Many of us ask "Who Am I?" like there is some absolute definition out there and once we find it we will know. What if who you are is not something out there somewhere to discover but lies in whatever you say you are (verbally or mentally).

I used to think the attitude crowd was nuts. Now I think there is something to it. I think of attitude as being what you say about yourself. Your actions will reflect whatever conversations you have about yourself or the conversations other have about you that you buy into.

If there is a self, then consciousness comes close to describing what that is. But who is it that notices that the observer is observing? It's like a hall of mirrors.

Remember the analogy about peeling an onion, the self being the onion? After you've peeled off all thelayers what is there? Nothing.

I believe the "self" is an illusion and we are a nothing that is connected to everything, which is also nothing.

I agree topher, in that what we create is what we are. But i do not think language defines everything. I can have thoughts that do not involve language, like an image or a feeling. I may not be able to assign words to these thoughts, but i believe they can exist without names.

sleepydave:

....I can have thoughts that do not involve language....
.... but i believe they can exist without names.

This feels like we're poking around into that lovely question, 'what is consciousness?' Do you need to have language to be conscious? Some say so, which makes all the other animals on earth 'not conscious'. Kind of silly species centric elitism there I 'feel'... or is it 'think'. What is the difference? Think a thought vs. feel a sensation. Can I feel without using language? If not, that means other animals don't feel, which is silly as well. Are you saying that "thoughts" are feelings. Certainly we feel, whether of not we use a word to describe the sensation. In fact, there are sensations - feelings - which have no 'name' per se - no thought which can adaquately describe them. Then we end up just beat around the 'word' bush... OK, I confess!

Anyway, for me thought implies the use of language, words and names. If thought includes all perception, like feeling emotion and 'seeing' the stuff of the five senses, then all animals have thought. If so, then what does that bird out my window think of me? Actually, that jay bird likes me for I give him peanuts every now and then.

Hmm, now is 'like' a thought or a feeling. Let's ask the ant who appears to 'like' honey more than vinegar. Hmm again... are we not just like ants, spending most of our life chasing what we like and avoiding what we dislike. How natural. As a test, notice how emotion precedes thought. When you feel good, good thoughts bubble up. When you feel crappy, crappy thoughts bubble up.

Topher:

(1) I can't say that you are right or wrong because I cannot be without language to test it. Neither can I be sure that I am right or wrong.

(2) I don't see that you can have thoughts or feelings without language.

(3) I believe Helen Keller said that before she gained language, she had no distinct memories. She was unable to create memories without language.

(1) To paraphrase: The right and the wrong complement each other... The notion there is more reality in one than the other is why people have so much 'fun' misunderstanding each other.

(2) So are we are lumping "thoughts" and "feelings" into the same language based phenomenon? Thus, if a living thing has no language it doesn't feel? I know you don't mean that, or is suffering not a feeling?

(3) Exactly! Memories are the stuff of language. Language and the sense of a future and past (memories and plans) - the cozy cabin we hang out in until old death comes a knockin' at the door. Cozy 'inside', yet disconnecting us from the 'outside' - inside vs. outside; right vs. wrong. Language tames the wild beast of awareness by squeezing awareness and shoe horning it into the politically (i.e., socially) correct paradigm of the era. Yet, in the end, its promise is always broken, and the chickens always come home to roost. Reality trumps names, and the arbitrary languages they create, every time.

Carl:

1) As a test, notice how emotion precedes thought. When you feel good, good thoughts bubble up. When you feel crappy, crappy thoughts bubble up.

(2) So are we are lumping "thoughts" and "feelings" into the same language based phenomenon? Thus, if a living thing has no language it doesn't feel? I know you don't mean that, or is suffering not a feeling?

1) Yes, but what about when you forget about feeling bad and start thinking about something else and suddenly start feeling good? Sometimes thought precedes emotion. In fact, other than physical suffering, which can be pretty compelling, I think all emotion is preceded by thought.

2) "Thought" I used to refer to language based talk that goes on in our head; not instinctual brain activity that requires no language. Speech is just spoken thought; though some of it is animal-like, instinctual reaction. I think that most of the emotion we assign to animals is an attempt to humanize them and is misdirected. However, I also consider that maybe they have a rudimentary language that allows them to have some thought and emotion. Their reactions might not all be instinctual. I don't really know for sure.

Dogs don't suffer as much as humans because they can't keep the story of their suffering alive without language. Most of human suffering is in the story about it after the actual events. Of course, if it turns out that dogs have as much or more thought than humans but just don't have speech, then my whole theory goes out the window.

Lynn Cornish:

1) What is the dog's recognition of the person if not memory?
2) It could be that what we call memory in humans we call conditioning in dogs, as if we are all above conditioning.
3) everytime he saw me he tried to butt me. He had a resentment, which is remembered anger.

1) Basic brain level activity and conditioning; perhaps based on some rudimentary language.
2) I think humans have "conditioning" in common with anumals. But we also have the capacity for language; thought and speech. It might be that all we have in difference with animals is speech and that speech is what makes language so powerful.
3) I stll think it is conditioning because until he saw you he was probably pretty content. But like I said, there may be some form of language there, too.

Hey you two, how do you ever expect me to catch up if you keep posting as fast as I reply.

Now, where was I...

Topher:

I attribute all creation to language. But not in a discrete sense of it. What we create will be whatever is in complete alignment with all of our language (thoughts and speech). Causing complete alignment is nearly impossible for beings at our stage of development; hence, the illusion that there is no self control (AKA Free Will). (Can you tell I am baiting Carl?)

OK, I'll bite! I'm afraid we have become unwitting prisoners of language. What began as a useful tool, shared to some degree by all species, has totally taken over human consciousness to the point that very 'intelligent' people believe that there is no consciousness without language. Ha! Tell that to the tree outside my window, or to the window for that matter, or the multitude of cells which cooperate to give 'me' life. Just because we can't talk to a tree does not mean it isn't conscious. If anything, language impedes awareness by funneling it down the tried and true trails of language and the cozy paradigm (prison) it allows us to create. Words!

Lynn Cornish:

Memories are the stuff of language.

Seems to me that animals remember.

There is memory and memory, just like there is smell and smell, vision and vision, direction and direction. Memory to us is what smell is to a dog, vision to an eagle, direction to a homing pigeon (or monarch butterfly). Each species surpasses the others in its particular niche.

Topher:

1)... I think all emotion is preceded by thought.

2) ... maybe [animals] have a rudimentary language that allows them to have some thought and emotion. Their reactions might not all be instinctual..

Dogs don't suffer as much as humans because they can't keep the story of their suffering alive without language.

1) So either animal lack emotion or have thought. Which shall it be?

2) So you really equate thought and emotion? And instinct is neither in your view, I assume. Your view exemplifies the species centric perspective I'm often ranting about. The distinctions an animal perceives in the world around it always fulfills the underlying purpose of advancing its own agenda. For example, when it makes its way through the jungle and draws a distinction between a stick and a snake. Our brains permit us to take this one step further: we draw a specie-centric human hierarchical-instinct-driven distinction between 'animal instinct' and 'human thought / intelligence'. It is pure fantasy aimed at making us two legged primates with a big brain feel 'extra special' - 'God's creation'. Among animals, we are like the opera divas in being deluded by our own sense of importance. But, that said it is not our fault. We can't help it. We have no free will, and only a slight ability to take the lower position and see ourselves as we are, i.e., biologically speaking - essentially no different than the rest of life on earth.

And that is why we suffer more than dogs. We see ourselves, not as we are, but as we think and wish we were, which leaves us feeling perpetually disconnected from the rest of creation - Eden lost.

Lynn Cornish:

I think all emotion is preceded by thought.

Then you've never had PMS.

Good one! Perhaps we can gang up on Topher.

Carl:

1) So either animal lack emotion or have thought. Which shall it be?

2) So you really equate thought and emotion? And instinct is neither in your view, I assume. Your view exemplifies the species centric perspective I'm often ranting about.

Keep in mind that I haven't got a clue; not unlike everyone else.

Unless animals have language (thought & speech) there is something distinctly different between us. I know that not all my actions and reactions are driven by a deliberate mental process. There is some level of basic brain activity that requires no language. Perhaps this is what animals have and perhaps they have more. I don't really know. I see no evidence of language and I am assuming it isn't there but not ruling it out.

1) I don't consider pain or pleasure or sexual attraction, etc an emotion. The emotion is all the other stuff humans make up about it.

2) Yes. Perhaps, but maybe we need the species-centric view and the nonspecies-centric view to figure it all out. Isn't that why you and I are exchanging ideas?

I didn't come here to tell everyone how it is or to find out how it is. Just to see what other people are thinking and learn something from it.

Topher: But I can't be certain that is it because I don't know that other animals don't have some form of language other than instinctual behavior.

ok, just to clarify, it is proven that many animals do indeed have a unified language. Think of dolphins that communicate in clicks and whisltes, or whales that speak in that long moaning type fasion. Animals definatly have some form of comunication, although perhaps not as developed as human speech, i think that animal communication is likely more effective than our words. They communicate essential ideas or concepts, like where to find food or water, or "look out! a predetor behind you!" yet they to not get caught up in the complexities of words that dilute human humility....i doubt there are animal philosophers

Carl:

For me, it really comes down to this: which mode of observation feels 'truer'?

I guess this all started because I asserted that the conversations (thoughts & speech) we have about ourselves, life, and others is what makes us who we are. Similar to attitude but I actually think your attitude is created by what you say (or think). Why I brought animals into it, I don't know. How would I ever know what an animal is or isn't thinking? I am not even sure I know what I am thinking.

I am an intuitive (expressive) person but I also lean strong on the logic side. I am keenly aware of my lack of facts. Even what I think I observe, may not be what it appears. But I can operate without facts and make a best guess.

It is not even so much that it is true that our conversations make us who were are, but it may leave an opening in life for those who find they are stuck.

Carl:

differences (which is why Taoism has such low regard for the them).

Maybe I am not a taoist and never will be. I think you can learn as much by observing the differences as the similarities. In any case, I am not so much interested in what is true as I am in how things work, especially the emotional & spiritual aspects of the human.

Carl:

(2) Next, are you not taking liberties with the meaning of emotion

I didn't think I was. I even checked the dictionary and thought what I was talking about fit the definition. I actually don't know what animals are feeling or thinking. Pain is not an emotion (look at your definition). Sadness is, according to my thinking and your definition.

I know I can feel pain physically. I can react to pain by withdrawing from the perceived cause of it (without thinking about it first). Animals seem to react in the same way and I assume have similar brain processes that control that. I don't know that they don't have emotion about it (like sadness). But I think my sadness is based on the conversation I have about what just happened, not a physical sensation, though, a physical sensation may accompany it. My sadness can last a lot longer than the event because I keep that conversation going. Why I would choose to put myself through this kind of misery, I have yet to figure out. I know the sadness leaves when I drop the story about it and move on.

When I began, I made the assertion that animals don't do this. I now see that I don't know that they don't. But I know that I do.

This is not going to affect my eating habits. Hmm, I wonder if I have a steak in the freezer....

Topher,

Just a quickie: I don't have a clue either. Birds fly, fish swim, hearts beat , brains think, I'm enjoying your postings.

Carl:

Yes, but not only "what just happened", but what will happen, may happen, or may not happen as well. Much of our "conversation" takes the form of foreknowledge which causes us a 'special' suffering that animal avoid, by and large.

I concur with this. The foreknowledge part of it is big. I would add that it is also about the meaning of things which is kind of the same thing. Like if you guys told me to get lost and quit posting, I would make it mean that I am not likable and that I am a pest. Well, maybe, but mostly that is made up. You might get the whole world to agree with you but I don't have to have that conversation about myself even if the whole world agrees.

However, the conversations that the world has about you are also very powerful. Instinctually we know this so we either try to avoid it or control it by staying away from people we don't think we can win over or by trying to get people to approve of us.

Notice the most powerful people in the world (socially & politically speaking) have the agreement of many people (either by force or by charisma).

Carl:

Sadness is not painful? To my knowledge, all animals that form pair-bond and mate for life suffer deep sadness, emotional wasting away, when they lose their mate.

I neglected to repsond to this.

The def. of emotion says sadness is an emotion but it also says "instinctive or intuitive feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge" which would rule out sadness as an emotion in my opinion, because sadness is all based on reasoning and knowledge. Whereas, getting hit in the face would hurt without reasoning or knowledge.

That was really my whole point.

For all we know, the lack of a mate is the source of "apparent" sadness. In humans, a mate is spiritually (AKA emotionally) and physically essential outside of mitigating circumstances. Dogs I believe have this same basic need. What you see in the dog could be just a biological response to the lack of a mate and not the kind of "sadness" you and I would feel because of the story we have about not having a mate. The only reason I say this is because I feel language is necessary for "sadness" and as far as I can tell, dogs don't have it.

I could be full of crap and there is no way for me to know for sure.

I also just realized that I flip flopped and got hazy on my definition of emotional. If you read earlier writings of mine (not presented here), I have stated that I believe emotional and spiritual are the same thing. I further believe that they are not based in biology. I believe that they are largely based in language.

Physical pain is biological. The extended suffering over it, once the source and injury is gone, is all emotional & spiritual. But my definition of emotional is exactly opposite of the dictionary and so I need to find another word.

sleepydave:

So why not cats, or fish, or birds, or ants?

I believe they are created spiritually too but with a distinct purpose. I was just using dogs as an example.

For our purpose, we need language. Language is the tool of creation and we are designed to be creators. Our purpose is to master that tool until what we do is in perfect alignment with what we say (and think) and in perfect alignment with spiritual principles. (I am far from this, by the way.)

From what I have seen so far, the ideas and principles of taoism are to communicate certain things about how it is possible to have that happen. I realize they may not even agree with me about the why but that is what I believe in my search to be so. Use it or lose it, Makes no difference to me. I may find out later that I was off base anyway.

I sincerely wish you good luck with that approach, Topher.

I know myself too well to even atempt it. I would get all tripped up in my own words and thoughts to "to understand spiritual principles, have my language (thought and word) be in harmony with them, and have my actions be given by my language."

I tried for many years to "figure it all out": life, God, the universe. Then the happy day came when I realized how small and insignificant I am and how much of a megalomaniac I was to think I could do it. I was able to just live the best I could, accepting as much as I could about what life dealt me. I continued my practice of meditation and words fell away.

Have you ever experienced spirituality that goes beyond (under?) words and language? I have; only because of my practice. So although words are useful, they are not the end-all to me. "There is more to heaven and earth than is dreamed of in" my philosophy.

Look up at the stars or see a picture of the Milky Way. We are so very small and not as superior as we are cracked up to be.

Peace.

One final note: the reason I brought up this whole language thing is that, true or not, what I have found is that where ever I am stuck or troubled in life, the source of it has always been revealed in my language, thoughts and speech. What I am creating for myself in life, is always revealed in my language. I believe that my language is actually the source of it (which is why my language reveals it) but whether that is true or not, doesn't matter.

What I mean is that when I have come out from trouble and looked back, I could see how what I kept creating for my life was in my language. When I created something new (a paradigm shift), I was able to get beyond that point in life. Often this has happened when someone else spoke something and my mind was opened to it and I began creating myself newly from it. It has also happened from the events in life where a new idea came to me from apparently no where and I began crreating myself from it.

Both of these has actually happened both for the better and the worse. That is why it is important to recognize "true" principles. If you follow incorrect ones, they will lead you to trouble. Fortunately, you will recognize trouble when you find it (even if it takes you years) and you will begin to seek another way. There is no harm in this process. It is there for this very purpose.

I sincerely wish you good luck with that approach, Lynn.

I said that exactly as you said it to me because I mean exactly what I think you meant which is that is sounds like it works for you and it doesn't work for me. Mostly, I am not attracted to what the end is.

But the proof is in the pudding and I am willing to risk being wrong on a very big idea. If I come to trouble over it, I will seek another way.

Lynn Cornish:

I was just thinking that maybe striving to be more like my labrador retriever and following spiritual principles (especially The Tao) are the same thing. So then, we can celebrate concurrence. I mean, why not?

Sure. Why not? Most likely we have more in common than not. And our approach to life might be more similiar than we think; our way of "attempting" to describe it may be where the difference is. Or we may just be focusing on a particular aspect of our own development right now to the exclusion of others, equally important but already fully impacting us or yet undiscovered.

I don't think there is anything special about the tao as opposed to any other wisdom that has been captured for us to benefit from. My concern would be that somone only look one place for answers. I think the answers are all around us. From the little I have studied it, I esteem it worth studying. It is only an attempt to communicate the way as understood by those who wrote it (whether it be one or many people). I think the bible is similar in that respect despite the claims of some who suggest that it was written by god himself.

I actually think we should all keep journals and write the "aha!" moments of our life. That bit of inspiration might be valuable and useful to someone some day. I think all inspiriation comes from the same source regardless of where it is written and regardless of who wrote it.

First, I just can't resist this...

Topher:

I could be full of crap and there is no way for me to know for sure.

Are you sure? How about, if life looks or feels like "crap", then a "crappy" paradigm (world view) may be the cause. Let me paraphrase our friend Jesus, "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a crappy tree bringeth forth crappy fruit." The "tree" here being our paradigm.

Topher also:

...But not talking is only stuffing the problem, not solving it... It is like people who retreat from life...

Perhaps you misunderstand what keeps to the deed that consists in taking no action and practices the teaching that uses no words is driving at? Taoist thought burrows under the 'paradigm of the day' by questioning the 'truth' we ascribe to the names and words we use to sustain that paradigm.

This process will only appeal to those for whom the current paradigm (or any for that matter) seems empty. Ironically, perhaps the only path left is doing our utmost to attain emptiness and embrace the uncarved block. Perhaps Taoism is a 'faith of last resort'. Meaning that if nothing else works, then Nothing, nothing, nothing is worth pondering before jumping off that bridge.

And then Lynn Cornish:

I myself am striving to be more like my Labrador retriever.

This returns us to this thread's topic, "Who Am I?" In that post I ran down a list of 'things' that I was not until I ended up at no-thing - Nothing. The benefit of being tentative and murky about who we are frees us up to be all-in-One, so to speak. The more indistinct and shadowy we define who we are, the closer to the One we can feel. As that elegant Vedic statement put it, 'That Thou Art' (Tat Tvam Asi).

Observing the mysterious sameness that exists between another species, whether a dog or a flea upon a dog, and ourselves is impossible if we view differences as 'true'. Our 'bottom line' beliefs determine the path our thoughts take. The usefulness of correlations lies in testing and challenging that 'bottom line'.

Through correlations I proved to my satisfaction that similarities correlate to 'real & true' and differences to 'illusionary & false'. Settling that fundamental question allows me to be 'a dog or a flea on a dog', or anything else. With enough faith in sameness (i.e.,these two are the same) it is easy.

The quest to discover similarities lies at the heart of science as well. True, science uses reduction to differentiate the smallest components of larger phenomenon. But I see this as the first stage in the Taoist maxim, If you would take from a thing, you must first give to it. In the end, the theory that wins the day is the simplest and most elegant. It is the one that includes and unifies all previous disparate 'answers'. Of course science is limited to testing observable phenomenon. Taoist thought, on the other hand, is handy for testing that which has no shape.

Topher:

... And what is a paradigm? It is a conversation. It is language. ... I am only interested in creating a new paradigm in the areas of my life that aren't working.

Do you believe that if we have a 'good' paradigm, a 'good' life will follow? Hmm,... that's a touchy endeavor. To paraphrase: the whole world recognizes the good paradigm as good, yet this is only the bad paradigm. Or put another way, the good paradigm and the bad paradigm produce each other.... They are entangled, so the only way 'out' of this vicious circle lies in the teaching that uses no words. I'd tell you all about it, but I'm at a loss for words...

Our "conversation" is always colored (if not created outright) by subconscious emotion (primal visceral needs and fears). The more we trust the conversation, the more it reinforces the emotion from which it sprang. Distrusting the conversation, i.e., to know yet to think that one does not know, helps to blunt the sharpness of the conversation, untangle the knots and soften the glare of difference, e.g., 'good' vs. 'bad', 'new' vs. 'old', and so on. This helps returns us to Nature - to use the light, but give up the discernment. Discernment of good, bad, old, new, right, wrong, life, death, beautiful, ugly, etc., is conjured up via language and energized with emotion. Are these distinctions, e.g., 'good & bad', 'beauty & ugly', recognized by Nature? No! Alas, language, rooted in visceral emotion, makes a mountainous mirage out of reality's mole hill. Nature is simply a stream of 'now-ness'. And there is nothing more soothing than wading in that stream.

Our "conversation's" effect on emotional equilibrium is a balancing act. For example, when walking on a rail, it is easy to maintain the situation while it is still secure. Once we start to fall, momentum builds quickly and... opps! Not trusting the "conversation" helps shut the door between it and underlying visceral emotion. We end up 'wilder', more spontaneous, alert, tentative and hesitant, which as with any animal makes us more likely to be as careful at the end as at the beginning of each and every moment.

Topher:

I think we are after the same thing just saying it differently. I mean, I am calling it language and you are calling it names and words. What is the difference?

I'm sure "we are after the same thing"! If there is a difference, it lies in whether or not you trust language (the conversation, the paradigm). In my view, language 'advertises' an agenda without full disclosure, i.e., our conversations are driven by our needs and fears, but they are passed off as rational objective truth. Ha! Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a language abolitionist / hater - obviously I love it. I just see us as being profoundly gullible in trusting its stories as naively as we do.

The 'bottom line': Language is built on an illusion of differences embodied in names and words. Thus, I don't trust them, and the illusion they perpetuate, e.g., paradigm, language, conversation, etc.

How about you?

PS...Ain't it ironic how I use language to refute language. And gads, I always end up using so many word to say the obvious. I should be out there hunting and gathering like my forefathers. But, brrrr... it's too cold today. Oh well...

Topher - It's interesting to me that you place so much stock in language, "the root of who we are", and I am so at the other extreme.

I think (using language, I conceed) that because I've been meditating most of my adult life, I have spent time watching my thoughts (in language) and see how discursive and useless almost all of my thoughts are. (I'm assured by others that I'm not the only one ) Also, the experience of meditation makes it real clear how limited language is.

Language was formed to describe our perceptions and meditation creates experiences beyond perception. To make language our ruler, our end-all, limits us as human beings, I believe.

I agree that language is a tool, I can't imagine thinking without it, but that's a lot different than saying that language is "the root of who we are." We are probably defining "what we are" differently. If you mean our personalities, then maybe. But that's not who I am, my personality or my attitude. In fact, I am no one when I get right down to it.

The word paradigm kind of knocks me for a loop, which, admittedly, isn't hard to do. It's the sort of word with long and convoluted definitions (I looked it up on Wikipedia) and it doesn't really clarify anything for me. I guess it means something to you.

Language is fun and of course, I couldn't describe how I view language without it, and I like words okay, but I spend a lot of time with creatures who don't talk and let me tell you, their roots are rock solid!

I'm aware this is only my projection, but what worries me is that your thinking reflects the way human beings assume they are the most important beings in the world, if not the universe. We are just so taken with outselves and our thoughts and philosophies. I think we need a lot more humility and to become "right-sized." We are actually very very small and insignificant. Like Carl says, we are just animals with big brains. Let's not get carried away with ourselves.

I'm not looking for power. Tell me: what does power mean to you? I feel pretty powerless over most things; no, I should say: I AM powerless over most things.

When I say I'm striving to be more like my dog Alex (not *just* like my dog), I mean his qualities of being in the moment--on the spot!--and his trusting and generous nature. He doesn't regret the past or fear the future. He find happiness very easily. He accepts his circumstances to the point of being overjoyed by them. He doesn't fear death (unless it were to stare him in the face, I expect.) I could go on and on. Who wouldn't want to be more like that? Therer are many other creatures here too, though: cats, a parrot, a fish, llamas and goats. Did I leave anyone out? Oh, sometimes my husband hardly talks at all!

I have always loved silence. People who never stop talking drive me crazy. Maybe that is the source of my ambivalence about language.

You are not persuading me or dissuading me and I trust I am not you either. This is just a friendly exchange of ideas, right? If I'm completely misunderstanding you, please forgive me. I too gravitate towards what sounds true to me. Our sound-true's are quite different, huh? So that's interesting.