does this leads, ‘I am.’
how do people constantly develop their self concept from knowing who they are not, to coming to the knowledge of who they are!?
is it easy for some people and hard for others?
what can make it relatively feasible (by the presence of such personal qualities, an example of which is pure self-acceptance, truthfulness to oneself in seeing the real self without over looking its weaknesses and errors?)
Re: I am not
Peace Sister
The phrase "I am not" to me means "I do not exist" in which case I am wrong because in order to not exist, the concept "I" cannot be presupposed.
However, assuming I define myself by what "I am not" then I have not defined myself at all, because I have only made exclusive of what I am not. There are at least other factors to consider, that I could be, or I am not if, and I am when, which needs to be defined.
In the simplest case where there are only two options, to define what one is not is the same as defining that they are the other, however, in a world of many options, by defining who we are not, only takes one option out of the melting pot of who we could be.
Re: I am not
Objectively, “what I am then, if not”, is the message that I get from “I am not”, It is not denial of “self”, but it does carry a lure to put you on a golden pavement of “self denial”, an ultimate destiny.
On a very subjective note it is very hard to find yourself by way of a reverse analysis of what you are not, life is too short and we carry to many “not”
Re: I am not
thanks, brother psyah & intelliphant. i agree with both of what your premises are and the conclusions you have shared.
the context of i am not, and then knowing what i am is indeed very precarious at times, when knowing is harder or made impossible, for the self id absorbed by something overburdening that the self never comes around to its own self!
so for instance, knowing that one is in pain, can lead one to know that one is not comfortable.
that kind of knowledge of what is, can lead to determine, what is not. it is lik false negatives.
many things in life, seem right, but they may not be. when one begins to see them, thinsg hav drifted onto a less desired course, or altogether become uncompensatable. in such a case, pre knowledge of further delay or demise, can enable the 'new' knower, what s/he was not before.
any thoughts on this particualar paradigm, a shift from no knowledge to the knowledge of the earlier unknown?
am i making sense?
Re: I am not
Peace Sister
Welcome back.
Firstly, there are some things that result from things that come before also there are some conditions that we are in that negate other conditions because of the logical rule.
Two opposite things cannot be true in the same instance on the same entity.
One cannot be as you have shown in pain and comfortable at the same time. Even the masochist cannot be comfortable until after the pain releases endorphins into the body, i.e. the instance of pain cannot be the same instance of pleasure, however, pleasure can result in a state some instant after the point when the pain has become effective.
Total opposites cannot reside together.
Some people feel happy and sad at the same time. This is an example of different context so the entity is not the same even though the instant may be.
The danger in opposites is when we do not evaluate the dichotomy clearly enough and assume colloquial opposites to mean absolute ones. One example is:
He is not a miser therefore he is generous.
This is a false argument because by not being a miser it does not mandate generosity on the other side, a person could just as easily be moderate in spending and actually not generous at all.
Another fallacy is one made by George Bush ... you are either for us or against us, because it is quite possible to be against both and in some cases for both, the former in the case of wanting peace and truce and the latter being on the position of wanting to sow discord and being hypocritical. So the dichotomy is a false one.
Because of these arrays of false dichotomies it is misleading to speak about oneself in terms of what we are not, because that does not define what we are. Likewise it is direct speak to about what we are.
A very valid and brilliant statement to describe by negation however, is found in our very own kalimah. La ilaha ilAllah ... There is no god, except The God. This is a true dichotomy because nothing can be like Him, and we can perceive many things except Him. So it serves our purpose to know that whatever we perceive from things 'real' they will not be Him, but merely made by Him. 'Real' meaning apparent in this world.
In terms of deducing what condition leads on from a condition prior to it this is an even more darker art, but we do it all the time especially in the court rooms. However, the best judge can never be the onlooker. Sorry that was a negative ... The best judge will be the person him or herself from humans and the Best Judge will be Him.
Re: I am not
jazak al kheire, brother psyah. amazing reflection. i am really impressed and admire this comprehension with which provided the ultimate example for better illustration of your treatise.
thanks,
Re: I am not
la-illa-ha-il-allah
incl me =)
so the traditional I, is just an illusion of the free willed mind :)
nice
lol...lol.nice
Re: I am not
no, the traditional I is everything, actually, but it must find itself through being nothing in gradations. it is though you are living through stages of development.