Image as Foundation of Phenomena.

[Eodnhoj7]

"I" as a limit which composes all phenomena, fold's through itself across time and space through continual relations in which the "I" multiplies and divides with these multiple "I's" being an extension of the one "I am" as an approximation of it.


"I think therefore I am"

Observes the act of thinking as an action that determines the "I", but it is the "action" that determines the existance of the "I". This action does not have to be limited to "thinking", it can be any action as a form of "movement".

In these respects "I think therefore I am" can be replaced with just "I am" in the respect "am" universalizes all possible actions as "being" itself.

The "I" has both subjective and objective elements which determine it, and the "I" as the relation of these subjective and objective elements observes that what we consider of the "I" is not merely limited to the individual but exists through groups of people (multiple "I"'s.)

The "I" is defined both through the self and the group and in these respects the "I" shares a nature of being unified in itself and existing through multiple extensions.

What we understand of the subjective self (the individual "I") is form from it's relations to other "I"'s and in these respects maintains a degree of objectivity in the respect these other's "I"'s as both seperate and disinterested form certain boundaries of the subjective experience itself and in effect objectify it.

So for example the subjective experience of "I" in me going to get something to eat, is determined by the nature of other "I"'s providing food service (cooking the food, cashier, etc.) which in itself is objective in the respect, that whether or not "I" experience them directly these "emotionally detached" existing actions effectively form my own experience. The objective act of the food being cooked, or the money being processed all form the subjective experience of the "I". Even the formation of objective truths, by observing boundaries of existence through "law's" or "theories", effect me subjectively (such as the objective argum

[Dalek Prime]

Yeah. Sartre already talked about this, the I as seen by others.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yeah. Sartre already talked about this, the I as seen by others.

But these other's, and you may be able to elaborate further on Sartre's position than me, are still's "I"'s in themselves hence while the "I" may be defined through the "other"...this "other" effectively defines itself in a form of self-judgement.

[Dalek Prime]

Yeah. Sartre already talked about this, the I as seen by others.

But these other's, and you may be able to elaborate further on Sartre's position than me, are still's "I"'s in themselves hence while the "I" may be defined through the "other"...this "other" effectively defines itself in a form of self-judgement.

Honestly, wouldn't want to speak for Sartre, as I was more a Camus guy. But yeah, something along those lines. Best though if you find an outline of his work, if your interests lie along those lines.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yeah. Sartre already talked about this, the I as seen by others.

But these other's, and you may be able to elaborate further on Sartre's position than me, are still's "I"'s in themselves hence while the "I" may be defined through the "other"...this "other" effectively defines itself in a form of self-judgement.

Honestly, wouldn't want to speak for Sartre, as I was more a Camus guy. But yeah, something along those lines. Best though if you find an outline of his work.

Not familiar with Camus...what are his premises?

[Dalek Prime]

But these other's, and you may be able to elaborate further on Sartre's position than me, are still's "I"'s in themselves hence while the "I" may be defined through the "other"...this "other" effectively defines itself in a form of self-judgement.

Honestly, wouldn't want to speak for Sartre, as I was more a Camus guy. But yeah, something along those lines. Best though if you find an outline of his work.

Not familiar with Camus...what are his premises?

More an author than a philosopher. Him and Sartre couldn't see eye to eye for reasons unknown to me. In Camus' works, his existentialism is very simple and dour. He's the one who said that the greatest problem of philosophy is, given an absurd universe, whether one should continue one's life. Personally, I disagree with him, as I consider the question to be bringing others into the absurd. We can still make the most of ours. I consider both worth looking into though. But Sartre especially in your case, as you seem to have parallel interests.

[Eodnhoj7]

Honestly, wouldn't want to speak for Sartre, as I was more a Camus guy. But yeah, something along those lines. Best though if you find an outline of his work.

Not familiar with Camus...what are his premises?

More an author than a philosopher. Him and Sartre couldn't see eye to eye for reasons unknown to me. In Camus' works, his existentialism is very simple and dour. He's the one who said that the greatest problem of philosophy is, given an absurd universe, whether one should continue one's life. Personally, I disagree with him, as I consider the question to be bringing others into the absurd. We can still make the most of ours. I consider both worth looking into though. But Sartre especially in your case, as you seem to have parallel interests.

The absurdity of the universe is founded in its paradoxical nature (I have a few posts on this) which can be linked to Easter thought...specifically Taoism...and trace of eastern thought in Cumas.