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!

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.

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.

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....

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

Jeg vet ikke hva de sier. Kanskje det er en form for fremmede. Uansett hva det er jeg sikker på at vi ikke mangler mye

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?

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)

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.

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.

I like to go to church so I can judge people.Im good at it.