Who am I?

Reformulating the problematic language used for the problem to shed light on it.

The problematic problem

The twentieth century seems to be the turning point where the trend of knowledge inquiry went “meta”. In mathematics, there were attempts to unify/clarify a foundation of mathematics. In philosophy, attempts in clarifying the language used in philosophical discourse. People started to see paradoxes and confusions arising from the languages they used, so they tried to lay out a more rigorous foundation.

Lately I have been sensing such gaps in my thoughts, where I needed to “make leap” in order to make sense of things. I found that the problem was similarly a problem in the foundation.

When one tries to describe or characterise oneself, one often starts with “who am I”? But the question word “who” leads us to think about oneself in terms of abstract, subjective concepts where we can hardly (or never) find objects as reference of the concepts, e.g. identities and meanings. It then tricks us into thinking in purely abstract, subjective realm where the course cannot re-connect with any tangible thing, hence requiring us to make leap in order to make sense.

What am I?

I had an epiphany about replacing the question with “what am I”. Everything then seems much clearer to me.

“I” refers to the totality of “static” physical parts of my body (e.g. flesh and blood) as well as the “dynamic” processes which alter the “static” parts of me. These “dynamic” processes include the phsiology, psychology and other higher-order processes (those happening in our conscious mind, e.g. philosophising). In this way, “I” has to be considered as a holistic complex system, objectively being in this world.

In this conception, the subjective experiences (like emotions) and constructs (like identities) are still considered, but the emphasis is on their connection with lower-level mechanisms, i.e. emergence. When they are considered in this fashion, it is possible to identify the source of fallibility from the lower-level mechanisms.

The reformulated constructs: meaning, will and freedom

Despite knowing that there is no inherent meaning or purpose, this is still sometimes uneasy in my stream of thinking. Having this reformulation of “I” as a complex subsystem in larger systems (e.g. society, earth or universe) connects the unease with an “end” question of existence: why is there anything at all? Things just exist. There is no greater cause. And so are we (as a collection of “I’s”), in sense of the natural development of things in this universe.

So what is there to guide us in our lives? Will, which I would reformulate as motives fueled by the lower-level mechanisms (physiological or psychological), is a source of guidance. Each “I” has “will” for different things, which sometimes they can be contradictory when put together. It is because “I” was evolved with respect to surviving in the environment.

Should we follow our “will”? The question of “should” is often unanswerable. But we will make a decision to act or not in every case, as tangible things are time-bound. In this sense, the “will” of “I” will make the decision. So are we free? That’s a topic for another day.