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

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
waechter418
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:19 am
Location: Costa Rica
Contact:

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

Post by waechter418 » Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:08 am

i am because i think (i am) ?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4036
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

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

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:57 am

Londoner wrote: One of my experiences is a sense of continuity. There is 'me and experience', in that I do not identify myself with any particular experience.
The 'me' is only ever awareness aware of the experience. An experience is known only by the awareness in which the experience is arising.
The 'me' is the experience. There cannot be a 'me' having an 'experience' in the exact same moment. The 'me' is the 'experience' in the exact same moment.

To claim I do not identify myself with any particular experience...is still identification with the experience of non identifying. It is seen here that there simply is no 'I' here having an experience - awareness of experience has no I-dentity... the 'I' arises in awareness much like a dream arise at night.. appearances of I come and go in that which does not...there is nothing solid here that can be identified as a single I...except the word which is just an idea...arising in no thing...awareness.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4036
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

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

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:13 am

Londoner wrote:
As in earlier posts, I do not think it makes sense to talk of existing, your 'IS', as if it was a thing in itself. I agree that 'experience' is nothing in the sense that all words that refer to a category are not (usually) themselves members of that category; thus 'experience' is not the name of an experience. But it is no better to do the same thing with 'is'.

I think I understand what you are saying, but I wonder if you are going to have a problem putting it across with words.
Please note that...

What's being talked about in this thread is NOT about ''your' IS ...I'm always trying to point away from the personal 'is' to the impersonal 'is' of all IS-NESS.

WHAT IS ...is referring to EVERYTHING....EVERYTHING IS THE SAME AS NOTHING, in the sense that if there's just everything then there is nothing...there's is no room in Nonduality for two, ....twoness is always and ever Oneness appearing to itself...only. It can't be any other way. Every 'single' POV starts from the same one place of NOW HERE - NOWHERE...and, it's the same one awareness aware of every single point of view. The views may differ, but that's all, but the awareness in which the view is arising is always and ever the same one ...aware of all difference views.

Thanks for having some understanding of what's being pointed to here. As least you have some handle on this... some of the brick-brats that follow my threads here appear to be completely clueless. So kudos to you.

User avatar
Throng
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:05 pm

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

Post by Throng » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:16 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Londoner wrote: One of my experiences is a sense of continuity. There is 'me and experience', in that I do not identify myself with any particular experience.
The 'me' is only ever awareness aware of the experience. An experience is known only by the awareness in which the experience is arising.
The 'me' is the experience. There cannot be a 'me' having an 'experience' in the exact same moment. The 'me' is the 'experience' in the exact same moment.

To claim I do not identify myself with any particular experience...is still identification with the experience of non identifying. It is seen here that there simply is no 'I' here having an experience - awareness of experience has no I-dentity... the 'I' arises in awareness much like a dream arise at night.. appearances of I come and go in that which does not...there is nothing solid here that can be identified as a single I...except the word which is just an idea...arising in no thing...awareness.
Doesn't it depend on what is referred to as 'I'?

It can be argued that what you are is not what you experience, especially because experience is momentary while the presence of awareness itself is enduring. If one used 'I' to refer to their existential presence - that which remains constant and endures change, then it seems very reasonable. What do you refer to as 'I'?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4036
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

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

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:41 am

waechter418 wrote:i am because i think (i am) ?
Am I thinking thought, or is thought thinking me/ 'I'? ...what exactly is this I? can the 'I' in which a thought arises be known by the thought in which it arises? ...no it can't, because thoughts can't know or do anything, they have no independent existence apart from that in which they arise.

So what is THAT?...who is knowing and doing? Awareness /source is the only available answer, but this ANSWER cannot be thought about.

Become silent, let go of all thoughts and see what's left, see what's there between every thought...what's left is ''pure awareness'' ..see that thoughts arise in THAT..... and that there is no one making them come or happen...Notice that awareness doesn't go anywhere, and that it's always present. That constant presence is what's being pointed to here. It's a verb, not a noun.

So no 'I' thinking thought here, the 'I' cannot be located, and is why there can be no ''separate I'' thinking.

However, there is an ''I'' but it's not the 'I' thoughts think it is..it/ this 'I' does not belong to any thing. It is the one constant no thing in which all things/idea/thoughts/ concepts ARISE AND FALL

It's all the play of different energies appearing and disappearing in and of / within it's self only.

The one you think you are can negate everything - even key concepts like mind, consciousness, the witness, ultimate subject etc... yet the one that you think you are cannot negate Source: the undying, unborn 'wellspring' that has to 'be'. This one can't be negated because YOU ARE IT

Also, there is no little i or big I here either, these are only pointers used for pointing back to true source...which is I-less.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:57 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4036
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

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

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:54 am

Harbal wrote: PLEASE GET FUCKED! I've already read more of your tripe than you deserve.
Please try to kind to yourself. The world is your mirror.
The mirror can only reflect what you are. The mirror doesn't change, only your expression can change. The mirror can't do anything for you, it only reflects you, only you can polish the mirror. The mirrors advice to you is to smile and know that when you smile the whole mirror smiles with you.. :P

This advice was free. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4036
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

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

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:05 am

Throng wrote:What do you refer to as 'I'?
I is a thought...it's a thing. That in which things arise is not a thing. Therefore the thing is not really a thing, it's just thinking it is. No thing is doing this.
Each thing is known in the instant it arises one with the knowing which is no thing. These two dynamics of thing and no thing are the same one pretending to be be two.

For more information on this subject, log on to the inner net of net i net i ...NETI NETI ....or go to the other virual information field @ noduality.com

Descartes got it wrong when he said I think. Because I is only a thought., and thoughts can't actually think, they only think they can...which is more thought. Descartes left out one very important aspect of the whole dynamic and that was ''nothingness'' ..and he probably did this for one very good reason, and that being..what can the mind do with nothing :shock:
Last edited by Dontaskme on Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2452
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

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

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:09 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
What you have here is known as Cartesian materialism. It is also know as the homunculus argument. That is to say, there is a single place in the brain where all thoughts come together to give rise to a self, or a viewer. This just begs the question, "how is the homunculus conscious of the show in the Cartesian theatre?" It is a fallacious argument because it involves and infinite regress.
Consciousness is self-evident by association / experience. But this does not relate to a single ''separate self'' who is the ''thinker'' ''knower'' ''experiencer'' or ''doer'' simply because of the infinite regress problem. Life is a happening without doubt, the proof is already evident in the manifestation of the body and it's automatic functioning. But life for a 'separate self' is an illusion for the reason the self cannot be located, probably because it is everywhere at once.

So how does the sense of 'I exist' arise? ..........This extract may explain it better .... >


'' If the concept of number (or of discrete quantity) is postulated before zero (or the zero-point) and infinity (or the infinite state) are contemplated, then the idea of zero (or of the zero-point) and the idea of infinity (or of the infinite state) are (necessarily) categorized as numbers (or quantities) and as "entities" that are intrinsically two, and (thus) non-identical to one another-as if zero (or the zero-point) is, by definition, at the beginning and infinity (or the infinite state) is, by definition, at the end.

To invent number, human beings did not begin with zero (as a discrete number) and, then, start counting forwards-nor did they begin with infinity (as a discrete number) and, then, start counting backwards.

Rather, to invent number, human beings first invented the ideas of "point of view" (or of "localized" and separate "self'-identity), and of the "other" (or "not-self'), and of "difference" (or "objective quantity").

Only after number was already invented-based on the original invention of "point of view" (or "localized" and separate "self', or ego-"I") and of "object" (or "difference", or "not-self")-did human beings invent the ideas of zero and infinity.

Thus, originally, human beings mistakenly superimposed the idea of number onto the ideas of zero and infinity-and, as a result, human beings have struggled with the irrational paradoxes of that false superimposition ever since.

However, if the original error is understood and the false superimposition thus removed, contemplation of the "root"-ideas of zero (or the zero-point) and infinity (or the infinite state) can serve the human "root"-intuition of the Intrinsically egoless and indivisible Self-Nature, Self-Condition, and Self-State of Reality Itself.''

As far as I can see this has absolutely nothing to do with the cogito, In fact it makes absolutely no sense at all. Where did you get this extract?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4036
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

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

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:11 am

Ginkgo wrote:

As far as I can see this has absolutely nothing to do with the cogito, In fact it makes absolutely no sense at all. Where did you get this extract?
Life just IS, is doesn't have to make sense. Who would it have to make sense for...who is the other life?

Life appears out of no thing. A tree does not have to remember or intellectualise it's existence, in order to be, it's just appearing, and no thing is making it appear.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:15 am, edited 2 times in total.

duszek
Posts: 2183
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

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

Post by duszek » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:12 am

Dontaskme wrote: That in which things arise is not a thing.
By things you mean "thoughts" here, I suppose.

A materialist would say that the thing in which thoughts arise is a living brain.

Some thoughts can arise in AI too, I was told.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2452
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

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

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:14 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:

As far as I can see this has absolutely nothing to do with the cogito, In fact it makes absolutely no sense at all. Where did you get this extract?
Life just IS, is doesn't have to make sense. Who would it have to make sense for...who is the other life?
We all have only one life. I was just wondering where you got the extract.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4036
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

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

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:17 am

Ginkgo wrote:
We all have only one life. I was just wondering where you got the extract.
One life is living all lives, there is no 'we'

The extract is from the book ''The Aletheon'' by Adi Da Samraj

PS..thanks for reading the extract.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2452
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

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

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:24 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:
We all have only one life. I was just wondering where you got the extract.
One life is living all lives, there is no 'we'

The extract is from the book ''The Aletheon'' by Adi Da Samraj

PS..thanks for reading the extract.
No problem. If you are talking about plural "lives" then "we" as a possessive pronoun would be appropriate.

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3885
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

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

Post by Harbal » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:31 am

Dontaskme wrote: when you smile the whole mirror smiles with you..
But didn't you say:
The mirror doesn't change, only your expression can change.
Maybe if you weren't constantly contradicting yourself you would have more credibility.
This advice was free.
And its price reflects its value.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4036
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

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

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:33 am

duszek wrote:
Dontaskme wrote: That in which things arise is not a thing.
By things you mean "thoughts" here, I suppose.

A materialist would say that the thing in which thoughts arise is a living brain.

Some thoughts can arise in AI too, I was told.
Well the brain is known to be that which processes each thought, just as a computer is the processor of information imputed into it, but the actual ''what ever'' thought/information IS... imputing itself into a brain and then outpouring as knowledge known is unknowable...because all knowledge is illusory ...only known as it appears to be from it's invisible source.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest