Defining the self

Else identity would not be preserved and we would be dead as soon as our cells have been exchanged.

Greetings Refus,

Why is it that in this well thought out equation you only consider the physical (material)? Are you not aware of the levels above the material?

You begin by saying that the matrix varies over time.

(All that follows is My Opinion)

I do realize that your post is not directed at anyone in general, however because I began a thread which questioned the reality and nature of a matrix, and or matrices, upon reading your post I felt inclined to insert my two cents.

When I use the word matrix I do not associate it with change, on the contrary it is my fulcrum. Fulcrum implies stability immovability, stillness, and changlessness a foundation from which all things including our concept of time is extended into our concept of reality. Unfortunately most motivated minds proceed carelessly, they attempt to solve the mysteries of the spiritual, materialistically. This is in my opinion incorrect, for like seeks out like. To understand and therefore command material one must know matters source. Is it not spirit which solidifies to become matter (water vapor (spirit) condensing into water (matter))?

Back to the matter at hand. For some strange reason we have given the concept of time the power of mind. Time is just a measuring device. It has no power. It helps us to identify the progression of a cycle. A cycle begins at zero and proceeds to a climax, after which a return to zero follows. Upon reaching zero the whole process is repeated in reverse. As above so below, as below so above completing the cycle. The idea of time helps us to identify our place within any given cycle. Nothing more.

Quote:

"Here is the problem. Imagine that your boat is repaired over and over again until it has none of the original pieces left."

I have a question. Where are the plans for the original boat? Trust me I understand where you are coming from, and where you are going with this, but can you understand what it is that I mean? We are not talking about a boat, we are discussing a human being. How does one repair the broken mind of the human creation? It is incorrect for us to assume that this task is accomplished in the same manner as a broken boat would be repaired (even though this is our current approach). Where does the mind of the human creation begin and the mind of it's Creator end?

Changing the subject ever so slightly I must say that I am in total agreement on one point and that is that the self is a matrix. For in my opinion it truly is. A matrix fabricated in the image of the Creator matrix. The question should be how, for in comprehending how,all can be repaired, all can be known. The answer should be intuitively sought versus analytical. I believe the answer lies waiting for mankind to rediscover, for there was a time when this knowledge we all seek was common knowledge. We must rid ourselves of our materialistic base and adopt one which embraces the spiritual (foundation) nature of all. All that we have manufactured (material) began as an idea (spiritual) did it not?



Well thats my two cents for the moment.



We are one in the immovable light which centers us all.

By the way I realize that water vapor is also material, it's use is only symbolic.

You do realise that me comparing a boat that is constantly being repaired with the self,
is equivalent to compare the always neuron exchanging self with a boat?

I'm simply talking the normal regular neuron exchange. That is what I compare with boat repair, in the sence of identity. We need our identity to be ourselves. Do you understand more thoroughly what I was trying to say now? Wher's the identity every couple of years? the answer is: it is left.

And the mathematical matrix I am talking about is a variable matrix, that is to say, every square of the matrix is a function between two different objects.

Hello Refus,

Quote:
"You do realize that me comparing a boat that is constantly being repaired with the self, is equivalent to compare the always neuron exchanging self with a boat?"


I must say no, I don't follow. We are unfortunately, talking past each other.

I am assuming that you are comparing the self (undefined on your part) with the boat. You take this further by using as an example the exchange which is taking place with and within neurons. Is my assumption correct?

I believe I am because reading further I see that you are indeed referring to neuron exchange. Now because my knowledge of neurons and their exchanges between one another is zero, I will not comment further in relation to neuron exchanges. What I will say is that the neuron in an of itself has no identity. How can it? From what and where did first neuron materialize? Is it not merely simulating the idea that it is, and thereby void of individual identity? How are you defining identity?

Quote:
"We need our identity to be ourselves."

If I were to ask you to describe yourself without you having the aid of a mirror what do you think the result would be? Most of us don't even know our own pants size. Young generations truly live by the above quoted. But the funny thing is their/our identity (and in this sense personality) is molded by that from which we/they identify. Our music, our friends, our ......yeah... That which you identify with cannot be that which you are, for these things are outside of self. The self is within, beyond the material. (my opinion)

Quote:
"Wher's the identity every couple of years? the answer is: it is left."

Like before it depends on how you are defining this word "identity". If you are talking about the source, (essence) the core being of the individual then it is always there, incorruptible forever. If you mean personality, well then in a couple of years it will have changed as often as the moon has changed or more.

Quote:
And the mathematical matrix I am talking about is a variable matrix,

Then we are talking about the same one. But variable only in that it grows ever stronger positively, even through it's negative cycle, for all is a forward upward movement. Why is it never considered that that which is of heaven is governed by that which is above heaven, and that which is of the earth is governed by that which is above earth. The matrix is not of earth. It is earths foundation. From the matrix the earth springs. The earth is the fulcrum of mankind's physical being, heaven being the fulcrum of mans true spiritual being. The rules and mathematical formulas which you speak must transcend the material (earth). Our math cannot and will not define the matrix. Try it. Calculate the Creator's Love for it's creation. Or how about a widows grief. This love is expressed by and through all of the Creator's imaginings. This love is the fulcrum, this love is the matrix.



All words that I post on this forum are my opinion, and are not meant to offend anyone in any way.


We are truly one in the still light which centers us all.

Let's say that you were exchanged with an entirely new organism. Would you experience the new organism's self, or will you be your own self still?
This is a good example of self switch. For you to survive, the organism need to switch cells but still have the self. Therefore the new cells must have the old identity. The thesis is that the identity is what the self has incommon, known as the force.

The answer is surprising, it seems you have a self in both yourself and the new organism, by the mere fact that you effect him by a force. It is just that the force f1 you affect him with needs to be bigger then the force f2 he affects himself with in order for him to be you.

When you loose your self D in your body, then your identity ie. force, that defines you as you, will travel untill it is part of someone else. Your identity is infact much bigger then your body. A boat has a part that is life boats, in the same way, a person has an identity that is not just the person, but beyond himself. Fact is, you do not use your old cells.


You will remain you until the identity looses your self. But still whatever self that has your identity will be your self. Hence you will still have a self.

Given that identity is not a variable seperate from the force that your self produce, it must be the force that the self produce ie. there are no other variables that could possibly be the identity.

If there was no identity, then you could not be a seperate unit and no one could experience a self, not even for the shortest of periods, since nothing would connect now with before. Nothing would connect yourself with your later self. You can compare this with 2 different pieces of gold. If you exchange one with the other in any normal case, they still have their own identity. In the case of no identity you cannot say "that one is that one", infact, nothing would exist.

My friend, I see where you want to go with this but I am afraid I cannot follow. Keep doing what it is that you are doing and you will arrive at the anwser(s) you seek. Respectfully yours.

Rem

I take it that you have an oppinion of what the self (that is obviously preserved atleast as long as you live) Is for something. Given that it has an identity, what was your oppinion RememberingIAM that the self is, besides from that it is a gift from someone or so?

So maybe the boat was a bad example.

But it gets the point across, if not taken so literally.

Our skin cells die and regenerate new ones every day.
After about seven years, our skin has been entirely changed due to this process.
Our organs do the same thing, but slower.
Typically our peronalities change as well, and sometimes so do memories.

Does this mean that if we could somehow continue this regenerative process; we could theoretically achieve immortality, or at least extend our lives?

And if we were to become immortal, would our perceptions change so dramatically over the years, that eventually we would change as people?

The boat has no original pieces, so it is in fact a new boat.
Our bodies have none of the original pieces by the time we are seventy, so we are in fact new people.

This could be taken many ways, but it's interesting to think about in the least.

Size 5, petite.

shadow

Maybe your right Aristoddler, but you yourself being an aspiring philosopher, don't you think we should take things more literally, more seriously? I mean look at the condition of our world. The world I find myself in is missing it's foundation. Where is it? Under which philosophy and or religion will we find it? Today the question of the day is neurons, a few years ago it was electrons, and I'm still not absolutely sure that that was proven. But proven or not electrons rule the world. Then it was decided, and today we choose to know nothing else. But not I. I choose to be when given the choice of being or not being. I choose knowing versus thinking. Huh???


Rem

Taking things literally means that we can sell our daughters at the market if we read the bible...
But let's not get into that debate here.


You are right, the world is missing something, and I think it's a purpose beyond that of who dies with the most toys.
We could make billions of dollars in our lives, and buy the most luxurious items possible, but still end up dead.
At least in the times where people had religion as a driving force; they had purpose.
Nowadays, religion is just something to do on Sundays to keep the family doing something together, or for people to debate about online...because you know that debating religion face to face is never a good idea.

I went off on a tangent there, but I'm sure I'll remember what my point was soon...

Today I choose wondering before thinking, thinking before knowing, and knowing before wondering.
I know I'll wonder about what I was thinking about before I wrote this post...that's for sure.

"...I behold the Kernel of an Apple, but leaving the Corporeity, I turn myself from the External Form, to the Internal Invisible Seed, and with the Eye of my Mind I contemplate the whole Tree, with the Root, Trunck, Bowes, Sprigs, Leaves, Flowers and Fruit, compromised in One and in due time manifested to have received its proper Body..."

A Treatise of Oswaldus Crollius of signatures of Internal things, trans. Richard Russell (1669)

So one day when I am seventy, you believe that I waste my self? Then one better adjust to 70 years and not 100.

It's not like that can be true. Honestly, I know I lived when I was 3, hence my identity has the size of a 3 year old brain. Who says it stays that small? Why not smaller? and if smaller, perhaps one particle, Won't first in be first out? And if the identity can grow, what keeps it from remaining in your body? And what keeps the identity from growing outside your body, I mean the self is a property of the identity, without the self, the identity remains, it's not like you can loose the identity, it's the identity that can loose the self possibly. But clearly, the identity of yourself defined as what remains of yourself, is the force caused by yourself. That identity is as big as the visible universe. It's just that it is stronger where you're at. When your self dies, you still have identity elseplace, hence in the same way you keep identity when the braincells regenerate, you keep your identity when your "true" self dies. The "true" identity moves to another self.

That's not even related to what I said...

I mentioned that your body's cells regenerate at a standard rate, and by the time you are 70; you have none of the same cells you were born with...no original parts, so to speak.

Is the apple tree still the seed that it grew from? Can the seed dissect itself and say here is what makes me grow? The seed to become tree reaches for the truth of the sun, rain and dirt. That's all it can do. For the seed to analyze itself does not make it into a tree.

Also, I might add that things might be more complex then one would think. That we are still the same original parts that made the universe entails that our original identity is more then just that of a seed. The identity is, so to speak, self independent in the sence that the identity doesn't need a self unless a self is defined as everything which has an identity. The identity has existed just as long as the universe, so if for the self to be you it only needs your identity, then you have probably had selfs before you had this self.

In other words, if you came to life, you lived after you did not live, hence if you do not live, you can come to life. Which is a statement that can be combined with that which i said.

The idea of being born is a myth in my experience.

Thank you for sharing this view.