I was just thinking that there are two major questions we can ask ourselves.
Who am I? vs. How am I?
The “who”, to me, seems to be searching for a fixed identity that is fragile and insecure.
The “how”, to me, seems to suggest a more open ended question that seeks to examine how we are engaged in life.
To me, it is the later that I would classify as “spirituality” whereas for some reason people tend to focus on the former (an intellectual exercise).
this could be good…I remember what popeye said----------------I am what I am… and that’s all that I am…im popeye the sailor man…
English and other languages are basically really messed up.
When people think, they compare A to B.
The problem usually is they have such limited experiences that they don’t find the higher truths of spirituality or anything good like it.
Almost everyone will never know or experience things like deities or aliens for example. It’s too hard of an experience to get.
So they are basically not able to compare A to C, or C to A.
Who is, to me, nonsense. We are compound ever changing things.
I feel that “I am what I am” is what lies between “who” and “how”… It sounds like it is about acceptance.
Yes, agreed. Our minds, and all of our senses, can only function through differentiation. When there is no change (comparison) within our mind or senses the experiences tends to become invisible.
“Who” to me is also nonsense, but I feel that many people spend an entire lifetime either searching for the “who” or intellectualizing the “who”. I have observed only a select few that live the “how” in their lives.
In our modern world, full of distractions/consumerisms/gratifications, we tend to gravitate towards trying to fulfil the “who”. We can only move towards the “how” when the discomfort of the “who” is greater than the discomfort of “I am what I am”. But we can never experience the discomfort of the “I am what I am” as we are constantly fidgeting and looking for new distractions. We, as a society and generation, are stuck in the “who”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=594WLzzb3JI
I guess, for the spiritual persons it is not difficult to differentiate between the “who I am”, the “I am what I am”, and “how I am”. To the non-spiritual persons this is not possible as I feel they are stuck with the “who”.
There’s a big difference between seeking and exploring our own essence, compared to seeking our self image. An image like on a mirror. An empty externalization. The essence is in the inner and outer world both. Essence is the deepest root of existence. Meanwhile, our image can be warped by what we see over top of it, like believing so much of what we are told.
DCG is the reason why I sorta have to fight myself inside to value certain things more than what the mass media programs into me and the people around me. I was thinking of posting it elsewhere but I’ll post it here instead : TV is not scientific. Some people think that it is, but it’s really not. DCG isn’t science either.
Yes there is a difference, but the mind that observes a reflection in a mirror is the same mind that observes something through the senses. The way the mind works is exactly the same in both circumstances, the only difference is the object that it observes. I feel the essence can never be observed directly, but instead is experienced through the “how”. Just like “love” for example, it can never be observed directly and can only be experienced (through the “how I am”). If we look for love we will never find it, we have to be engaged with it — I feel we need to live it rather than think it.
For most people pop-science is science (neuro-flap-doodle)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b64qvG2Jgro
I think the question of who I am occupies many people because we either like or don’t like ourselves, or the situation we find ourselves in. So really the questions are interactive. We don’t really understand what we are, caught as we are between material and immaterial experiences and values, and so the question is, how do we know how we should be?
Really it is our immediate social group that gives us a first moral standpoint, from there we must procede as our perception widens and we take in more of the world and even the universe. Because our social group requires loyalty, we often go along with conventional ideas to belong somewhere, which is also important for human beings. Our ethics reveal where we come from.
It is really when we get free of the conventions and can reflect on them and our existence that spirituality can take place. This is often seen as dangerous, because it requires us to question everything, but if something is to be stable, it has to be tested. Today I think the question of who we are prevents us gaining stability by clearing up how we are.
I think I get your point Simms but look how many times you use the word “I” the most intimate of all personal terms. You haven’t escaped the paradox that the personal and impersonal define and thus depend on each other.
I don’t think I made the claim that I have escaped the paradox… and I don’t even think it is a paradox.
I don’t have an objection to using the word “I” or having an “I”… what I was suggesting is there is a difference in our lives and this depends upon the questions “Who am I?” and “How am I?” … both these are personal statements.
I don’t think I advocated for getting rid of the “I” (sorry if it read that way)…
I am suggesting that when we live our lives by trying to answer the question “Who am I?” we do not live life and engage with life as much as when we live our lives by trying to answer the question “How am I?”
The later, to me, defines spirituality (but in our society we tend to focus on the “who” and not the “how”).
As a simple illustration:
If some thing is broken the first thing we do is blame by saying “who did this?”
I am suggesting that the spiritually minded person (not necessarily religious or theist) will tend to gravitate towards the question “how can this be fixed?”
To “me” this defines spirituality.
This is why some theists are not spiritual and some are.
This is why some atheists are not spiritual and some are.
I think we have all met this diverse spectrum of peoples in our lives.
What a person believes or does not believe is not what defines them as spiritual or not, it is “how” they engage with life.
If it’s “Who am I? vs. How am I?” then :
“who did this?” corresponds to "how did this happen?
and
“how can this be fixed?” corresponds to “who can fix this?”
Your example contains a substantial shift to an entirely different question. Is that your intention?
Metaphors are not perfect and they are not the thing that they are pointing to. Every metaphor can be torn apart and discarded but the purpose of the metaphor is not to attain perfection but instead… it is to gently guide thoughts in a general direction.
Sorry, the above things don’t correspond to each other (within the mind of a spiritually minded person).
Also, please read my reply to Felix (below):
I understood your ‘love’ example and how it related to the OP. This last example seemed to be showing something different.
I admit it was a pretty ordinary example and maybe not the best one I could have come up with (sorry).
Simms
The first thing i generally ask myself when something becomes broken, whether it’s a thing or a relationship, whatever, is how or why did it become broken? I think it’s more important to understand this before getting down to the fixing of it. Some things can’t be fixed and/or are not meant to be fixed. But that’s just the way I look at it it.
Spirituality to you is about finding solutions? What if there IS no clear solution?
It may not define them but to the mind’s eye of many people, what they believe or do not believe does define them and that unfortunately at times, leads the way to how they engage with life and with people.