The 'I' is the root of operation of thought, and most of what we call action in its sense is based on what we think of our selves. In many ways, the way we think about ourselves determines the nature of our action. What ever task we set ourselves to, the root of action will always be the 'I'. If the 'I' is not consistent with the thought and hence the feeling, which usually expresses itself as negative emotion, then the proceeding action will be incomplete, sloppy, or in a sense carried out with a diminished sense of attention. So it is important to feel good before acting.
As one would observe themselves, the idea of the I becomes more and more ingrained as one proceeds throughout the activities of the world. The I, which is a definable set of memories of existence of the awareness which we identify with is partly limited through the use of simple word, and through the use of societal (other) descriptions. Simplify the language in the society and you can simplify the language with which the I can be described.
Why should one be accepting of word descriptions of the I, why is human description unappreciated?
The reason why the unappreciative nature of observation comes up is because of the acceptance of word, descriptors as the true description of the I. I am of the belief that societies once existed in a manner that the I could and did not be fully described. This allowed for space of the ‘extra special’ elements to be expressed. The understanding of us and life in general relates to the way the mechanism of description relates to ourselves. This gives it space in operation, and the space of operation determines the energy which can be harnessed for operation of these mechanisms. Subtle energies should be left to subtle processes, and subtle processes can be given subtle energies to work with, it is simply the mechanism of the reality; it is what keeps the order of operation. The order of operation can be said to be of energy and space, orientation and function, or mechanism of function.
As one would observe themselves, the idea of the I becomes more and more ingrained as one proceeds throughout the activities of the world. The I, which is a definable set of memories of existence of the awareness which we identify with is partly limited through the use of simple word, and through the use of societal (other) descriptions. Simplify the language in the society and you can simplify the language with which the I can be described.
Why should one be accepting of word descriptions of the I, why is human description unappreciated?
The reason why the unappreciative nature of observation comes up is because of the acceptance of word, descriptors as the true description of the I. I am of the belief that societies once existed in a manner that the I could and did not be fully described. This allowed for space of the ‘extra special’ elements to be expressed. The understanding of us and life in general relates to the way the mechanism of description relates to ourselves. This gives it space in operation, and the space of operation determines the energy which can be harnessed for operation of these mechanisms. Subtle energies should be left to subtle processes, and subtle processes can be given subtle energies to work with, it is simply the mechanism of the reality; it is what keeps the order of operation. The order of operation can be said to be of energy and space, orientation and function, or mechanism of function.