"I am"

[Blueskyboris]

is where philosophical suicide and political ideology start.

[Blueskyboris]

Say hello to "Boris", SC. I am going to be banned at TR.

[BWE]

lol. What are you going to do to manage that?

[BWE]

regarding the OP. Ok. I can go along with that sort of. Maybe even "it is" eh? :)

[Valheru]

Oh look, it's monsieur dumbfuckliberal. Howzit hanging, bro?

[Blueskyboris]

regarding the OP. Ok. I can go along with that sort of. Maybe even "it is" eh? :) Oh God, no!! DON'T ANSWER MY STATEMENT!!! SEND IT TO THE SMOKING SECTION, QUICK!!!


Um, WHY can you go along with that, sort of?

regarding the OP. Ok. I can go along with that sort of. Maybe even "it is" eh?

Not really. The "I am" is self definition, while the "It is" a presentation of the senses.

[Blueskyboris]

Oh look, it's monsieur dumbfuckliberal. Howzit hanging, bro? Good, Mr. Nazis Scum.

[BWE]

regarding the OP. Ok. I can go along with that sort of. Maybe even "it is" eh? :) Oh God, no!! DON'T ANSWER MY STATEMENT!!! SEND IT TO THE SMOKING SECTION, QUICK!!!
er.. Take a valium maybe?



Um, WHY can you go along with that, sort of?

Not really. The "I am" is self definition, while the "It is" a presentation of the senses.
Well, you said the beginning. I am happens after it is. Depending how you count I suppose. But it seems like either a blatantly obvious statement or an incomplete idea to me. Anyway, hth.

[Blueskyboris]

regarding the OP. Ok. I can go along with that sort of. Maybe even "it is" eh? :) Oh God, no!! DON'T ANSWER MY STATEMENT!!! SEND IT TO THE SMOKING SECTION, QUICK!!!
er.. Take a valium maybe?

It's called sarcasm.


Um, WHY can you go along with that, sort of?

Not really. The "I am" is self definition, while the "It is" a presentation of the senses.
Well, you said the beginning. I am happens after it is. Depending how you count I suppose. True, but the "I am" is a special form of "It is". Yes, it is a result of "It is", but it is still unique as a result.

But it seems like either a blatantly obvious statement or an incomplete idea to me. Anyway, hth. Well, I did post it to fish out the argument I've been working for the last three or four months.

I am making two distinctions: One between objective "It is" and subjective "I am" and another, which layers on top of the other, between the subjective "I am" and the objective "I am".

[Blueskyboris]

I am arguing that when you define yourself "I am x", you are limiting yourself. Limitation is the start of ideology.

[Blueskyboris]

Maybe this isn't controversial because this forum isn't populated by a bunch of Rush Limbaugh cock suckers (except for Valleyho!!, of course).

[BWE]

as defining 'it is' also limiting yourself.

[Blueskyboris]

I don't think so. How does me saying that "It is an apple" limit me?

[BWE]

By only ever allowing you to see the apple in that grouping again.

[RexT]

"I am" is just self-awareness. "It is" is just awareness of other.

People are conscious of stuff. What's the problem?

[Blueskyboris]

The problem is the limit of self-definition that "I am" causes.

[Valheru]

You're an idiot. Stating "I am X" does not imply that you cannot go on to say "In addition, I am Y", unless Y contradicts X without any special pleading. :rolleyes:

Of course, if you said "I, Blueskyboresus, am a dumbfuck liberal", that wouldn't be limiting - it would simply be accurate.

[Blueskyboris]

That is very nice, Ballywho, but in addition is an addition to "I am". It is not "I am" itself.

By itself, "I am" is the beginning of philosophical suicide and political ideology, as Ballywho has demonstrated perfectly in the post above.

[Valheru]

You're an idiot. (And you're invoking some special pleading).

You haven't demonstrated WHY statements of "I am" have to be atomic (or even why they are atomic (according to you) in the first place :rolleyes:)

Try again.

[Valheru]

One more thing. By extension to the shit you're puking up, one isn't allowed to describe yourself or what you believe in any way, "because that would be limiting".

Shall I coin a term for it? How about "Autonihilism"? THAT, my friend, is ideological suicide. You can't be everything all at once.

I happen to be sitting at my desk. "I am" sitting at my desk.

Limiting? Get the fuck outta here.

[Valheru]

^_^

[Blueskyboris]

You're an idiot. (And you're invoking some special pleading).

You haven't demonstrated WHY statements of "I am" have to be atomic (or even why they are atomic (according to you) in the first place :rolleyes:)

Try again. Fair enough response, much better than I got at "TR", and here we go: Because people use "I am" atomically or very narrowly.

[Blueskyboris]

One more thing. By extension to the shit you're puking up, one isn't allowed to describe yourself or what you believe in any way, "because that would be limiting".

Shall I coin a term for it? How about "Autonihilism"? THAT, my friend, is ideological suicide. You can't be everything all at once.

I happen to be sitting at my desk. "I am" sitting at my desk.

Limiting? Get the fuck outta here. Well, if you read the thread carefully, you would have read that I am making a distinction between objective "I am" and subjective "I am". :bang:

[Blueskyboris]

But even the objective "I am sitting here" contributes to the problem, because it suggests that the I is objective.

[Valheru]

From where I'm sitting (at my desk), the use of "I am X" is descriptive, not limiting. Simply because the statement is made, does not by any means create a limitation on additional corollaries.

It's only limiting if the asserter chooses to ignore his/her choice in adding corollaries or extending the description. Any limitation is self-imposed by decree, not by definition.

[Valheru]

But even the objective "I am sitting here" contributes to the problem, because it suggests that the I is objective.

Hey, maybe I'm not, and this discussion is just a dream brought on by bad soup?

At the end of the day, what's the point? So you can tell people that they're limiting themselves? Logically, you have no way of knowing because the limit (if indeed it is self-imposed) might be accurate, no?

[Blueskyboris]

Am means be, which means exist, which in-itself is self-limiting if you have not been taught to think critically or do not want to think critically.

[Blueskyboris]

But even the objective "I am sitting here" contributes to the problem, because it suggests that the I is objective.

Hey, maybe I'm not, and this discussion is just a dream brought on by bad soup?

I am not interested in that line of argument. In this argument I am assuming that the I can be proven to exist.

At the end of the day, what's the point? So you can tell people that they're limiting themselves? Logically, you have no way of knowing because the limit (if indeed it is self-imposed) might be accurate, no? Basically, but in a polite way, of course. And, yes, I do have a way of knowing: eyes, critical thinking, etc..

[Blueskyboris]

You see, "a man" is defined, at least traditionally, in the most narrow of ways. A man does "this, that, this, not that, etcetera". If I say that "I am a man" in the sense that I act like a man, not in the biological sense, then I turn around say that I also "I am (everything that is the opposite of that act)" then I am causing a contradiction. There is a contradiction BECAUSE "Man" "IS" defined narrowly. It is narrow.

[Valheru]

Am means be, which means exist, which in-itself is self-limiting if you have not been taught to think critically or do not want to think critically.

The red if and all that follows after, turns your statement into a special plea. Making the statement "I am X" does not necessarily imply self-description in toto, and that's where you're going wrong.

I have a blue object (from my perspective) sitting on my desk. The object am blue (In the west midlands).

Does that description contain all the information about the object? No, man, of course it doesn't, and nothing stops me from saying "I have a blue rizla roller on my desk". Which weighs something. And is oriented just so in 3D space. Etcetera.

[Valheru]

Basically, but in a polite way, of course. And, yes, I do have a way of knowing: eyes, critical thinking, etc..

So you're a critical thinker?

























Quod Erat Demonstrandum :D

[Blueskyboris]

No, I am saying that the "I am" meaning, when applied to an individual is limiting. In fact, I would go as far to say that it is the root of many of the problems in society.

[Blueskyboris]

Basically, but in a polite way, of course. And, yes, I do have a way of knowing: eyes, critical thinking, etc..

So you're a critical thinker?

























Quod Erat Demonstrandum :D Sure, observation of people is an old art.

[Blueskyboris]

Am means be, which means exist, which in-itself is self-limiting if you have not been taught to think critically or do not want to think critically.

The red if and all that follows after, turns your statement into a special plea. Making the statement "I am X" does not necessarily imply self-description in toto, and that's where you're going wrong.

I have a blue object (from my perspective) sitting on my desk. The object am blue (In the west midlands).

Does that description contain all the information about the object? No, man, of course it doesn't, and nothing stops me from saying "I have a blue rizla roller on my desk". Which weighs something. And is oriented just so in 3D space. Etcetera. In toto? No, as you said, you can say "in addition". However, as I said, that is, in-itself, an addition.

As for the object stuff, I am not interested.

[Pendaric]

<modhat> Let's keep it civil please. </modhat>

[Valheru]

No, I am saying that the "I am" meaning, when applied to an individual is limiting. In fact, I would go as far to say that it is the root of many of the problems in society.

Look, I think we agree on what you're saying - that people who describe themselves via narrow strictures, cause ill in the world. But that's not what you're trying to get at? I mean, that would be too obvious and pointless a point to make, because we can all grok it.

It's not about the self-description - it's about self-imposed definition and identification. It's only limiting by choice and imposition.

I would also assert that the limitation isn't necessarily caused by the person who states "I am X" - it's caused by the listener who assumes that X is also Y, when it isn't necessarily.

For example, I am a white South African man. That's it - that's what I said. What assumptions does that create for you as reader?

[Valheru]

As for the object stuff, I am not interested.

The point is to illustrate that descriptions do not imply complete information, whether it's an object or a sterotype.

[Blueskyboris]

No, I am saying that the "I am" meaning, when applied to an individual is limiting. In fact, I would go as far to say that it is the root of many of the problems in society.

Look, I think we agree on what you're saying - that people who describe themselves via narrow strictures, cause ill in the world. But that's not what you're trying to get at? I mean, that would be too obvious and pointless a point to make, because we can all grok it.

It's not about the self-description - it's about self-imposed definition and identification. It's only limiting by choice and imposition.

I would also assert that the limitation isn't necessarily caused by the person who states "I am X" - it's caused by the listener who assumes that X is also Y, when it isn't necessarily.

For example, I am a white South African man. That's it - that's what I said. What assumptions does that create for you as reader? It depends on how self-critical and self-analytical you are. If you are sufficiently critical, then maybe "I am South African" is merely an objective "I am". However, if you do not examine yourself in relation to "South African", then you are probably narrowing your self by declaring "I am South African". I think the problem is in laziness, but it is also in the meaning of this basic constuction, "I am".

Look, I think we agree on what you're saying - that people who describe themselves via narrow strictures, cause ill in the world. But that's not what you're trying to get at? I mean, that would be too obvious and pointless a point to make, because we can all grok it. Yes, that would be a bit obvious. I guess the point I am making is that the language itself narrows people.

[Valheru]

However, as I said, that is, in-itself, an addition.

Hence, the initial statement is NOT limiting (unless you disallow additional description), but you haven't demonstrated yet why it cannot be allowed and can only be viewed atomically.

[Valheru]

It depends on how self-critical and self-analytical you are. If you are sufficiently critical, then maybe "I am South African" is merely an objective "I am". However, if you do not examine yourself in relation to "South African", then you are probably narrowing your self by declaring "I am South African". I think the problem is in laziness, but it is also in the meaning of this basic constuction, "I am".


So it doesn't really matter what I say I am, because all that matters is how I perceive the statement "I am South African" to myself? That implies that the construction "I am" has no power whatsoever. "It's what you make of it", if you will.

[Jobar]

Most animals probably experience themselves as individuals, until you get down to the level of ants or bees. Even though they don't vocalize it, I'd say the experience of "I am" is a very common thing, and certainly not limited to us philosophizing and politicizing humans.

[Valheru]

BSB did thus scribe:

Am means be, which means exist, which in-itself is self-limiting if you have not been taught to think critically or do not want to think critically.

Aside what I've already said about this (which isn't relevant to the point I'm making now), I reckon that the real issue isn't one of narrow self-identification - the problem IS the lack of critical thinking ability/desire. That leads to narrow self-definition. So "I am" is more of a product of self-limitation, it's not a cause thereof, per se. Although I can perceive how the two are intertwined.

[DMB]

Most animals probably experience themselves as individuals, until you get down to the level of ants or bees. Even though they don't vocalize it, I'd say the experience of "I am" is a very common thing, and certainly not limited to us philosophizing and politicizing humans.

What leads you to say that? We know that certain species that pass the mirror test appear to show self-knowledge, but what about the ones that don't pass the test?

[Jobar]

Well, take birds that live in large flocks. They still have social interactions, and to do that they have to be aware of themselves as apart from any other bird, don't they?

I think the mirror test shows when an animal is able to learn that it's possible to see an image of itself. However, it doesn't actually demonstrate that an animal has (or has not) some awareness of itself.

Of course I'm not saying that any animal is as intensely self-aware as are humans; even great apes don't have the capacities for self-analysis which languages give us. But consciousness of one's existence as a unique and separate being- that, I think, goes quite far down the phylogenetic tree.

[Valheru]

This thread is getting really taxon.



:)

[DMB]

Well, take birds that live in large flocks. They still have social interactions, and to do that they have to be aware of themselves as apart from any other bird, don't they?

I think the mirror test shows when an animal is able to learn that it's possible to see an image of itself. However, it doesn't actually demonstrate that an animal has (or has not) some awareness of itself.

Of course I'm not saying that any animal is as intensely self-aware as are humans; even great apes don't have the capacities for self-analysis which languages give us. But consciousness of one's existence as a unique and separate being- that, I think, goes quite far down the phylogenetic tree.

I'm unconvinced. Animals experience other animals, but I don't see how we can judge one way or another what sense of self they may have.

[rog]

Are you referring to applying labels to ourselves: Atheist, Socialist, English and the like? If so, I'll agree that they can imply limits to how we see ourselves, or even act, if we accept the definitions of those words in their entirety as they are understood by most people; but at the same time having a handy label that we sympathise with doesn't mean that we are constrained within those simple groups.

Or are you referring to ideas of the self & mind, in a more intrinsic philosophical sense?

[RexT]

The problem is the limit of self-definition that "I am" causes.That's the way things are. I'm not sure I'd call it a problem. The sky is blue. Is that a problem too?

I haven't figured out what you mean by "philosophical suicide", but political ideology doesn't start with "I am". It starts with "I want". Politics can be summarized as "I want what I want, not what you want". Or "let my will be done".

The alternative would be a society like ants and bees where the will or wants of the individual don't emerge. Essentially, abnegation of the will is a form of slavery, which I personally want not to be. So we struggle for freedom against the will of others to dominate our bodies and minds so that their will be done, so that their freedom can emerge.

[Jet Black]

yeah, by saying "I am" you are limiting yourself to a white stereotype. If you say "I is" you could either be a poorly educated black person, or an edgy white guy trying to be cool, and would fit into more classes.

[Notta]

JB, the correct terminology is "I be", not "I is"....

HTH

[Rie]

"I Am Therefore I Am'? Will that do?:rolleyes:

[Valheru]

BSB doesn't think therefor he isn't.

I like that one more :p

[rog]

BSB doesn't think therefor he isn't.

I like that one more :p


Please leave the personal attacks out of of this thread from now, otherwise we'll be moving it to SS

[Valheru]

Aw. Killjoy :)

[Cath B]

I am: yet what I am none cares or knows,
My friends forsake me like a memory lost;
I am the self-consumer of my woes

by John Clare

Written in Northampton County Asylum

Find myself thinking of that every time I see this thread title.

[Silly Sausage]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IIIq3KHs4ic/TI0nPaHQIVI/AAAAAAAADhA/RZRD916Jhok/s1600/A+popeye-yam-spin.gif

[Alex]

Am means be, which means exist, which in-itself is self-limiting if you have not been taught to think critically or do not want to think critically.

This sounds like an echo of Iago's, "I am nothing if not critical".

[Rie]

OK.. 'I Be Therefore I Be'.

[Here Rests A Cemetery]

"I think, therefore I am."

Makes sense to me, at least.

[David B]

"I think, therefore I am."

Makes sense to me, at least.

It never did to me, even when I was studying philosophy formally.

It seemed to me that 'I am' implied some sort of stasis, whereas thinking necessarily implied change.

David

[Here Rests A Cemetery]

Hmm.

"I am" also only refers to living, animate beings, which I suppose the entire point revolves around.

But, the statement doesn't refer to inanimate objects, which still consists of matter. Is it applicable?

The entire notion is still very vague, but I grasp the basics of it. Hopefully.

Could you perhaps elaborate more on your points?

[Alex]

The activity of thinking presupposes existence, I think.

[Jack Willsson]

"I think therefore I exist" is fine as far as it goes but it was initially used to support theism, "God" being a spiritual substance like a "soul".

Decartes thought he'd established a dualism - "body and soul" - leaving the world wondering how on earth a non-physical "soul" can move a physical body.

For me, monism (see Dennett for one) makes a lot more sense. Our living body is all there is of us. It is the seat of our self. It's where our likes and dislikes live, where our memories are, where our feelings arise and what we "think" with.

That there is a "soul" seperate from but living inside our body until the body dies, then to be released and wander in who-knows-where is not a necessary conclusion from "I think therefore I am". Descartes seems to have departed from his "method" of systematic doubt with the unchallenged assumption that he existed as an inhabitant of his body.

When I see the next guy, I know that I am "one of those" only I am unique with my own memories, values etc - all shaped and moulded by my genetic makeup and what I've decided is best for me to do given the experiences I've had.

So, for me, I am my values, beliefs, memories, hopes, fears etc. and it is they that constitute my "self".

[David B]

"I think therefore I exist" is fine as far as it goes but it was initially used to support theism, "God" being a spiritual substance like a "soul".

Decartes thought he'd established a dualism - "body and soul" - leaving the world wondering how on earth a non-physical "soul" can move a physical body.

For me, monism (see Dennett for one) makes a lot more sense. Our living body is all there is of us. It is the seat of our self. It's where our likes and dislikes live, where our memories are, where our feelings arise and what we "think" with.

That there is a "soul" seperate from but living inside our body until the body dies, then to be released and wander in who-knows-where is not a necessary conclusion from "I think therefore I am". Descartes seems to have departed from his "method" of systematic doubt with the unchallenged assumption that he existed as an inhabitant of his body.

When I see the next guy, I know that I am "one of those" only I am unique with my own memories, values etc - all shaped and moulded by my genetic makeup and what I've decided is best for me to do given the experiences I've had.

So, for me, I am my values, beliefs, memories, hopes, fears etc. and it is they that constitute my "self".

Nice post, Jack. Have you come across Hofstadter 'I am a Strange Loop'? That makes a lot of sense to me.

David

[Blueskyboris]

Oh my, it seems The Secular Cafe is better than TR.

[Blueskyboris]

There are so many responses here to my little statement that I don't know where to continue. I think TSC killed me philosophically. :(

[David B]

Hmm.

"I am" also only refers to living, animate beings, which I suppose the entire point revolves around.

But, the statement doesn't refer to inanimate objects, which still consists of matter. Is it applicable?

The entire notion is still very vague, but I grasp the basics of it. Hopefully.

Could you perhaps elaborate more on your points?

It's a long time ago now, but as I recall Descartes was arguing for an unchanging soul at the core of a person, but I saw a self destruction in that sort of an assertion (if I was right about it) because the act of thinking necessarily changed what was doing the thinking.

David

[Valheru]

I think TSC killed me philosophically.

Erm... thou canst not kill that which doth not live.

[Jack Willsson]

Nice post, Jack. Have you come across Hofstadter 'I am a Strange Loop'? That makes a lot of sense to me.

David

Thanks David.

No, I've been getting lazy with philosophy reading - but I'll make it my business to look Hofstadter out.

May I say that this polite and supportive Forum is a delight!

[Jack Willsson]

There are so many responses here to my little statement that I don't know where to continue. I think TSC killed me philosophically. :(

Could you begin to continue by telling anyone (like me) who doesn't already know what TSC and TR refer to.....

[Blueskyboris]

The Secular Cafe and Talk Rational.

[Jack Willsson]

Thanks! :facepalm:

I should have realised that this is the TSC you mention but TSC killing you philosophically doesn't seem to fit your enthusiasm for it.

I'll have a look at Talk Rational ....

[Blueskyboris]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO!!!!

[Jack Willsson]

No?

[Here Rests A Cemetery]

Apparently, BSB hates anything to do with Talk Rational now?

[Blueskyboris]

Yes, but only as long as I am pseudo-banned.

[BioBeing]

TSC looks kinda like THC from where I sit...

[David B]

TSC looks kinda like THC from where I sit...

Don't worry, BB, it's only the smoke issued from the general direction of Matty.

David

[rog]

I think TSC killed me philosophically.

Erm... thou canst not kill that which doth not live.

<mod>
Chaps [Valheru, I mean you], please don't make me split this thread - if you want to snipe at each other do it by PM or have it out in SS by agreement.
</mod>

[DMB]

<I would remind everyone that too much discussion of other boards is also likely to get it moved. In our experience discussion of other boards generates a lot more heat than light, so the Smoking Sections is definitely the place for it.>

[Jack Willsson]

Hmm.

"I am" also only refers to living, animate beings, which I suppose the entire point revolves around.

But, the statement doesn't refer to inanimate objects, which still consists of matter. Is it applicable?

The entire notion is still very vague, but I grasp the basics of it. Hopefully.

Could you perhaps elaborate more on your points?

It's a long time ago now, but as I recall Descartes was arguing for an unchanging soul at the core of a person, but I saw a self destruction in that sort of an assertion (if I was right about it) because the act of thinking necessarily changed what was doing the thinking.

David

It's a long time for me too - maybe he had several agendas - but what I remember best is that in the midst of his systematic doubt, nothing could convince him that he didn't exist if he was thinking/doubting.

I don't recall that he was looking for an unchanging soul - more for something (his own existence) that he couldn't doubt.

I'd like to look at "The act of thinking necessarily changed what was doing the thinking."

It was a dangerous time in history to challenge orthodox beliefs and the existence of souls and spirits etc was taken for granted. If it be true that Descartes believed that he was an unchanging soul, would "I think therefore I am" really fail because thinking changes the thinker?

If I use my computer to store the pictures I take, does it stop being the same computer if I then use it to post here? Is the data a part of the machine?

Or - to look at the subject from a more serious perspective - If my beliefs and values change as a result of my thinking, do I become a different individual or is flexibility a fundamental characteristic of my self?

Perhaps it doesn't matter as long as which convention we use is clear.

[David B]

Jack, I think it boils down to whether a river is the same river that it was yesterday. When, IMV, there is a sense in which it is the same river, but looked at another way it ain't.

David

[Jack Willsson]

Oops David,

I did that edit before I saw your post but I think they both make the same point.

[RexT]

I like the river analogy; ever changing though it might be perceived as ever the same, always flowing to the same sea.

So it might be the thing-itself can be doubted, uncertain, illusive, elusive, unknowable. It's all a matter of which angle it is viewed from. But though I view an ever changing world from an ever changing perspective, it remains ever constant the viewer of viewpoints that 'I am'.

So the analogy goes that 'I am' not a river but a sea to which rivers return. And one day even though the mighty sea will parish, another will take its place and other rivers will flow to it.

[Rie]

"Unchained Melody" says just that RexT.

[Blueskyboris]

Yes, the river analogy is perfect for the real self, but for the "I am" a small frozen river is more apt.

[Jack Willsson]

I can remember gazing up at the clock on the mantlepiece and asking ...

"Mum, are you very old when you're four?"

I am still the same Jack! (Still asking stoopid questions too!)

[Jack Willsson]

Yes, the river analogy is perfect for the real self, but for the "I am" a small frozen river is more apt.

May you never lose that imaginative poetic trait!

I've changed (like the river) continuously since that memorable fourth birthday and I've been wondering why the birthday conjures the vision of an immortal soul - or BSBs frozen river. The answer is obvious really.

I change but my memories don't (well not as much as my beliefs and values etc). I am the same Jack because if I trace my way back along the river of life I come to myself as I was then and my earliest surviving memories.

[RexT]

Jack, the answer to your question, for me, because I was around that same age, maybe I was five, and experienced a moment of the purest bliss, indescribable joy, just laying on my backyard swing set looking up into the clear blue sky. I seemed to become one with its vastness and beauty, and not long after that I became aware of the question of why I was me and not some one or something else, unable to answer that question at the time, of course, but in that moment of bliss I was certain of my immortality. It was as if I had returned to my eternal self, reminded of it through my identifying with the sky. I was no longer a person but something much bigger, much older. The 'I am' of which I identify as Rex became 'I am' which is 'mother nature'. So really it was an unexpected moment of my perspective shifting from the narrow, as BSB calls it 'limited' self, to a broader perspective. This is where the sense of immortality came from, or so I believe.

[Rie]

Why Mother Nature? Did she do it all by herself? Just joking. I , in discussions of the 'I Am' nature, always think of my horror one night when i was ten that maybe everything was in fact just a dream! That i was living in a dream. I was too young to analyse 'whose dream' but it's a thought to be thunk.

[RexT]

Why mother nature? What else is there?

[Rie]

I'm still looking Rex... always looking.

[RexT]

Well, if you spot something, let me know will you?

[Jack Willsson]

Jack, the answer to your question, for me, because I was around that same age, maybe I was five, and experienced a moment of the purest bliss, indescribable joy, just laying on my backyard swing set looking up into the clear blue sky. I seemed to become one with its vastness and beauty, and not long after that I became aware of the question of why I was me and not some one or something else, unable to answer that question at the time, of course, but in that moment of bliss I was certain of my immortality. It was as if I had returned to my eternal self, reminded of it through my identifying with the sky. I was no longer a person but something much bigger, much older. The 'I am' of which I identify as Rex became 'I am' which is 'mother nature'. So really it was an unexpected moment of my perspective shifting from the narrow, as BSB calls it 'limited' self, to a broader perspective. This is where the sense of immortality came from, or so I believe.

I remember wondering, at about that age, what it felt like to be a stone pillar!

No I wasn't going loopy - apparently that's pretty common:


Animism

Animism refers to the tendency of children to believe that all objects, animals, and things are living and capable of having feelings, intentions, and emotions. Objects are personified. For example, a preoperational child may explain that it is raining because, "the sun is sad and it's crying." When a child accidentally falls into a wall, he or she may hit it afterwards, as if the wall intended to hurt him or her.

From here (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/developmental_psychology/61828)