Me, Myself and I (Part II) - Who Am I?

Well, I made this post about 2 months ago, with the intention of expanding on it. At a later date. Not necessarily THIS much of a later date. But better late than never.

To pick up where we left off, let's ask a simple question. Who am I? Simple, right? I'm David Darmon, you're (insert your name here).

Unfortunately, like a pointillist painting, when you look at this question closer, you find that finer and finer details are present. Let's start from a distance (the intuitive explanation) and move closer and closer (to the more true, less intuitive explanation).

For me personally, like I said, when I think of who "I" am, the first thing that comes to mind is "David." The first thought that comes to mind is my name. And then I just sort of assume that the name covers everything. It covers my "soul" (if you'd like to indulge in that idea), my thoughts, my emotions, my body. Even looking at that explanation, it becomes clear that I'm dividing myself into several different realms: soul, mind, emotions, and body. Therefore, this apparent unity that originally existed in the name "David" quickly dissolves into its constituent parts.

Now I can take each of those parts and pull THEM apart. Let's begin with the gross (that's the physical and emotional parts of "me"). "I," my physical body, am made up of several organs, which are made up of several types of tissue, which are made up of several (some 75 trillion) cells. Therefore, good luck at finding "me" in there anywhere. If you can find the one cell that has "me" in it, I'll give you a billion dollars. Though I guess part of the trick is that each cell is "me," like a hologram: the part containing the whole. But that's a post for a different day.

Now, for the positivists out there, I'm next going to be told that my self-sense may be found in my brain from electrochemical interactions. Which takes us to the subtle (the mental part of "me"). When I think of myself, I think about the knowledge I've learned, the memories I've earned, and the thoughts I have. I mean, if they're not "me," then what is? Unfortunately, even this part of me can be broken up. I'll give two methods: one, Buddhist Philosophy; and two, modern meme theory.

Buddhist philosophy has five "Skandhas" which literally translate to something like "conditions of individuality." They are, in an order similar to the way we've been exploring "me": form, feeling, perception, intentionality, and consciouness. Form we covered in the "gross" paragraph. Feeling, that's the 5 senses, to which the Buddhists add one more, mind. Perception is the fusion of feeling with opinion ("that looks hott" or "this tastes like bad"). Intentionality is what I want ("I intend to eat healthier, hang out with my friends more, etc."). Finally, consciousness is the space in which all of the other 4 arise. Therefore, tadda, this thing I thought was some overarching unifier, this "mind," is really made up of at least 5 parts. And "I" can't be found in any one of them.

And then there's the scientific, memetic theory. It basically revolves around the idea of "memes," the thought analogue to genes. Memes can range from the simple thought of "Man, I sure am hungry" to more complex worldviews (traditionalist, rationalist, etc) called Value Memes (or vMemes). Therefore, the "mind," to a memeticist, is just a conglomeration of all of these memes. And the even more shocking revelation is that there's a "self" meme. A meme that says, "I'm the self. I'm 'David'." But it's no more "me" than any of the other memes. It just shouts louder.

Therefore, we're left without a single physical part to call "me," and we're left with thoughts without a thinker. Oh dear. As I found, all these characteristics of "me" that I formally thought were "solid" turned out to be very much fluid. My entire "self" in fact, is a shifting, ever changing pattern. For example, one second I may be really, really happy, and the next, after some silly little thing, I might be completely depressed. Therefore, I am not the happiness, and I'm not the depression. One second I may have a really healthy body, but the next I might be stricken with a cold that debilitates me and forces my body to change. Therefore, I am not this body or that body.

Who am "I" then? We haven't touched on the next level on this hierarchy of being, namely soul and then spirit. And perhaps that's where "I" am found. Or perhaps that's where I find out that "I" don't exist. At least, not in the way that I believe. Maybe a radical death and rebirth has to happen, to a larger, more inclusive me?

I think these lyrics sum it up:

It was easy when I thought
I had to go somewhere to find You
Now I learn
I must attend to my own funeral
So You may look through these eyes
And draw breath through this nose
And reach with these fingers
And pulse with this heart
Who am I
To keep you from your house? - "Your House" by Stuart Davis

What's this song mean? It means that "I" am not "David." Yes, there is a "David," as I said in the previous post, a "useful illusion" David. But "I", the one typing these words, am not he. I am the consciouness that has been around since before the Big Bang. I am the one reading these words from your seat. I am the one in every person on this planet. I am the absolute. I am your Original Face. Some call me God. Others call me the Mystery. It doesn't matter what you call me. I am that.

And perhaps that answers the koan, "Who am I?" At least, that's the answer I've found most fulfilling and most compelling.

So remember, the self, "you," are a useful illusion. But also remember:

Why are you unhappy?
Because 99.9% of everything you think,
And everything you do,
Is for your self,
And there isn't one. - Wei Wu Wei, a Taoist Sage

Writer's Note: This didn't turn out quite as well as I'd intended. Like usual, I feel as if I've missed something in the writing, somehow missed the spark of inspiration that originally set this blaze. Whenever I try to explain a beautiful idea, it always comes out flat. But this is the best I have. I might go as far as to expand this into a paper, just for kicks, sometime. So, consider this a rough draft of a more refined work.