Missing in action: Where is the mind?

...n´or music are its notes but the relation of its notes, so what ? one might wonder...I certainly am the relation of my body parts...what I wish to have known instead would be the true extension of that which is to be the constituents of my body...the Whole reality would make a good candidate...but that would be an issue for another thousand threads of nonsense not worth to really explore around here...

"You" are your body and your mind and the external world, and you are also none of those things.

"You" have a body. You are not your body, otherwise you wouldn't make the distinction between "My" and "finger".

I don't always make the distinction "me" and "finger".
I do it sometimes, like when I am sorting out fingerprogression on the fretboard of my guitar to figure out how to best play a certain melody.

But once that is done, me and my fingers become inseperable in my perception. If they didn't I would have no chance playing the melody.
I know this from 25 years of experience playing this instrument.
If I focus on where I am going to place my fingers, it's very hard to play the more intricate melodies.
If I focus on how the melody is progressing it becomes easier.

What I am saying is that "you" is not a clearly defined concept. What constitutes "you" at any given time is situational. There is no fixed entity that is self, and that is always the same.

So sometimes "you" have a body. Other times "you" are a body. Other times "you" includes a machine you are operating, a car for instance.
But the times when when we are the most focused, and able to fulfill our intent flawlessly, is when we are unaware of any division between ourselves and the environment we are interacting with.
The times I succeed in playing flawlessly are always the times when I was completely absorbed in the melody, with no part of my consciousness diverted to worrying about where "I" was supposed to put "my fingers". No me, no finger, no notes, just the melody.

the mind is where it is , sometimes focused , sometimes in the general

nothing unusual , really

If, into the where, one means to observe it, then one would not actually be there but with it, which is different...where is actually and quite literally in the thinking itself...that´s where mind resides..."here" in the doing !

Whether you make the distinction or not, you are not your body, you have a body. You having a body is not predicated on you making a distinction.

Some people insist on perpetuating their smokescreen. Digging their heels in is a strategy that makes the world try to explain things to you. Making the world explain to you puts you in control and allows you to jerk on their strings when you feel the urge. You also get enjoyment out of watching try them to explain, and it is also how you keep people close to you at arms length.

BTW - if they did happen to explain it in a way you would accept, you still wouldn't resolve it for your self because the game would be over. This is true in my friends case, I don't know what you will do.

I know that just because I took the time to write this, what I have said is not going to be enough motivation for you to resolve the issue of you are not your body. I have a friend who does what you do and I have observed that he gets extreme pleasure by jerking people around.

This is why I clicked on your Ignore User button. Also, by clicking on the Ignore User button, I don't have to skip over Cyracuz any more.

First of all, you need to chill, if someone disagreeing with your philosophic ideas makes you this agitated, rambling about ignore buttons...
It is not a new phenomenon, that when someone doesn't have an intelligent defense of their position they will resort to an emotional one.

You must have a very clear definition of you, but I don't recall reading it anywhere. Care to share?

Block, parry, attack.

Your response to my post is a great example of of what I wrote. Not only do you like to dig your heels in, you demand that everbody answer to you (play your game your way, that way you always win).

The reason I blocked you is because you have nothing to contribute and no ability to recognize it.

BTW - You don't have the ability to get me agitated, I do.

Oh, so I am just supposed to take your word for it?
Is there a name for this private little universe of yours, where people just believe whatever you say without asking you to clarify?

I am digging in my heels? You are the one making claims that you won't back up.
Perhaps it's because you haven't found the relevant text in Heidegger's books.

I asked you for your definition of you, which would be a pretty important thing for you to bring considering the objections you have raised. But I suspect you are not interested, since you are not likely to "win". As if it was about winning. If you could supply me with sensible information that would enable me to think more clearly on this, I would consider that the closest thing to victory that can be achieved on this forum. But so far you dissappoint.

So, are you up for it?
Or will you just dig in your heels and keep chanting "you are not your body, you have a body", without even trying to clarify what you mean by that?

You are the one using the ignore button, because you don't agree with my thoughts. If that is not digging your heels in, I don't know what is.

More of the same BS!!

Like I said, nothing to contribute.

I am asking you a question!

The question is: How do you define you???

If you cannot give a good answer to this question all your objections to my post are BS.

And yes, I demand that you answer this question since you have used this word in a very particular way that requires clarification. If you will not, then I just have to disregard everything you say, since you do not respect the basic premisses of having a conversation. The general idea is to respond to eachother.

You win again, don't you?

Nice work if you can get it.

BTW - I don't define me. I'll leave that to you. You appear to have time to waste.

You made this claim:



And if you are not prepared to clarify it you are indeed wasting my time.

Also, I think it is curious that the only thing in your post that is relevant to the issue of this discussion is included as a "BTW"....

If you think about it you will find that you don't need any clarification.

It's all relevant. Whether you like my rsponses to you or not is another issue.

This has become an entanglement. I won't be participating any longer.

One last thing, you are the only one who can waste your time.

Dasein, where is this "you' who has a body? Arn't you confusing our grammar with the structure of reality? I must talk as if there were a "me", an agent of "my" actions. But all "I" see if actions. Predicates require (or imply) subjects, but that is no more than a grammatical rule

Dasein, where is this "you' who has a body? Arn't you confusing our grammar with the structure of reality? I must talk as if there were a "me", an agent of "my" actions. But all "I" see if actions. Predicates require (or imply) subjects, but that is no more than a grammatical rule

correction in my last post: "But all "I" see IS actions.

correction in my last post: "But all "I" see IS actions.

That is the real question, isn't it.

A short story, if I may. In 1969 I was drafted into the Army and did my basic training in Ft. Ord, California. There was a story floating around about a guy who would pick up a piece of paper, look at it, mumble “No that's not it”, tear it in half, and throw it back down on the ground. Everybody knew about this guy and he was the butt of many jokes. One day his CO (Commanding Officer) called him into his office. It seems that they were going to discharge the guy from the Army on a Section 8 (mentally unstable). When the guy received his discharge papers, he looked at them and mumbled “Yep, that's it”.

I have answered your question “Dasein, where is this "you' who has a body?” many times and in many ways, so, apparently my answer is not the 'answer' you need. Remember, answers close down thinking/Be-ing.

Maybe the only answer for you is to walk over the entire base, pick up every piece of paper until you can say “Yep, that's it”.

Our grammar IS the structure of reality/world. "I" and "my" are indicators of here or over yonder, nothing else. They don't imply objects called 'ego' or 'positionality'.

However, people live their lives as if who they are is an object (thing) called 'ego' and they vigorously defend their position throughout a lifetime. These people will never 'know' who they are.

Be-ing your 'self' and using grammar is different that 'Be-ing the grammar we use'.

JLNobody; There will come a time in your life when you will no longer look for answers. The key to life is uncovering the questions that don't have any answers. Once you ask all of the questions that have answers you will no longer be questioning, you'll be questing/Be-ing.