30 Jul 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSo you cast a vote on the side of "I am therefore I think", I take it.
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.
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) 🙂
30 Jul 05
Originally posted by SerendipityThe middle road I think is symbolised by OM as well as anything else.
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) 🙂
"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. )
30 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageEastern philosophy versus western uh 🙂
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. )
We just cant get away from dualism 🙂
30 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by SerendipityI 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.
Eastern philosophy versus western uh 🙂
We just cant get away from dualism 🙂
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).
30 Jul 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe trouble is these are all non-secular philosophies, Meister Eckhardt was a christian mystic (I think) and Descartes himself was a Catholic..
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).
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 😕
30 Jul 05
Originally posted by SerendipityFor 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.
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 😕
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?)
30 Jul 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageObjectivity.....urm are we capable of it..I doubt it
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?)
But I do belive spirituality is the way forward but a secular spirituality
30 Jul 05
Originally posted by SerendipityOK what do you mean by secular. Examples are fine.
Objectivity.....urm are we capable of it..I doubt it
But I do belive spirituality is the way forward but a secular spirituality
(for me, the Zen type of spurchuality is secular, as is the Grail-quest. The grail is a symbol, not a god.)
30 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe definition of secular isn't not believing in god:
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.)
"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)
30 Jul 05
Originally posted by SerendipityI think Descartes ran into problems long before he got to the "I think" bit in his Meditations.
"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"
That said, I probably fall in the "I am, therefore ..." school. Existence of the being would ontologically preceed the existence of the mind.
30 Jul 05
Originally posted by lucifershammer"Existence of the being would ontologically preceed the existence of the mind. " 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.
How so!?
30 Jul 05
Originally posted by vistesdI still maintain "I think, therefore , I think I am." is more precise.
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?
Although I guess maybe , "I am, therefore, I am I think." Sounds ok too.
How about, "I think, therefore maybe I am, I guess."