The 'I' and the egoism
byMieke Mosmuller
01-10-2014
1 comments
After having experienced a number of great views on the human being, I turn to a reflection about th 'I'. Maybe it's the most spoken word in our culture. One can find many theories in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry about the question: What is the 'I'? Is it something that as the highest self-consciousness is floating on the brain; is it a brain-web; is it something that arises on and on through upbringing and environment; is it a drop from a spiritual sea that has to write I in lightning capitals; is it a spiritual entity that is created by God on the conception; is it an eternal being individuality who moves from one life to another while developing himself to ever more higher levels?
One can start a quest for the meaning of the 'I', in literature and one can try to go through all these opinions in it, and experience which of them seem to be acceptable. One can also do a more experimental research oneself though, by realizing that one has an 'I' oneself, or that one is an 'I', that one would like to be an 'I', or not at all... What is the 'I', that sounds continually. It is a name, that we all give to ourselves, and the special thing is, that our fellow-people use exactly the same name for themselves. That seems to be a paradox with the egoism: in humanity you have to share your own name with all other people.
If you have children, you know that when a child begins to talk, it calls itself with its first name, it doesn't say 'I'. It talks about itself using the name that the people around use for it. But at a certain moment that suddenly changes. All of a sudden it calls itself 'I'!
Isn't it curious that the adults don't think about that more profoundly? For it really is a gigantic turnabout in speaking about itself. Before saying 'I' it seems to speak to itself more from the outward. Suddenly that changes in a calling itself by its name from the inside.
One can find all kinds of theories about this phenomenon. One can find the opinion that it is all learning through experience: People around say 'I' about themselves, so the child imitates that. That certainly plays a role, because a child imitates everything, it learns by imitating. Still it is a remarkable thing that there is a period in which the child imitates what name the people around give it, so it calls itself with its first name. And then, all of a sudden, unexpected, it seems to know by imitating that you have to speak about yourself from the inward - so you name yourself 'I'. The child seems to choose unconsciously to imitate something totally different from what it imitated before. Before it imitated the naming from the outside, now it begins naming itself from the inside.
It seems to be the first triumph of the 'I'- although the behaviour of the child doesn't suddenly change from totally unselfish to egoistic.
The inward name of the individual, which is the same for everyone, is 'I'. It is a pure human faculty. If you seek the human being in his essence, it is worth wile to dedicate some blogtexts to this reflection.
Michelangelo's Creation of Adam in the fresco of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican CityThe 'I' and the egoism by Mieke Mosmuller
When one starts reflecting on the meaning of the 'I', one finds diverging opinions about it. Also the word 'I' has connotations with the Latin word 'ego', which brings the 'egoism' near to the 'I'- most people don't like to be called egoists.
One can start a quest for the meaning of the 'I', in literature and one can try to go through all these opinions in it, and experience which of them seem to be acceptable. One can also do a more experimental research oneself though, by realizing that one has an 'I' oneself, or that one is an 'I', that one would like to be an 'I', or not at all... What is the 'I', that sounds continually. It is a name, that we all give to ourselves, and the special thing is, that our fellow-people use exactly the same name for themselves. That seems to be a paradox with the egoism: in humanity you have to share your own name with all other people.
If you have children, you know that when a child begins to talk, it calls itself with its first name, it doesn't say 'I'. It talks about itself using the name that the people around use for it. But at a certain moment that suddenly changes. All of a sudden it calls itself 'I'!
Isn't it curious that the adults don't think about that more profoundly? For it really is a gigantic turnabout in speaking about itself. Before saying 'I' it seems to speak to itself more from the outward. Suddenly that changes in a calling itself by its name from the inside.
One can find all kinds of theories about this phenomenon. One can find the opinion that it is all learning through experience: People around say 'I' about themselves, so the child imitates that. That certainly plays a role, because a child imitates everything, it learns by imitating. Still it is a remarkable thing that there is a period in which the child imitates what name the people around give it, so it calls itself with its first name. And then, all of a sudden, unexpected, it seems to know by imitating that you have to speak about yourself from the inward - so you name yourself 'I'. The child seems to choose unconsciously to imitate something totally different from what it imitated before. Before it imitated the naming from the outside, now it begins naming itself from the inside.
It seems to be the first triumph of the 'I'- although the behaviour of the child doesn't suddenly change from totally unselfish to egoistic.
The inward name of the individual, which is the same for everyone, is 'I'. It is a pure human faculty. If you seek the human being in his essence, it is worth wile to dedicate some blogtexts to this reflection.
Michelangelo's Creation of Adam in the fresco of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican CityThe 'I' and the egoism by Mieke Mosmuller
Comments
-
From Machteld Veenker @Mieke, wat een bijzonder en inderdaad ook een eigenaardig idee dat je het woord ik als een naam kunt zien en dat je die naam dan deelt met alle mensen op de wereld! Het klinkt wel heel anders dan dat er miljarden ´ikken´ op de wereld zijn die uniek willen zijn. Dit laatste klinkt als een vastlopen, het eerste als een mogelijkheid. Dat is echt interessant - dat we dus allemaal een naam dragen die het unieke uit wil drukken, maar eigenlijk het gemeenschappelijke is. Een grote gemene deler, die naam ‘ik’. Zou dat dan betekenen dat we eigenlijk in staat zijn om elkaar zonder iets te zeggen kunnen begrijpen? Dat we, als wij onszelf uitdrukken met de naam ik, dus eigenlijk over datgene spreken wat een ieder zou kunnen zeggen? Moeten we onszelf dan nog wel uitdrukken?
En als we dat niet meer doen, verliezen we dan ons uniek zijn? We houden in ieder geval na verloop van tijd een heleboel energie over om de rijke bewegingen buiten ons ik waar te leren nemen. Het is heel interessant om te overdenken hoe het zou zijn als dat woord ik niet zou bestaan. Dan zouden we dus geen gemeenschappelijke naam hebben. Geen uitdrukkingsgrond.
Bestaan wij dan nog wel? Het ik wordt verstaan -of niet- door het uitdrukken, maar bestaat door het denken – het heet: ik denk dus ik ben en niet: ik vind dus ik ben. Dus dat ik is een vinder en een denker. Dat vinden is dan gedifferentieerd in het gemeenschappelijke ik - een ieder vindt er het zijne van en ik kan het mijne er niet overheen leggen, hooguit er tegenaan of er tegenover. In het denken vinden we het ik dat het gedifferentieerde begrijpend kan herkennen als gemeenschappelijk streven van het bestaansrecht. De naam ik lijkt zo dus wel een hele belangrijke naam. Het meest gebruikte woord op aarde dus. En 'ik ben' nog meer, want het ik wil er zijn en herkend worden. Ik mag er wel wat meer eerbied voor hebben.
Dank Mieke alweer voor de blogstof die opwaait en nog wel even blijft rondwandelen, misschien ook niet meer gaat liggen, maar hopelijk nieuwe stof schept.