You and I Circle and Line
Ilexa Yardley 17 November 2009
You and I, if separate, are joined.
The only I I knows is I. I is not me, though they are one and the same. You could think of I as looking out and me as looking in. In that way, I and me are joined and separated. The usual idea about I may not always be true. That is, I is not always I.
The fact that I and me can be two different ideas or entities or processes is a central idea all of us must grasp. Once we grasp this idea, that I and me are different yet the same, we are then able to interact with any other (many other) I(s) and me(s).
The fact that I and me is sometimes, and sometimes not, the same is a very important metaphor for reality which all of us can grasp.
If I is sometimes not me, then who is I? Or, put another way, who am I?
Some of us have heard the expression, ‘the great I am.’
I and am is noun and verb, where verb in this case, is a reflection of noun. That is, in this example, or case, or idea (or entity or process) you cannot have I without am and you cannot have am without I. So we can agree, at least temporarily, that ‘I am’ is an expression for me (or I or am).
If I interact with (introduce) you, then there are two ‘I am’s.’ This is a problem (at least temporarily).
I can only know I. And me can only know me. So if we work out the relationship between I and me we have worked out the relationship between I and any other me (or I), and, thus, you.
This is not at all confusing. You must read it slowly and allow yourself the proper time to think about it carefully, digest it, integrate it with your own ‘I am.’
I can be separate or joined, multiple or singular, this we know from observation. That is there are many people, and, in one sense, there is only one person. The ‘one’ person may (can) be the ‘idea’ of a person.
All of us are relegated to the reality there is never just one person. This is a good thing. It keeps us safe.
That is, I am never just I. I must always be attached to some other I. I can prove this because there is no I without not-I. So I and not-I are joined and separated at the same time.
The idea of I is closely related to, if not exactly the same as, the idea of one. That is to have one we must have not one, and to have I we must have not I. We can see the basis for numbers, or counting, here, where one thing is comprised of two.
So I and any other I makes I and you, I and we, which is a metaphor, or a symbol, for I and me.
If I is the me that is looking out, and me is the I that is looking in, we have just defined reality and reason. That is, there is a subject and an object, and the object can be the subject.
This I me we, one two three, subject object reality, is the foundation, or basis, for science, philosophy and psychology.
Within science, philosophy and psychology we find many other names for I, me, we, one, two, three, subject, object, reality. The unifier among these is circle.
Circle is between, and among, I, me, we, one, two, three, subject, object, reality.
How do we know this and what is circle?
We would only know circle if we were introduced to circle. That is, we would know it by some other name than circle, for example, I, or me, or we, but we would still know circle without, perhaps, knowing it.
That is because I must also be me, one must also be two, and subject must also be object, or else there could be no I, me, one, two, subject, object. Likewise there could be no we, three, reality.
Once there are two, then there would have to be three. As soon as there is me, there would have to be we. Observing any object as separate means it must somewhere (somehow) be joined. This is the reality we (I, me) live(s). There is a singular reality, which is tied to multiple realities.
Some will recognize this way of thinking, or reasoning as circular. Since Aristotle, we have been throwing circular reasoning or logic away. That is if I and me are not one directional we cannot consider them. Or, I is never me in pure (linear) logic.
However, the fact that we have I, me, we, and am, means I is a reliable entity (process). I and me and we and am are cemented together via time and or space. They cannot occur without each other, any of them.
I, me, we and am creates a problem, though; a problem that any of us (if we are I, me, we and am) can solve.
If there are two of us, I can never expect I to be purely singular.
That is you (once you are observed) cannot be me, and I (once you have observed me) cannot be you.
So the concept of you means we have totally separated one I from another (and one me from another).
So in this way we see a problem in space (and time). That is, two I’s can never occupy the exact same space, or the exact same time. But then again they can.
If we can solve the problem of time and space with I and me and am, we can then understand the reality we must live.
If there is a separate anything (whether you call it I and me, I and am, one and two, noun and verb, subject and object, observer and observation) there must be a mandatory line and circle between them.
What is a line and what is a circle?
A line is the relationship between any two any-things (every two every-things).
A circle is also the relationship between any two any-things (every two every-things).
The line and circle between two any-things (every two every-things) is always (sometimes) invisible.
Invisible means it is hidden and it is abstract. Hidden and abstract are alternate words (ideas) for invisible (visible). Hidden and abstract, as alternate words (ideas) for invisible (visible), are also alternate words (ideas) for one and two (noun and verb, subject and object, I and me).
Normally we learn about circle and line in mathematics. However, even those of us who have never ‘learned’ or been exposed to or experienced ‘mathematics’ must know circle and line.
This is because any two any-things (every two every-things) if they are separate must also be joined. Circle and line (direct and indirect, subject and object, noun and verb) are what join (and separate) them.
This makes circle (and line) the great ‘I am.’ This makes circle I and line am. Or, line I and circle am.
So if I am me and you are you when I am circle you are line and when you are circle I am line.
Circle and line, like I and me, cannot occur without each other. Circle is not circle without line. And line is not line without circle.
They share the same relationship as I and me (or you and we).
Circle and line are joined together by pi. Pi, if abstract and hidden, forces circle and line to be concrete and showing. This is what ties mind and matter together.
That is mind and matter, like I and me, are a forced one and two, noun and verb, subject and object, sharing a circular and linear relationship.
Which means if I is mind me is matter. If me is mind I is matter, where I and me, are one and the same (yet also always separate).
The circle between any two ideas (words, symbols) is what causes them to be similar yet different, joined yet separate. The circle and its always attached line (you must have a line as circumference and diameter) forces one into two (energy into mass) and always vice versa (two into one, mass into energy).
So now we have many words to articulate the same idea.
To understand I, I must accept, and generate, me. Once I do this, I have mandated you (you must be with me, or else I cannot be me).