I
I
I is but a letter, yet as expressive of person is as important a one as can be, and when used with peculiar and special respect to JEHOVAH, and spoken by himself, is infinitely dignified indeed. JEHOVAH in his threefold character of person graciously proclaims himself in his holy word by it, and in many instances repeats it both in identifying his person and being, and to express the glorious, incommunicable, and distinguishing nature of his existence. “I, even I, am the Lord, and beside me there is no Saviour.” (Isa 43:11) So again,”See (Deu 32:39) now that I, even I, am he, and there is no God with me: I kill, and I make alive, I wound, and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.”And this distinguishing feature in identifying JEHOVAH, is equally made use of by all the persons of the GODHEAD. See (Exo 3:14 with Joh 8:58; Mar 14:62. See also in reference to the identity of God the Holy Ghost, Act 10:19; Act 13:2; Act 13:4) In a subordinate sense, and by way of distinguishing both persons and things, all the creatures of God may be supposed to speak. Thus Moses, speaking of himself, saith “Who am I, and I should go unto Pharoah, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?” (Exo 3:11) And thus inferior creatures (Num 23:30) yea, even inanimate things, (Jdg 9:9; Jdg 9:11; Jdg 9:13)
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
I
(C.)
The One, which is engendered by Tao and which in turn engenders the Two (yin and yang). (Lao Tzu.) “The Formless is the One. The One has no compare in the universe . . . It is the Great Infinite and forms the Unity. It is the life of myriad generations, everlasting without beginning, and most mysterious. It enfolds the universe and opens the portal of Tao. . . . When the One is established and the myriad things are engendered, there is Tao.” (Huai-nan Tzu, d. 112 B.C.)
Unity of mind, “not allowing one impression to harm another.” (Hsun Tzu c 335-c 288 B.C.)
The number for Heaven, as two is the number for Earth. See Ta i and T’a i.
— W.T.C.
I
The method of difference in Neo-Mohist logic, which includes duality, absence of generic relationship, separateness, and dissimilarity. “Duality means that two things necessarily differ. Absence of generic relationship means to have no connection. Separateness means that things do not occupy the same space. Dissimilarity means having nothing in common.” See Mo che. — W.T.C.
I
Transference, a method of appellation or designation. “To name a puppy a dog is transference.” See Chu and Chia. (Neo-Mohism.) — W.T.C.
I
Change (often spelled yi), a fundamental principle of the universe, arising out of the interaction of the two cosmic forces of yin and yang, or passive and active principles, and manifested in natural phenomena, human affairs, and ideas. According to Confucian and Nco-Confucian cosmology, “In the system of Change, there is the Great Ultimate (T’ai Chi) which engenders the Two Modes (i). The Two Modes engender the Four Secondary Modes (hsiang), which in turn give rise to the Eight Trigirams (pa kua). These Eight Trigrams (or Elements) determine all good and evil and the great complexity of life.” Thus it involves in the first place, the meaning of i, or simplicity from which complexity is evolved, in the second place, the meaning of hsiang, that is, phenomenon, image, form, and in the third place, the idea of “production and reproduction.” — W.T.C.
I
(a) Subjective opinion; preconceived notion. (Corfucius, Neo-Confucianism.)
(b) The will, purpose, motive; idea; which is “operation of” and “emanation from” the mind with an objective in view (Chu Hsi, 1130-1200). It is called will “when the intuitive faculty, with its pure intelligence and clear understanding, is moved and becomes active.” (Wang Yang-ming, 1473-1529.) See Ch’eng i. — W.T.C.
I
Righteousness, justice; one of the four Confucian Fundamentals of the Moral Life (ssu tuan) and the Five Constant Virtues (wu ch’ang). It is the virtue “by which things are made proper,” “by which the world is regulated.” It means the proper application of filial piety. It means, as in Han Yu (767-824), “the proper application of the principle of true manhood (jen).” It also means the removal of evil in the world. Mencius (371-289 B.C.) said that “righteousness is man’s path, whereas true manhood is man’s mind.” Tung Chung-shu (177-104 B.C.) regarded it as the cardinal virtue by which one’s self is rectified, whereas benevolence (jen) is the virtue by which others are pacified. To the Nco-Confucians, “seriousness (ching) is to straighten one’s internal life and righteousness is to square one’s external life.” It is to regulate things and affairs by Reason (li). — W.T.C.
Fuente: The Dictionary of Philosophy
I
is the nominative case of the first personal pronoun. The pronoun, “I,” however, generally forms a part of the verb itself in Greek; thus luo itself means “I loose,” the pronoun being incorporated in the verb form. Where the pronoun ego is added to the verb, it is almost invariably, if not entirely, emphatic. The emphasis may not be so apparent in some instances, as e.g., Mat 10:16, but even here it may be taken that something more of stress is present than if the pronoun were omitted. By far the greater number of instances are found in the Gospel of John, and there in the utterances of the Lord concerning Himself, e.g., Joh 4:14, Joh 4:26, Joh 4:32, Joh 4:38; Joh 5:34, Joh 5:36, Joh 5:43, Joh 5:45; Joh 6:35, Joh 6:40-41, Joh 6:48, Joh 6:51 (twice), Joh 6:63, Joh 6:70; instances in the Epistles are Rom 7:9, Rom 7:14, Rom 7:17, Rom 7:20 (twice), Rom 7:24-25; there are more in that chapter than in any other outside the Gospel of John. In other cases of the pronoun than the nominative, the pronoun is usually more necessary to the meaning, apart from any stress. For k’ago (i.e., kai ego), see EVEN, Note (6).