However, one will only get certainty about the sense of such an undertaking, when one tries to accomplish it. It does not have to have a scientific character to start with. The first question that arises is: To what or who does one say \u201cI\u201d? What does one mean by that word?<\/p>\n
When one does not look at ones \u201cI\u201d and speaks the word as a habit, of course one knows what one is referring to. As soon as one starts to wonder about it, the mirror seems to be empty. The reason for this is, that the \u201cI\u201d immediately shifts to the centre of wondering \u2013 and with that the subject of examination has disappeared into the subject, is absorbed by it. At first it seems that the \u201cI\u201d can never become an object, so one can only know what one means by it without a clear consciousness, when one says \u201cI\u201d. Along this way one does not get any further. <\/p>\n
But one can also ask oneself: Is there somewhere something in the inner life that can be found that tries to keep order in the chaos of experiencing? Is that \u2018something\u2019 the same as the one who thinks, feels and does? It is curious indeed that one can be in disagreement with one’s own thoughts, feelings and acts.<\/p>\n
When we look at the animal realm, we do not find these inner differences of opinion. An animal lives by its instincts and instinct is never against the instinct. In the human civilization however, there is not only a difference in opinion between people, but there is also a difference in opinion internally. Let’s think about the inner conversation after a difficult meeting for example. A \u2018monologue interieur\u2019 blossoms here, in which there is one person who has acted like he did, and another person who regrets it. The one who regrets it thinks for instance that he should have been more assertive \u2013 or maybe a little less assertive.<\/p>\n
Or one has acted in a certain way and one asks himself afterwards whether he has done it the way he wanted it to be done or not. Perhaps one comes to the conclusion that one has only done it half way. At that moment the \u201cI\u201d has a difference in opinion with the \u201cI\u201d. One can not say that the one who acted is a different person from the one who rejects it afterwards. The first one said \u201cI\u201d to himself, the second one does the same. Isn\u2019t it so, that the second one has the first one as an object? Hasn\u2019t the \u201cI\u201d released itself from itself, in order to examine itself?<\/p>\n
There are quite a lot theories about this duality. But can\u2019t we forget all these theories for once and experience internally what happens here? By some theory one could mean that one has to strive to give up all fight, and reduce oneself to one spontaneous \u201cI\u201d. Or one could think that one should attribute the absolute power to the observing \u201cI\u201d, that one has to try to live up to the demands of this one \u201cI\u201d: Never act spontaneously upon what comes to your mind, but always doubt everything… So let us let go of this theory for once, and try to observe what happens. One begins to see that the use of the name \u201cI\u201d happens very unconsciously, that it is a summary of all kinds of unseen inner processes, and that the true \u201cI\u201d seems actually to be outside these processes.<\/p>\n
Is the one who is hungry and thirsty \u201cI\u201d? Is the one who runs that marathon \u201cI\u201d? Is the one who looks at the foreigner as an unwelcome fellow man \u201cI\u201d? Is the one who is frustrated by the lead of the other \u2013 in which area whatsoever \u2013 \u201cI\u201d? Is all that egoism correspondent to \u201cI\u201d? Ego it is, certainly. But is it always in accordance with what one means when one says \u201cI\u201d?<\/p>\n
![\"How](\"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Chartres.jpg\")
<\/a>