Thank you, Ivo, for the nice reply!

However, please: (i) limit it to Christianity, since Buddhism is quite different from Christianity; (ii) what do you mean by 'critical observation'? (iii) mysticists are supposedly human beings. Are they able to completely observe themselves?

Thanks again for your answer. Marc.

What comes under the sub-ject names the ob-ject. Although scientists refuse to recognize how objectification of nature constitutes their own social identity, fiction reflects on this simple linguistic data. The speaking subject acquires its real social and personal identification by opposing itself to a listening subject, often transformed into a simple mute object to be analyzed. The brief story “Axolotl” by the Argentinean writer Julio Cortázar offers a testimonial account of this essential human duality. No subject without an object = No speaker (I) without a listener (You).

Marc - I am not entirely clear on your intent, but, taking it literally, religion may but need not be involved. We all are subject to our personal filters deriving from our cultures and from personal histories. Consequently, the self we reference is a construct derived from our experiences largely with others and it does influence our perception of others. The self we believe ourselves to possess necessarily impacts the identity between the observer and observed. To the extent they manifest different cultural personas, the resulting selfreference and identity will be greatly affected. I would strongly recommend a healthy dose of George Herbert Mead on this issue. Good luck.

A link between self-reference and identity can be established through the interdependence of a "sense of continuity" and "continuous sense of self".

"Humans either consciously or unconsciously “make sense of a continuity” between their past, present, and future. This sense of continuity is central to the development of an understanding of oneself, others, and the surrounding environment....

....thus "there must also be 'a continuous sense of self' in the human mind that enables a person to be sure every morning that he or she is the same person who went to sleep last night. This aspect of self, referred to as 'the ecological self,' allows one to perceive oneself with respect to physical environment, and to say 'I am the person here in this place, engaged in this particular activity' "

"The continuous sense of self and the sense of continuity can be relatively referred to as pre-reflective and reflective self. The pre-reflective self (the self-body) is the immediate and mostly unconscious experiencer of life. By contrast, the reflective self (i.e., reflecting upon what one feels, believes, or wishes) is the internal observer of what is consciously and unconsciously experienced ...."

In sum, this interdependence of the continuous sense and the sense of continuity can (i.e. self-reference) be deemed as the developmental process of identity. Individual differences in the sense of continuity between past and present experiences are likely to be a reason for why individuals with the same ethnocultural identity can have have different self-reference.

Should you be interested in further explanations, articles below may meet your concern.

Kuldas, S. & Bulut, S. (2016). What Is Called Self in Educational Research and Practice? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38:4, 200-211.

Mead, G. H. (1913). The social self. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 10, 374–380. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2012910

Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649–655. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.649

Martin, J. (2004). The educational inadequacy of conceptions of self in educational psychology. Interchange: A Quarterly Review of Education, 35, 185–208. doi:10.1007/BF02698849

Dear Seffetullah,

Thank you particularly for the list of publications that I am going to read. Marc.

Dear Ivo and Rafael,

Mysticism according to the christian faith might be quite different from other faiths. Thank you anyway for the answers! Marc.

Dear all,

Thanks for the answers upon which I have n't given any reply. Because the answers could be very extensive, please confine to: (a) the christian religion; (b) the philosophy of the christian religion (as distinct from the religious studies); (c) contemporary science (since logic, accordingly philosophy, is the foundation of any science; see one of the discussions at the RG).

Thanks for all extensive and broadminded answers! Marc.

Dear Larry,

Thank you for the extensive added reply and the link on neuroscience. However, I still have a couple of questions: (i) Please give me more examples of how Buddhism is opposed to Christianity; (ii) Please give me more links about how cognitive science and consciousness studies back Buddhism (accordingly excluding Christianity); (iii) My example in the original question ('you might be the flowing river itself') is itself a Buddhistic one.

Thanks again for your added reply! Marc.

Dear Larry,

Thanks a lot for the links you sent me. A couple of questions from me if you allow me to do that: (i) Please inform me more about progressive forms of christianity; (ii) Please inform me more about the Greek oriented christianity! What if christianity's homeland is semitic; (iii) Interesting is the question of free will in contemporary science (you mention Libet as neuroscientist) and contemporary christianity.

Again, thanks a lot for your answer!

Thank you Larry, for the extensive explanation and the many links I am surely going to read and meditate. Please send the full titles of:

(i) Gunton 2007; (ii) Hoffman 2007; Weiss 2005; and of course the book of Mark Kelland.

(iii) The 'self' is at this moment rather 'in' in the 'normal' science (see cognitive science or consciousness studies). This implies a sort of paradigmshift from 'objective knowledge' to 'subjective knowledge' allthough still maintaining the tenets of the 'objective knowledge'. Well, I am going to foster the 'subjective knowledge' while keeping the principles of the 'objective knowledge'. Would this be possible? Please give me some advises. Thank you. Marc.

Dear Larry,

Thank you for so many links and informations! I have to read them all before giving you any answer. Marc.