1
   

When me becomes I

 
 
coberst
 
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 12:36 am
When me becomes I

A child's symbolic action world is built from the outside in. We are sad because we cry; we do not cry because we are sad. Only when we ?'look' at our self do we know what is going on.

A vital fact about all objects is that there is both an inside and an outside. We are born recognizing our self as a ?'me'. The ?'me' is an object before ?'me' becomes ?'I', i.e. an executive subject. Only after this happens in an infant's life can s/he "back away" from her or him self.

The child discovers first that s/he is a social product. Perhaps this will show us why we are so often mere puppets jerked around by alien symbols and sounds. Perhaps this is why we are so often just blind ideologues (blindly partisan).

In order to separate the ego from the world it seems that the ego must have a rallying point. It must have a flag about which to rally. That flag is the "I". The pronoun ?'I' is the symbolic rallying point for the human's ego; it is the precise designation of self-hood. It is concluded by those who study such matters that the ?'I' "must take shape linguistically". The self or ego "is largely a verbal edifice".

"The "I" signals nothing less than the beginning of the birth of values into a world of powerful capriceĀ…The personal pronoun is the rallying point for self-consciousness." The wedding of the nervous ability to delay response, with the pronoun "I", unleashed a new type of animal; the human species began. The ?'I' represents the birth of values.

Upon the discovery of the "I" the infant human becomes a precise form, which is the focus of self-control. The creatures previous to the arrival of humans in the chain of evolution had an instinctive center within itself. When our species discovered the "I" and its associated self-control centers a dual reality occurred. "The animal not only loses its instinctive center within itself; it also becomes somewhat split against itself."

Becker, the winner of the Pulitzer for "The Birth and Death of Meaning", notes that Kant was perhaps the first to impress upon us the importance of the fact that the infant becomes conscious first of itself as a "me" and then only as "I". This order of discover has been shown to be universal.

I have noticed when an infant becomes an I, when all of a sudden they behave in a self-conscious manner. Have you noticed such a change taking place in a child?

Why is ?'I' capitalized and ?'me' is not?

Quotes from "The Birth and Death of Meaning"?-Ernest Becker
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 818 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 01:46 am
What an Anglocentric view - the pronoun corresponding to "I" is not capitalised in other languages. For example, "je" is not capitalised in French, nor "yo" in Spanish. In German, all nouns are capitalised!
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 02:15 am
i looks silly written like that.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 03:05 am
McTag wrote:
i looks silly written like that.


Only because that's what we're used to. In "Chaque jour de la semaine Je mange du boeuf" "Je" looks silly.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 06:57 am
I think that the "I" is capitalized because "I" is the person, it is the Subject and not an object like the "me".
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 07:03 am
contrex wrote:
In "Chaque jour de la semaine Je mange du boeuf" "Je" looks silly.


Not only it looks silly but it is silly, Contrex. Can't you change your diet? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 07:04 am
coberst wrote:
I think that the "I" is capitalized because "I" is the person, it is the Subject and not an object like the "me".


I would subject the subject in object to further analysis...
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 08:02 am
Francis wrote:
contrex wrote:
In "Chaque jour de la semaine Je mange du boeuf" "Je" looks silly.


Not only it looks silly but it is silly, Contrex. Can't you change your diet? :wink:


It's hard - I'm in love with a blonde cashier at Flunch... I know she's called Sandrine because her name is on the ticket. All I can afford is the assiette Texane
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 08:07 am
That's the kind of thing I can understand, Contrex!

So, she caught your "eye" (I)?
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 11:32 am
Francis wrote:
That's the kind of thing I can understand, Contrex!

So, she caught your "eye" (I)?


Not the only organ involved... I thought of asking her if she wanted a "bite" to eat...
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 11:48 am
coberst wrote:
I think that the "I" is capitalized because "I" is the person, it is the Subject and not an object like the "me".


Nonsense. If so, why aren't the others capitalized, as in "... and then They went out..." or "... so I told him that He was silly..."
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 12:01 pm
contrex wrote:
Not the only organ involved... I thought of asking her if she wanted a "bite" to eat...


That would be too direct.

You should talk to her about history and ask her if she would like to "Hittite"..
0 Replies
 
averner
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 01:15 pm
me not understand
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 01:18 pm
Aye! (I)...

It's intended to Contrex...

Hittite in French is pronounced "eat it"...
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 01:50 pm
Mame wrote:
coberst wrote:
I think that the "I" is capitalized because "I" is the person, it is the Subject and not an object like the "me".


Nonsense. If so, why aren't the others capitalized, as in "... and then They went out..." or "... so I told him that He was silly..."
Because they and he are objects to the speaker. I is the subject of the speaker.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 04:05 pm
Quote:
We are born recognizing our self as a ?'me'.


Alas, this is pure conjecture and highly contoversial.

Piaget for example was of the view that a newborn infant had no concept of a distinction between "self" and "world", and that such a distinction arises later through a process of "de-centration". Even after the acquisition of "I" the child remains "ego-centric" to the extent that the child's viewpoint is assumed by the child to be that of others.

Other writers claim that that a concept of "self" as an "actor" amongst others requires socialization through language. In the early stages of this, no significance is attached to idiosyncratic variants of utterances like "Me do it"/"I do it"/"Peter do it". Concepts of "personal pronouns" are deemed to belong to the realm of abstract grammatical analysis rather than that of developmental psychology.

In anticipation of coberst's rejoinder that such points are "negative", he would be correct in as much they are dismissive of his perpetual source Becker as the "fount of all wisdom". Concepts of "self" have been discussed in great detail on this forum and I invite coberst expand his knowledge by investigating them.
e.g.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14696&highlight=
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 04:49 am
Fresco

You are always negative. I never know when to seriously consider your remarks. It is possible that you may know something about the subject under consideration but if you always say X is false when I say X is true I am unable to determine if your view is worth consideration.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 06:20 am
coberst,

But YOU tend not to say anythng ! You merely quote from one of your handful of sources. Why don't you contribute to the threads of others ?,
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Sep, 2007 06:34 am
Comment from another of cobersts multiple forums...

Quote:
Coberst, what does it take to get through to you? Several posters have demonstrated that English is possibly/probably unique in the capitlisation of the the first person subjective singular. You are placing the weight of your argument on this flimsy, arbitrary fact. It is a baseless argument. Live with it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » When me becomes I
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/17/2026 at 12:36:44