I

This is a thread about I.

Not about me, about “I”.

I

As in: I make this thread about I.
Not the letter I, so much, as the principle “I”.

What is this principle?
It is fundamentally different from “me”.

Gim-me, gim-me.
No.

I will not give you.

I WILL
not give.

The “I” is transmuted (read: transitioned and muted) into “me” by an evil hand of god, who in all his wise nonexistence decided that the acting entity is identical to the passive entity.

“I” is the topic. Not “me”.
This is not personal. It is about Action.

“I” = will to power.
“me” not so much.

So “me” doesn’t exist.
Me no exist!
Thats right, me-me.
Only I exists.

When something unpleasant is done to me I feel that me exists

Yes.
This is the gist of it - me is passive.
It exists - passive things do exist -
but my and Nietzsches philosophy focus on the idea that active existence is truly fundamentally different from passive existence.

I am trying to identify this difference in the simplest of terms.
The distinction between these pronouns is very significant.

The scene of pronouns is the actual science of a cultures identity.

Say in French, the passive and active are often combined in a spoke sentence. Like “Il le deteste, mais moi, je l’aime.” - He hates it but me, I love it.
This occurs in English too, but in French it is very common…

The active present “I” and the poor little “me” seem to be a split in the ego. Our identity embed these pronouns. Tyler Durden I calls Cornelius me a pussy; I dish it out to me.

:sunglasses:

I is that which sees…
… me and ewe.

FC

Me is no more or less passive than is I. It all just comes down to how you use it in a sentence and where you apply it in a sentence.

“Woe is me” reeks with passivity. But me does not necessarily imply weakness - no more nor less than the I is capable of.

You will give it to ME or you shall die.
Does the word imply weakness there? Maybe insanity but not weakness.

But what about, let’s say, Alexander the Great who might have said to his men “I am the great conqueror. You will listen to ME and we will conquer our world.”

I don’t consider “you” to be very passive.
8-[

Say what you want guys but let’s face it, you all are a bunch of egoists at heart.

Not me.

As per your “survivalist” occupation, is it not important that one needs to have an ego or be somewhat of an egoist?

How would the human race have survived had it not been for the I?

I did say “no more nor less”, Jaime. Actually, I corrected my grammar there. It is nor not or. 8-[
Latin does not put the I on a higher plane than does the me.
They both still point to one’s self.

Anyway, I am not very passive though there are times of course when I sing a lullaby to both the angel and devil on my shoulders and they fall off into a deep slumber.

You’re one of the biggest here.

Human beings cannot exist without the I or ego no matter what the rest of you might say.

Even Buddhists have egos which they try to purge in meditation daily in the most unnatural practices and ways, even with them the final purge is death the annihilation of self not before.

I don’t see what the big deal is.
Some people would hate their skin because it blocks them from the outside world.
Not literally, but:
Walls insulate our mind.

So often, the gurus blame is misplaced.

I am enjoying your current epiphanical postings Dan~ here and in other threads.

I think we walk a very fine line of balancing the I in juxtaposition of the We, on a daily basis… tightrope walking classes anyone? anyone?

I’m quite surprised, but, thank you.

I don’t have a good reply for that, but, maybe later.