Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7589
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:33 am

Reality is tacit. It is incapable of uttering a single world, rather, it listens to itself.As consciousness listens, mind asks guidance from "presence", but "consciousness" doesn't respond, being Silence itself. And in the face of non-responsive Silence ..Mind responds to itself. Mind engages in imaginary conversations with itself.

Image

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 6387
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:55 pm

"No thing can touch what you ARE"

Of course I can be touched...I'm tangible.

Rain wets me, fire burns me, a fist blackens my eye (and mine can and will return the favor).

I am flesh.

User avatar
Throng
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:05 pm

Re: Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

Post by Throng » Fri Nov 11, 2016 1:04 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Throng wrote:
I'm sure you're making up a big story about what 'I' implies. It seems to me to be a good simple way of referring to ourselves. What it refers to exactly is an interesting inquiry, none-the-less.
Every utterance is a made-up story...it' an auditory illusion of sound appearing to nobody from nowhere. There is no story writer or teller. There is only the invisible internal comprehension/ understanding.
The capacity to infer to 'myself' as the understander is a unique human quality formed via the auditory illusion of language. But there is no actual self that language refers to - there is only the illusory appearance of language...with meaning and purpose attached...all illusory.

No one here is speaking or writing or communicating.....this phenomena are the appearances of no thing. This is no thing apparently ''thinging'' No thing is making this happen. And that's what makes it very grand indeed.

When a reference to an ''I'' of ''myself''' is made, it creates a limitation of what is actually boundlessly and infinitely free. That superficially imposed limitation is what's known as the ''misery self''
I figured 'I' is a good way to refer to oneself. It seems obvious, and nothing is more obvious, that I exist. I can't define what that is exactly, but this presence of awareness is something we all have in common, and I claim that 'I' pertains to that, fundamentally. In this sense, when any of us say 'I', we refer to the same thing.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7589
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: United Kingdom Of Heaven

Re: Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:01 am

Throng wrote:
I figured 'I' is a good way to refer to oneself. It seems obvious, and nothing is more obvious, that I exist. I can't define what that is exactly, but this presence of awareness is something we all have in common, and I claim that 'I' pertains to that, fundamentally. In this sense, when any of us say 'I', we refer to the same thing.
This is obvious yes, but the 'I' is an artificially created 'I' born of mind/consciousness, (the conception) aka to become aware/ known ...via the mind construction of language ..the 'I' is used as a pointer, pointing back to it's real self which is the dreamer or no-thing aka awareness within which everything aka no thing...is arising, so it seems, apparently. But since the mind can't do anything with the no thing it is, it artificially creates things.....I've already explained this many times before.

THOUGHT / language arises within this dynamic of becoming aware/ or knowing something.. what ''thought'' does is it artificially separates the whole of being into a knower and the known...but here, only the known 'I' is known (aka the concept)... not the knower of the known 'I' ...(non-conceptual)

Although it appears there are separate 'I's ....these refer to as like being dream characters ...they have no existence apart from the unknown dreamer of everything.

This is infinity now, expressing itself. This is everything all at once, no division, no boundary, no edge... If there's just everything then it doesn't belong to any thing, there's no thing that has started independently, nor is there any thing that can end... no thing has ever had a beginning nor will any thing end... there's just everything always aka infinity...aka no thing....aka ONENESS

Within the concept of ''human'' ....There is no human doer, there is only human being.

The dream character cannot know the dreamer dreaming the character . The character is only known as consciousness, as in become conscious of itself, but it's only conscious of itself as a fictional dream character, IT'S NOT REAL.

No thing is real.


That's all I'm trying to point out.

Throng, are you into Self inquiry aka Non-duality?

Beauty
Posts: 283
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:08 pm

Re: Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

Post by Beauty » Sun May 06, 2018 12:56 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:02 pm
''Who'' is the I who is thinking? ... in or to whom does a thought arise?

''Who'' is the I in I am receiving a thought so I am.?

What / who am I ?
We have a body and a mind, physical and spiritual
body is connected to its mind, physical to spiritual
mind is I, body is AM
and so Jesus said, "I am the AM" not the I
I is our essence - mind or spirit,
We here in the physical are only a connection to our spirit or mind
body gone, mind is still there or spirit still there
I am the AM only here on earth but in connection with my I the essence of me
and so I am - so and so
But I am still not the I
Only a connection to that
So AM is thinking
AM is physical body
AM is receiving a thought from I
Who am I?
"I am the AM"
and I am not upon thinking
for without it I am still there above
I am because the I is there
If the AM was not there
the I would still be there
Because I am essentially the I - SELF
On earth I am only in a sense myself and that may mean on my own even
my true self is only above
it is called - SELF
right now the S and E and L and F
remain unknown
Only they would define the SELF

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests