OOPS! THAT'S "JLN"
Oops! That's "JLN." Please 'scuse; it's beddy-bye time. And, so, until the morrow -adieu!
yogi berra
Well, Nobody's home again. You're graciously excused, Charli (but I don't understand what for). BTW, way you are so right in your appreciation of the wisdom of Yogi Berra. I once took his advice on coming to a fork in the road. I took it and ended up having TWO good trips.
JLN - 'CAUSE THE PREVIOUS POST READ "JNL"
JLN - Welcome home! The "Please 'scuse" was because my previous post read "JNL" NOT JLN.
For the subject at hand: Recently, someone said that Bob Dole constantly refers to himself in the third person. Hm-m-m!
And, a digression: Has there been a discussion elsewhere on A2K about the philosophy of Yogi Berra, Satchel Paige, etc.? "Words to Live By?" [/color]
How about a post sans that letter after 'H'?
Once a complete short story was penned where the letter 'e' was left out.
'Twas a remarkable effect, seldom to be repeated elsewhere.
Can you see a comparable effect at present?
I
Here is a comment from the philosopher-social theorist, George Herbert Mead, that fits quite well with our topic:
"Recognizing that the self can not appear in consciousness as an 'I,' that it is always an object, i.e., a 'me,' I wish to suggest an answer to the question, What is involved in the self being an object? The first answer may be that an object involves a subject. Stated in other words, that a 'me' is inconceivable without an 'I.' And to this, reply must be made that such an 'I' is a presupposition, but never a presentation of conscious experience, for the moment it is presented it has passed into the objective case, presuming, if you like, an 'I' that observes--but an 'I' that can disclose himself only by ceasing to be the subject for whom the object 'me' exists."
It is interesting to note that "I" is treated here as a mere PRESUPPOSITION, not an object of experience. To be experienced it ceases to be an "I" and becomes a THOUGHT, a thought of a "me". And one does not EXPERIENCE a "me", one only THINKS it. To speak without use of the word, "I" does not erase the presupposition of the existence of a self behind experience; it merely removes it from linguistic expression.
I was taught never to use "I."
c.i.
Referring link for Mead?
JLN - Do you have a link for the Mead quote? It is difficult to understand how Mead classes "I" as a thought rather than a subject doing the action. Agreed, the "Me" is acted upon, but the "I" cannot be - to "I," of "I," for "I," put "I," hit "I," stop "I," etc.? His argument given here, seems fallacious, unless there is further substantiation. Thanks for the provoking thought!
It IS possible to have long discussions (conversations) without "I." One need only discuss ideas (without personal opinion), things, or people. (The order given supposedly is that of from "great minds to lesser ones.") :-) :-) :-) [/color]
I
Charli, sorry, there're no link for this quote. It comes from Mead's paper, The Social Self (published in the Journal of Philosophy and Scientific Methods, Vol.X, January-December, 1913).
He does not refer to the "I" as a conscious thought per se. It is more a tacit assumption--what he calls a presuppostion--generally, if not always unconscious (out of awareness). We act "as if" there is an "I" behind--or as subject of--our actions, thoughts and sensations. The "me" is a thought. So, to Mead people are normally engaged in a kind of internal dialog in which "I" is examing the needs and status of "me". When considering some strategy of action, "I" think about how it's going to benefit "me," for example. But the "I" is not examined, not thought about. To be "self-conscious" in that sense, to look for the "I" of experience, it automatically becomes the "me" as it is "objectified." This, it seems to me, is very similar, at an intellectual level, to the model of the self of zen buddhism.
THINK "I'VE" GOT IT ...
JLN - Think I've got it now ... Mead's essay: "It's all about ME." H-E-A-V-Y! Is this part of the survival instinct? Hm-m-m ... And if "I" is dropped in our conversation and thinking? Somehow, I think it's still "all about me." :-) :-) :-)[/color]
me
Charli, I do think there is survival value in the assumption of an "I" behind (or the subject of) experience. This is probably why we see in all cultures in some form or another. "Me" (the object of self-consciousness) is really what we are talking about in this thread. When one tries to omit the use of "I" in conversations I think it is to supress the thought of the self--the "me"--and by extension self-centeredness. The presupposition of an "I" is, I suspect what mystics try to put into perspective--to see it for what it is, a useful fiction or working hypothesis, nothing more.
