journeying down the rabbit hole

[Eliza]

Hello All... After 5 days of lurking I guess it is time for at least some sort of introduction. Best I can say is I'm here to learn. Over the last two years I have been "unplugged" so to speak. I fought with it and finally decided that it is time to take the 'red pill' and be done with it. So here I am, seeking understanding. I have found that 'truth' or 'knowledge' for me is very fluid; changing with the tides. Much like learning anything, I find that a dam breaks, info comes in, I work with that and once the water stabilizes I'm flooded once again having to make sense of what just came through. The understanding that once was clear becomes murky and turbulent. Coming to terms with the realization of perspective I understand why it is this comes in stages as two years ago what seems logical now would have seemed absurd then. So, I will apologize in advance for naivety or ignorance. My library is growing as I tackle new concepts and the books that contain them. I welcome insight, recommendations and most certainly constructive criticism as I too am figuring out how I ‘fit’ into the implicate world in which I have found myself.

Just another duck on the pond,
~E

[duszek]

Hi Eliza,

welcome to the forum. We are all here to learn from each other.

Did you create the motto "I am therefore I think" yourself ?

Can you develop on this a little bit ?

Because I have the impression that people ofter hang around somewhere and do to think. So I think that being does not necessarily entail thinking.

[Eliza]

The signature is just a play on Descartes words; the idea of existence and who is doing the thinking. I.e. if I can think then obviously I exist. For me the emphasis is not on the idea of I am therefore I must think, more so saying I am therefore I am the one doing the thinking as opposed to I'm thinking therefore I exist. Because, although I understand what he meant by the saying, it could be misconstrued as saying that in order "to be" one must think. When obviously, to me that is, this is not the case, because if we stop thinking we still are. Which brings me to my current mental hurdle the idea of consciousness, mind, and soul. My latest theory on this is that everything that is in the forefront is of the mind and is thought, even that which has its origin in the soul, because even for the soul to communicate with the mind it must first be processed and interpreted so that the conscious individual can comprehend it i.e. be brought to the verbal centers of the brain and be essentially verbalized to self. Really this is just a snapshot of where I am with regards to comprehension of sense of self and who is in control; which goes into free will etc. sprouting a whole other conversation. Anyway... Thank you for the warm welcome and seed for conversation. Much appreciated.

~E

[Eliza]

Since it has been a while, though a re-introduction would probably be nice. Just another wanderer who made her way back to see what might come of it.

peace,

~E

[Richard Baron]

Since it has been a while, though a re-introduction would probably be nice.

Welcome back! Fear not, philosophy has not disappeared in the interim.

[dawnmathieson]

The signature is just a play on Descartes words; the idea of existence and who is doing the thinking. I.e. if I can think then obviously I exist. For me the emphasis is not on the idea of I am therefore I must think, more so saying I am therefore I am the one doing the thinking as opposed to I'm thinking therefore I exist. Because, although I understand what he meant by the saying, it could be misconstrued as saying that in order "to be" one must think. When obviously, to me that is, this is not the case, because if we stop thinking we still are. Which brings me to my current mental hurdle the idea of consciousness, mind, and soul. My latest theory on this is that everything that is in the forefront is of the mind and is thought, even that which has its origin in the soul, because even for the soul to communicate with the mind it must first be processed and interpreted so that the conscious individual can comprehend it i.e. be brought to the verbal centers of the brain and be essentially verbalized to self. Really this is just a snapshot of where I am with regards to comprehension of sense of self and who is in control; which goes into free will etc. sprouting a whole other conversation. Anyway... Thank you for the warm welcome and seed for conversation. Much appreciated.

~E

'I think therefore I am' should really be 'It thinks, It exists' as the concept of self is a long and disputed one. You seem to have missed the point. The point is not that 'if we stop thinking we still are.' The point is that in order to ascertain existence, one must first think. If one is able to think about existence then one must exist. For example, a plastic cactus cannot think about its existence, but this does not mean that it does not exist. Only that its existence is dependant on the consciousness of those around it. It only exists so far as it is conceived. But what Descartes was getting at was that nothing is certain, not the existence of the plastic cactus or anything we perceive as these could all be tricks. All we can know for certain is if one is thinking one must exist. This is called 'Foundationalism' x