representational inquiry regarding meaning » reality » self/selfhood
As part of the experiencer-experiencing-experienced axis, the J-node is properly just experiencer as such, but as we are already involved in a discursive space of meaning involving particular experiencers experiencing experienced particulars, we paradigmatically understand experiencer as such in terms of experiencer as self, hence the blue color. (The cone pointing down = experiencer, and the blue color = self.)
As it applies to the J-node, the cone pointing down signifies being-thrown-under. The experiencer is being-thrown-under the experienced just as the experienced is being-thrown-before the experiencer. Speaking in purely formal terms, experiencer is subjected to the pressures of that which is experienced. To sub-ject is to thrown under (from [L] sub "under" + combining form of iacere "to throw"). It's the unifying point of view that is being-thrown-under that which is experienced, feeling the plurality if its pressures as an unified experience, allowing this point of view to stand in the midst of (understand) them.
The diagrammatic components of the J-node cone include its circular base (at the top), its apex (at the bottom), and the line-segments stretching between its base and apex, as centered around its axis. These parts correspond to experiencer as world (base), experiencer as self (apex), and experiencer as dynamic (axis-centered segments). As world, experiencer is a common point of view, intersubjectively shared by all memebers of a world. As self, experiencer is an unique point of view, positioned unlike any other. As dynamic, experiencer is a durational point of view, always in the process of transforming. The transformation could involve the process of moving between the common point of view and one's unique point of view, it could mean the empathic process of adopting (as much as is possible) the unique points of view of others, or it could simply mean the process of keeping track of what-it's-like to be subjected to the ongoing pressures of that which is experienced.
J is a modification of I. According to Wikipedia, "Gian Giorgio Trissino (1478-1550) was the first to explicitly distinguish I and J as representing separate sounds." If I symbolically represents pure potential, J may be thought of as potential for subjective individuation. It splits reality into realities.
In terms of Jungian psychology, J is (perhaps) as the ego-aspect of the complete psyche/Self (I). J is the individuated subject, freed from the collective unconscious; it's an unique point-of-view unshared with others. The psyche's real power (potency) is contained within the unconscious, yet this can be harnessed by the ego.
In terms of Plato's tripartite conception of the human soul, J would perhaps be the rational part. In his simile comparing the human soul to a charioteer together with a team of horses, J is the charioteer which is capable of harnessing/steering the horses representing the non-rational appetitive and spirited forces at work in one's psyche. Power resides with the horses. J is therefore an im-potent version of the potent I.
In terms of non-dual South Asian philosophy, J is as the ego's wave-crest on the ocean of true Self (Atman/I). Once again, power resides with the ocean. Or, J is the eddy in I's river—an eddy with a localized and temporary axis of its own.
Power resides in I's potency, but I's power is limitless and undirected. J, while relatively impotent itself, taps into the power of I, giving it direction around which order accrues.
I've gone quite far afield with this analysis. You might be rightly asking yourself, what's this got to do with letters? The answer is: not much. I'm just riffing off the I/J association in the context of the types of questions that might be taken up as I- and J-type questions.
A self is fundamentally an experiencer, and an experiencer always goes together with that which is experienced. Since we're most familiar with the general notion of an experiencer as self, self is the paradigmatic way we make sense of what it means to be an experiencer. And that which is experienced is paradigmatically world. So, just as experiencer and experienced are interdependent, so too are self and world, whereby world we mean that which shows up as intelligible for an experiencer-self. Each are interdependent regions of reality.
As wholly interdependent, self and world interpenetrate. The manner in which self and world interpenetrate may be thought of as follows: self is being-thrown-under world as world is being-thrown-before self, where the directions of their respective thrown-ness-es coincide inversely. Two interpenetrating cones may be used to illustrate this. The apex of the self cone pointing down is that part of self that unifies experience as a coherent whole by being sub-jected to (thrown under) the world's pressures in a localized way such that the meaningful under-standing of the world is made possible. Put in simple terms, loads of sense data are unified as a single experience according to a particular point-of-view. The base of the self cone may be thought of as the array of experiential possibilities available to that self as determined by that self's character. I can't see x-rays with my eyes, so that's not part of the base of my self cone, but since I'm not color blind, the possibility of seeing color is. Regarding the cone pointing up—the world cone—the apex may be thought of as the particular intentional object showing up for a self at a given time, while the base of that cone represents the array of possibilities from which particular intentional objects are foregrounded. Again, self and world interpenetrate: intentional objects occur for the self in the context of what's possible for a self, while the self's unifying point-of-view occurs in the context of the larger world.
As being-thrown-under world(s), an experiencer is a layered psyche, most of which is transpersonal. A conscious self, or ego, is only the tip of the self. Particular selves are less important for our J-node question than the possibility of types of selves (like a species-level self, let's say) or even experiencers as such. Each layer has its own constraints and its own purposes—pursuing its own level of possibilities in its own patterned forms of engagment with world. Most of the layers are so basic they're overlooked as relatively insignificant (taken for granted), while we mostly notice what our ego-level selves (the tip of the iceberg) have the freedom to control.
Particular selves and worlds take on the characters they do given the patterns of their interactions. Our individual selves are mostly defined with respect to our culture, which conditions us to engage with the world in a certain way. But cultures are built on the patterned way human beings as a species are conditioned to engage, and that's built on a deeper level of engagement, the genus, and so on. But as we tend to overlook these deeper layers of conditioning—these deeper layers of the self—a self is paradigmatically a part of a whole. We tend to focus on what's unique about us; so, just as we tend to think of an exeriencer in terms of a self, we think of a self in terms of our unique self. But these unique selves are just a very small part of our whole selves, most of which is shared with others of our culture, species, even non-human animal life, planetary life generally, and so on down to the atomic scale.
So, what am I? Well, that depends on the context of the question. What am I in relation to the food and water I consume? I'm a biological being consuming to metabolize and transmute energy from one form to another etc. What am I in relation to my thoughts? A thinking thing. What am I in relation to my feelings? A feeling thing. The point is, phenomenologically, I am what I am in relation to my context. And if we call my context "my experience," I am an experiencer, that's all I can claim to be, and I can't be without undergoing experiences.
