The topic and discussion of the self might be the original topic of philosophy. It is interesting to consider and to discuss the many layers of considerations which seem to make up the self.
The context of this post was in reply to a comment made by 2ndxmer on Geir’s blog. I copy it in part: “Few people managed to not fall into that valence and trap. Speaking for myself, I saw that trap sitting there but I saw many fall into it. It starts with the commision of an overt (sin) of hostility towards someone else in order to get YOUR (one’s own) product. Like all overts, after the first time it gets easier… and easier… and finally you need a conscience like Alanzo to rub your nose in it – over and over – to either pop out of it, blow from the restim, or really, really work that ser fac up into a lather worthy of . . . (David Miscavige.)”
l liked this post. Though it seems to me that the overt (sin) of hostility is late on a long, long chain of iterations. This type of dramatization is not the start as taught to us but the result of a very long succession of iterations.
The model that I’ve been working on incorporates some form of fractal iteration or cellular automata and a seed iteration. So there does not need to be a lie that begins it all, there only needs to be a very simple rule or condition that arises, and when iterated repeatedly, say at Planck rate, can result an entire sub-universe (like this one that we know about), but most of all can result in both mystery and randomity. Both of these are manufactured ideas which facilitate the identification with and the personification of the Self. The only lie, if you will, is the identification which occurs from that point forward. But using the word “lie” is itself part of the illusion. It only needs to be and is in fact only a consideration, but even having written that, I admit and acknowledge that the word consideration is itself a layer of identification with personification.
I hadn’t worked on Marianne’s repetitive “who” for a while but decided to give it another go since she insisted. The “who” of Marianne’s thetan, etc., is the irreducible minimum identification. But it is still an identification. Every attempt to reduce it further runs out of, and tends away from the set of iterations which make us human. Underlying this is not a personification in any sense that we normally use it or think of it. The “I” is not an all knowing all seeing being, but is the beginning of a basic lie in which the self is created. It is the beginning of The Great Mystery,and the beginning of algorithmic randomness which may be the only randomness there is.