?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Myself, Yourself, and Ourselves

Do you feel a presence? I wonder if the atheist calls this sensation simply his self. So my self would be everything, because every sensation I experience is merely a reflexion of me. I can sympathize with this explanation because it allows me to instantiate anything, to be a megalomaniac. How awfully wonderful! as I rise those marble steps to take my seat at that golden altar and wield my scepter over everything. Oh! but wait ... everything is me. Damn!

By washing my beliefs in the university system and cleansing my opinions with the educated elite, I have abandoned many assumptions. For example, I realize people adopt morals to protect themselves from harm and guide their way to meaningful lives; that every person is free to accept or reject such social constructions, despite persuasion or persecution. However, I question how freedom implies omnipotence. For me, freedom simply means the ability to choose. There are no strings attached to dating freedom, no expectations after taking her to my place. If I choose to sleep, then I may fall asleep, or I may _not_ fall asleep. There exists no guarantee that I will fall asleep and enjoy a good dream because the choice sets in motion a decision tree that has the _potential_ of dreaming.

I freely chose to fall asleep and therein enjoyed taking freedom home with me. I do not, however, bring sleep into existence. The psychologist is probably mumbling about sleep changing a state of the self, so I lament that it is a bad example wrought by insomnia. So I retort: why do I indulge myself with things that evoke external awareness (aka. other people)? Would not these people also be reflexions of my self, just as sleep is a state of my being?

Descartes said the self was some label for whatever is left over after we doubt the existence of everything. My friends and professors remind me that Descartes was wrong about many things, so guarding my mind from infection, I recall a professor's comment about Descartes' explanation of the mind. He said, 'God creates with a thought', and by inference, men usually have difficulty making things without their bodies.

Take dreams as an example, since these are generally held in awe as extra corporeal and a phenomena of sleep. After waking up from a vivid one, I relate my dream to a friend and he reciprocates, but we dilute our dream as our bodies communicate images and sounds. I shape my mouth, move my tongue, constrict my vocal cords as my friend's ear drum hammers away ... and please remember this friend only exists within yourself. If I sincerely need this thing called my friend to see my dream, does his inability to sympathize indicate that I play a game of 'hard to get' with myself? Am I just an ineffective communicator?

It appears to me that these external beings maintain an awareness external to my own. Narcissists hold on to your seat for a moment. If my friend is aware of things that I am interested in experiencing, and if I open myself to calling this friendship a relation between myself and another self, then the bonds of our relationship should allow me to tap into my friend's awareness. This bond or connection or relationship's potential is infinite! Instead of stretching thin from touching everything that is within myself, I flow through my friend, and his friends, and ultimately everyone!

More on my opinion later; in the meantime, one remarkable fellow from Christian mythology popped into my mind: Abraham. The guy's Hebrew name means: 'friend of God'. I hope to be such a friend.