virus: IAM what IAM and dats all what IAM

Tim Rhodes (
Wed, 24 Dec 1997 04:13:41 -0800

Wade T.Smith wrote:

> > However, to truly accept that one must give up the idea of *I*. I
> >contend that no one here, other than myself, seems ready to relinquish
> >most fundamental faith...
> And I contend you are the only one seemingly unable to relinquish it. Why

> do you think I am unable to dismiss 'I'? I have already relinquished all
> faith. And it was remarkably easy.

All this talk of The I harkens me back to a conversation I had with friends
the other day. We were musing on the fact that the human face has more
independently movable muscles on it than that of any other animal and
wondering out loud if a thorough understanding of facial expressions might
yeild, at some point, to sort of language. One rich in sublties, similar
to the so called "ESP" that a couple that has been together for years is
said to possess. Where a raise of an eyebrow or gesture can convey more
information that a hundred words.

It is an interesting thought experiment to imagine what a world that
employed such a "language" would be like. Every time your gaze fell on
anothers face you would "hear" them. When your eyes happened to meet
anothers you could not help but engage them in conversation, instinctually.
The internal dialogue might, in such and instance, be suplanted by an
external and constant dialogue in which the concept of the self would, of
necessity, expand to include everyone else as well. This change in the
concept of The I (quite akin to the Rastafarrian personal pronoun "I and I"
meaning "My self and the self of which we are all part") would bring with
it a profound effect on human cultures, to say the least.

I wonder if that might be similar to what it would be like to be an ant (or
a african hairless mole rat, for that matter).

-Prof. Tim