Conversations For Transformation: Essays Inspired By The Ideas Of Werner Erhard

Conversations For Transformation

Essays By Laurence Platt

Inspired By The Ideas Of Werner Erhard

And More


Two Of Me

St Louis Park, Minnesota, USA

August 2, 2010



"Who you mean when you say 'I' is not you. It's just something that shows up for you."  ... 
This essay, Two Of Me, is the prequel to Two Of Me II: Confirmation Not Correction.

It was written at the same time as Incident: Inspired Acccident.




I get  who I really am. I get who you really are. Man!  I really get who you really are. It's awesome!  You can't get who we really are and not  be awed by it, not be stunned by it, not be amazed by it.

When I observed Self, when I looked into who I really am, when I became Self, a sense of duality  showed up for me from time to time like this: there seemed to be not one but two  of me.

Really.

How so? How is there two of me? How can  there be two of me? Here's how:

I get who I really am. So that's me. But if that's the me I really am, then who's the me who gets the me I really am? There seem to be two of me: me, and the me who gets me.

Are there really  two of me? Or does it only seem this way because my inquiry into who I really am is naïve, immature, half baked, incomplete?

I've resolved this matter for myself. My inquiry is  complete. There are  two of me.

These two of me are experiential distinctions. By this I mean they show up for me over here  in my experience. Yet if you look at me, you won't see directly how they show up for me unless I speak them, in which case you can listen them directly ie you'll see them directly in your listening. Furthermore, I assert when you observe Self, when you look into who you really are, it's likely you'll experience the same two distinctions, the same two of you. I assert the experience of two of you for you will be the same experience of two of me for me. I'm saying these experiential distinctions of two of me aren't mine  per se. Neither are they yours, for that matter. They show up for me and they show up for you. There's nothing personal or proprietary about them.

The me I say I am when I say "I"  ie this "I"  I say I am, is something which shows up for me but isn't who I really am. Yet this "I"  is real for me in my experience. It's an experiential distinction of who I am for myself. It's a reference point  I am for myself, if you will.

Saying this "I"  is a reference point I am for myself, then saying "But this 'I' isn't who I really am", doesn't invalidate it either. Who I really am is the space in which the events of my life occur. And in this space in which the events of my life occur, this "I"  shows up just like any other event.

So the space in which the events of my life occur is the me I really am, and the "I"  I am is the reference point I have for myself. Notice this "I", this reference point I have for myself, only shows up for me, whereas the space in which the events of my life occur, the me I really am shows up for everyone.

These are the two me's. Ergo  they're the two you's. These are the two experiential distinctions of who you are. Because you're a human being, the existence of the one implies  the other. One isn't better  than the other. Both are authentic. Two of you is just what's so

I assert making these two experiential distinctions of who you are come alive  and being clear about each of them, is the start of mastery.



Communication Promise E-Mail | Home

© Laurence Platt - 2010 through 2016 Permission