In comments on one of my Posts, Peter raises a lot of good questions about he self, the ‘I’. What functions are being named with this word? Isn’t the ‘I’ sometimes useful? And is it possible to deal with this ‘I’ in a loving way? Peter himself says he will save those questions for later, and I too will point out (again) that we will be dealing with the theme of the self more directly later in the program.<\/p>\n
Still, I will make one distinction that may be helpful. We can think of the self in terms of being a subject and an object. The ‘object self’ is the personality, the one with a history that can be described and that has certain characteristics. The ‘subject self’ is the one that claims a very special status at the center of experience. It is always ‘my’ experience: I own it, I experience it, and I make sense out of it. Not only that, but I am the one who acts, and thus makes experience happen.<\/p>\n
Both forms of self need to be investigated, but it is especially the ‘subject self’ who seems to be inseparable from a particular limited understanding of time, space, and knowledge.<\/p>\n
Peter also raises a very specific question, related to TSK ex. 16, which I will translate:<\/p>\n
“When the self is no longer the owner or agent of thoughts, do thoughts then circle around other themes? Do they still focus on I-centered content, such as “I really want to play with this electric train now!”? (Peter, your grandson must be visiting again.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Jack<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In comments on one of my Posts, Peter raises a lot of good questions about he self, the ‘I’. What functions are being named with this word? Isn’t the ‘I’ sometimes useful? And is it possible to deal with this … Continue reading