It is possible to see by taking special notice of your mind while talking that the words just flow in to your mouth from a place that you know nothing of directly.

You don't feel yourself thinking the thoughts before you say them, they just occur... and you then fulfill the processes of which you ought to make happen (talking). Occasionally there may be a thought buffering process by which you will be aware before you say something but that is irrelevant.

Where do they come from? Most would agree that it is The Sub/Unconscious... But, if the unconscious controls the thoughts you consciously percieve as your own, then who is the thinker of the thoughts?




This identification with the authenticity of ownership between the unconscious aspects of our psyche may very well be the predominant cause of our greatest confusion in understanding our true self.

I see DMT as an endeavour to make bridges into The Unconscious for further investigation.

The Unconscious:

As I see it, there are two problems here.

The first is that you think you're the thinker, but you're not.

The second problem is more subtle. And that is that the thinker thinks it's you, but it's not.

Inwardly and subtly, who speaks of these questions? These thought pattern phenomenons come and go, so what observes that which you see and cannot see? It's too easy to tell your-self or ego that it is indeed you because who speaks of this, also? Who is pointing? Thoughts like to come knocking at your inner door, but it is the seer itself that allows them into their already existing awareness and consciousness, or simply leaves them at the door. They will keep knocking but come and go. Naturally, one stays as is, unaffected and detached.

So what speaks out of that which that already exists?

The mind is mysterious.

The question of 'who' is inherently rhetoric, and very likely impossible to answer given the slippery-ness of the subjective/objective paradox.
I think 'how' to be a more pertinent inquiry comparative to 'who', and within the scope of human understanding.

But then again, who is the 'I' that pondered how?
Who is the 'I' that judges from a lofty perch, the circumstances of another's 'how'?
How does one rectify with another, a consensus 'how' regarding any circumstance that involves an unresolved idea of 'I'?
And, upon realising a consensus 'how' between two individuals, the same slippery rhetoric appears when introducing a third individual to the idea.

the who is how and 'I' can see it as yet only fivefold, and this is the circumstance

I used to play with this idea a lot. I would always question, "Who is behind the veil?" or more pertinently, "Who is behind your veil?"

Working from the top down, we all have an exterior shell, a general facade that we expose to most others and the world. Some people who never indulge in critical thought, meditation, or use of psychedelics may never move below this level, and there is really no problem with that since everyone has agency in what they do with their own consciousness. But some prefer to have the choice to go deeper.

Below is what I describe as a more basic or even infantile state. The kind of state you can reach with a decent psychedelic experience, one of no outward projections except for that of your awareness. I know (during reflection) if I was in that state as I won't really have had any opinions or thoughts, just a mere feeling that everything is in balance and at peace.

What is below this? I think it's hard to say, and it relates to the fundamental problem of the subjective experience that we all have in our altered states. One might only be able to describe such a state while experiencing it, but he/she lacks the capabilities to do so during!

While we may reach these lower states of consciousness (some that we most probably go to during sleep every night), it is almost, if not entirely, impossible to bring back memories of such a void. Maybe that is where it all arises, from a void to eventually return to one, but who's to say?

@fathom
I think I understand your perspective, the words are neither created nor destroyed. They just are. And we, given the particulars of interaction appear to fall into them at the opportune moment.

@RAM
Your insights are truly astonishing(as always ) capturing the essence of present.
The exterior shell(words included) serves its purpose well enough. But the potential of a higher resolution network for communication might very well bypass the requirement for the shell in the first place (or at least give the illusion of doing so).

@thy
How circumstance of how is 'I'? who 8thfold knows why.

the silent o who is married buried by the eyes

One way to out think someone is to make them think, you think, they think you're not really thinking what you're trying to make them think, you think, they think, you think.

I just vanished for a second there...

Not everyone feels like they think in words. When I speak, it's usually more like I have a mental image or abstract understanding that I'm trying to get across and there is a step where I have to translate this into words.

I assume this is how everyone functions whether they realize it or not, or else how did people think before language was formed? how does a baby think? Maybe, in some people, this translation step occurs more in the subconscious where they are not aware of it.

In either case your sub-conscious is the total you. It is the sum of all your life experience (and maybe some other experiences). It is aware of everything and has complete control over your body and your personality). It's the real you that runs the show. Your personality was created and refined over time by your subconscious to interact with the world around you.

I think your personality has the impression that it's self aware when in reality this limited awareness is just a side effect of the real awareness passing through this window to the outside world.

These are just my thoughts. Feel free to disagree.