What most people mean, when they say, "I",
is a word-bound definition -- an answer to a question.
For some people, "I' is a sensation defined to themselves as, "self" --
a stress pattern mistaken for self.
"I" is neither of those.
"I" is that from which and in which those arise as temporary occupations of
attention.
They disappear from attention as soon as attention moves on -- and so cannot be
and are not, "I".
What "I" is, is "off the radar" for most people, even if they look for "I".
What most people consider, "self",
is a conglomeration of memories --
memories of intentions,
remembered sensations and locations,
remembered dreams, imaginings, and unknowing.
That's it.
Somehow, the idea of "self",
comprised of those things,
is taken as complete.
There is an attribute of existence
that is universal
constant,
and intuitively familiar --
the sense of being, "here" -- wherever that is.
There is no discernable break, in it,
but if there were,
we would never know it
because a break, in it,
would be a break, in ourselves.
No memory would form
and so there would be no way for us to refer, to it,
except, perhaps, for fancy words like
paradox, or mystery.
So, it seems continuous, ever-present, and present everywhere.
For all intents and purposes, it is eternal,
meaning,
the central pivot point
common to all experiences --
but neither central,
nor anything around anything else pivots,
nor a point -- but present to and at every point.
Now, it is more present than our memories are --
more constantly present
more reliably present
and in fact,
inescapable.
Get that. Inescapable.
Inevitable,
for all time.
Now, what does that have to do with, "self"?
It would seem to be more "self" than "self" is!
Wouldn't it.
I think they're going to have to re-write the entire English language
to make the use of a certain pronoun,
a certain pronoun which is neither a common noun nor a proper noun,
but the #1 pronoun,
reflective of reality.
What do you make, of that?
