the absurdity of choice

Philosophy has always been an intellectual exercise for me. The practicality of it, pertaining to real life endeavors and goals, usually has no merit.

The question as to whether "I" sustain myself finds no relevance in the real world, unless it is speaking on legal issues. If anything, I find it rather destructive to continually to question your "I" or "self" because it causes stagnation form moving on with real living, real action.

Dream big goals, they are absolutely necessary. But, the steps there should be realistic. The only way to make it realistic is to break that big goal down to an infinitely small step that may be achieved daily.

But, sometimes I like to say to the hell with goals. Have a purpose, and let that be your continually fire. You do not need to know the exact how, but know the exact why as to which you find this goal fulfilling in a sense.

If I am responsible for something happening, I am in a position of power inasmuch as I control how my body interacts with the world. The concept of responsibility is quite strange. The idea that the body is in control of itself; it is the cause of its own actions. To glance back at my first sentence however, and read it again, something does sound a bit odd in that sentence-"I am in control of how my body interacts with the world"- This would seem to imply that there is the body, and also something else, maybe a part of the body, or something apart from the body, that is moving the body like a puppet as it were. "Me and my body", "my body and I", "my body and myself"- Are we not our bodies?! What are we then? A soul, spirit, monad?

Our physical body is who we are; we can't separate our brains from our body. It's born and dies at the same time.

ep wrote


The key word is "if".

From the perspective of "reality" being a social construction for example, it is "(social) responsibility" which evokes an "I", not vice versa. This social dimension is maintained when a later I comments on/observes an earlier I. The "fallacy" (as suggested by Ouspensky) is to assume there is continuity between these two I's and this fallacy is maintained by ascribing any "separation" as being between "mind" and "body".

Reading the above is not sufficient. One must actually become aware of one's own self-fragmentation to understand it....and who would willingly seek evidence for such impotence ?