Page 1 of 2

I am.

Posted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:09 pm
by Flapjack
I would like to explore the "I am" thing again. What's up with that? What does it mean? Why do we say it? Is it a complete sentence?

(((I) noun phrase) ((am) verb phrase) complete sentence) Is that right? Any linguists out there?

Is it the same name Moses heard in Exodus: the Self-existing One, the Self-sustaining one? Holy Cheeses!

What's up with that? I only said it once, but I stopped having those egocentric, Messiah trips so I can't really say. I'm opt to think it's an illusion because I'm really not THAT cool in real life. Yet still, it's a universal phenomenon. There are hundreds of witnesses to it. Like nightmares, but no one pays them much attention. Let's just forget all about it and drift swiftly away to death.

What am I even talking about? O yea, I am. What's that mean? Do you think you are Messiah?

Re: I am.

Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:11 pm
by (^inf
My understanding of 'I' is thats its my model ( or my understanding ) of the part of my experience that's inside my senses. But then 'I' can become extended or blurred if I couple other sensors to my senses.

I can disconnect my physical senses in dreams and with the help of certain plants and then where am 'I' left? At higher doses they start modifying my understanding and memory as well, hopefully in constructive ways.

'Am' tends to imply 'exists' but the closer physicists try to pin down existence the more it turns into a flow of understanding instead. 'I' before i started writing this is now gone and Im something slightly different to before so existence seems more like a state of a flowing model to me.

I hope salvia or salvialover can deepen this...

Re: I am.

Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:56 pm
by minderbinder
to me it means simply "i exist"

Re: I am.

Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:57 am
by Flapjack
Has anyone had this experience happen twice? I think it can only happen once.

I recall it only happening once when swim was on one of his first psychedelic experiences, and he started saying "I am" over and over again.

It's like your whole life you are basically told that you're insignificant, and that your dreams aren't real, and that you are suppose to do this and that or you're a loser; but psychedelics tend to sort of change your perception of yourself, and you start to see yourself as another person, like your dream self, or maybe, the person you've always wanted to be.

So, you say, "I am." I am that.

That's my take on it. It's like a transfigured you.

Maybe it just enables you to see the true potential of yourself. Not necessarily who you are, but what you could be, like a preview. Yet, it remains undefined.

I think that only happens once though, because I've had odd experiences that lean toward the opposite, where I am confronted with the possibility that I may be retarded or some kind of weird alien creature, robot or sack bladder, transmogrified.

Re: I am.

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 6:10 pm
by (^inf
Ive had to read that a few times flapjack, but yeah. I think 'I am' was a growing up self identity thing.

Re: I am.

Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:20 pm
by Rising Spirit
minderbinder wrote:to me it means simply "i exist"
Agreed. "I am" essentially equates to "I exist" and is an affirmation of our individual self-awareness. When we consciously follow the I-thought back to it's direct source... we arrive to that ineffable mystery, one which does not allow for any dualistic paradigm to exist.

One effectively losses oneself, to find one's true self. The big question is this, is self a singular of universal concept? It's simply wonderful to embrace this attunement and immersion within the Unified Field of Being. But who watches the watcher, watching itself watch itself? "Mirror, mirror on the wall." :lol:

Re: I am.

Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:59 pm
by minderbinder
i often have trouble seeing the watcher at all - can't go out of my sight, even if that sounds like a very shallow joke :)

there is this saying that this "i" does not exist at all, but despite that i still am :D
or so i guess ...

Re: I am.

Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:12 pm
by jbmac
Alan Watts said that we are are a combination of what is happening to us and our nervous systems.

Re: I am.

Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:47 pm
by minderbinder
it seems to me to be impossible to get over the "i" while still believing in a "perceiver". but i still believe it's possible. but to believe not to exist is just pointless. all it needs is a loving smack with a hammer to the thumb to make clear the factual uselessness of such sophisms for every days life. or am i wrong? is that to cheap? but if so, why not just stop that hallucination? i mean, to believe we are is all we got in this elsewise pointless charade. or, hm ...

Re: I am.

Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:02 am
by Flapjack
I think we definitely have separate individuality. It's somewhat offensive to say to someone, "We are the same; I know you; I am you." The truth of the matter is that you don't. You really don't know that person and you're not the same person. I think it's more interesting to take all of our differences into deeper consideration, and to know that you can't really know anyone, not even yourself, one hundred percent. We are all the same biologically, for the most part. Physically we are more or less the same, but that isn't true either. Psychically we are different as well. There is a lot that contributes to each person's distinct characteristics and personal traits. We don't all live the same life or see the same things. We may appear similar on the outside, but you do not know what it is like to be inside another person's mind.

What separates us from DaVinci, Newton or Einstein? Were they in tune with this ego-less sense of self? Absolutely not. Are their contributions to humanity in vain? We all still will die. Are we equally worthless? As the wise man dies, so dies the fool. What has one over the over? Even their fame will one day die. What is the meaning of it?