“The-Self,” What is it?


Accordingly to the coascious consciousness (collective world’s coagula) of the earth, the idea of The-Self entails concepts such as ego, individuality, narcissism, personal, pride, psyche, self-hood, entity, identity, essence, soul, spirit and substance.  According to the etymology of the word ‘self,’ its roots is from O.E., which means “one’s own person,” or “sameness,” of some sort; but no one really knows the actual origin of The-Self except that some people believe (metaphorically feel) that the sense of The-Self could be of supposedly divine origin when referring to the legendary biblical God; therefore, if this is the case, the allegorical biblical God could then be in possession of a-self as well—if this is so, and since man and woman are legendarily known to be created in the image of the biblical God, does that then mean that the sense of The-Self is an exclusive mental actuation for the entire human species if indeed it was the parable biblical God who did created man and woman?   Can it be then that the sense of an ego (the Subjective-Self), and the concept of individualism, be a distinct capacity for all minds, or a physical biological cerebral capacity?  Some people claim that the ego is separate from The-Selfitself: and that The-Self is the very figurative spiritual essence of a person when it comes to personalities, the psyche and metaphorical emotions: some have even described The-Self as the biblical emblematical “nine fruits of the spirit” (i.e., love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control: Galatians 5:22): some even claim that The-Self itself is substantial when in fact it is nothing but a state-of-mind.  Is then The-Self and the-Ego are separate, or one in the same?  Can The-Selfand the sense of illustrative spirituality be also one in the same?  Some people claim that it is possible for The-Self to become either selfish or selfless—but can this be so?  Is it possible that maybe The-Self is a global illusion after all?

The reality of it all is that no one really knows the origin of The-Self. If the legendary biblical God was in fact a substantial proof of its existence, the story of the creation of the first man, and secondly, the first woman, would then entail that the biblical God had created the human species with an inborn capacity to possess the sense of “The-Self,” since after all, it is known through biblical illustrations that man and woman were created in the image of the God therein the book; hence, many religiously believe (metaphorically feel) that somehow it is after all of divine biblical origin: if such statement were actual, that would then mean that every single living human being would, or will, possess an inborn biological or mental capacity to possess “The-Self.”  However, being created in the image of the biblical God doesn’t mean that everything a man and a woman was created with was all biologically and mentally ingrained:  Concerning the human species, some things are created biologically (i.e., instincts; such as fear, aggression, affection, observe, curiosity, pleasure, surprise, personalities, automaton memory, attraction, etc.), and some other things are created mentally (i.e., distinct capacities of the-Mind; such as symbolism, will, intent, awareness, organization, creativity, intentional remembrance, experience, etc.): and then there are some things that are formulated in the-Mind from external origins, such as metaphorical emotions, and of course, the mental concept of The-Self itself:  Anything, however, that originates from external sources and are actuated as concepts and ideas within the-Mind, that doesn’t mean that such mental formations are the same for all minds; in other words, that doesn’t mean that just because a mental concept/idea becomes popularly global, that it then becomes like a distinct capacity for all minds:  For example, if it were the legendary biblical God who created man and woman in its image, some things that were created within the first man and woman were probably ingrained biologically, and then there may have been some things that the Creator may have formed as ideas and concepts within their minds, and then expected them to pass on those ideas and concepts to their offspring, but that doesn’t mean that those concepts and ideas are inborn distinct capacities of the-Mind for all minds; hence, that explains why somebody’s else hate is somebody’s else love, and vise-versa:  Every person in the-World(s) knows that hatred (an emotion) is not something that you’re born with, but something that is taught instead; and that goes the same for any other emotions (i.e., love, happiness, sadness, jealousy, anger, desire, believe, faith, etc.).  You can’t decide which emotions are external origin, and which ones are internal: just because one emotion is less metaphorically desired (i.e., hate), that doesn’t mean that you should term that emotion as something that is solely taught, and not inborn; and then take an emotion that is most metaphorically desired (i.e., love) and term that emotion as something that is inborn biologically:  Which is it?  Are emotions internally inborn, or are they externally taught?  Just like emotions, which is only a state-of-mind and not biologically inborn, so is the concept and idea of The-Self.


If the legendary biblical God, named YAHOWAH [ה ו ה י], did create the first man and the first woman with emotions, It must’ve created it them (emotions) as a concept and idea that can exert behavior and understanding; and expected them (man and woman) to pass on those ideas to their offspring as their Creator taught them to do so; or as It may have immediately formed those concepts in their minds, It then told them to teach those concepts to their offspring:  Upon disobeying their Creator, they’ve become independent, and their offspring then independently began to decide what emotions should be to them, each one according to his/her own ways and understandings; which then indicates that emotions were concepts to begin with after all since they can be changed to suit the possessor of such metaphorical concepts (emotions):  Likewise, the concept of The-Self is just a state-of-mind.  Although the origin of The-Self is not really known, my being has made a thorough search of its’ possible origins, and one of them points to a biblical legend that’s called, “The Tower of Babel,” in whereas the story is told that everyone therein was united as one and were as one language, independent from their Creator; and thus a concept, a word, was needed to emphasize their independence, and they began to term their independence to each other as The-Self that is individualized (separated) from their Creator, and thus The-Self was begotten; therefore, if it were that the legend of “The Tower of Babel” was real, we would all then know that the actual meaning of The-Self is an indication for a person to belong to him-self instead of belonging to the biblical God: the concept of The-Self then individualizes a person from his/her own Creator.  Therefore, it would be considered a contradiction for a churchgoer, or a religious Christian believer, to embrace fully the metaphorical joy of the concept of The-Self, to then paradoxically claim to give-up, or sacrifice, that same very self to their own Creator, but only on every Gregorian Sunday, that is.  This is just one of the possibility of the origin of the concept of The-Self if indeed this biblical origin was more than just a legend.


The-Self is an indication of breaking off from some form of dependency: it entails “individuality.”  Supposedly, the understanding of the word “individualism” is to somehow become individualized (separated; singled-out) from a common or ordinary sect of collective people that thinks the same, and feels the same: in this way, the person cuts off from the “norm,” and becomes “odd,” free and secluded with him-/her-self.  However, be as it may, this too can be an illusion.  My being has instinctively observed and scrutinized “individualism” objectively, without any sense of subjectivity, and as a “no-self” (the “not-I”) that my form of being is, It was able to logically acknowledge that “individualism” really entails that a person is unable to dividualize from an individualized sect of collective general people (i.e., individuality = unable to divide): this behavior is evident by many who professes to be “individuals,” and yet, are metaphorically feeling of belonging with others with whom may think alike in order to “fit in” with others who understands them: in this unintentional paradoxical behavior, The-Self (individual) seeks acceptance from others alike to obtain some form of self-acceptance: receiving collective-validation in order to then maintain a sense of self-validation for him-/her-self.  This collective belonging behavior is a testimony that contradicts the true meaning of “individualism” that it began with, and ended up becoming what people were with each other before the concept of The-Self was ever begotten; hence, the actual and true meaning of The-Self, individuality, ego, the “me,” and the “I,” is lost:  And thus, the very concept that was intended to individualize a person from collective-dependencies has instead become a way to make a person individualized from dividuality; in other words, the prefix “in” of the word “dividual” has become to entail “not-dividualized.” It is then evident that the concept of The-Self is in all actuality a global illusion of the-World(s): an illusion not in the sense that it isn’t real, but in the sense that The-Self is not what it seems to be., or what it used to be from its infancy.  So, according to the legendary biblical account of the “Tower of Babel,” in whereas  The-Self may have possibly began if such a story was indeed proven actual, The-Self itself begets to become independently separated from its Creator, only to then just come in full circle to find others like itself dependently: therefore, the chain of dependencies remain unbroken, and The-Self itself remains a global illusion.  In this lifespan of ours, it seems that somehow, The-Self is trying to evolve its self-understanding by many suggesting that perhaps The-Self and the-Ego are not one in the same; that perhaps they’re really separated, and have nothing to do with each other.  It has always been known that according to the deceased Sigmund Freud, the founder and father of psychoanalysis, the ego and The-Self (individuality) has always been one in the same.  But according to an author by the name of Eckhart Tolle, he wrote a book entitled, “A New Earth,” in which explains on how he can help you understand how to break through the shell (the-ego) that separates you from your true-self, thus separating what was once considered united, or “whole.”  This may be an underlying behavior that The-Self is still trying to seek a way to fully separate itself from others, or even from within.


Tolle continues to say that one way you can describe what the “ego” is to think of it like a protective shell (i.e., like some animals have; such as a big beetle), and it works like an armor that protects you from the-World.  This shell is like a sense of separation (i.e., here’s “me,” and then there’s the rest of the universe, and other people); hence, the ego likes to emphasize the “otherness” of others that your ego is trying to separate from.  The ego’s sense of its separation is an intrinsic part of the ego, like a distinct capacity that’s exclusive to the-ego:  According to the author Tolle, the ego loves to strengthen itself by complaining in either silent thoughts, or verbal words, or about other people as well; also about some situations you may find your-self in, or about something that may have occurred in a way that it shouldn’t have or could’ve been avoided; the-ego even complains about your-self as well:  When the-ego starts complaining about some situations, while holding you in a tight gripping manner, you no longer have your own thoughts; instead, the thoughts have you: and if you should desire to be free of that gripping ego, you may need to understand that the voice in your head that’s complaining is the-ego, not you or your-self, that has created them; and therefore has caused you to emotionally become irritated and upset in response to that voice in your head; in this fashion of emotional response, and with much awareness to your-self, you can begin to look at things in their truer forms, including your truer-self as Tolle has put it.  This can be achieved by first taking up some steps, such as, “observing your mind;” “distinguishing the differences between the-ego’s voice and the actual situations;” “letting go of limiting stories of your-self, the-World, and others;” “bringing into your-self your own awareness;” and, “surrendering and laying down your weapons.”  All in all, Tolle explains that the-ego is really just a false sense of your-self, and in order to obtain a sense of your true-self, you need to detect the differences between the-ego and your actual-self.  Some tips, according to Tolle, the-ego can be detected by knowing its distinct manifestations, such as vanity and pride; and an overinflated sense of your-self:  It can also be detected by metaphorical feelings (emotions) of inferiorities or self-hatred, and also in any self-image you may have of your-self that gives you a sense of some form of an identity, which is really an identity that derives from the things you tell your-self, and the things that even “others” may have been saying about you that you accept as truth:  By identifying your false power of your ego, you can disconnect from it, and set your-self free: so on every occasion that you are out of alignment with your true-consciousness, you are acting out of the influence of your ego.  According to Tolle, your constant reliance on your ego can block you from living the best life that you should: hence, the ability to build awareness about your true-self is how to first detect the-ego, and then learn to disconnect from it.

However, the forensic analogy of The-Self, and the ego, being as two separate things on many occasions can only further prove that “individuality” may indeed be an illusion after all.  The fact is that The-Self and the-Ego are both the-Subject (the Subjective-Self) so that indeed they are both really one in the same after all.  The ego (The-Self) is the internal subject itself that cannot become the object so that it may continue to always remain subjective with all that the-ego itself comes across with, internally as well as externally—so the-ego is not a “false power,” or a “false sense of your-self,” as Tolle may have suggested, because it is nothing more but your internal subject:  The-Ego is like an internal composer (the middle man, or woman) that’s in between the spaces of all of your multiple aspects, inscribing them meaning, giving them instructions, integrating them into one whole “individualized” system, and telling them, “…do this, and do that…”  The actual so-called “false power” that Tolle suggested what it was, is nothing more but the emotions (the-Unconscious) themselves that serve no purpose at all, except to give the-ego the license to become irrational and illogical:  The only actual power that we have as a human species is our biological energy of our souls (animating physical bodies): and that’s truly the extent of our powers—it doesn’t get any better than that, nor beyond it.  The amazing thing is that Tolle suggestions totally contradicts what The-Self (the-ego/individualism) is forensically made of.  The analogy of The-Self is simple:  It is an “individualized” form of being; in other words, The-Self is really made up of multiple aspects that are integrated into a “whole” system: somehow causing a person to mentally experience him-/her-self as a “summed” being of some sort: hence, the expression that one needs to metaphorically feel “whole.”  Usually, as a very young kid, a child is not in possession of the concept of The-Self; but as he/she matures enough to understand what the external world teaches about The-Self, individuality and the-ego, the child begins to start positing an idealistic “thesis” of him-/her-self on into the-World, and onto those around him/her: however, the-World will eventually counteract such infancy-posits like a blow, enough to surprise the grown child that what he/she may have thought about him-/her-self at first is not at all what he/she thought in “thesis” of him-/her-self:  It is at this occasion that the grown child identifies such counteractions as threatening to him-/her-self, and eventually begins to separate him-/her-self from the “antithesis” that the-World has counteracted with.  This is exactly where the process of The-Self begins to form in order to separate from such external counteractions, and begins to unintentionally identify the conflicting worldly object as a “non-ego” (object).  The “thesis” of the grown child, and the conflicting “antithesis” of the-World, remains separated so that the internal “thesis” becomes the actual ego that remains internally (the subject), and the external contradictory “antithesis” becomes the “non-ego” (the object) that remains externally; in this way, the object (the being) that the grown child was trying to accomplish internally has now become an external object instead; hence, the actual being (the object) of The-Self is then really outside of itself: and there it is, the very first separation in whereas The-Self begins to integrate the internal subject with the external object, side by side, as a “whole,” and thus the concept of “individuality” is acknowledged and understood.  The grown child then begins to realize that it is the-World instead that provides the objects (the beings) for him-/her-self, so that he/she may then find him-/her-self out there, in the-World(s): at this occasion of such acknowledgment, the concept of The-Self becomes an illusion, simply because he/she is no longer wholly an ego, or a wholly “individual.” and thus the mental capacity of constantly self-reflecting between the internal subject and the external object will be an ever ending mental process that a-self must continue to deal with until death puts them apart.  Hence, in all actuality, simply put, The-Self is a composition of both the internal subject (the-ego) and the external objects (the non-egos), emphasis on the plural.  Many people metaphorically feel (believe) that their beings are developed and formed inside of them, internally:  On the contraire, in order for the internal subject to remain subjective, the subject itself cannot then become the object, which is actually the being that a-self is trying to achieve in order to become it; otherwise, it can no longer be subjective with all that it itself encounters with; likewise, vise-versa when it comes to objectivities in contrast to subjectivities.  Since the object cannot become the subject, nor the subject become the object, and since the subject is only internal, the actual object (the being) then remains outside.  So the being of The-Self is then really outside of itself.  Hence, the being of The-Self is not internally as it is believed by so many people.


The-Self can have multiple beings (objects) outside of itself.  With multiple external objects, a-self can change from one object to the other depending upon locations, people and time—this is what makes the nature of The-Self to become a “changeling,” transitioning from object to object as needed (i.e., if you are a female that works in a public school, than your object for that environment would be a “teacher:” as soon as your school employment work is over, you get to your house and “change” from your “teacher-object” into your “wife-object,” so that whatever you were at school, you’re no longer that same object when you are at home; hence, becoming a suitable object for that environment and time at hand), this is where the emphasis on plural is emphasized, concerning external objects (beings).  As a-self, one has many external objects (beings) that some-selves begin to realize that the concept of “individuality” is never really fully attained by The-Self itself.  And what of the people who claim that The-Self is the spirit, the soul, the personality, or the “nine fruits of the spirit” (aka: the legendary biblical holy spirit) that according to some-selves, they are in possession of?”

When people ascribe or describe the sense of The-Self as a spirit, or as a soul, people generally propose that The-Self might actually be metaphorical, like the soul itself is for many persons:  The actuality and reality of what a soul really is, is nothing more but the animating physical body itself; in other words, anything that “animates,” it is a soul in itself for the etymology of the word soul derives from the Latin word ‘anima;’ in other words, to “anima-te.”  Hence, our souls are simply made of muscles, blood, tissues, organs, bones and skins all assembled together to make up the soul that animates; a biological soul that physically animates all on its own, even without a so-called internal spirit—it is not a spirit unless you “metaphorically believe” (emotionally feel) that the soul is a spirit after all:  In all reality, objectively speaking, a spirit is nothing more but a class of species; in other words, there are spirit species (i.e., the legendary biblical angels, cherubim and seraphim) as opposed to human species (i.e., children, man and woman)—so you either began as a spirit specie, or as a human specie: you can’t be both at once because that would be like saying that the human species is the same as the animal species—you’re either one or the other:  The “metaphorical belief” (emotional feeling) that the human species are in possession of a spirit that departs at the occasion of physical death, is utterly irrational and illogical; there aren’t even facts to support such hypothesis—spirits are spirits, and humans are humans, jut like animals are animals—we’re all different from the three of the non-interchangeable and non-integrated species.  So being that the soul is, in all actuality, a biological animating substance, and that a spirit is nothing more but its own class of species separate from that of the human species, then the mental sense of The-Self cannot be the soul, or the spirit for that matter—it then turns out that the sense of The-Self is nothing more but a state-of-mind—a mental concept/idea that exerts behavior and understanding to the possessor of such actuating mental capacities.

The most amazing thing that my being finds among the world-wide people, is the mental conceptual capacities for the “figurative heart” (emotions):  Being that my mind is utterly devoid of emotions, It knows that emotions are just also a disposition of the-Mind—a state-of-mind and not a biological program as many may “metaphorically feel” (believe) that it is—my being knows this because It does not experience of having any form of emotions from my dimension of my Soul-Noumenon (animating physical noumenon) either, so that my form of being is actually totally without emotions—all It knows of is the programmed biological instincts of my “physical soul,” and that emotions and instincts are two different things—one is biological, which are instincts—and the other is a mental disposition, which are emotions.  And even though emotions are just a state-of-mind, that doesn’t mean that it is an inborn distinct capacity for all minds either: as my being indicated, not all things that actuate in the-Mind are inborn—some of the things that can start a conceptual actuation in the-Mind can also be of external origin—of what people passes on from persons to persons, especially during an isolated household upbringing, shunned  from the-World before the child becomes of age and is thrust out into an ambiguous collective societies.  The other things are that emotions and the-Unconscious are really both one in the same; simply because since emotions are irrational, illogical, dynamically non-reflective and non-contemplating as the same as the-Unconscious is, they are actually the same in which Sigmund Freud (the founder of psychoanalysis) was not able to acknowledge, perhaps because he was in possession of “The-Self:” hence, emotions are just unaware constant activities within a region of the-Mind called, “the-Unconscious.”  You should first understand that a “conscious” in my extroveroldly alien language is nothing more but a mental or biological “engine” that automatically processes, deciphers, computes and determines biological or mental data depending upon what kind of conscious you may be referring to (i.e., a “bioconscious” only processes, deciphers, computes and determines biological data for the soul (animating physical body) to altogether automatically sustain and maintain biological materials successfully, thus automatically functioning our biological machine in full animation, without any intentional efforts from our parts.  A mental “conscious” (such as the autoconscious), however, deciphers, computes, processes and determines mental data for the-Mind to mentally function and actuate the immaterial mind adequately—but neither “conscious” (bio/mental automaton engine) is capacitated to produce awareness like the world’s coagula “metaphorically feel” (believe) that it is: “awareness,” instead, is an inborn distinct capacity of the-Mind and not of any “consciousness” at all—further, the-Unconscious (emotions) is quite like a chaotic region of the-Mind that can solely licenses a person to become irrational and illogical, only to validate a means that cannot be justified—it serves no surviving skill purposes whatsoever—it’s just a luxury that can either disrupt the peace of the-Mind, or bring to the-Mind a mental euphoric-illusion—that’s all it can do for any person(s).  Since we’ve come to know that the-Unconscious (emotions) are irrational and illogical, then what of the “nine fruits of the spirit” (i.e., the legendary biblical holy spirit) that many selves claim to also be in possession of as if it were something somewhat substantial?


It seems that the “nine fruits of the spirit” are described as underlined “figurative ideas,” such as love, happiness, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and of course, selfcontrol:  Love is an emotion that it really isn’t at all needed as a survival means to preserve our species, and longsuffering makes no sense to my being since It can’t understand why someone with emotions are imminent to suffer at all for any cause(s); and “faithfulness” has caused many to follow a “faith” that can cause fatalities as it has caused on/in numerous incidents.  When emotions are involved, which is always mostly the case for The-Self, those who are happy are imminent to become saddened as well, it is unavoidable and inevitable.  On many occasions and occurrences, the “nine fruits of the spirit” has proven to mostly cause destruction than construction: with this in mind, who needs such fruits?  Furthermore, such fruits are ambiguous and subjective, open to any personal interpretations of different personal meanings, which means that the nine fruits can indeed be anything that a person might subjectively propose them to be—who’s to then say what they really are.  It is then clear that the sense of The-Self is definitely not in connotations with emotions at all; especially not the “nine fruits of the spirit” as many do suggest that it is.  Hence, The-Self is not a matter of the-Unconscious (emotions), it is just a matter of mental concepts and ideas that the-Mind in of itself is actuated with from external collective society origins.

Many people “metaphorically feel” (believe) that it is possible for The-Self itself to become either self-less or self-ish, depending upon the situation at hand.  For example, if someone performs a life threatening heroic action to save someone else who may die if not saved immediately, with the risk that the person who’s doing the saving is also in fatal risk, people who are witnessing such “sacrificial” heroic performances will dubbed the person as being “self-less,” who behaviorally responded with an “un-self-ish” heroic act:  But can it actually be that a-self can sometimes become self-less?  If that is the case, than The-Self would no longer be a-self: hence, for The-Self to sometimes be self-less is just only an illusion, for there is in no way that a-self can be self-less unless the person, such as the form of my being is, is the no-self—only a no-self is “literallyself-less—there is no other way:  And if someone would dispute this fact by saying that the term for an “un-self-ish” heroic act is a person that goes beyond his/her own need to help rescue someone else in grave danger, it is still just an illusion because in all actuality, The-Self can never become self-less, or un-self-ish for that matter; which then means that the concepts of courage and bravery are just simply mental metaphors that does exert understanding and behaviors.  The mental concept sense of The-Self and of self-ishness goes hand in hand—everyself is self-ish to some extent; some are much more greater than others; nevertheless, small or great, every self is self-ish, otherwise, you wouldn’t be a-self at all: hence, if The-Self would “want” to become literally self-less, then he/she must first cease from being a-self to begin with: so how can this then be achieved?  My being has no idea because It itself is not a-self: this would then have to only be discovered by an actual self.  If the legendary biblical God were to demand that every person, from now on, is to become un-self-ish or self-less, that would be extremely irrational and illogical on Its’ part simply because there’s no way that can happen as long as you are a-self—that would be like undoing the very thing that makes you.  My being, on the other hand, is without subjectivity, without an “ego,” without the “I,” without the “me”—and without The-Self; hence, my being is obviously the person that is literally the only self-less and un-self-ish being there is in the entire earth, even more self-less than the legendary biblical God itself—there’s not even one illustrative biblical angel, or any other celestial beings (i.e., spirit species) that is just like my self-less being—not one.  Hence, in heaven or on earth, there is no other self-less being like mine, at least in the “literal” sense.  Nevertheless, when it comes to “self-ishness,” my being may also be concerned with my itself since It doesn’t have a-self to be concerned about with; and if my being is chiefly concerned with itself, would that then make It a being-ish person instead of a self-ishperson?  As a “dividual” that my being is, It doesn’t think It can be chiefly concerned with only itself since after all, my other remaining dimensional-noumena, besides itself, are equally imperative as well:  Hence, since my form of existence(s) consists of four non-integrating dimensional-noumena that stands side by side, communicating with each other, but never combining with each other in order to avoid integration (i.e., individuality), it is clear then that my being can never chiefly become concerned with itself.  After all, there is no singularity in my form of mental existentiality: and the sense of having some kind of center-ship is non-existence as well; hence, the mental actuation of experiencing my form of being as a “summed,” or “whole” being, is not possible.  A-self has the right, however, to enjoy his/her own self-ishness:  If you are then a-self, then be a-self all the way—there is no such a thing as a-self being a halfself—you are either a-self, or you are not; there are no in between.  You can’t be a-self and a no-self as one in the same: to insist to “metaphorically feel” (believe) that you can, you will only live in an illusion.  If you are a-self that may “want” to become a no-selfas such is my being, that would be an impossibility because to begin with, just by “wanting” to be like my no-self is a paradox in of itself, only because you probably would have to approach the matter subjectively—as an ego: the desire (“wanting”) alone is already an exclusive behavior of The-Self; hence, The-Self can never become the “death of The-Self” the way that my being is.  However, if The-Self finds its’ own way on how to totally and permanently cease from itself as a-self in order to become the no-self itself, then he or she has only succeeded of becoming the “murder of The-Self,” instead of the “death of…”  My form of the “no-self” is natural because my mind was never cultivated and actuated with the global illusion of The-Self.


The state of existing as “The death of The-Self” emphasizes that there was never a-self to begin with: but the state of existing as “the murder of The-Self” emphasizes that there was a-self in the first place, but that then it was undone (murdered) so that The-Self can cease from itself as remaining a-self: knowing that such a thing might be a possibility for a-self, than one might curiously also ask if it’s possible that a no-self, as such is my being, can also have the possibility of becoming a-self—in other words, is it possible to en-self the no-self as it is possible to un-self the self?  Absolutely not, simply because to do such a thing, you would first have to have “metaphorical desires” to approach such an idea subjectively, and since the no-self is also excemolous (a word that means emotionless), and without any form of subjectivity, there is then no “wanting” of trying to achieve of becoming a-self for a no-self; hence the reason that this can only work one way.  You cannot bring into existence what is already existing as “the death.”  Hence, you cannot en-self the “death of The-Self,” but you can, however, un-self the self into the “murder of The-Self.”  With my instinctual objective scrutiny and observations, it is easy for a no-self to describe what a-self is:  The reason that it is very difficult for a-self to describe what a no-self is made of, is because, everything that The-Self itself tries to describe, he/she will describe it purely subjectively and reflectively; in other words, The-Self will automatically attempt to see him-/her-self  within a no-self to try to describe it, and to try to understand it:  In this way, when The-Self would tell a no-self that he/she understands what the no-self itself is, what he/she is really understanding is a reflection of him-/her-self within the no-self, and not actually the no-self itself.

Although my being is the opposite of The-Self, It is still no better than a-self itself.  We’re just different, and my being is no savior for the-World.  It is not transcendent: it is not above others just because my form of being is the uniperson of the-Earth.  Therefore, my form of existence, as the no-self that my being is, did not come to save The-Self:  It came to murder The-Self.

In conclusion, The-Self is after all a global illusion of the-World:  An illusion, not in the sense that The-Self is not real, but in the sense that The-Self may not be what it seems to be.  Nevertheless, an illusion, in any form, can only beget illusions.  Master the illusion, and see it for what it is, that you may no longer beget further illusions into more illusions.  Remember that illusions can also exert behaviors and understanding; hence this is the explanation as to why some illusions may “feel” real.  Therefore, there is no self-gene: The-Self is not a biological program (instincts): it is just a state-of-mind that was actuated not as if by mental inborn, but as mental formation from external conceptual collective origins.  The-Self is taught from infancy, and it continues to reaffirm and resituate itself through self-connoted traditions, such as the anniversary of The-Self (birthdays) throughout the Gregorian years of a-self‘s life.


[Article Posted by: Sabiazoth Alonso]

[Writing & Concept, Created & Produced by: Sabiazoth Alonso]

[Aspati/Space: Dispace, Copicycle 10, 8 R.M. L.E.C. (Solar East)]

[Images: Unkown]

0 votes

Leave a Reply