bound to the whole on the macro.

I am my brother's keeper.

Few pointers in how different an individual is...

Examples: My somewhat specification to my basic components:

The self is the genuine, the pure, the true, the authentic, the alive. Without the self the other things previously listed become revealed only in the category called "artificial".

The ego is the title (a symbol, a marker, a word and the alike) cap to a deemed importance, and is a deemed value and worth also put with title. Example: If I invent or configure a lesson or principle I deem important, and know it is of my self, then I should mark it in simple terms and store it for any moment I should use it since I find it a matter of importance like that. Like "Father"... If I invent or configure how it goes, then I become it how I marked when I enact it to where I am yet then called Father. When no longer enacting it, I no longer call myself the Father, since no longer wearing the mark of one of my matters configured of importance that I cap in simple terms. Without ego no one on earth would have saught to make language. And yes, we do deem giving our things titles important says since we deem it important so others can know what we mean in our interacting in "The World" better. Like if I want you to pick up my cup out of a set of cups, you see it is important that we both have it marked as "cup" and "whose "cup" in simple terms so you can get the task done that might be yet important during then. The important principle to why the cup is of someone is marked "the Owner". The useful lessons or principles or other buildings of bettering for oneself, to get interaction accomplished smoothly, is the ego.

The meaning is "The Heart" self-explainitory literally how it goes since it causes meaning. It is the root foundation of the other listed components. Afterall, how can it be yet a mind or even a hand or even a sense if it wasn't meant?

The mind is the rationalizing, the reasoning, the calculating, the focusing, the reading, the making out, the communication aider of "The Heart", the etc. on and on. If someone hits another, that one hit may communicate an "ouch" how "The Heart" desires the mind to put attention away from the pain and act as a warning or even an s.o.s. for help. The mind is meant to mind pains and calms and pleasures with communication "The Heart" means it to communicate in that certain way. The mind makes it so one can express feelings and implications somewhat in short and in an alternative, more concentrated-type way (in thought or with the voice). The mind becomes the utter platform for "The Heart." The mind reflects upon the meaning. For if one can not look back, then one can not have memory. Without the mind meant the meaning can not remember what was and is better for it even though it wouldnt matter. So with the mind comes the thing called "matters". Matters can only be yet reflected upon or dwelled on through the mind. When one accomplishes something one may find they like to reflect upon it sometimes.

The will is the actualizer since without a will it's like trying to move an object with your mind where there is just intending to do something without it carrying through or happening besides in the thought which reads where "The Heart" is at. The actualizer (the will) actualizes in seperate from just in "The Heart or mind, as in, in, say, the physical or in, say, the magical. And no one wouldnt actually want certain things their heart says to actualize. Like imagining your foot cut off after you see another's foot cut off, and then because of such your foot cuts off. So the will is indicated seperate from the meaning in some extent how the meaning means it. And the mind aids in corrodinating the will, since it operates, say, the physical body.

The have is any thing set beside the self that the self meaningfully put that way. It's like an individual making another individual mate. Such is what the individual do have since the mate is beside it's maker and put to from the individuals own making. And the self do have the self since what beside is of the self says so. So as long as the self has beside it any of the other listed things, it indeed do have. Continueing oneself is implying having oneself, too, since the moment of one one is having.

The moment is a lot of things in how they go on and mix. It is a second root foundation. Nothing can exist without moment. Reason it is a second root, and not the main root, is since the meaning activates it and works it. Revealing the meaning is stronger than the moment. In non-existence, moment is the main root since only in that way is it indeed stronger than the meaning not there. Meaning masters moment. Moment has nothing to master when there is no meaning, not even the nothingness where it can be yet said to master the somethingness (meaning) not there.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Mabus]

Just my insight on the ego and the self - kind of a story.

One of my most universal understandings of man kind, is that you are aware - or that you basically know you exist - you don't have to know what existence is or what makes you become aware, the ingenuity it takes to see your own hand in find out that it moves where you want it to go in the direction you are thinking is not much.

With experience comes understanding or expanding your awareness - call it seeing the world. Experiencing is not giving meaning into words. you do not need words to experience, you do not need words for understanding. There are certain things you know and can find out without meaning.
neologism is the act of basically creating meaning through linguistics.
again, you don't need language or communication to know that you exist.

The importance of the ego and the exploitation of worth to what "is" IMO can only exist in comparison. what I mean by that is, you don't know the importance of what/who you are, or what anything is except for what makes you exist. Only until I compare what I have already given worth to, to something else, do I create a meaning with worth.

If I am cold and I shiver, I look and move to find what makes me stop, If I find warmth, I give meaning to it, not necessarily a word, but I will remember what it "is" and its worth.

Take 2 humans who meet each other for the first time. You know they are you because of the similarities, but you compare them, like anything and everything you have come across in you life to find worth in what helps you exist.You try and move their hand by thinking and it does not move, they are unpredictable, and helpful, and hurtful. you learn to communicate, and you learn to give meaning, except this time "mutually", as worth and importance is expanded into vocabularies and ideas, you will find what you believe always important.

your belief has helped you survive, it has got you where you are after all, you trust it probably more than anything. It is yours just as much as your hand was when you first looked at it, but you haven't given any importance to an idea until you gave your thought a "mutual meaning". in other words, when you organize your vocabulary or create a neologism, so another will see the importance, It is only a matter of time before you feel you are better, you are worse, you are separate. - IMO - why we are so messed up in the head.

We are only separate until compared, and we are only proud in what we believe because it can be mutually understood and can be disagreed.

I started off finding knowledge through experience - ended up experiencing knowledge through the mutual understanding of what we give meaning to -
comparing - separating - learning prominence - creating ego.




[edit on 9-12-2008 by juveous]

One more thing about the meaning is, it may come with or without a feeling. It's why when you intend to turn on the T.V. you have no feeling accompanying for just doing such. But when you see someone attractive do something sexy, you have a feeling called lust.

And hey, it's nothing wrong with giving oneself credit. Like calling oneself "better" to another. For without such enabled to go on we would actually be yet lame in interacting with, say, women. Imagine if a woman thought no one is better than the next... She'll have many men on an even level, and those men will have no problem either since they would actually not feel better than any another to strick up to a reason why they should be her only one and stand up for the reason why.

It is wise we have "better" (a value) apply to ourself in matters where one sees theirself better in their own way. Nothing like a gal who calls herself better for you with a true reason against her competition. When a guy sees eye to eye the reason why she says she is better, then it was all because she called herself better than some other. For if she could not call herself better than, then just maybe the competition could have ended up with the guy and things end up bad for him. With self-value is good reasoning. It's no reason to not say you're yet better than some guy that sticks his foot in his mouth when speaking against you. When the guy sees the reason to the better claim maybe he'll wisen up if he doesnt want who he spoken with to continually feel better because of such the reason why, if not wanting to just not look a contradictive hypocrite to better himself.