Topic: Why are YOU so special?
no photo
Thu 12/11/08 01:30 PM



I have a dog on my side and feel everything is special:smile:


Dog is my co-pilot!

drinker Mine too, and I know dog, because he is my best friend! I even have empirical evidence of dog's existence . . just look at my profile and see the beauty of DOG!


Now you made me do itfrustrated

I usually don't crawl into people's profilestears

But it's a beautiful dogflowerforyou

no photo
Thu 12/11/08 01:37 PM


When we speak of ourselves, we say ' I am... (whatever, name, emotion, gender...) "

We identify the 'I' part of the statement as being us... who we are, all encompassing.

I disagree, and identify the 'I am..." part of me as ego... and NOT the authentic part of the who of me...

the 'I' discribes the what.... however that is not me....it is the who, that is me.


Ack, I still don't get the message. Dangit. Oh well .. I AM confused by it at the moment, but I'll work on it.. grin!

SkyHook5652's photo
Thu 12/11/08 02:45 PM
Edited by SkyHook5652 on Thu 12/11/08 02:47 PM

When we speak of ourselves, we say ' I am... (whatever, name, emotion, gender...) "

We identify the 'I' part of the statement as being us... who we are, all encompassing.

I disagree, and identify the 'I am..." part of me as ego... and NOT the authentic part of the who of me...

the 'I' discribes the what.... however that is not me....it is the who, that is me.

"I" understand what you're getting at "I" think. :wink:

To me it is unnecessarily confusing.

"I" is the subject and "am ____" is the predicate (basic grammar school English).

The syntax of the English language is such that the predicate is a description or attribute of the subject. In other words, the predicate is "about ____". Thus the subject is by definition always the "who" and the predicate is the "what" (or where or when or why or how or whatever).

So to my way of thinking (and speaking/writing the English language), "I" is the "who" and "am _____" is the "what".

When I use the word "I" (or any of the conjugations thereof) I am referring to what you describe as "the authentic part of the who of me". If I wanted to refer to the ego or the body or the mind, I would specifically say "my ego" or "my body" or "my mind". I would not say "me" when referring to any of those things.

But of course that's just the way I use the language. Others use it differently.

no photo
Thu 12/11/08 04:15 PM

To me it is unnecessarily confusing.



Sky, you sweetheart you..

To me both explanations are confusing. I haven't been in English class in over 40 years. I have no idea what you said either.. grin!

Now maybe if you think you know what they said, you could explain it more simply to me. I feel as if I might be missing something important but I don't always understand the way some folks write.

So what did they mean? I don't even know if they were responding to me, but if they were I would like to understand what they are saying.

So could you or anyone put it in another way? Maybe I am just dense, I can't figure out why I don't get it.. LOL

Jess642's photo
Fri 12/12/08 12:43 PM


To me it is unnecessarily confusing.



Sky, you sweetheart you..

To me both explanations are confusing. I haven't been in English class in over 40 years. I have no idea what you said either.. grin!

Now maybe if you think you know what they said, you could explain it more simply to me. I feel as if I might be missing something important but I don't always understand the way some folks write.

So what did they mean? I don't even know if they were responding to me, but if they were I would like to understand what they are saying.

So could you or anyone put it in another way? Maybe I am just dense, I can't figure out why I don't get it.. LOL


Must be my accent....laugh



no photo
Fri 12/12/08 01:51 PM

Must be my accent....laugh


LOL. Not to worry, could very well just be me!! I still don't get it, I am just less obsessed with figuring it out today than I was yesterday.. grin!

One day it will just hit me and I'll get it finally. :smile:

no photo
Fri 12/12/08 01:57 PM
Jeg vet ikke hva de sier. Kanskje det er en form for fremmede. Uansett hva det er jeg sikker på at vi ikke mangler myelaugh

SkyHook5652's photo
Fri 12/12/08 02:32 PM
Edited by SkyHook5652 on Fri 12/12/08 02:36 PM
To me it is unnecessarily confusing.
Sky, you sweetheart you..

To me both explanations are confusing. I haven't been in English class in over 40 years. I have no idea what you said either.. grin!

Now maybe if you think you know what they said, you could explain it more simply to me. I feel as if I might be missing something important but I don't always understand the way some folks write.

So what did they mean? I don't even know if they were responding to me, but if they were I would like to understand what they are saying.

So could you or anyone put it in another way? Maybe I am just dense, I can't figure out why I don't get it.. LOL


Sorry boo. Didn’t mean to make it more confusing. Let me try a different angle...

There is "me".

And then there are things that "I" can be.

Like "I am a musician" or "I am cold" or "I am late".

So there is a thing that is being discussed, (the 'subject') and there is all the stuff that is being said about that thing (the 'predicate’).

In all the above examples, "I" is the subject and everything following it is the predicate.

That's the "English" part of it.

Now in our conversation, we were talking about the separation or difference between the “essence” of a person, (call it the soul or spirit if you like) and all the other stuff that is not the person, but which we associate exclusively with that person. (mind, body, personality, etc.)

So for example, you can “be” a whole bunch of things (a musician, a shopper, a driver, a child, a parent, a consumer, a democrat, a Christian, etc.) but the “essence of you” never changes, regardless of what you are “being” at any given time.

And to pull the two ideas together (“English” and “essence of you”), whenever I use the word "I", I am referring to that “essence of you” which is always the ‘subject’. And everything I say about "I" is the ‘predicate’.

Now Jess seemed to be saying that he does not mean “essence” when he says “I”, but instead he means something else.

And that’s where my confusion started. There didn’t seem to be any way to talk about “essence” because he said the word “I” meant something else. Basically taking away the only word I new of that could be used to refer to "the essence that is me”.

Does that help at all?

SkyHook5652's photo
Fri 12/12/08 02:34 PM
Edited by SkyHook5652 on Fri 12/12/08 02:37 PM
Jeg vet ikke hva de sier. Kanskje det er en form for fremmede. Uansett hva det er jeg sikker på at vi ikke mangler myelaugh
What he said.

(What did he say???) :laughing:

no photo
Fri 12/12/08 02:36 PM
I'm special cause there aint noone else.....

Like me!!!!!!!!

and Y'all should be dayummmmm glad of that!!!!!

no photo
Fri 12/12/08 02:38 PM
I am special because my mommy said solaugh

no photo
Fri 12/12/08 03:11 PM

To me it is unnecessarily confusing.
Sky, you sweetheart you..

To me both explanations are confusing. I haven't been in English class in over 40 years. I have no idea what you said either.. grin!

Now maybe if you think you know what they said, you could explain it more simply to me. I feel as if I might be missing something important but I don't always understand the way some folks write.

So what did they mean? I don't even know if they were responding to me, but if they were I would like to understand what they are saying.

So could you or anyone put it in another way? Maybe I am just dense, I can't figure out why I don't get it.. LOL


Sorry boo. Didn’t mean to make it more confusing. Let me try a different angle...

There is "me".

And then there are things that "I" can be.

Like "I am a musician" or "I am cold" or "I am late".

So there is a thing that is being discussed, (the 'subject') and there is all the stuff that is being said about that thing (the 'predicate’).

In all the above examples, "I" is the subject and everything following it is the predicate.

That's the "English" part of it.

Now in our conversation, we were talking about the separation or difference between the “essence” of a person, (call it the soul or spirit if you like) and all the other stuff that is not the person, but which we associate exclusively with that person. (mind, body, personality, etc.)

So for example, you can “be” a whole bunch of things (a musician, a shopper, a driver, a child, a parent, a consumer, a democrat, a Christian, etc.) but the “essence of you” never changes, regardless of what you are “being” at any given time.

And to pull the two ideas together (“English” and “essence of you”), whenever I use the word "I", I am referring to that “essence of you” which is always the ‘subject’. And everything I say about "I" is the ‘predicate’.

Now Jess seemed to be saying that he does not mean “essence” when he says “I”, but instead he means something else.

And that’s where my confusion started. There didn’t seem to be any way to talk about “essence” because he said the word “I” meant something else. Basically taking away the only word I new of that could be used to refer to "the essence that is me”.

Does that help at all?



Ok so first I have to understand what you are saying here, so let me scan that a few dozen times and get that first. then maybe the original poster will rephrase his post and I can match it up and finally get what the heck was said. Grin.

I just think that was something to what he said that I found interesting in an odd way, but wasn't able to get it out of riddle form.. lol

K? Give me some time, I will respost what I think you just said here, then let me know if I at least got that right.. LOL

Thanks for taking the time to explain it in such detail.. :thumbsup:

hellkitten54's photo
Fri 12/12/08 07:58 PM

Which 'you' are you asking?

The 'I' that is my ego?

Or the 'I' that is quietly and consciously aware?

Or the 'I' that is the collective energy/consciousness?


Which 'you' are you referring to?

(Pssst!... Sometimes I suspect that identification with something (organised religion) is not always a good thing):wink:


If you think you fit the criteria, then I'm talking about you. If not, then I'm talking about other humans.:heart:

Maikuru's photo
Sat 12/13/08 06:18 AM
Organized religions tend to just be forms of controls for the masses, not to mention handy money gathering operations. Next to currupt governments, organized religious institutions tend to follow suit. I tend to believe in being more philosophical and spiritual then being tied to a religious institution. Unlike those tied to religions i am willing to accept the fact that i don't know everything and that i should probably question everything. So am i "special". No certainly not and nor would i dare to presume i know better or am better than anyone else. Frankly i quite content being simple old me besides the smarter or wiser people think you are the more trouble you get into. :tongue: laugh :wink:

beautyfrompain's photo
Sat 12/13/08 08:17 AM
Psalm 2


[1] Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
[2] The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
[3] Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
[4] He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
[5] Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
[6] Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
[7] I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
[8] Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
[9] Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
[10] Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
[11] Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
[12] Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

MirrorMirror's photo
Sat 12/13/08 12:06 PM
pitchfork I like to go to church so I can judge people.devilIm good at it.:tongue:

hellkitten54's photo
Sat 12/13/08 01:59 PM

Psalm 2


[1] Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
[2] The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
[3] Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
[4] He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
[5] Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
[6] Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
[7] I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
[8] Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
[9] Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
[10] Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
[11] Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
[12] Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.



So whats your point in posting this? Really.whoa whoa offtopic

hellkitten54's photo
Sat 12/13/08 01:59 PM
Edited by hellkitten54 on Sat 12/13/08 02:00 PM
arrrrgh, im a pirate girl.

hellkitten54's photo
Sat 12/13/08 01:59 PM

Organized religions tend to just be forms of controls for the masses, not to mention handy money gathering operations. Next to currupt governments, organized religious institutions tend to follow suit. I tend to believe in being more philosophical and spiritual then being tied to a religious institution. Unlike those tied to religions i am willing to accept the fact that i don't know everything and that i should probably question everything. So am i "special". No certainly not and nor would i dare to presume i know better or am better than anyone else. Frankly i quite content being simple old me besides the smarter or wiser people think you are the more trouble you get into. :tongue: laugh :wink:


flowerforyou

hellkitten54's photo
Sat 12/13/08 02:01 PM

pitchfork I like to go to church so I can judge people.devilIm good at it.:tongue:


Your good at everything.pitchfork