Sauwelios,
"The mind postulates the “I’; the body lives it.”–Nietzsche
The mind is in the body that experiences itself.
Darwin was a fluke but I’ll take realism. Idealism is the separation of perception from what is being percieved and is percieving. We can’t have that.
Jakob,
But we do construct definitions. We have no choice. It is how our awareness make’s sense of the world. The trick is to remember that all is a construct. Constructs are useful, but they may not apprehend reality. (whatever that is)
To repeat:
““I imagine” [“Ich stelle vor”], therefore there is a Being [ein Sein - not to be confused with “a being” as in “a human being”; that would be ein Wesen]: cogito, ergo est. - That I am this imagining Being, that imagining is an activity of the ego, is no longer certain: just as little is everything that I imagine. - The only Being that we know is the imagining Being.”
[Nietzsche, Nachlass.]
I believe I already cited the following passage of Heidegger for you once:
“Creation needs what is fixed, first, in order to overcome it, and second, in order to have something that has yet to be fixated, something that enables the creative to advance beyond itself and be transfigured.”
[Nietzsche’s Fundamental Metaphysical Position.]
Thus, imagination, in order to be aware, must predicate (this word is better than “postulate”) something fixed. This is the subject, which is then used to discern “objects” within the flow - to project “substance” into it. So your “I” is not the imagining Being, but its opposite: an illusory “being” as opposed to a real “becoming”.
I believe that is either a bad citation of Zarathustra or a citation of a posthumously published note.
Zarathustra says:
““Ego,” sayest thou, and art proud of that word. But the greater thing - in which thou art unwilling to believe - is thy body with its big sagacity; it saith not “ego,” but doeth it.”
[Of the Despisers of the Body.]
But Zarathustra still believes in grammar.
Yes, creation contains being and becoming - it imposes being on becoming.
That is what I allready said above; the I is an illusion to enable the experience of reality. If reality is dependent on illusion, what does that make of illusion?
“Formula of my happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal.” - Nietzsche
Illusion doesn’t occur without reality first being present to create it.
You are not an illusion, I repeat, not an illusion. You are real, but you create illusion to guide your interactment with reality.
If I were real allready, why would I need to create something to interact with reality? Would I not allready interact with reality? Would I not allready be reality?
Of course it’s pretty hard to create something if you’re not real, that much is true. But what I’m interested in here is that there are definitely, in my experience that is, different levels of reality. These levels differ so much that the lowest level can’t be compared with the higest. I can call them both real, but that would devluate the meaning of the word.
If I am going to call something ‘real’, it has to be worth the title.
Have you never felt a moment or day to be realer than the rest of your life? If so, wherein lies the difference?
For me, ‘real’ reality occurs when an illusion merges with a reality. Let me rephrase that; When my illusion merges with reality, I am real.
I can’t tell you why we use illusion to interact with reality, but we do. Don’t we?
Reality works just fine without illusion or beliefs but people create them anyway. As far as I know, it makes them feel whole and complete. There is always a path one is searching for and a goal one is working torwards. These are illusions. They guide us and structure us.
I have never felt a day any more real than another. O.o If you have…I’m wondering exactly how that was. A day that had more meaning? Yes, for illusionary reasons, of course. That doesn’t mean it became more real. I simply have it stored in my memory as significant or important.
You can be real without illusion. You are not an illusion. You are real. You just illude.
“Mystical explanations are considered profound. The truth is that they are not even superficial.”
[Nietzsche, Joyful Wisdom, aphorism 126.]
“Women are considered profound. Why? Because one never fathoms their depths. Women aren’t even shallow."
[Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, Maxims and Arrows, 27.]
“Supposing truth is a woman—what then?”
[Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Preface.]
S.,
Kaufmann cited the quote I gave. You are mistaking the “I” for the ego. Nietzsche didn’t do that. He saw Kant as a bifurcater of knower and known.
Chuck, to make sure you don’t misinterpret my comment I want to assure you I am not acting as an apologist for God. However, I would like to question whether the author exercised any “critical thought” before writing these paragraphs:
I would like to know why eminent scientists who enthusiastically believe our whole freeking existence has been an accident would risk implying that some events were not accidental by pointing out one that is. I’m not a collector of quotes so I may have this one wrong but I think I read somewhere, probably in “Reader’s Digest”, that Einstein said something like “If one thing is a miracle then everything is a miracle.” Surely the converse is true that if one thing is an accident then everything is an accident including this and everything that has ever been written.
That is it for me today; no more accidental musing. I have to wash some windows I installed in my house on purpose, I think; but accidental God damn it, I’m not sure.
Saully, I’m a manly woman, a tomboy. Don’t bring up sexism unless you wanna start a fight, and I know you don’t. 
Ierrellus, I have an ego. I am connected with reality. I am reality. I create my ego. My ego is not real. Care to explain further?
S.S.,
It’s only as real as you make it.
Please put me right, then.
What is the “I”?
What is the ego?
I don’t make reality. I make illusion. Reality makes me.
Of course you are.
S.,
The I is any knower not abstracted from the known. The ego is a social concept.
S.S.,
Do your illusions nourish you?
“The basic word for “I” in Japanese is watakushi, but it is not much used. Words that boys usually use are boku (polite) or ore (OH-ray), a rougher word, which can be rude depending on the situation. Girls usually use atashi (a feminine-sounding word) or the neutral watashi, but a tomboy might use boku like boys do.”
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=I
No, the ham sandwich does. Where’s this going?
The ego happens because of the I. You can’t separate them.