[Power of Language] The power of "I am" compared to using 'We' when speaking to or about oneself or with others

[4bsolute]

Dear Ones,

 

I would like to know your experience about, as it is said, our two most powerful words..our most powerful phrase: That of "I am (that I am)".

 

Do you use it often? What results do you get?

 

If you might want to explain why we say "I am that I am." rather "I am that." ? That would be great

 

I have experienced myself that the less I identify my Self with just my body or just my thoughts or just my emotions, I tend to say 'we' rather than ' I '. Did anyone experience similar? If so, why is that? Do we then move unconsciously into our Self rather than staying in a smaller personal perspective?

 

So I would then continue in the following manner..

 

We also are once in a while playing around with how we address one another. We have experienced that when ever we say 'you' to someone else, this is felt very personal. Especially when pointing something out in their character traits. When we say 'we' .. for example "Yes, we tend to do this very often" ..giving a sense of speaking about the human consciousness, the one we speak to has no noticable emotional reaction to it.

 

While 'you' tends to create a seperation on the line of "Why does he say you to me, when I am him?" .. or it further fuels the illusion of seperation, would be more precise. It holds one in a space of seperation, if you closely examine it. Of being a different kind..

 

We do all of this because we feel the need to rediscover language and it's true manifestational potential. Rather than use it as entertainment. Being more professional with it again.

 

I feel that my ... cells (?) ... my body consciousness ... reacts right immediatelly after I formulate (for example) "I am balance I am". I feel that something very very subtle is moving in a pleasant 'direction'. I can not yet formulate it better at this stage.

 

What happens when we address our Selves in an inner dialogue or even when speaking to our Selves out loud, with 'We' rather than 'I' ? Do we then right at this point act from the a collective consciousness? Is one more effective than the other?

 

And what is the difference between talking to our Selves or about our Selves as 'I' ? Might 'I' be absolutely the illusion of seperation? Or does consciously acting from an 'I' perspective puts one's Self unknowingly in an even Greater perspective?

 

Hopefully that was not too confusing

[dee]

-

Edited February 5, 2014 by dee

[soaring crane]

This reminded me of a significant difference between German and English. In English, one says 'I'll see you later'; in German it's formulated "we'll see each other" (although Germans often mistakenly say "we see us"). The English method is difficult for Germans to comprehend. It's very egocentric. Als, capitalizing the first person pronoun when writing isn't done in German. I think these things do have an effect on the perspective.

[4bsolute]

This reminded me of a significant difference between German and English. In English, one says 'I'll see you later'; in German it's formulated "we'll see each other" (although Germans often mistakenly say "we see us"). The English method is difficult for Germans to comprehend. It's very egocentric. Als, capitalizing the first person pronoun when writing isn't done in German. I think these things do have an effect on the perspective.

 

Yes, I also often stop at these points. It might be possible that when we come to a very deep point in.. lets say manifestation, where we discard all unuseful aspects, that we might also switch languages. Look at the roots of English, especially col.Am.Eng. and wha the history of it is. It has shaped the language we use. English, esp trad. am. eng has so many terms of war in it.. crazy

[4bsolute]

To me it seems as if you are trying to obtain something from using 'I", "we" or "me". They are all words at the end; and hold as much power as you identify with. Me personally; regardless of whichever word I use; it is simply in the sentence, but I let it hold no meaning over who I am as I know words cannot describe me even remotely.

 

The intention behind a word is more important than the word itself, yes. But it is not about using words unconsciously anymore. For my being personally, I dont want any 'backfires' of living an unconscious life. That's the whole point of this thread. More light into the darkness, removing ignorance.

[Marblehead]

Your opening post recalled a memory for me I will share.

 

I used to go to a lot of Bluegrass Festivals. Occasionally a band member of a group would tell a joke or make some other comment about life.

 

One shared a short story with us:

 

There was a old man who lived up on a mountain by himself in a very small cabin and about once a month he would go down to the nearest town to get supplies.

 

This day he had gone to town and was shopping and the store clerk said to him, "You must get very lonely living up there all by your self."

 

The old man replies, "On, no. Not at all. The four of us are very happy and doing quite well."

 

The clerk responds, "The four of you? I thought you lived up there alone."

 

The old man replies, "No, I'm never alone. There is me, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit."

[TheDustAutumn]

http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/I-Am-That-by-Sri-Nisargadatta-Maharaj.pdf

[ralis]

The intention behind a word is more important than the word itself, yes. But it is not about using words unconsciously anymore. For my being personally, I dont want any 'backfires' of living an unconscious life. That's the whole point of this thread. More light into the darkness, removing ignorance.

 

I would suggest reading Korzybski 'Science and Sanity' to reach a better understanding as to the limits of language. English in particular has not evolved from Aristotelian logic; yes/no right/wrong and so forth.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sanity-Introduction-Non-Aristotelian-Semantics/dp/0937298018/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390149627&sr=1-1&keywords=korzybski

 

Ted Falconar has a more precise analysis of Korzybski's work which is much shorter and to the point.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Creative-Intelligence-Self-Liberation-Non-Aristotellian-Realization-ebook/dp/B003BIETCI/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390150049&sr=1-3&keywords=ted+falconer

 

I would also recommend Robert Anton Wilson who was a master in the use of 'non Aristotelian logic'. His books are fun and entertaining.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Anton-Wilson/e/B000AP6Z8G/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1390150114&sr=1-2-ent

Edited January 19, 2014 by ralis

[dee]

The intention behind a word is more important than the word itself, yes. But it is not about using words unconsciously anymore. For my being personally, I dont want any 'backfires' of living an unconscious life. That's the whole point of this thread. More light into the darkness, removing ignorance.

Edited February 5, 2014 by dee

[4bsolute]

Intention is relative to what you let it mean to you. Language is restrictive. We use a set of words to try and define cretain phenomena. I would say as long as you are aware and have understanding of what the word means to you; it will not matter what sound your vocal cords make.

 

A good point.

[Taomeow]

What I usually pay attention to is how the language offered as standard manipulates, distorts, and standardizes consciousness.

 

A quick example: how often do you say something like, "we invaded Afghanistan," "we attacked Iraq" and don't notice that you have been manipulated into unconsciously identifying with entities of power and taking responsibility for their acts of use or abuse of power without you personally having even a smithereen of this power? Did you personally invade Afghanistan? Did you personally attack Iraq? Think about it... By saying "we" we accomplish several things required of us:

 

-- we absolve those who did it by accepting their doings as our own;

-- we let someone else do things on our behalf and are willing to pretend that we had a conscious choice and made a decision;

-- we empower them and disempower ourselves by reducing our own meaningful activities in the world to what THEY do on our behalf;

-- we behave as parts of a machine which identify with the whole machine and can't act independently of it -- someone else controls the machine but we accept the button that controls it as our own free will;

-- we get used to blurring the distinctions between real and imaginary, true and false. In reality, I, me, personally, was in Tijuana, Mexico, taking care of some family business, when the American military following the orders of the American government attacked Iraq. I did see the attack on TV. That's the full extent of my participation in it. There was no "we" attacking Iraq. There was a "they."

-- and quite a bit more I don't want to get too particular about at the moment.

 

So, for starters, I do not use the grammar of mass indoctrination, protecting my mind from involuntary brain-jerk responses to manipulations. To continue with the above example, I try not to say "we" unless I actually participated in what "they" did. If I must refer to the event I wasn't a participant of, I try to say only what I have personal evidence of having happened -- "they report that such and such military following orders of such and such government did this and that." I try not to say "we are in recession," I say "they report the country is in recession." I never say "we went to the moon," I say "they assert they went to the moon." I try to say what I know to be true. I know they say it, It's true that I know that they say it. That's exactly how much I know. So I don't blur the distinction between what I know and what I don't if I can help it.

 

And it helps tremendously to maintain a clear head and claim my consciousness as part of what I, me, choose it to be part of.

 

Try this at home, you might be surprised...

[soaring crane]

^^ that's the American experience.

 

And as 4bsolute pointed out, much of the jargon is very violent warspeak. It's shocking to no American parent when their little kids say something like "we killed them!" when all they're talking about is winning a soccer game.

 

Believe it or not, this subtle linguistic training affects your world view, your perspective on life, your priorities, your sense of right and wrong and normalcy. And it permeates the population.

Edited January 20, 2014 by soaring crane

[Taomeow]

^^ that's the American experience.

 

And as 4bsolute pointed out, much of the jargon is very violent warspeak. It's shocking to no American parent when their little kids say something like "we killed them!" when all they're talking about is winning a soccer game.

 

Believe it or not, this subtle linguistic training affects your world view, your perspective on life, your priorities, your sense of right and wrong and normalcy. And it permeates the population.

 

Reminded me of The Simpsons episode where Marge got to hang out with some bikers who allowed her to teach them some verbal skills. She had them write something down and one of them goes,

"Oops... Mrs. Simpson, I killed my pencil."

"You mean you broke your pencil. Broke your pencil."

"OK. I... broke him."

[de_paradise]

What happens when we address our Selves in an inner dialogue or even when speaking to our Selves out loud, with 'We' rather than 'I' ? Do we then right at this point act from the a collective consciousness? Is one more effective than the other?

 

Thanks. I meditated on this. I like we.