This is what i am

In this life course, i am discovering this strange thing which is identity. Perhaps it is the only thing i exist for. Perhaps the only purpose to this life is to find the answer to the question: "who am i?"

But answering this question already reveals something interesting about the experience of the self and the understanding of that experience. To ask "who am i?", is to assume there already is a "who", that is a person, whose identity must be understood in terms of personal attributes. These attributes can be hyper-attributes (expressing adherence) or hypo-attributes (expressing individuality). Strangely there are no homo-attributes (not expressing gayness :) but rather as-is-ness if you allow a Frenchman to create a new word).

Two things appear from this simple question. There is (1) an assumption of there being a person, and (2) its attributes, which are relative. The assumption together with the observation that there is no descriptive homo-attributes, point to something interesting: the conviction of personality is conceptual inasmuch as self-observation does not reveal personality in and of itself, we cannot find personal attributes which are not related to the "person" universal.

So we could reduce the question to "what am i?", which expects an answer describing an object, something finite, with attributes. But again answering this question assumes there are objects, that "i am" is an object, something finite. If we would describe this object we'd have to describe as an hypo-object, i.e. the child of a larger class, a universal, of a given kind of object. If could also be described by its children, what it owns, what it does etc.

Again this question reveals something important: it is born of the assumption that what is sought is a thing and as we try to describe it, it must be described diagonally, with reference to objects it relates to. It depends on ideas an concept. We have no direct evidence of it being a thing at all, with all the attributes being a thing entails.

Now we could reduce the question to "am i?" The question (if we forget about person and object) is not hard to answer. Because the question in itself is the proof and the expression of the answer. The self is ... well, self-evident. And since it is not a person, not an object, it would be tempting to understand this "i" as the subject of the experience of self, and it seems evident then to name it "consciousness". It sounds like a great answer, it's mystical, impalpable, pretty much powerful, in fact. But then, finding a word to describe what we do not know is fine, but what does "being consciousness" mean? Can this consciousness be described directly? No, it can't? How is this consciousness known? Through the objects it refers to, or that refers to it. So here again we are facing something we do not know, of which we have no direct evidence, which is no describable. And yet: it is here, we know it, it is not pure darkness or light, it is apparent, so it has attributes, yet it is continuously changing and there seems to be no finite thing, which could serve as a reference point.

Could we cut down our question further? The question "am i?" is referring to there being an i. But as we have seen, the answer is self evident. There IS "i". We are not yet sure of what it is. Our question narrows down to "i?"

"i?"

How strange a question!

"i?"

Yet it points at something, it points towards itself. It points towards its existence, the expression of itself and yet it is expressed as a question, it remains mysterious. It is simple. It is simply this. It is neither object, nor subject, it simply is. It is this evident mystery. There is no word that cannot point to it, there is no word that can touch it.

This is what i am.