1. Joined
    07 Feb '03
    Moves
    1058
    30 Jul '05 10:152 edits
    "Cogito ergo sum" (Descartes 1637 Discourse on method/The meditations)

    "I think therfore I am" do you agree with this statemenent or its inversion "I am therefore I think"
  2. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    30 Jul '05 10:35
    I can't disagree with a solipsistic statement.

    I think Descartes' dictum is useful for illustrating egocentric thought.

    When I stop thinking, what am I?

    What does "am" mean?

    Irreducibility.



  3. Joined
    07 Feb '03
    Moves
    1058
    30 Jul '05 10:39
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I can't disagree with a solipsistic statement.

    I think Descartes' dictum is useful for illustrating egocentric thought.

    When I stop thinking, what am I?

    What does "am" mean?

    Irreducibility.



    So you cast a vote on the side of "I am therefore I think", I take it.

    It's quite paradoxical that the creator of Cartesian dualism is creating a dualism here, i wonder if there's a middle road between these two statements "Think, am, therefore I" (Serendipity 2005) 🙂
  4. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    30 Jul '05 10:54
    Originally posted by Serendipity
    So you cast a vote on the side of "I am therefore I think", I take it.

    It's quite paradoxical that the creator of Cartesian dualism is creating a dualism here, i wonder if there's a middle road between these two statements "Think, am, therefore I" (Serendipity 2005) 🙂
    The middle road I think is symbolised by OM as well as anything else.

    "I am therefore I think" doesn't work for me either--"I" doesn't exist through thought, only lights up when thought flows.

    What are you when thought ceases? (Consult any old book on Zen for more of the same 🙂 . Alan Watts isn't bad. )
  5. Joined
    07 Feb '03
    Moves
    1058
    30 Jul '05 11:101 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    The middle road I think is symbolised by OM as well as anything else.

    "I am therefore I think" doesn't work for me either--"I" doesn't exist through thought, only lights up when thought flows.

    What are you when thought ce ...[text shortened]... ld book on Zen for more of the same 🙂 . Alan Watts isn't bad. )
    Eastern philosophy versus western uh 🙂

    We just cant get away from dualism 🙂
  6. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    30 Jul '05 11:151 edit
    Originally posted by Serendipity
    Eastern philosophy versus western uh 🙂

    We just cant get away from dualism 🙂
    I don't think it's East vs West at all. There's a Western philosophical tradition which, although sans OM, has the same outcomes. Exponents include Meister Eckhardt, Jakob Boehme, and the unknown author of The Cloud of Unknowing. I know the Eastern tradition (as pimped by Watts et al) better, though.

    I think Descartes can be incorporated into Eastern thought without much fuss.

    (To get away from dualism, sit in a comfortable chair and go OM).
  7. Joined
    07 Feb '03
    Moves
    1058
    30 Jul '05 11:26
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I don't think it's East vs West at all. There's a Western philosophical tradition which, although sans OM, has the same outcomes. Exponents include Meister Eckhardt, Jakob Boehme, and the unknown author of The Cloud of Unknowing. I know the Eastern tradition (as pimped by Watts et al) better, though.

    I think Descartes can be incorporated into Eas ...[text shortened]... hought without much fuss.

    (To get away from dualism, sit in a comfortable chair and go OM).
    The trouble is these are all non-secular philosophies, Meister Eckhardt was a christian mystic (I think) and Descartes himself was a Catholic..

    Byast towards faith can get in the way of authenticity just as I guess byast towards non-faith can, urm we got a problem here 😕
  8. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    30 Jul '05 11:35
    Originally posted by Serendipity
    The trouble is these are all non-secular philosophies, Meister Eckhardt was a christian mystic (I think) and Descartes himself was a Catholic..

    Byast towards faith can get in the way of authenticity just as I guess byast towards non-faith can, urm we got a problem here 😕
    For me, he best, or at least most readable and accessible, mystical text from within the Western tradition is Parzival (Wolfram von Eschenbach). The Grail quest as spiritual growth metaphor. It corresponds with Sufi and Vedic thought, quite a production job.

    I don't know enough about Eckhardt etc to comment about how overtly Christian they were; I take what I want from them, to be frank. I don't believe in any objective truth.

    (Is cancer a form of spiritual growth?)
  9. Joined
    07 Feb '03
    Moves
    1058
    30 Jul '05 11:37
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    For me, he best, or at least most readable and accessible, mystical text from within the Western tradition is Parzival (Wolfram von Eschenbach). The Grail quest as spiritual growth metaphor. It corresponds with Sufi and Vedic thought, quite a production job.

    I don't know enough about Eckhardt etc to comment about how overtly Christian they were; I ...[text shortened]... to be frank. I don't believe in any objective truth.

    (Is cancer a form of spiritual growth?)
    Objectivity.....urm are we capable of it..I doubt it

    But I do belive spirituality is the way forward but a secular spirituality
  10. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    30 Jul '05 11:43
    Originally posted by Serendipity
    Objectivity.....urm are we capable of it..I doubt it

    But I do belive spirituality is the way forward but a secular spirituality
    OK what do you mean by secular. Examples are fine.

    (for me, the Zen type of spurchuality is secular, as is the Grail-quest. The grail is a symbol, not a god.)
  11. Joined
    07 Feb '03
    Moves
    1058
    30 Jul '05 11:541 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    OK what do you mean by secular. Examples are fine.

    (for me, the Zen type of spurchuality is secular, as is the Grail-quest. The grail is a symbol, not a god.)
    The definition of secular isn't not believing in god:

    "SECULAR. concerned with the affairs of this world, not spiritual or sacred; not ecclesiastical or monastic"

    "SECULARISM. belief that morality or education should not be based on religion" (1984 The Oxford Dictionary)
  12. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36061
    30 Jul '05 14:34
    Originally posted by Serendipity
    "Cogito ergo sum" (Descartes 1637 Discourse on method/The meditations)

    "I think therfore I am" do you agree with this statemenent or its inversion "I am therefore I think"
    I think Descartes ran into problems long before he got to the "I think" bit in his Meditations.

    That said, I probably fall in the "I am, therefore ..." school. Existence of the being would ontologically preceed the existence of the mind.
  13. Joined
    07 Feb '03
    Moves
    1058
    30 Jul '05 20:29
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    I think Descartes ran into problems long before he got to the "I think" bit in his Meditations.

    That said, I probably fall in the "I am, therefore ..." school. Existence of the being would ontologically preceed the existence of the mind.
    "Existence of the being would ontologically preceed the existence of the mind. " lucifershammer


    How so!?
  14. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    30 Jul '05 21:50
    Behind all the makings of your mind,
    before all images, thoughts and words,
    can you find an “I” that’s not just another thought,
    another making of your mind?

    If not, who is “I”?
    If so, how will you tell
    anyone else?
  15. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    30 Jul '05 22:38
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Behind all the makings of your mind,
    before all images, thoughts and words,
    can you find an “I” that’s not just another thought,
    another making of your mind?

    If not, who is “I”?
    If so, how will you tell
    anyone else?
    I still maintain "I think, therefore , I think I am." is more precise.
    Although I guess maybe , "I am, therefore, I am I think." Sounds ok too.

    How about, "I think, therefore maybe I am, I guess."
Back to Top