I/not

As I work through questions of ethics and mortality, I believe that the I/not construction is the right place to begin. My previous post lists obstacles in the varied orientations I might attempt to take towards being good in such a way as to conduct myself rightly.

We talked about Self-orientation as being inherently antithetical to our project, enmeshed as it is in narcissism/solipsism and the Ich/es relationshiip.

We looked at the Ich/du relationship as being more promising but ultimately problematic. Losing oneself in a single "other" does not seem broad enough for a variety of reasons.

We looked at orienting ourselves into the world, dissolving self as illusory. But with such a view we lose all notion of accountability and worth beyond the all-worth of the all-world. Why bother to define ethics or right action in such a world view? Why bother to distinguish good from evil?

So we come back to the intuitive "I am not..." I find it apt because it asserts self in the initial "I", then takes it away with the negating "not". It posits a between place, a liminal state between Self and World, neither/and, if you will. World because "not," while negating, also implies a comparison... a comparison to something beyond self. If "I am not X" -- then something else must exist that "is X" because I would not otherwise have any way to conceive or apprehend it.

Let's start from the position of a simple object, a ball: "The ball is red," attempts to capture the ball with language. The noun carries essential qualities with it, "ballness" in this case, the predicate asserts definition. It excludes the many (in this case all elements of the light spectrum that do not fit "red") and includes only the particular. The ball itself is asserted and reaffirmed in the quality assigned to it.

Compare this to "The ball is not green." The noun "ball" is still asserted, but almost immediately erased by the "not" -- the particular is excluded, but the general is left afloat -- vibrant and alive in possibility. We come, upon contemplation, to understand how very little we can say about this ball: its roundness, its condition, and so forth. We can force ourselves to the same line of reasoning via "The ball is red," but "The ball is not green," leads us to it, compels us towards these considerations.

"The ball is not green" requires us to confront our human limitations on epistemological, semiotic, phenomenalogical, and ontological levels. It exposes us to the silence surrounding all the things the ball actually is, might be, or could become. The tie to Job becomes a little clearer to me in this context.

In this context, Brian's position: "I am not all" begins to emerge as a possibility. "I am not infinite." This tack bears much closer examination now.

A second possibility occurs to me, a modification of "I am not good" replaced now with, "I am not worthy..." which doubles the ambiguity, for not only am I asserting that I am *not* X, but this X carries much latency with it. Not worthy of what? It is the statement of a servant or a steward, and such a stance appeals to me as it doubly displaces me from the illusion of a kingly, ruling Self.

Much to consider yet. I hope those tuned in are finding this of some small interest...