“I”

Defining this term, rather an entity, “I”, has been an enigma, but paradoxically it is what we most know about or are familiar with, or at least have a sense of, or about.

But the Big “Question Mark”, presents here as well as a question-mark that is this entity “I” itself. We can associate this with consciousness and maybe identify with it as well. Even if we cannot, I’m going to use these terms interchangeably which may or may not imply identity between them i.e. which may or may not imply them (‘I’ and ‘consciousness’) being same or identical.

But what is it? Can we define or measure it? Measurement in anyway possible?

We do define or measure “I” in some sense, as our experience or with our experience or in some other way. But when looked at it directly, it seems vague and fuzzy and even “absent”. Is there even an entity called “I”? At least we have a sense of it.

An article on measurement is presented here:

https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/08/measurement.html

Measurement of something involves defining what it isn’t, it involves defining it’s limit/boundary and the “Not” or the “other” of it is, or what the “Not” with respect to that something is. It implies a comparison with something “other” with respect to it or with respect to what it is not, with respect to something external to it.

Now, to measure or define “I”, or consciousness, requires or involves what “I” isn’t. Like any thing, this requires an experience of ‘I’ from without, and comparison to and with respect to the “without” or the “Not” statement of “I”. Definition or measurement cannot be completely done or cannot be done without segregating the thing being measured from what it isn’t, as this is what measurement is. Measurement is in terms of something “else”/”other”.

This also relates to the idea of basis. The definition or measurement is based on something, it is in terms of something else. Now, basis defines everything that falls within its domain, everything in a particular ‘space’ is defined by and in terms of basis of that space. Also, Basis can be defined only by itself and in terms of itself. Nothing else can define the basis. So, everything within any ‘space’ can be defined in terms of that ‘Basis’ of that space. Now, because everything in the domain of the basis is defined by it, including itself, and because basis cannot be defined in terms of anything else, and there is no further basis to the basis (and if there were, it wouldn’t be ‘the basis’), it (in a sense) cannot be defined or measured or questioned or answered with a further reason/basis/justification. The Basis is the ultimate justification/reason in the space it spans/defines. It is the “God” of that space. So, there is no “other”/”Not”/beyond/external with respect to or of that Basis. It defines ‘everything’. So, it makes sense that it cannot be defined/measured i.e. it cannot be defined/measured with respect to or in terms of something else. ‘Everything’ with respect to that basis/space falls within the definition of that basis and is defined by that basis so everything, an I mean ‘everything’ falls under its definition, and so there is nothing, and I mean ‘Nothing’ that doesn’t fall within.

Also, everything or every space has basis. Also, whatever that basis defines makes up a universe of things, in fact everything with respect to that basis, that falls in the space of that basis. So everything that the basis defines falls within the basis or the space of that basis and not without/external to it. So, yes we know or can know what the basis are but we cannot know what basis are in the sense we define the other things that that basis defines. It is the underlying foundation. Basis is the limit/border/boundary of definition/measurement. So the definition of basis is itself, meaning it cannot be further defined in terms of any thing ‘else’. The limit/border of definition means that it is ‘defined’ but also not defined. It is defined with respect to itself, which is the definition or experience of the basis or approaching the border from within the space, which is not what we seek generally. It is not defined with respect to something else, or something ‘external’ or ‘Not’ or the ‘other’ of that space/basis. This is like approaching the limit/border from without or from outside or from the ‘rest’ of that space/basis. We cannot define it in terms of anything else, or some further foundational/basic thing/entity, because if we can, it makes the basis not ‘the basis’ and that other entity ‘the basis.

We can also say from this that whatever the basis is, it forms a limit/boundary to the space it defines everything, that is ‘everything’ with respect to that basis i.e. that is defined by that basis, fall withing the definition of the basis or withing the definition that is the basis or that border or that space that border/basis defines. Nothing is external to it. So, for example, whatever we are in, it cannot be defined/measured truely i.e. cannot be defined/measured with respect to something else/external to it, and that which contains us is what the basis is. And whatever we can define/measure, i.e. define/measure in terms of something exterior, is what can be truely defined/measured and is not the basis. (Note: this might provide the answer why “Everything”, and “Nothing” is undefinable, why “Nothing” and “Everything” cannot be defined)

Now, apply this idea to the entity called ‘I’ and to the entity called ‘consciousness’. It is this ‘I’ and consciousness that defines our experiences and is the basis of it. The so called ‘I’ is the entity that is the space, the basis, the border/boundary/limit, of the space called consciousness. Measuring it (i.e. measuring it with respect to or in terms of some ‘other’ entity) requires an experience of ‘I’ from without, and comparison to and with respect to the “without” or the “Not” statement of “I”. Definition or measurement of ‘I’ cannot be completely done or cannot be done without segregating ‘I’ being measured from what it isn’t, as this is what measurement is. Measurement of ‘I’ is in terms of something “else”/”other”, which is not ‘I’. This requires the basis/reference that is not ‘I’. But ‘I’, or consciousness, being the Basis of our experience, defines everything, defines every experience, not the other way around. ‘I’/consciousness cannot be defined i.e. cannot be defined on terms of the ‘other’. Since defining ‘I’/consciousness requires being external to ‘I’, which is impossible. What this means in other words is that, defining ‘I’/consciousness requires not being ‘I’ or being ‘Not-I’. Measuring ‘I’/consciousness means measuring both externally and internally, from within and from without. It means being ‘outside’ and ‘inside’, approaching the ‘border’/basis/space from without and from within. It means being ‘I’, not being ‘I’, or rather being ‘I’-‘Not-I’. It is like measuring own non-zero motion with respect to our own frame of reference. We cannot ‘move’ with respect to ourselves, we cannot be ‘external’ to or with respect to ourselves, we cannot not be we/’I’.

Measurement/definition/experience of something or any space can be done from “within”, form “without”. Complete measurement involves both, which also means neither, this involves CONTRADICTION, it involves INFIDEFICEPTION. Generally, the measurements that we perform are the ones from ‘without’, with respect to something ‘exterior’ or ‘other’ or ‘Not’ with respect to that thing being measured. Now, defining basis, i.e. defining basis from without or with respect to ‘Not’ of that basis, is not possible because the moment we do this, the basis is no more the basis and now the basis is something else, i.e. the basis has shifted/changed. So, measuring the basis involves the change of basis, which makes the thing/entity being measured not the basis. This, however, is not the problem when basis is being defined from within or with respect to itself, but then this is no the complete measurement/definition or the definition of the whole – the entirety of space. This is only possible from without.

Now with ‘I’, defining ‘I’ requires measuring from without, which requires shifting or changing the basis or frame, which then makes the thing being measured ‘Not I’ or Not ‘I’. Now the thing that is doing the measurement is ‘I’. So, the ‘I’, or consciousness, has shifted from that thing to this thing. ‘Initially’ that was ‘I’, now this is ‘I’. Yes, ‘I’ remains ‘I’, or ‘consciousness’, but the thing that was referred to as ‘I’/’consciousness’ is no more the ‘I’/consciousness/basis, now ‘this’ is the ‘I’. But again when defined or defined as ‘I’ or measured or considered and watched upon, becomes non-‘I’, i.e. ceases to be ‘I’. This idea has been dealt in: https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/08/founding-basis.html

So, “I”/Consciousness like “Everything”, “Nothing”, like Indefiception, Infidefiception, cannot be defined, are undefinable. This is because it, like they, is the Basis and define everything, not the other way around.