This part of existence: I AM.

[Don Juan]

This part of existence, i.e. I am, still gives me goose bumps, remaining a deep mystery I struggle to understand...not so much a question of who or what I am, but a question of after realizing who and what, a mysterious secret still remains...this presence...this awareness...this experience in my point of view...this I am...

[Keep_Relentless]

I propose that first we should look at what we are not, for this problem.

[Don Juan]

It seems that looking at what we are not also teases the mystery. Having the awareness of who we are and what we are depends also to a degree of knowing what we are not. This mystery, this awareness, this lifetime within my point of view, seems like a particle popping in and out of existence...How exactly a unique particle is...How exactly a unique 'I am' emerged and this unique 'I am' is me...I am...I am....I am...I am...How exactly this happened. Home come the unique personal awareness that I am... Wonderful and it make me sigh, I am so puzzled.

[Keep_Relentless]

I think that question will yield as few answers as "How is everything?", especially as for you your mind grasps and defines existence.
We can believe in dreams that everything is a reflection from within or part of the self.

[Don Juan]

That makes sense. I have no way of understanding except to know and reflect upon the relationships and wholeness. Everything has to be existence and I cannot imagine of "what's beyond". It is as if I am inside the Matrix waiting for someone to wake me up in the real world, except that this real world may "mean" to "un-know", to "stop thinking and become quiet", to relinquish all mind processes...to be just like "how it was" "before" birth and "how it is" "after" death.

[littletrio]

Joel Osteen, the Houston based tv minister; has a series called I AM. It is wonderful piece of work. I would recommend it to anybody that wants to gain insights to the "banality of evil" and why the primitive, malicious, human destroys, instead of creates.

[Gregorygregg1]

That makes sense. I have no way of understanding except to know and reflect upon the relationships and wholeness. Everything has to be existence and I cannot imagine of "what's beyond". It is as if I am inside the Matrix waiting for someone to wake me up in the real world, except that this real world may "mean" to "un-know", to "stop thinking and become quiet", to relinquish all mind processes...to be just like "how it was" "before" birth and "how it is" "after" death.

From one perspective, no one is unique. Our individuality is like a fassett of an insects eye. It is only when we integrate the I Am, that we are really I Am. We are the awareness.

[littletrio]

From one perspective, no one is unique. Our individuality is like a fassett of an insects eye. It is only when we integrate the I Am, that we are really I Am. We are the awareness.

Gregory, if that is the case...Wouldn't consciousness be the awareness that integrates the "I am" from the "Me"

Suppose that the collective unconscious is a valid entity. Our thoughts as energy will form a web which is tied together into a collective. Your conscious thought will inturn create a unconscious impression that will continue to pop up and feed the collective. This conscious thought could be something your heard, saw, rumor, whatever; but the unconscious grabs ahold of the impression and continues to run it. This is picked up by the unconscious of other humans, who in turn, will base judgements off of this sensation, even though it is just a thought. What humans perceive is just a minute ability compared to what they unconsciously see.

This is why I AM, has a inherent life; This is why I Am, makes its all possible; This is why I AM, can change your life.

[Percarus]

* I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am
* I think therefore I am (Je pense, donc je suis) – René Descartes
* I am, therefore I think
* I AM
* I live!
* I live…

The top three aspects above may only prove that the consciousness exists but I would argue that a statement such as ‘I AM’ bears credence that our thoughts manifests as proof of our existence in a material term if philosophised. Sure, one can be content with the notion of ‘I AM’, but by ‘being’ do you actually ‘live’?! The addition of an ellipsis adds further meaning to the statement because it indicates that the very essence of life is ongoing and prone to interpretation of the senses. The aspect of life is one of bewilderment and excitement, after all for one to be he/she/it has to accept the ‘I AM’ but mere acceptance of your own existence does not really insinuate that you really ‘live live’. Life is an ongoing process and maybe indeed one day you will wake up as a butterfly that was just dreaming, or then again, maybe not. In accepting our present reality we have to focus in what directly impacts us, and our consciousness. When René Descartes made the famous statement he ascertained the existence of consciousness but by openly declaring that we ‘live’ we are better appreciative to the joys of life itself. It is a process of surrendering to one self, surrendering to the accrued bounds of reality, it is acceptance and by acceptance one brings to his/her/it’s self peace and fulfillment as one can focus on other aspects pertaining to the very nature of consciousness.

Surrendering bears religious significance in that we give faith to an ideal, a notion, and in that every regards it may affect our individuality and free will towards something that life itself may have destined for us mayhap through nature. In a pantheistic perspective everything around us lives with us, and when questioning the facets of the ‘I am’ or ‘live...’ we are giving credence to acceptance of ‘the other’. Truly enlightening hey... So having ascertained that I have a consciousness, and having surrendered that ‘I am’ and ‘others are’ I can then begin on the glorious notion that ‘I live!’. Yes, I live...

[moranity]

when decarte said "i think therefore i am" he meant "i am concious therefore i am" he did not mean having thoughts about things, which are just sense objects like any other, but the awareness of sensation, any sensation or sensation itself, conciousness, experience, of sensation.
he was trying to find out, if all sensation was an illusion created by a demon, what would be trustworthy, what would be true, even if all sensation was illusion.
if conciousness was plugged into a virtual world which created all sense objects, the one thing that could not be simulated was conciousness of sensation.
so he meant conciousness, not thought.
i agree with him that consciousness(the I that experiences) is a truth that can be built on.
the objects of consciousness can be faked but not consciousnes itself

[owleye]

don juan...

Something so trenchant and profound from that which is the most unremarkable fact of the world. A true philosopher in the making, I'd say.

James

[Don Juan]

It haunts me owleye, this 'I AM'-ness in my point of view, this uniqueness. This 'I am'-ness I am aware of as an observer of myself becomes a great mystery to me. It exists, but how come? It has boundaries and yet it seems to be deep....like a black hole in which I am not permitted to know the rest directly. It's like a question of a beginning, like a question of what's "beyond" the beginning, or is there a beginning. It feels like a "celestial body", "something" huge beyond my powers of comprehension. I hope for an answer and it may be simple and beautiful. This mystery is a part of the limits of emergent entities to which I belong - the interrelationships of my physical elements acting on certain boundaries caused an emergent property...this "I am". But from the "inside" of this experience, it is hard to think about the genesis...

This mystery starts with the premise:

1. I am.

And followed by the question:

2. How is it that I am? How come this unique I am in my private point of view?

[Positor]

Don Juan,

You may be interested in a thread I started last year on this very topic:

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=20441

[owleye]

Don Juan,

You may be interested in a thread I started last year on this very topic:

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=20441

Note that Don Juan was already involved in that thread, as I discovered when I opened it up. I also noted that I made a few responses as well. How time flies by.

James

[littletrio]

Don Juan, are you sure that the "I am" judgement is not just your conscious thought of another's opinion or thought? This may seem odd but, if, our unconscious thoughts are tied together could this be a thought of another, then transcending onto your conscious mind. The reason I am asking this question is....I have never entertained this thought, unless I was interpreting anothers exformation. Can you relate to this?

[Don Juan]

The focus is within my own perspective and awareness. First is this awareness in my point of view, so personal, and then followed by this question, how come this awareness in my point of view? I am faced with this puzzle. I am not concerned with what is yours or another’s thought, but only concerned with this personal point of view. In the same manner, if any one of you is also faced with this problem, it is primarily personal because it comes from one’s own awareness and wonder of this awareness. I could not say that this is a thought of another because that is not what I am aware of. What I am aware of is I am, in my own perspective, my own point of view – this I can confirm at least for my self.

Before you can admit that you do not entertain this kind of thought, the condition of “I” must be there first, as further suggested by your very statement, “…I have never entertained this thought…”– it is so fundamental that it is hard to notice how not entertaining the thought presupposes you – that awareness from/in your point of view and experience.

In my case I noticed this awareness…that is, an awareness of my own awareness, and therefore, since I am, I begin to wonder, how come I am? I am beginning to self-reference and study this very awareness that I am.

Regarding what you said, possibly I can relate to that experience by which a person tries to be in someone else’s perspective. Still, the distinction between someone else and one’s own suggests stable recognition of the “I” as different from the other, that is, at least the boundary between “I” and another’s thought is distinct even unconsciously..

I can treat this I am as an emergent property of my physical elements complexly associated with each other in a dynamic level that maintains it. This I am-ness then can be like the shapes of the clouds or the smoke, or the passing of the rain, the tornado, etc…It is stable for a while, it has a beginning and it will come to an end. Just like the shapes of smoke disappear in time, and so this awareness in my point of view…that state of my physical elements in which there is no more I am, as these elements continue to its last stages of organization, a transition towards disintegration and decay.

However if "I am", this personal point of view, is an emergent property, and if knowledge in the future has come to that high level in which emergent properties can be created and recreated, then possibly this unique awareness, its structural relations and its crucial boundaries (including the personal perspective or point of view) can be recreated.

[ronjanec]

Don Juan,

I am not really sure what you are actually trying to figure out here? Maybe why we are actually aware of I, or our own personal existence?

1. Our ability to actually see and feel our own personal distinct body, and then also recognize what this actually represents or means in our personal thoughts.

2. Our ability to actually see and feel the same body move, and then compare this to other existing things, and again recognize what this actually represents or means in our personal thoughts("this is only my personal movement" "When I move this does not also effect them" "I am actually different from the others" "they are not me, and I am not them' "I am unique")

3. Our ability to actually effect the other existing things around when we choose to do so, and our observation that is only me or I causing and also initiating this("I did this")

4. Our ability to recognize other things doing something or causing something that we had absolutely nothing to do with("they did this not me"

I may have possibly missed another reason or two here, but all of the things I just mentioned here, and again each in their own particular way, make each and every one of us constantly aware of our own very personal and unique existence or I am, or I exist.

[Don Juan]

Given I am aware of myself and all the reasons why I am aware, how come I am? How come this uniqueness, this personal point of view that I am? How come I exist? I emerged in this universe as my body gradually developed, from fertilization to full adult features. As I have no awareness of how I emerged, it will be the same condition, I believe, as I fade into death. This I am, this uniqueness and awareness, this segment, has no explanation except what we can notice about our body and its dynamics, that is, I am an emergent property of my body and how this body is associated with the rest of the universe. This point of view and uniqueness, this I am, is like anything else in the universe in terms of the dynamic organization that gives rise to it and supports it. Just like the flame, the trees, the wind, our body, etc, this I am will disappear as the underlying material organization disintegrates...like those changing shapes in a smoke that emerge, stay for a while and then eventually disappear.

[ronjanec]

Given I am aware of myself and all the reasons why I am aware, how come I am? How come this uniqueness, this personal point of view that I am? How come I exist? I emerged in this universe as my body gradually developed, from fertilization to full adult features. As I have no awareness of how I emerged, it will be the same condition, I believe, as I fade into death. This I am, this uniqueness and awareness, this segment, has no explanation except what we can notice about our body and its dynamics, that is, I am an emergent property of my body and how this body is associated with the rest of the universe. This point of view and uniqueness, this I am, is like anything else in the universe in terms of the dynamic organization that gives rise to it and supports it. Just like the flame, the trees, the wind, our body, etc, this I am will disappear as the underlying material organization disintegrates...like those changing shapes in a smoke that emerge, stay for a while and then eventually disappear.

Why do you exist? Well, if you ask someone like me, I will tell you that I believe that God created the most important part of you: Or your immortal soul(or the unique you that exists inside your body and mind somewhere) You can of course thank your parents and ancestors for the rest of you.

[Don Juan]

Like you, I haven't lost sight on faith. I too believe in God, but I press on physical explanation for more immediate answers. I cannot say that God made me because that will become a simplification which can be false. I cannot even say God made the universe. First, the verb "made" will not apply to God, because the verb exists in the universe and subject to the laws of the universe. Instead I have to think in this way, God "made" the universe, with the suggestion that there is an ambiguity in the meaning of made or any verb thereof applied to God. Because this "action" suggested by "made" must be beyond the laws of the universe, and I do not really know about that. Now that we have some concrete indications that possibly there is a Higg's boson, that is, at the level of 5 sigma, but still we do not know what lies beyond this observations of the Higg's. If there is God, then God must be beyond these things, way too far for us to comprehend, may be way too far from the processes of the Higg's, since we have to consider how it "is" when all the laws of the universe breaks down or do not exist. It seems equivalent to saying that there is no God at all (because to know God is to go beyond the laws of this universe, and I don't know if it can be done. First, "I am" is an emergent property of the universe and if the laws of the universe break, and so we do too.). It seems that giving God's creation as an explanation contributes an even larger mystery to the question of "I am". It makes it extra complicated.

[ronjanec]

I do not mean to offend you in any way Don Juan, but I believe you are making this way too complicated at least in regards to God. No, we cannot of course personally understand him in many ways because he is way beyond our human comprehension. But even poor little me can at least understand him in some very important ways, because he gave all of us the ability to understand him in the same ways or for example;

What is God? God is love pure and simple. If we want to be like God, then we are to love one another just like he loves every one of us. Some really important observations that we can make about God are very simple and really easy to understand just like this one. How God made everything in existence is of course a completely different matter.

[Don Juan]

I do not mean to offend you in any way Don Juan, but I believe you are making this way too complicated at least in regards to God. No, we cannot of course personally understand him in many ways because he is way beyond our human comprehension. But even poor little me can at least understand him in some very important ways, because he gave all of us the ability to understand him in the same ways or for example;

I think what God has endowed us is the ability to explore and understand existence and this universe. If there is God, and if God lies “beyond”, this universe serves as an interface between man and God. There seems to be a possibility that we cannot reach “beyond”, because to do so would deny us the very organization on which our consciousness depends. So with this interface, how can it represent God roughly or an aspect of God? You have then at least love, but remember that love still belongs to the interface.

What is God? God is love pure and simple.

It is not that simple ronjanec because in other parts of the holy text, there are also mention of God being Spirit and other statements such us: But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." (Exodus 33:20) What does these mean? These mean we have to consider context when we think about God and the context is built or represented upon by the associations of concepts attributed to God, the distinctions between man and God, and those God created. But of course for purposes of faith and guide in conduct, God is love can be enough. But for asking origins and nature, it may not be.

If we want to be like God, then we are to love one another just like he loves every one of us. Some really important observations that we can make about God are very simple and really easy to understand just like this one. How God made everything in existence is of course a completely different matter.

In a very Christian way, God has showed us how to live by giving Christ as an example. A part of God has become a part of the interface or the matrix that is the universe. So if a part of God who always “knew” God actually lives among us, how it would be like, given the human condition and the condition of the universe, and the life of Christ has answered this. I like Christianity because of the idea of love, even the idea of loving your enemy, of course it means not denying basic human rights to your enemies. This idea is becoming more and more potent as more and more Christians reflect upon Christ’s ideas. If one wants to be an extremist Christian, then he has to follow this teaching to the extreme. God is basically “saying” to man in the life of Jesus Christ, “If I were you, I would live life this way.”

We have not truly understood God per se, but what we understand is the interface, what it would look like if God becomes a part of the interface and take the form of man. Our consciousness and this “I am” is confined to this universe and to the laws of this universe as much as it is an emergent property of a physical organization in us.

[ronjanec]

Don Juan,

God is love. This is the true meaning of God, or the most important thing you can ever say about him. It really is that simple. I have personally spent many years reading the Bible, and studying the life of Jesus, and at the end of the day, it basically all boiled down to this. If someone wants to know God and try to be like him, then we are to try our best to personally love one another.

Yes, God is also pleased with your worship of him and attendence in temple, mosque, or church, and in your praying to him during the day, and trying to obey his Ten Commandments: And he is also pleased with your giving to charity, fasting, and trying not to sin, but again, and at the end of the day, and above all other things, he wants us to love one another if we truly want to please him. And this is perfect religion.

After you understand God in the most important way, then you can try to understand the other things concerning the nature of God, or like the other things you mentioned.

[Don Juan]

Don Juan,

God is love. This is the true meaning of God, or the most important thing you can ever say about him. It really is that simple. I have personally spent many years reading the Bible, and studying the life of Jesus, and at the end of the day, it basically all boiled down to this. If someone wants to know God and try to be like him, then we are to try our best to personally love one another.

I can spend my whole life reading the Bible with the same glasses and conclude the same thing. Understanding of the Bible then also depends on the glasses one uses. I can see that you haven’t yet noticed a distinction between God and God’s manifestations, or between man and his manifestations. That God is love is not the whole story if we want to “understand” God. There is a fundamental difference between man and God, between ‘I AM’ when it refers to God and ‘I am’ when it refers to man, between the universe and God. Ronjanec notice:

De. 4:24 For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

De. 9:3 But be assured today that the LORD your God is the one who goes across ahead of you like a devouring fire.

2Sa. 22:3 my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation.

Jn. 4:24 God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth.

He 4:4 …God is the builder of everything.

1Jn. 1:5 …God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

1Jn. 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (You are probably basing your arguments to this verse and the verse that follows).

1Jn. 4:16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

Notice that the linking verb ‘is’ is used to link additional information to God and the information is not about God per se, but about God’s manifestations in the form man can understand, thus a part of an interface. It basically suggests that our experience is like an encapsulating opaque bubble, an infinite carpet in which we are viewing from the inside and we cannot know what’s beyond this bubble. Still in other words, all we see is an infinite carpet in which we cannot know what’s underneath. The “creation” of man made him emerge in existence, but it is also a process of encapsulation, that is, the very organization he is made of… limits him as much as this give him the ability to know. When God “pokes” from the other side, we see it as “bumps” and we name these “bumps” love, light, consuming fire, rock, Christ, ourselves, etc, etc. This interface provides for flexibility and multiple manifestations (on God’s part) and yet maintains a unity in communicating God’s messages to man. If you have read the Bible in multiple glasses, it will not be that simple as you tried to say.

There is a basic boundary between man and God as God have said:

Ex. 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Man is not permitted to know God, only His manifestations, for additional examples (but with distortions of reality) – the burning bush and all the miracles, etc etc. And it is also said:

Ex. But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

Is the Bible contradicting itself when it is said God is light in one verse, and then God is love in another, and still in another, God cannot be seen? I think not, but not for the reason that the sole meaning is ‘God is love’, but for the reason that there is an underlying relationships between the concepts used beyond the printed words.

If you have not still noticed the pattern, Jesus also used it. Jesus was a Biblical person, son of Mary, a friend to his followers and an enemy to some teachers in his time. But when he said something of himself, what was written? It’s about his manifestations:

Jn 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

It was about action, what he showed us, what he thought us and what he hoped for in faith.

[owleye]

Of course "God is love" is a bit ridiculous in the form it is expressed, though it is not unreasonable to conclude that what is meant is that as part of the Christian faith, Jesus emphasized love (stripped as it might be of any lust we might think is included in it) as the answer. Moreover, that love should be applied in every circumstance in which one needs to resolve the disputes we find in our lives. And since humans have the ability to love, such a "love is the answer" might be something that makes sense to many of us.

However, the Church appears to follow St. Thomas' interpretation of 'love', as a kind of reasoned or rational love, something that Kant exploited in his arguments that in effect supported the Church's position, especially as it applies to the "Golden Rule", which is also a defining position of Jesus. Then, again, as we all know, Christianity has its liberal interpretation which emphasizing this doctrine and its conservative interpretation which makes use of more of a rule-based, governing body that governed every aspect of our lives, including our thoughts, especially of the lustful kind).

James

[ronjanec]

Well, and as I did say in my last post gentlemen, I am not trying to actually imply that "God is love" is the whole story: I am again just saying that if someone wants to really know and understand God, and then also try to be like him, all the other things you may learn about the actual nature of God will pale in comparison to this, or at least in my opinion.

[Don Juan]

I agree ronjanec in a way I have to interpret that in my model, that is, 'God is love' translating into 'God's manifestation is love'. These manifestations are aspects of what God "does" or can "do". This perspective put us in our proper place, as man, and reminds us of the dangers of pride (and this is also a reason it seems why the command to love is broken into two to provide a form of check), thus we can also manifest love and we do this from our standpoint (as we follow God's request), not directly from the standpoint of God, or a god. By loving one another, we become aware of something about God, a very important aspect of God's manifestations, the aspect we can understand. We can feel love and exercise it, and it's the most important rule in Christianity to heed. It is an idea that I have to remember always within this I am-ness. But then, this I am-ness remains a mystery.

[sponge]

This is just the kind of stuff that keeps me awake at night, Don Juan.

I’m beginning to wonder if there might be a clue in all the things that make this I Am unique to humans:

Having a capability for original and creative thinking,
Having a capability for unselfish love that seeks no reward,
Having a capability for intuitive understanding

It almost seems like a small-scale reflection of the aspects of God – the light, the love, the way.