The I of Seth

When i think in language, always striving to make my thoughts better reflect what is happening, sometimes i forget the language itself. But that language is almost always in the way. It stands between me and what is happening. It codes things in words clotting them into its own structure.

For example Rudolph Steiner tells us in his books and lectures that we have an ego, and he identifies that as what we call "I" ... and that this thing emerges in our being around the age of 7 and develops more fully by age 21. Ever since i have heard this message i have looked for this thing ... i have looked for this emerging new part of my being. Even Mark refers me to this thing in his item saying, "Some things can't be described in a way which works e.g. Seth's 'I'".

Now i am quite aware of myself. I claim that i am hyper-aware. But to this day, and now i am almost 70, i have not been able to recognize a part, separate from myself, that deserves to be separately named and described. So, since i have experienced nothing which i can separate from just that which i call "myself", i have concluded that whatever other people refer to as separate does not exist at all apart from its clotted coding within our language.

illustration originally used for this other item in another context .... still and all it is the same "I"

... note my use of quotes around it.

Comments

Seth says

some comments in Philosophy of Mind group.

Seth says

seth 2013-10-14 14:11:31 16816

ME 2013-10-14 14:08:00 16816

seth 2013-10-14 14:02:44 16816

ME 2013-10-14 12:36:51 16816

seth 2013-10-14 11:49:33 16816

this

re that.

that that is unavailable.

that is a reference to an item posted by someone who i subscribe to and you do not. it was where i saw the video. i referred to it here so if i wanted to make a comment directed to the original souce i could. it is also available to you should you subscribe to Alexandre Monnin. Facebook still works this way and has not changed since the last time you noted this kind of "unavailability".

incidentally this is one of the reasons i prefer public posts to G+ ... no unnecessary breaks in communication.

Yep, though the link is useless to fastbloggers.

nope was useful to me. i am a fastblogger. everything is not just about you ... and you could have made use of it too.

quite apart from any rwg game, there is a semi-important point here: Referring from a public conversation into a private context is not only permissible but actually very desirable. That way, should you be interested in the privagte conversation, you can gain access to it. This is actually how this segmented world of information is navigated. No?

Seth says

ME 2013-10-14 12:49:52 16816

seth 2013-10-14 11:21:30 16816

some comments in Philosophy of Mind group.

2-1/2 hours of pragmatic philosophy is not my cup of tea. Will have to summarize your point within it to get my interest or eyeballs

you are, perhaps, talking here about the talk by Robert Brandom and not the G+ group where the Philosophy of mikd is discussed and to which you attached your comment.

i thought you would appreciate the texture of the talk more as a spoof of a way to think about the material than anything else

... i said as much in my comment on Facebook

. there was a time when i would have chased down all of his thought patterns ... now i don't have the stomach for it ... but it was fun to listen to the texture for a while.

The I of Seth

Tags

Comments

See Also