I Am Not...

"I Am Not..." is (well, at least so far) my favorite Rumi excerpt. I originally came across it quite a few years ago in a video production (Four Seasons) for 'poetry in motion'. The title of that excerpt was, "Only Breath," and was read by the American Rumi afficianado and poet, Coleman Barks.

It is so simply because, to me, it seems to fit in neatly with so many non-linear ways of seeing the world.

For example, the phrase 'I am not' is an instance of what is known as a 'strange loop', discussed in Douglas Hofstadter's book, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid.

This concept comes, in part, from Godel's 'Incompleteness Theorem'--especially in relation to what he terms 'undecidable statements.' Although this phrase is often used in describing problems in mathematics, it also applies to situations within human cognition and language.

In this sense, it is similar to the statement: "This statement is false." Which is true...a paradox.

There are also visual 'strange loops'. For example, in the work of Dutch artists, M.C. Escher.

The Waterfall:

Or, Ascending and Descending:

The most famous example of the visual 'strange loop' is probably August Ferdinand Möbius' the Mobius Strip (sometimes called the Mobius Band):

As an aside, in Ancient Greece there is a similar creation known as the Ouroboros. It is associated with the Mobius band here in that both represent infinity (in fact, lookl closely at the Mobius Band and you'll see the mathematical sign for 'infinity'):

...looks a lot like a zero, huh...


The Mobius Band has several famous incarnation, but my two favorite are from Escher:

And one on a similar theme simply called Rind:

Which reminds me a little of Aristophanes tale of how humans came to be two sexes in Plato's  Symposium.

There's an interesting video that illustrates the paradoxes that emerge  from within the paradox created by the 'strange loop' of the Mobius Band that's worth watching.

Finally, there is another visual much akin to the "this statement is false" sentence in the Belgian painter, René Magritte's, "The Treachery of Images":

The French translates to: "This is not a pipe"...which, of course, it isn't...it's an image of a pipe, but not the thing itself. A subtle derivation of Plato's 'theory of forms'.


In Music there's an example of the 'strange loop' in J.S. Bach's Crab Cannon. Here a musical score is played forward 'into' music, but can also be played backward into silence: again, a paradox.

And then there's the 'Shepard Tone.' If you listen to this you'll note that although the tone appears to be descending it is, in fact, staying the same. This is an example of an auditory illusion.

To return to language, the aforementioned sentence--"This statement is false"--is called the 'Liar's Paradox' in logic and represents a problem of binary (semantic) interpretation. More technically, it is a problem of bivalence, where any declarative statement under investigation is said to have only one truth value (indetermined as it may be): 'true' or 'false'. The Liar's Paradox illustrates possible paradoxical situations that may arise from holding this belief (in its epistemological sense, that is).

However, with language there are depths of meaning (semantics) beyond the binary. Take for example the following ambiguous sentence:

"The boys are throwing rocks at the bank"

There are two types of ambiguity in this sentence: semantic and syntactic.

Semantically, we'd have to know what the speaker means by the noun 'bank': a river bank or the institution (i.e. Royal Bank). Each variant leads to a quite different possible interpretation. This is an example of Godel's 'undecidable statements.'

Further, if we look at the syntactic ambiguity in the dependent (prepositional) clause--"at the bank"--we face two more possible interpretations: the boys were 'at' (location) the river bank throwing rocks at something unknown; or, the boys were 'at' (location) the Royal Bank, again throwing rocks at something unknown.

Although we as listeners could deduce which statement is most likely to be correct (or, with enough added information, exactly which interpretation is correct) we're still faced with the fact that we cannot decide which of these interpretations is 'true' until we have that information. Furthermore, the possible interpretations move beyond the binary model.

To return to the Rumi excerpt, there is also the idea stemming from the 'strange loop' that the "I" is what is known as a 'narrative fiction'; that is, "I" doesn't really exist at birth but is, as part of our identity, something that emerges only after we've developed an 'ego', we've gained command of our native sign systems (language--spoken and written, etc), and have, then, developed this thing called the "I". It does not, however, actually exist 'in-the-world'. 

This is a part of the 'absurdity' spoken of by existentialist philosopher's like Jean Paul Sartre.

In Rumi's excerpt, "Only Breath," I noticed the hint of this is the speakers conscious pause between "human" and "being"--versus the more common "human being." Here the term 'being' (as in 'to be') is emphasized/highlighted. That is to say, I believe--and akin to the existentialists preoccupation with that odd verb--our 'being, like our development of the "I", is not the same thing as our biology, as in 'human'. 'Being' is a construct to aid in determining the subjective and objective presence we hold--simultaneously--in the world; yet, it is integral to our identity and, therefore, as real as any thing.

In the excerpt, "I Am Not..," I believe Rumi is highlighting something very similar. By addressing that which is not he is drawing attention to that which is.

Here I am reminded of several--culturally diverse--similar expressions of the same sentiment.

In math, we have the concept of 'zero' (or 'nought'). A paradox because it cannot, in reality, exist. In regards to the zero, if we think of it as a circle (neither the numeral nor the letter) I think Rumi is drawing attention to the paradox of being in two states at once in his lines ("Only Breath"): "outer, inner." If we think of our being in such a predicament, we can see ourselves as existing at once 'in' and 'out'--which, by definition is, at worst, non-being; or, at best, existing in a liminal state.

In art, 'negative space' defines the space around which the object invades. It is, perhaps, better seen than defined. This is an example of both negative space and negative space as a paradox (two things--but neither--at once) designed by the Danish psychologist, Edgar Rubin, and known as the 'Rubin vase':

On the left, the 'positive' spaced object (vase); on the right, the negative space surrounding the vase is highlighted and, here, presents the paradox: are we looking at a vase? Or, at two people nose-to-nose? Or, neither and both at once..?

In the Japanese culutre there are the twin concepts of 'ma' and 'mu'.

'Ma' is the space--or gap, or pause--between the objects presented in art (akin, I think, to what is 'left out' in Saphho's poetry). We can see something similar to this in the use of 'white space' in publishing. That is, the space on the page of a book we'd commonly call the 'margins'; and, the space, for example, between the chapters of a book. I'd suggest it is also akin to Rumi's 'pause' between "human" and "being"...much exists in that pause that is us.

On the other hand, there's the concept of 'mu'. This, although similar to 'ma', differs n its emphasis on 'nothingness', 'non-existent', and 'non-being'. The 'not' in Rumi's "I Am Not..."

The purpose in these explorations is not, I believe, to create a cynicism or pessimism; rather, to remind us that we are 'not' simply one thing or another: we're not 'Christian or Jew, or Magian, or Muslim'; we're not 'of the west or of the east'; we're 'us'; we're 'all'.

We're the "[o]ne I seek, One I know/One I see, One I call."

In this I see as much 'reason' as there is 'passion'. It is, like much of what I've discussed before, and come more firmly to believe over time, syncretic.

I'd like to leave you with the following sentiment regarding my collective use of 'us' and 'all' as wonderfully presented by the late Carl Sagan, entitled "Pale Blue Dot." 

Like Rumi's 'not' I think the recognition of things beyond our selves and that we're more than one or simply a few things is paramount to our survival and evolution. I am reminded of the time I spent deep in either the desert or the arctic. Here, there is a liberty, and freedom, that comes with the realization of one's own insignificance. This isn't pessimistic or devaluing; quite the contrary: it reminds us that what is 'real' is often intangible and what is really important is not necessarily what's right in front of us.