Who Am I ?

3 min readNov 24, 2023

I am not my body and I am not my mind. Nor am I the composite of my body & mind, arguably not even if aggregated over my entire life. I certainly have a body and I definitely have a mind, and I have exercised both throughout my life and will continue doing so until the day I die. But I am not that. Rather, I am the one inside shouting my existence towards eternity. I don’t know if this effort is in vain, but this is the topic I place before you.

At the highest categorical level, I can only draw a distinction between two entities: “I” and “Not I.” From there we can then contemplate the potential existence of each.

As an aid in assessing an entity’s state of existence as objective or not objective (i.e. a purely subjective existence), it’s appropriate to look towards its origin. Admittedly, I cannot objectively (or even subjectively with confidence) affirm that either “I” or “Not I” preceded the other. From my subjective experience the two have a shared & interwoven origin. So for now it seems reasonable to propose a duel between the two. See, if we are to insist that one preceded the other then we must select only one as the victor.

Which then came first :

“I” or “Not I”?

Objectively, one would likely insist that “Not I” preexisted and “I” then emerged from it. This is clearly the most logical explanation, but it unfortunately happens to be one for which I have no direct & irrefutable evidence. Furthermore, this conclusion would result in my existence being a dependent one and therefore not a fundamental one. “I” in this case, do not truly exist objectively but am merely an emergent component of “Not I,” which is hierarchically above me.

The alternative outcome of this dualistic prospect is that “Not I” emerged from the precedent “I.” This is a perspective for which I do have direct & irrefutable evidence. My own existence is obviously self-evident to me. However, if this is reflective of the true nature of reality, then we must acquiesce that “Not I” does not truly exist objectively but merely as a component of “I.” A figment of imagination, if you will.

So which is it?

Am “I” the illusion or is “Not I”?

If the truth lay in the former, then I am relegated to a byproduct of an independent entity in which I must have blind faith or none at all. If instead it is “Not I” that is the illusion, then I find myself encaged in a cell of my own making, isolated from any potential objective reality that may exist outside myself.

Ultimately, both of these disconcerting outcomes are plausible. But before settling the duel, it’s worth considering an alternative.

A sort of truce.

If we abandon the requirement of a preceding entity then we can consider the possibility of original mutual coexistence. In this case, the “I” & “Not I” share a complementary existence, like the forces described by Newton’s Third Law or particles bound by quantum entanglement.

Those unaccustomed to the notion of a complementary existence of “I” & “Not I” may find it paradoxically both obvious and ridiculous. This impression is appropriate given the peculiar nature of life itself. After all, how could “Not I” exist without its complementary component?

In the end we all must choose to accept one of the dualistic perspectives, embrace the complementary philosophy, or remain open to all possibilities until some potential future period of enlightenment. As useful a tool as our knowledge is in serving us, it falls woefully short in definitively addressing these questions. However, our knowledge has revealed to us the remarkable fact that if even a seemingly inconsequential perturbation had occurred in the long & mysterious chain of events prior to your first breath, then you might not be here now at all… or would you?