Is 'I' one person?

[Sandman]

Is 'I' one person? That is, is there only 'one' with self-awareness in me?

In the book <The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms> the author claims that the
creativity is consisted of input from conscioussnesss and most importantly, processes of sub-consciousness.

If this is right, then it means that the 'creativity', which is thought to have been the primary ability of human intelligence is done 'under' our awareness.

That is, the part of human self that we cannot quite acknowledge is working on its own way, even now,
occassionally showing its prescence as Muse(or 'a brilliant idea').

C.G. Jung claims that when we dream, the sub-consioussness speak in symbols:as in the elements consisting dreams. Although the fragments are indeed from the waking consioussness, clearly, dreams are consisted of certain logics and ideas of its own.

What I mean to say is, can we be so sure to claim that this sub-conscious part of us shares one same self-awareness/or is completely un-aware? What if it has its awareness of its own?
Than what becomes of us?

[Michaël Samyn]

I think we over-complicate our psychological make-up because we desperately cling to he notion that we are all individuals. If we let go of that idea and imagine ourselves as being parts of a larger whole, then things get a lot more simple. Then "creativity" is simply the whole speaking through us. Then an artist becomes simply a facilitator, a conduit, a medium.

[ghostwheel]

There are parts of out brain that work independently of what we consider our conscious mind. However, both Jung and Freud were off base. Stephen LaBerge's finding in his experiments with lucid dreaming are at odds with mainstream accepted ideas about the subconscious and dreams. His conclusions are that because our brains are so good at modelling and interpreting the world, it continues to do so while we sleep. That's not to say things like our hopes, desires, fears and anxieties don't manifest in our dreams, it's simply that our subconscious isn't sending us encoded, symbolic messages.

[Chris W]

Oh man, don't get me started - this is one of my favorite topics to dissect, argue, and haggle over.  C.G.Jung is a personal hero of mine.

I'll stick to a brief summary of my view in response to the original question:  The view of personal consciousness I've built over the last 10-15 years or so is that of a window.  The window itself has little or no agency in the physical world.  What's on the other side of the window?  God only knows, but it seems likely to me that it's some sort of all-inclusive pantheistic entity.

I could probably do an essay about the unconscious vs. consciousness and the physical world, but I'll stick to one simple point.  The unconscious has resources available to it that we have no conscious control over (this is why creative sparks come and go like will-o-the-wisps).  These resources and the constructs thereby created are affectively(as in full of affect) very powerful because they originate in the more ancient, deeper, core parts of the brain/mind.  When these constructs bubble up into consciousness they become flashes of creative inspiration that can effectively be used to communicate these deeper, powerful ideas to others, because most people have most of the same constructs available in their subconscious, they are simply constituted somewhat differently, and have varying levels of activity in an individual.  A brilliant piece of artwork, of any type, succeeds in activating these deep complexes from person to person.

[Sandman]

I think we over-complicate our psychological make-up because we desperately cling to he notion that we are all individuals. If we let go of that idea and imagine ourselves as being parts of a larger whole, then things get a lot more simple. Then "creativity" is simply the whole speaking through us. Then an artist becomes simply a facilitator, a conduit, a medium.

    I agree with the point that clinging to prove individuality is making things more complicated. But it just irks me to think that I might not have full control upon my choices. That is why I'm clinging on inspite the fact.  

    I think self conscioussness has great impact on power to choose.Power to change the path.
The power to choose and change is what I think as the key element of what constitutes 'an alive self.'
However, if it turns out that my decisions are actually run by preset laws/larger intentions and the self counscioussness just an illusion, it would seem to me that my whole 'identity' was an illusion.
It would be quite hard to strain on all the while being aware of the fact that the will is on some other's hands.

  ...Sounds a lot like an AI robot questioning oneself's identity. (⊙ㅁ⊙)
But then, even if I suddenly find out that I was an AI character living being operated by will of players and programmers what would I do? I would be able to choose nothing else but to live on and think on.


 

[Sandman]

There are parts of out brain that work independently of what we consider our conscious mind. However, both Jung and Freud were off base. Stephen LaBerge's finding in his experiments with lucid dreaming are at odds with mainstream accepted ideas about the subconscious and dreams. His conclusions are that because our brains are so good at modelling and interpreting the world, it continues to do so while we sleep. That's not to say things like our hopes, desires, fears and anxieties don't manifest in our dreams, it's simply that our subconscious isn't sending us encoded, symbolic messages.

 Well I never heard of Stephen Laberge but his ideas interest me. I'll see if I can get one of his books in the bookstore. :O

[Sandman]

These resources and the constructs thereby created are affectively(as in full of affect) very powerful because they originate in the more ancient, deeper, core parts of the brain/mind.  When these constructs bubble up into consciousness they become flashes of creative inspiration that can effectively be used to communicate these deeper, powerful ideas to others, because most people have most of the same constructs available in their subconscious, they are simply constituted somewhat differently, and have varying levels of activity in an individual.  A brilliant piece of artwork, of any type, succeeds in activating these deep complexes from person to person.

 (I just typed a long decent response and it just blew away with an internet error.)
  Interesting view you have here. Do you mean by the view that the power of certain art piece speaking through many minds is possible through similar subconscious back ground(though what it is constitutes with,is unknown)? If it is so, it might explain that there is an 'absolute value of beauty' which will speak to many hearts of all the times and spaces. Hmm.

 You might want to pick up copies of Edgar E.Poe's early works like <Mesmeric Revelation> and <Shadow- a Parable>. Unlike his later works covered with dread of being buried alive, the tales show very interesting views on the all-inclusive pantheistic entity.