Man, Know Thyself & Who Am I - What Does It Really Mean

[patrizekirsten]

---

It is the reflection of this one Life that man keep on fighting for. The form that this
One life reflects is what man is pursuing. It is where pain comes. The illusion of this refelction. Man pursued all form he likes. And those who trust their faith on form would only end up in sorrow, especially when that form is gone or destroyed or changed.

[Lovely Charm]

It is the reflection of this one Life that man keep on fighting for. The form that this
One life reflects is what man is pursuing. It is where pain comes. The illusion of this refelction. Man pursued all form he likes. And those who trust their faith on form would only end up in sorrow, especially when that form is gone or destroyed or changed.

sir its not the child school of thought,,,so i guess its a waste of time

[patrizekirsten]

sir its not the child school of thought,,,so i guess its a waste of time

Am very sorry its for Father Reg.. hehhe. not for the child. we just having a bit converstion. I hope am not detouring the Hermetic Adage: " Man Know Thyself". hehe

[patrizekirsten]

But let us hear the Childs point of view. We might cull a good in it. who knows.

[miyay]

no. i am not.

but Subject, i refer to "Ego" the notion of the self. yes? so, one of these prejudices that there is a subject runs throughout the history of psychology (rational psychology) you might want to correct me on this. Perhaps, one of the more famous one is Descartes with his famous dictum of I think therefore i am, which has reduced man as thinking being, (also an extended being). Man is defined as a thinking being, which supports the earlier claim of Aristotle (man is a rational being), but either ways, this quality attributed to man, defines his Subjectivity, being a subject, as something given by God or endowed by Nature. that is what i do not agree with, because the conception fo the "I" "Ako" "Ego" "subject" is created by Man himself, we are created identities, or better yet, imagined identities.

sir, very interesting. so who are you? the creator and the imaginer (himo himo ko og label)?

ot: wonder why teachers don't like to be called sir..

[Tirong-say]

The bottom always winds down to identity, if one wants to be recognized who he is.......he-he

[cromagnon]

thoughts becomes ur reality. thougts are things. u are ur thoughts.

whether u thinkl high or low. poverty or rich . these are all the offspring of ur mind.

whatever the mind can concieve and believe it can achieve.

[Existanz]

I know for sure what I am...wretched sentient being in a decaying biological mass incapable of perceiving things beyond x,y,z and time axis of reality.

Who am I...a pure function... ironically, a function of no good use in this planet...except for one thing only- to realize that.

"I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to die." - Roy Batty

Much more dramatic here: YouTube - Roy Batty Dies!

[chad_tukes]

the "I" concept is what defines the core of humanity. "I" is the sum of all parts combined; a complex being; a thinking entity capable of discerning what is limited to him.

[The_Child]

I wonder what recipe you would like to come up with those spices of Eastern and Western Philospy, wiht Foucault, with Lacan, Derrida etc...


You said "I" stand with the idea..are you not percieving this as merely mirror of your perception?
Who is that "I" that your referring to. Is ist subjective? And how can you expuond when it ought to be deconstructed?

I have not notice any dielectical relationship in your view perhaps dialectical pursuits if my brain serves me well..

And subejectivities are created never ineherent nor given...then from whence it come? how is it created.

But am most intrigue with the "I" who holds the idea of subjectivities..


Perhaps you can enlighten me more.. thanks

Make yourself clear dong, what is this subject your referring to,,& based on your explanation to regnauld your confusing the issue

comment kanang comment na walang explanation,,stop trying to be smart alick,,,i can see you through,,,well its so easy since i sniffed already your breed-that your a boxed catholic adorn w/
school textbook philosophical terms

used plain english dong,,cause its not cool,,its so cheesy,, your attempt to sound very philosophical will not hide the weight of your understanding,

or Maybe your just confused w/ the word "subjective".

sige nga try to answer the question- w/c is appropriate to your mental pedigree-

I think therefore i am? or
I am therefore i think?

@sir

i wish not to compel my ideas, and i believe you yourself are very much adept to eastern thought.
but the thing that comes to my mind is: annata - the doctrine of no-self.


@ ms.

galit ka ba? galit ka ba? galit ka ba? o nagpapaliwanag lang? hehehe.

yes, i am mad, takes you this long to notice? yes, i am not to be taken seriously, and yes, i hide in the veil of being catholic and he-who-thinks-he-understands-but-he-doesnt. Sniff me all you want, im open to be sniffed.


i want to make myself clear, but the moment i do, it seem though im only confusing your world-view.

i think therefore i am, i am therefore i think. either ways, i dont subscribe to descartes. if you do, then good luck, your stuck with old worldview. more catholic than i am then, do you allow yourself to be define as that which thinks? well, for me, i dont, i define myself, myself alone.

cheers!