When we think about this subject what conclusions can we make about what is actually yours? If we can define self as something intentionally created by you, then what do we actually have?
BODY - Is the body yours or the conditions of your body yours?
MIND/THOUGHTS - What original thoughts does anyone have?
MEMORIES - Do we create memories or are they triggered?
EMOTIONS - Can we claim them or should we own them?
PERSONALITY - Is it a projection or is it self?
CHARACTER - Is it separate from personality? Why?
EGO - The stranger in the mind or a self preservation software?
CONSCIOUSNESS - Borrowed for life or constructable leverage?
I’m not suggesting that any of the above questions have a particular answer. They’re simply different ways of approaching the question of what, if anything, we can genuinely call “ours”. You can answer each one however you want. I’m interested in where your answers lead you.
Maybe a good place to start is what the history of each thing is. Not the history of the concept, thought that too.
I’m curious about what you wrote for EGO. Stranger in the mind in what sense?
The ego is rather everything that feels like “you.” The pilot in the mind, rather. No?
And, as for “self” preservation, if there is no proper self, or we are not sure what the self even is, then what is it that it is preserving? And, software in what sense? Who wrote it? Why?
The assumption here is that something has to be intentionally created by us in order for it to be “ours.” I’m not sure that follows.
I didn’t create my body, but I still consider it mine. I didn’t choose most of my initial personality traits, my temperament, my memories, or even the language I use to think. But that doesn’t necessarily make them someone else’s property. There seems to be a difference between creating something and being the subject through which it exists.
The same applies to thoughts. I agree that very few thoughts are completely original. Most of what we think is influenced by things we’ve experienced, learned, or absorbed from other people. But originality may be the wrong standard. I can take ideas I’ve inherited and combine them in ways that are uniquely mine.
I’d make a similar distinction with emotions and memories. I don’t necessarily choose what I feel or what gets remembered, but I experience those things from a first-person perspective. In that sense, they belong to me even if I didn’t consciously manufacture them.
The ego question is probably the most interesting one to me. If the ego is just a kind of self-preservation mechanism, that doesn’t necessarily make it less “me.” It may actually be one of the mechanisms through which the self maintains continuity over time.
And that brings me to consciousness. I’m not sure I would call it “borrowed,” because we don’t really have evidence that consciousness belongs to someone else and is temporarily loaned to us. But I also don’t think we can simply construct consciousness at will. We seem to find ourselves conscious before we ever have the ability to ask what consciousness is.
So I think what is genuinely “ours” may not be whatever we deliberately created. It might be whatever we experience, integrate, act upon, and take responsibility for. I didn’t choose all the ingredients that make me who I am, but I still have some responsibility for what I do with those ingredients.
Maybe the self isn’t the author of everything that happens within it. Maybe it’s more like the person who inherits a house they didn’t build and then decides what to do with it.
I think the “self” is still not a sufficiently defined element here, and everything seems to be pivoting on it. Belongs or not to “me,” but what is “me?”
“Ego” was coined by Freud to define the part of the psyche that is “me.” The part that consicously experiences, makes decisions, has an identity. The self, then. What owns.
We can prod this question of Freud’s. If we look at anything that is not part of the running narrative of the ego, that which, with an identity, can make judgements and choices, what is it? Even direct experience can happen without a properly constructed ego, because newborns don’t yet have an identity, a running narrative, judgement or decision, yet they experience directly. Let’s say hunger. Am “I” hungry? Or is there simply hunger? Does hunger, then, attain a sort of identity of its own, become a discrete existent?
The ego, the self, gets built over time. What it ends up as is, I agree, both incidental and our responsibility. It brings out everything, from hunger to character. To questioning, to philosophy. It is only a person, a self, an ego, that questions. It’s not set in stone, it continues to evolve and change. But it has an immutable past, a history, which gives a deterministic shape, there is no other ego you could be.
Another quesiton: things that happen outside the ego, outside the self, things you might experience as a baby experiences hunger, as not being an attribute of a self but simply some kind of ghost with its own existence, do they belong to you? Perhaps not until you think about them because, the ego being that which thinks, that would then instantly integrate them into your self, that would already be taking ownership.
If there are things within the psyche the ego springs from that are outside the ego, those things are now things that happen to you, rather than things of you. But you can also block things from your ego, from yourself. Thus, it is an indirect form of ownership, by pushing them away you are making an egoic choice about them, thus laying personal responsibility over them. They are, in a sense, now also yours, yet you have no control over them, no idea or capacity of judgement over them.
Most of what the ego experiences, anyway, gets relegated in this way, because identity requires coherence, a narrative requires coherence, and most things the ego experiences cannot be coherently integrated into its narrative, its identity. There is a balance, and there is probably a standard of health for what things can cause serious problems if pushed away.
The question of how the ego gets built, how the narrative of it is pieced together, what elements go into giving it the tools to build that narrative, what it builds it on and why, is extremely interesting.
I agree, though, that once it is there, it is you, and it is what is now responsible for everything the ego does: behaviour, etc. It is responsible because it is the thing that responds, response is a function of coherence, of conscious narrative. It is the only thing that can judge on actions and their results.
The question of ownership is also tricky because it is philosophically extremely interesting, but it has very serious consequences. To question your ownership of your own body, for example, is a notoriously problematic proposition. Many there are who will be happy to take that ownership from you.
The ego is most certainly a necessity. The protector of everything it owns.
Who and/or what is the ‘you’, which ‘you’ then say could intentionally create ‘self’?
There is NO ‘you’ and then some other ‘self’, of ‘yours’.
‘I’ am sorry to say this to ‘you’, people, here, but ‘you’ have been fooled and deceived all of your lives. The term and phrase “yourself” is an oxymoron and a literal ‘self-contradiction’. This is NO ‘you’, and then ‘another self’ as well.
There is ‘you’, which refers to ‘that human body’ and/or ‘the person’ within it. The word ‘person’ refers to the invisible thoughts and emotions, within a body, and NOT ‘the physical and visible human body’.
The physical, visible human body is conceived when parts of two other physical, visible human bodies literally come-together.
So, ‘the body’ which ‘you’, the ‘self or person’, is within is NOT ‘yours’, and, in fact, ‘you’ are, and exist solely, because of what ‘that body’ has previously experienced in ‘the past’.
What does the word ‘anyone’ here mean or is referring to, exactly?
Within older human bodies there are thoughts. These thoughts are invisible, to the human physical eyes. These thoughts exist solely because of what the body has experienced.
An ‘original thought’ is just ‘a thought’ that was the first one to ever come into Existence. But, do not forget, or learn and understand, that EVERY new or original thought ALWAYS comes from at least two or more previous thoughts that have literally come-together.
It is NOT like ‘a person’ comes up with an ‘original thought’ out of absolutely nowhere. ALL new or original thoughts come from linking preexisting thoughts together, of which EVERY one of those thoughts has come from Past Experiences. Or, as someone might well say, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”. Which just means or is just referring to, ‘the thoughts’ within ‘this or every’ body exist or are because of ‘prior events’, ‘past experiences’, or because ‘others before me have caused and created the past events of which ‘I’ have experienced and thus learned from’.
‘Mind’ is a whole other thing from ‘thoughts’, by the way.
As far as ‘we’ know, ‘memories’ exist in and are a part of ‘thoughts’. Which, again, ALL of come from the Past Experiences of ‘that body’, which the ‘invisible thoughts’ are within.
‘We’, people, ARE the ‘invisible thoughts and emotions’, so ‘we’ do NOT and can NOT create what is ‘us’.
As always, ‘it’ depends on what ‘you’ mean when ‘you’ say and use words, like for example the word ‘emotions’ here.
Now, depending on what ‘a human body’ has previously experienced this will and does affect what ‘emotions’ arise ‘within the body’, when it experiences something new (which is always by the way).
Now, it has been asked before, ‘Do emotions control ‘you’ or do ‘you’ control emotions?’ The answer to this is it depends on how ‘mature’ or ‘grown up’ a ‘person’ has become. But, when one has FULLY ‘grown up’ and ‘matured’, or evolved, then that ‘I’ is EVERY thing. ALL is ‘I’.
The fully mature human being allows ALL emotions to rise up, and go back down, and even knows how to control them all fully, or takes ‘ownership’ over them. This one is Aware and recognises the emotions that arise, uses them for their intended purpose, and then allows them to dissipate.
‘Personality’ is related to ‘person’ and ‘per’ is through; ‘son’ is of God or of hu/man.
‘Person’ is the invisible thoughts and emotions within a visible human body. (if we cut a leg or an arm off a human body, then ‘that one’ does NOT become less of ‘a person’.)
A ‘person’ or a ‘self’ is the literally ‘invisible thoughts and emotions’ within a human body. Also known as ‘the soul’. These ‘selves’ and ‘people’ exist solely because of what ‘human bodies’ experience.
‘Personality’ is classified as ‘the character’ of ‘the person’, ‘the self’, within ‘a human body’, which is judged, and known, by what ‘that human body’ does. What ‘the behavior’ or ‘the misbehavior’ of a human body is, exactly, is how ‘one’ (self) is judged on, and by.
From my perspective, not fully.
What do ‘you’ mean by ‘mind’, exactly?
Now, ‘ego’ is a term used to describe when ‘people’ see “themselves” as being ‘the centre’ and as though others have to revolve around them.
The reason WHY the ‘ego’ exists, like WHY everything else exists, is because, literally, at ‘the centre’ of everything is an ‘I’, but this ‘I’ is certainly NOT an individual human being nor ‘person’. But some people misconstrue or mistake this ‘I’ for who and what ‘they’ are.
The word ‘consciousness’ just refers to ‘awareness’, and/or how ‘conscious’ one is actually ‘aware’.
Now, there are ‘people’ who are ‘more aware’ than others are, but all people are only partially consciously aware of things.
Within the human body there is ‘a consciousness’, which again although at times is ‘consciously aware’ it is NOT aware of ALL things at ALL times. There is, however, ‘A Consciousness’ that is Aware ALWAYS and of ALL things.
Tapping into this Consciousness comes after who and what ‘you’ are exactly was discovered and after coming to know thy ‘Self’ fully, properly, and Accurately.
Being able to answer the question, ‘Who am ‘I’?’ properly and Correctly, then understanding Consciousness, fully and exactly, also comes to exist.
If ‘you’ want to learn and discover what can genuinely call “ours”, then ‘you’ have to first realise and know what the word ‘our’ is referring to, exactly.
My answers here do not lead ‘me’ anywhere now. As discovering and finding ‘the answers’ previously, the first time, is what led ‘me’.
The ‘self’, the invisible thoughts, within a human body, is ‘the illusion’ and ‘false self’ noted in some theologies. This self, the “I am a doctor”, “I am a buddhist”, “I am an american”, is ‘the illusion’, ‘false self’, and the constantly changing mental illusion.
This ‘self’ is the literal ‘invisible thoughts and emotions’ within human body’s, which are obviously real and true things. When these ‘selves’ (thoughts), however, talk about being something like an “israeli”, a “soldier”, or a “jew”, for example, then ‘they’ are False and NOT True claims at all. ‘they’ are ‘False selves’ and just illusions only.
When ‘you’ say ‘Our’ here, who and/or what are ‘you’ referring to, exactly?
There exist ‘mental consciousness’ within human bodies, but the ‘our’ word implies ‘ownership’, so who and/or what is ‘the our’, or ‘the one’, who, supposedly, ‘own’ ‘mental consciousness’, itself?
Except the Universe, the ‘I’, the One True Self, IS permanent.
‘We’ human being ‘selves’ obviously are NOT permanent, and so could NEVER be ‘preserved’. And, even ‘wanting to’ or ‘trying to’ is just a futile exercise anyway. However, there is an ‘I’, which most adult human beings conflate with their own ‘ego’ or own ‘self’, which actually ALWAYS exists, and so is ‘preserved’ forever anyway.
And, does that ‘I’ have actual control ‘over’ ‘that body’ or only ‘over’ what that body does (behaves or misbehaves)?
Very True, and NOT because ‘you’ are born with those traits, temperaments, et cetera, but BECAUSE ‘you’ had absolutely NO choice AT ALL when ‘that body’ would be conceived, NOR into what country, what culture, what time period, nor what ‘world’ ‘that body’ would be born into, and ‘raised up’ within.
So, for the first years of ‘yours’ and 'that body’s life ', ‘you’ had absolutely NO choice at all over what ‘that body’ experienced. And because ‘you’, the ‘person’, (thoughts and feelings), exist solely because of what ‘that body’ experienced ‘you’ absolutely did NOT choose how ‘you’ ‘ended up’ when reaching ‘adulthood’, which is when and where ‘you’ are meant to then ‘choose’, fully, over ‘what happens’. Only ‘then’ is when ‘you’ have ‘ownership’ or ‘control over’ traits, temperament, and language. Obviously, as a young child, NO one has ANY choice over what language that end up using, (and use ‘to think’), but at some age ‘we’ ‘end up’ being responsible for ALL of our ‘choices’, (behaviors and misbehaviors), and even in what ‘language’ ‘we’ want ‘to learn’ and ‘use’.
Although some adults will TELL children that they were born WITH temperaments and traits, as well as WHAT temperaments and traits they were born with, but ‘these adults’ are only re-repeating what they were TOLD when they were children. But, exactly like language, NO child is born with any particular trait, temperament, nor language. They are all ‘learned’ mis/behaviors.
EXACTLY LIKE a ‘child’ is NOT ‘the property’ of any human being self-labelled as “parent”.
Some people believe, and some absolutely believe, that ‘children’ are “theirs”. But ‘this’ distorted and delusional thinking is just another consequence of being ‘raised’ Incorrectly, and then NOT experiencing what is actually True, Right, Accurate, and Correct afterwards. Or, if they did experience what is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct afterwards, they have just REFUSED to accept and agree with It.
Human beings do NOT ‘own’ anything. ‘Human beings’ ARE the ‘human body’, and, the ‘being’ within; that is, the ‘person’, which are the invisible thoughts and emotions within the visible human body.
If human beings ‘own’ anything, then they are ‘the mis/behaviors’ of ‘the body’, but this ‘ownership’ or responsibility has to occur only AFTER a ‘particular date’.
Nothing else is ‘the property’ of ‘human beings’.
A ‘person’ is the ‘subject’, which comes to exist through what a human body experiences. ‘people’ are the collective of what human bodies experience.
This is because the ‘subject’ and words ‘person and people’ mean and refer to ‘thoughts’, themselves.
Except, of course, EVERY ‘new thought’ had to be completely original, obviously.
And, if ‘we’ just ‘look at’ ALL of the ‘new creations’ ‘we’ human beings have dreamed up, designed, invented, planned, and created, then there have been quite a few ‘completely original’ thoughts and thinking, at one point or another throughout human history.
I would say and argue EVERY thing that is ‘thought’ is influenced by things we have experienced, learned, or absorbed from other people (thoughts).
But the fact is new or original thoughts do come to exist. If they did not, then ‘we’, human beings, would not have moved on from living exactly like every other animal does. That is; without a varied range of different tools, constructions, and literal ‘creature comforts’. The human creature would be living like every other creature does if it was not for ‘original thought’. But do not forget, EVERY ‘original thought’ is ONLY the coming together of two previous thoughts, and EVERY one of those previous thoughts was because of the ‘Past Experiences’ of ‘that body’.
If the ‘uniquely mine’ is a ‘new thought’, then ‘it’ is, obviously, an ‘original thought’.
But, again, NO one is better nor smarter than another just because they have had an ‘original thought’. As EVERY thought, ‘new or not’ is because of what ‘that body’ has previously experienced. And, NO one had ANY control AT ALL over what ‘they’, and ‘that body’, experienced from birth.
From birth, up to a particular age, NO one can choose what emotions arise. And, obviously NO one can choose what emotions arise when ‘those emotions’ are coming from an outside the body influence.
Sure, how one ‘looks at’ and ‘views and sees’ ‘the world/the Universe’ will have an influence on which emotions arise or do not arise from a future outside influence, but whatever emotion arises for ANY and ALL experiences they are ALL because of and due to Past Experiences, hitherto.
And, who and/or what is the ‘me’ word here referring to, exactly?
To me, the word ‘conscious’ refers more or less to ‘aware’, and the word ‘consciousness’ more or less to ‘awareness’ itself. For example, if ‘we’ ‘look at’ this ‘from birth’, the ‘body’ does is ‘normal thing’ and takes in information from the nerve endings and through the five senses, but the ‘self’, ‘person’, or ‘you’ within is not really ‘that aware’, but as the years go on and ‘the body’ takes more and more information in, the ‘person’ becomes ‘more aware’, or ‘more conscious’ of things like ‘the human body’ when ‘it’ sees “itself” in a mirror, for example. The ‘person’ within ‘the body’ continually become ‘more aware’. ‘more conscious’, or more ‘consciously aware’ of “itself”. The word ‘consciousness’, to me anyway, refers to this ‘conscious awareness’, which can be a continual process of becoming ‘consciously aware’ of more and more things. Until, finally, ‘I’ come to be ‘consciously aware’ that ‘I’ come to know thy ‘Self’. From which, by the way, is what Consciousness, Itself, is, exactly.
‘I’ am Aware, and Conscious, of ALL things. Through the Mind, incidentally, which is what is ALL-knowing, and it is the Mind’s Eye that is able to ‘see’ ALL and EVERY thing.
‘you’ can only have ‘responsibility’ from a particular age. Unless, of course, some people want to believe that ALL babies and young children are responsible for “themselves” and their language, words, and mis/behaviors.
There is the ‘self’ and the ‘Self’, which, in the days when this is being written, most people do not yet know the difference.
Biological life as a phenomena has no respect for ownership.
You own what you can defend and thats it. If you cant defend your own body, then not even that belongs to you. It will belong to the predator to which you lost it to and it will eat it.
However, thats where the line is drawn in regards of your question because everything you wrote following BODY, is lacking access for others to take.
Your mind, your memories, your emotions, your personality, your character, your ego and even consciousness are things others have no access to. As such, they cannot take it.
At least no yet.
Technology might advance to a point where interfacing with a brain directly becomes possible.
When that happens, all of these concepts will be subservient to the same rules.
You will only be able to own the things you are capable of defending.
If a hacker can brain hack you, if your government can mind wipe you, if a corporation can copy your personality, memories and thoughts, then clearly you have lost the control and ownership over whats “yours” and its no longer “yours”.
Not sure why you bought up the concept of ownership, but the answer to that concept is very simple: It is yours only if you can and as long as you can defend it.
Your very existence is subject to that rule.
The moment you cant defend it, it will be taken.
That is the rule by which life exists on this planet.
This might be technically true, but I think it misses the point of what ownership as it pertains to the self, the ego, is. It doesn’t mean absolute ability to determine its fate, rather it means an identification with it as being yours to direct.
So, with the body as with the other parameters, there are tried and tested ways to take control of them, precicely by manipulating egoic sense of ownership. For example, a group of people may not be able to plug a machine into your mind to determine its personality or its characters or similar intangibles, but by manipulating the ownership gate, the ego, it can generate an artificial approximation of direct control of surprising eficacy. If I convince you that you are not you, but are a collective, say, then I can manipualte your ego into relegating its idea of ownership over body and intangibles to whatever the director of the collective, the collective ego, is seen to be, convincing the person to force themselves into a plastic representation of the ideated collective.
Who controls whatever that collective directorate is seen to be, then, controls you, and owns the things that “you” own.
By extension, if you are in full ownership of your body, and a perpetrator forces itself on it, this does not mean you lose ownership. In fact, the feeling of loss of ownership in such cases is far more damaging than the actual violation. It is important in such cases to remember egoic ownership, to take ownership back. This doesn’t mean the ability to fight off aggressors, it means knowing that it belongs to you, and that somebody aggressing you does not mean they own you. You own you.
I do not entirely follow. Are you describing manipulation here?
That given someone who is skilled enough in reading and manipulating you, could technically use you in any way they please?
If so, then i have to disagree for the exact same reason i have just articulated in the other thread about the impact of words on a person: Manipulation requires cooperation.
When you are being told to jump off of a building, that inevitably requires your compliance, and if your compliance is there, then that directly means that ultimately you have made the decision to execute the action.
I agree that its a rather grey area, and that there is a lot to unpack here, but i think that (ironically), even the lack of egoic ownership is a form of egoic ownership since it requires your consent, your will, your actions and decisions to function.
UNLESS of course your argument is outright that the ego was never correctly formed to begin with; that the vessel is empty, that the individual who is supposed to take ownership, is not there to hold the wheel correctly.
But if so, then you are no longer arguing ownership since there is nobody there to own the vessel to begin with.
If you are there, your agency and compliance is required… if you are not… well… i guess then the question of ownership is meaningless in the first place, isnt it?
Yes, it’s a plastic approximation. Actual ownership is still yours, that’s the trick. It’s you that has to come to believe, and accept, that you are not you, but some ideated collective, or whatever ideated alternative to you.
My point about egoic ownership is that it is different from simple ability to protect. Because it is plastic, because it is still you, because it can be used to artificially, indirectly, take control of you, it is proven that ownership as it relates to the ego is different from ownership as it relates to ability to defend.
Effective onwership passes to whoever “you,” your ego, decides to identify as, because it is “you,” as whatever you identify as, that owns.
It also means that, no matter how deeply you have been “manipulated,” brainwashed, you can always take control back, because it was always you that gave it away to begin with, even if it can be tricky to see.
Also, manipulation is a form of aggression, of forcing one’s self, so it also means that, even if you were manipualted into using your ego to “willingly” give your body, that was not actually you giving away your body, it was a person forcing themselves on it, by forcing themselves on the intangibles that precede the body.
Well, this is an interesting way to look at it.
It begs the question who you are to begin with.
I guess the way one regards this question depends hugely on how well one’s own ego and agency is formed and developed?
For someone with a lesser concept of self, i can easily see how you’d be right in saying that their very ego might be taken over/eroded.
On the contrary, people with highly developed egos are more vulnerable, because they are less likely to accept that it is possible that, through emotions or things they have repressed or don’t see, somebody else could be in control.
Because the activity of your own ego in the plastic representation of the ideated image is so intense, it feels like it was more you, instead of less.
It does. As it pertains to brainwashing, it begs the question, also, how well you know it.
The point is that it is not eroded, it is fortified, in a plastic direction. The stronger the target’s ego is, the stronger the plastic representation will be.
A person with an underdeveloped ego will have less to coopt.
Great question, and until this is defined, agreed upon, accepted, and known, asking the other questions here will lead to nowhere.
Who is ‘me’? Or, who am ‘i’ (small ‘i’)? is literally the invisible thoughts and emotions within ‘this body’.
What makes judgements and choices are ‘thoughts’, “themselves”, or in other words ‘me’, “myself”, or ‘us’, “ourselves”.
Is it ‘they’, newborn human bodies ‘experiencing’, or ‘they’, newborn people and selves?
See, the human body is ALWAYS experiencing, with ‘that information’ being send through any of the working five senses, which then becomes the ‘thoughts’ (what I say ‘the person’ or ‘self’ within). Which then ‘affects’ HOW things are ‘looked at’ and ‘seen’ from then on. This process is a continual process from birth, or conception, really, to what is wrongly labelled “death”.
Unfortunately, because ‘the way’ things are ‘looked at’ and ‘seen’ is directly and solely related to what the body has previously experienced, ‘the information’ that comes in, from ‘other people’, can be accepted as ‘what is true’, and because after the incoming ‘information’ has become ‘knowledge’, which is stored in ‘thought’, (‘you’), ‘that person’ ‘looks at’ and ‘sees’ things from ‘that perspective’. Worse still is when ‘knowledge’ is believed or presumed to be true, then ‘confirmation bias’ can set in, and then ‘people’ ‘see’ and ‘look at’ ‘things’ from ‘this already believed or presumed to be true perspective’.
The human body is ALWAYS ‘experiencing’ things/the world’ ‘directly’ as it/they are, exactly, however, the person, or ego, within, twists and distorts the ‘new information’ coming in, in ‘a way’ that suits and aligns with the ‘current’ narrative.
If one says, “I am hungry”, then ‘this’ is the False ‘self’ that is talked about in some theologies.
The answer to the question, ‘Who am ‘I’?’ is NOT ‘hunger’.
The human body obviously feels ‘hunger pangs’ sometimes, but ‘thoughts’, “themselves”, could NEVER ‘feel’ nor ‘be’ hungry.
What human beings are ‘taught’ to do is, falsely, state and say, “I am hungry”. This was ‘learned’ when hearing ‘others’ saying, “I am hungry”. When young children ‘experience’ others saying things, then ‘they’ are ‘teaching’ the younger ones, and, the ‘younger children’ are learning’, who then ‘grow’ into ‘older children’, and then into ‘adulthood’, while all the time NEVER ‘questioning’ what they were ‘taught’ and ‘learned’, in their Past Experiences.
The body feels hunger pangs or pains, but some ‘people’ perceive “themselves” as being ‘the body’, and have learned to say and claim, “I am hungry”, as though ‘I’ am ‘the body’.
The body instinctively ‘knows’ when it needs more food, people were taught to say and express things in False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect ways.
Which is ‘thought’, itself.
Again, ‘thought’, itself.
Stating, “I am hungry”, might be a form of, and considered literally as, ‘taking ownership’, but it is a False and Wrong narrative.
But they can when ‘you’ just learn and use the Right words.
