Yeah, I remember when I first time listened to Dennett. For first ten minutes or so, while he was talking about illusory nature of our personalities, I was nodding in agreement, “Yes, yes, yes, that’s it.” It was very much like listening to a “Zen master who knows”. And then, suddenly, he went off on a tangent, “…thus, there is no consciousness — it is merely an illusion, and you are stupid if you don’t see it.” And I was like, “Nooo, Daniel! And who is conscious of that illusion?” At that time I didn’t know that that is his trademark “shtick”. But I guess he seriously believes it.
The “I” is a peculiar word. It is derived from the subjective notion of “I-ness” we are born with, so it is a good pointer to it. But it is learned, as all words, and we are taught to associate it with body-mind. And once that happens, once we have that heureka moment, “Ah, I am this person!” and we get what our parents (or whoever) want us to understand, we make the connection and shift our “I-ness” to our body. And with that we lose sight of our true selves. Well, maybe it happens naturally, but I would wager that we make the connection based upon what we are able to observe in our surroundings, i.e. how other people self-identify.
That Wagner’s method you describe is superb. At least I can imagine it is, because I could not lucid dream even if my life depended on it. I’m so good at bullshitting myself, that I always rationalize all wake/dream checks. So I roll with dreams as they come without aware interference — at least I know where the shoe pinches, etc. This reminds me of deep sleep for some reason. I guess, the reason why Buddhist so obsess about meditation and being able to switch off the mind completely is exactly that dreamless deep-sleep state where one is aware of absence. I would say that if one is completely lucid in such state, one definitely has to realize one’s “absolute nature”. Then again, it’s not the easiest path.
I always get chuckles that when I say “I”, it’s not “me” who is saying it, so why does something which isn’t “me” call itself “I”? And yet, it is (of) me. Ah yeah, the space where all is what it is … hm, I guess, I’m already rambling :D
Anyway, thanks for inspiring comment, Jack!
