Am I a man or a woman?

[Skip]

I know myself.

If anyone else had said that you would have said something stupid like "there is no I, there is only what is known but the known cannot know what it knows for the knowing is nowhere, even though the known is everywhere".

More or less.... viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21961

[ken]

So, which one is it? Does the I have an identity, or, is the I an identity? There is a huge difference.

I don't think so. My I doesn't think so, either. It is, we are, I am both, just as the inside of a house looks different from the outside, while being the same house, equally valid and necessary to its existence.

So what you are saying here is the human body and all inside is the I. That is fair enough. But not an accurate nor a satisfactory explanation of what I actually am. As proven by the unclarifiable, confused and non responses given when I ask human beings, Who am I?

You start off with the 'My' word so that means the I has an identity.

It means only that English sentence construction makes any other designation grammatically awkward.
As: That complex of sensations, emotions, memories, ideas, desires, knowledge, perceptions, actions, reactions and relationships to which this unique personality experiencing this unique moment in this universe is currently attempting to identify to another, largely unknown, complex of.... etc, etc.
"My identity" seems a bit more efficient and less Dontaskmeesque. [/quote]

That is true but obviously "My identity" is still also far from being efficient enough. Thus the reason why most human beings, still after so many centuries, have no clue about who/what I actually am.

.. BUT who/what is the I, which has an identity, is the issue. What is the identity of the I Itself?

WHY is that an issue? I agree that it seems to occupy an inordinate amount of philosophy forum space. But why does it so preoccupy so many otherwise healthy and productive individuals who know the "issue" is infinitely self-reflexive (A Strange Loop) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/123 ... range_Loop and thus unresolvable.

But this is not unresolvable at all. In fact the resolution is very simple and easy indeed.

I propose the Identity Known as I does not have a gender.

You can propose that as an intellectual concept, but no conscious vertebrate can experience it as a reality.

That is a huge assumption condidering you are yet to know who/what I actually am?

[S - From the outside, every newly-encountered other I is a cypher - unknown: potentially any sex, gender, age, ethnicity or species.]
All just labels used to separate persons into separate groups.

No, that's a description - though not a comprehensive one, of what you don't know about them.
Strangers do wear identifying markers: clothing, hair, etc; have voices, accents and physical attributes that give you clues as to their classification, yes. But you can't always see the people you encounter: on the telephone, their labels are fewer and less obvious; on the printed page, even fewer and sometimes deliberately disguised. You can't even be sure they're all from this same planet.
Sorting into groups - or classifying - is essential: the more groups and types you separate out, the closer you get to identifying the unique individual whom you may, at some later date, be called upon to pick out of a police lineup.

But the human body is neither a 'person' nor the 'I'. Unless of course a person wants to consider and identify them self as a body.

[Skip]

So what you are saying here is the human body and all inside is the I.

I wasn't referring to the inside of the body, though that would have to be included as a matter of survival, but to how I perceive and experience subjective identity. There is a great deal inside that I would not wish to share or exhibit, and more, probably much more, that I could not communicate if i wanted to, and also much more of which am not even aware.
The outside is simply a comprehensive term for all of the personality that is shown to the world, that interacts and communicates with others - all that can be known by other entities.

That is fair enough. But not an accurate nor a satisfactory explanation of what I actually am.

I never intended to offer one.

As proven by the unclarifiable, confused and non responses given when I ask human beings, Who am I?

Did you ever consider the possibility that this may be a question nobody wants to make the effort to answer?
Or even that it might be a question with no answer that will ever satisfy you?
Or that I don't care, either way?

But this is not unresolvable at all. In fact the resolution is very simple and easy indeed.

Congratulations.... i guess

[you can propose [genderless personality] as an intellectual concept, but no conscious vertebrate can experience it as a reality.]
That is a huge assumption condidering you are yet to know who/what I actually am?

My huge assumption is not informed by your identity in particular, any more than by the particular identity of every frog, sparrow and gorilla in the world. It's a general fact of biology. But if you are a non-biological life-form, or one that reproduced through spores or some other way, then odds are pretty good of your being invertebrate. An asexual extraterrestrial - okay, that makes you an exception.

But the human body is neither a 'person' nor the 'I'. Unless of course a person wants to consider and identify them self as a body.

No, but the process of living is what forms the identity. If you don't believe me, try to exercise your personhood without a body.

[Arising_uk]

...
And if a guy looks down, sees his johnson, and claims to be anything other than a guy, it's not that his gender (or the gender of his 'I') is in question: he's just a loon.

That's sex not gender.

[Dontaskme]

I know myself.

If anyone else had said that you would have said something stupid like "there is no I, there is only what is known but the known cannot know what it knows for the knowing is nowhere, even though the known is everywhere".

You seriously take what's written in my posts too literally Harbal.

There is no I because there is no other than I .... I am one...we are one.

This one knows itself else it wouldn't be would it? you know you exist right?

The problem is when the I is claimed, the I cannot be claimed, it already IS being... IT is prior to any label given to it.

How hard is that for you to understand?

Try listening more to what's being written, avoid if you can your constant knee jerk reactive bashing to my words, I'm not intentionally being ''personal'' with anyone here...the ego wanting to be right is not my goal ...my goal here is to share in the pursuit of pointing others home to where they've never left.


You can mock me all you like, I never take offence because I know myself, and when I know myself I know others. And in that wisdom i know that nothing can ever hurt or harm me but myself.

[Dontaskme]

When Joe sez 'I' he self-refers.



If Betty sez 'I' she self-refers.

Seems obvious: 'I' is ALWAYS gendered.

Although there is no one to self refer...impossible to separate an idea from the awareness of it. There is an awareness of gender, but awareness itself is without gender..So no, I is not always gendered. There can be awareness without consciousness, but there cannot be consciousness without awareness....know that there is a subtle difference....

Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to it's content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.


The idea of gender would not even be possible, if I was not firstly and foremost without gender. How would I know I was a particular gender without the capacity to make the comparison?

And if a guy looks down, sees his johnson, and claims to be anything other than a guy, it's not that his gender (or the gender of his 'I') is in question: he's just a loon.

No, you see this claiming is not who you really are. You are not your body parts. You are aware of body parts, but you cannot know yourself as those body parts. You are not your johnson, you are that which is aware of it as an object or concept, take away a body part, and you still remain, so you are not your body parts.

[henry quirk]

"What is the I actually? What is It made up of?"

Again, speakin' only for me: I'm flesh and blood and bone and brain. That is: I'm a discrete, on-going, organic phenomenon.

[henry quirk]

"That's sex not gender."

Sex and gender are irrevocably intertwined.

The chromosome pair dictating cock instead of pussy doesn't stop there but includes the brain from whence psychological 'maleness' (or 'femaleness') extends.

Simply: if you got a johnson, that johnson is merely the tip (no pun intended) of the biological features that shape your psychology, your gender.

[henry quirk]

"You are not your body parts."

I can't speak for you. But me, my 'parts' is all I am, from toe tip clear on up to the top of my bald head.

[Harbal]

How hard is that for you to understand?

I don't know, I haven't tried to understand it.

[Immanuel Can]

"You are not your body parts."

I can't speak for you. But me, my 'parts' is all I am, from toe tip clear on up to the top of my bald head.

Hey, Henry.

You're right: and just to back you up, it's worth remembering that DNA has specific gender.

Every cell in a man's body is male (with the exception of some of his sperm ). So there's no sense in which we can talk of "transgenderism" as anything but a person's loss of cognitive contact with his/her actual, physical gender -- that is, as a cognitive delusion that fails to reflect physical reality.

For example, In no physical sense is Bruce Jenner -- or can Bruce Jenner ever be -- a woman. The most he can hope for is enough of an outward transformation of bulges and suctions of fat, of hacking or installing organs, to confuse casual observers as to what he really is. But check the DNA, and you'll always know. Always. No matter what he does about it.

It's not like the Turing Test, where fooling people is supposed to be good enough. There's always a real, ultimate answer in the DNA.

And then there's this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

[ForCruxSake]

"That's sex not gender."

Sex and gender are irrevocably intertwined.

The chromosome pair dictating cock instead of pussy doesn't stop there but includes the brain from whence psychological 'maleness' (or 'femaleness') extends.

Simply: if you got a johnson, that johnson is merely the tip (no pun intended) of the biological features that shape your psychology, your gender.

They may well be intertwined but they are not the same thing, with gender being less dependent on sex than one might think.

'Gender' is flavour of the month at the moment. Here's a Guardian article talking about predetermining the sex of children, why parents may choose to have a particular sex, as related to gender, and how gender behaviour may well be a learned response.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... plnews_d-2

Enjoy.

[Dontaskme]

Hey, Henry.

You're right: and just to back you up, it's worth remembering that DNA has specific gender.

Go deeper and explain where the very first human came from, and what gender was it?

Can you do that Can ?

[Greta]

"That's sex not gender."

Sex and gender are irrevocably intertwined.

The chromosome pair dictating cock instead of pussy doesn't stop there but includes the brain from whence psychological 'maleness' (or 'femaleness') extends.

Simply: if you got a johnson, that johnson is merely the tip (no pun intended) of the biological features that shape your psychology, your gender.

They may well be intertwined but they are not the same thing, with gender being less dependent on sex than one might think.

'Gender' is flavour of the month at the moment. Here's a Guardian article talking about predetermining the sex of children, why parents may choose to have a particular sex, as related to gender, and how gender behaviour may well be a learned response.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... plnews_d-2

Enjoy.

Henry might like to explain to some of the bull dykes hanging around pool tables in lesbian bars about how very feminine their minds are thanks to their feminine bodies. He may not walk away in one piece but it would be a valuable lesson for him in human diversity.

[Arising_uk]

"That's sex not gender."

Sex and gender are irrevocably intertwined. ...

Well for sure as gender is generally used to describe the differences a society of culture assigns to the sexes. But they differ across societies so not so clear cut as one's sex.

The chromosome pair dictating cock instead of pussy doesn't stop there but includes the brain from whence psychological 'maleness' (or 'femaleness') extends. ...

There you go, 'maleness'/'femaleness' - gender. Male/female - sex.

Simply: if you got a johnson, that johnson is merely the tip (no pun intended) of the biological features that shape your psychology, your gender.

Given that women also appear to have a very small penis where does that leave their psychology and gender?