Guest guest Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 It would seem that Descartes was talking about the unenlightened life when arriving at " I think, therefore I am " He is talking about the ego ( " I " -thought) being proof of existence. Surely, as 'seen' from Oneness " I am, therefore I think " would appear to be the ultimate truth. The ego manifests in Being/Conciousness. So both statements apply, depending on one's position. Kind regards, bd2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 Hi, > It would seem that > Descartes was talking about the unenlightened life > when arriving at > " I think, therefore I am " The statement is misleading period, and particularly for the ''''''purposes''''''' of '''''''enlightenment'''''''. It is pointing out what keeps a ME a ME and using the existence of a ME to claim I AM or I exist. Like a lightbulb saying 'I give off light therefore I am electricity' > He is talking about the ego ( " I " -thought) > being proof of existence. Yes. A ME claiming that a ME is 'real' or existence, which it is not. > Surely, as 'seen' from Oneness > " I am, therefore I think " > would appear to be the ultimate truth. '''From''' '''oneness''' would there be a *need* to say anything? Again, If something is being said it is being said *by* a ME. > The ego manifests in Being/Conciousness. The ego as a ME is manifest like all phenomenon, and this ME is what binds a ME TO a ME. A ME is what goes around impossibly seeking to find 'liberation' or 'enlightenment' and the ME who tries to find out who they are simply adds to the illusion of finding out what 'they' are not. > So both statements apply, > depending on one's position> Yes, taken from the position of a ME the statement says 'I am a ME therefore I am ( I exist as a ME, I am a 'real' ME ). The ME is not what is 'real' or existence and that is what is misleading about the statement. Kind Regards, Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 When Descartes had the thought " I think therefore I am " he had to be thinking about his own thinkingness and his own amness, so he could more accurately have said: " I think I think therefore I think I am. " Of course he could have replied, " No. I *know* I think. I definitely think. " Ahhh... so he thinks! Perhaps it seems I am just playing with words. But perhaps there is really a point: Thinking can't get outside of itself to point to reality. Thinking is trapped in its own little game of cat-and-mouse. Descartes was trying to point outside of the realm of thinking... trying to get from epistemology to ontology. But it doesn't work. ............... Imagine... there had to a time in history when someone said for the first time, " I'm thinking. " And it was probably followed by the statement, " So leave me alone! " Bill cogito ergo cogito sum ergo sum - billydid2 Nisargadatta Wednesday, June 23, 2004 4:25 PM I think, therefore I am It would seem that Descartes was talking about the unenlightened life when arriving at " I think, therefore I am " He is talking about the ego ( " I " -thought) being proof of existence. Surely, as 'seen' from Oneness " I am, therefore I think " would appear to be the ultimate truth. The ego manifests in Being/Conciousness. So both statements apply, depending on one's position. Kind regards, bd2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.