Failure of "I".

[uwot]

" I think therefore I am " assumes a fundamental split into the existing "I" and the thinking "I".

If by 'existing' you mean 'physical', then yes, Descartes thought he could prove his existence as a 'thinking thing'. Frankly, since he would have to think to do so, it's in the bag; but it doesn't follow that he therefore exists as a physical being.

So, replacing Descartes Cogito by just "I am" would eliminate the whole nature of Descartes's project.

Well, Descartes' project was to discover a sound premise on which to build a logical edifice, much as Euclid had done with his axiomatic geometry. 'I think, therefore I am' was a promising start; unfortunately nothing follows from it unless you introduce other premises which don't have the same logical necessity. Descartes tried 'A good god exists', but despite throwing the ontological argument at it, he couldn't make it stick.
'I think, therefore I am' was the product of Descartes' 'method' of doubt, according to which he establishes that it is possible to doubt everything, or at least hypothesise explanations that only nutcases take seriously, but when it came to doubting, he couldn't doubt that he was doubting. So he decided that whatever was doing the doubting, was him.

[Exan]

" I think therefore I am " assumes a fundamental split into the existing "I" and the thinking "I".

If by 'existing' you mean 'physical', then yes, Descartes thought he could prove his existence as a 'thinking thing'. Frankly, since he would have to think to do so, it's in the bag; but it doesn't follow that he therefore exists as a physical being.

So, replacing Descartes Cogito by just "I am" would eliminate the whole nature of Descartes's project.

Well, Descartes' project was to discover a sound premise on which to build a logical edifice, much as Euclid had done with his axiomatic geometry. 'I think, therefore I am' was a promising start; unfortunately nothing follows from it unless you introduce other premises which don't have the same logical necessity. Descartes tried 'A good god exists', but despite throwing the ontological argument at it, he couldn't make it stick.

I do not think that Descartes's project was about "building a logical edifice." It was about building a new way of being in the God's absence.
Basically, Cogito could work effectively without God.

[Eodnhoj7]

"I think therefore I am"

Observes the act of thinking as an action that determines the "I", but it is the "action" that determines the existence of the "I". This action does not have to be limited to "thinking", it can be any action as a form of "movement".

In these respects "I think therefore I am" can be replaced with just "I am" in the respect "am" universalizes all possible actions as "being" itself.

" I think therefore I am " assumes a fundamental split into the existing "I" and the thinking "I". So, replacing Descartes Cogito by just "I am" would eliminate the whole nature of Descartes's project.
[/quote]

Finally a real thinker here...yes I agree 100% it does explain, or rather point to, a split and that is the problem...the split.

In all actuality "I" alone would be the most justifiable of all statements of truth considering all action and non-action would stem from it...in these respect "I" is a neutral synthetic term of both "activity (movement)" and "non-activity" (no-movement).

To observe "I" as non-active and "am" as active observes an inherent dualism where "I" maintains a nature of "non-active" with the "am" as active with this dualism between active and non-active observing the statement of "I am" as being the neutral axiom in itself.

Reversing the values of "I" and "am", relative to which one is active and non-active still maintains this dualism with this dualism existing as a neutral statement (or having a third element as "both/and") in itself.

I may have to elaborate further...busy and head is fuzzy.

[uwot]

I do not think that Descartes's project was about "building a logical edifice."

Well, what you do with it is your business, but this is the famous bit from Descartes' Discourse on the method:
"...seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; and because some men err in reasoning, and fall into paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for demonstrations; and finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am, was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search." http://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm

It was about building a new way of being in the God's absence.

Not as far as Descartes was concerned.

Basically, Cogito could work effectively without God.

Yes, but as I said above, you can't do anything with it logically unless you accept as true some axioms that you cannot prove, which in Descartes' case was that a good god exist that would not allow Descartes to be mistaken about his 'clear and distinct' ideas.

[Exan]

"To observe "I" as non-active and "am" as active observes an inherent dualism where "I" maintains a nature of "non-active" with the "am" as active with this dualism between active and non-active observing the statement of "I am" as being the neutral axiom in itself.

Reversing the values of "I" and "am", relative to which one is active and non-active still maintains this dualism with this dualism existing as a neutral statement (or having a third element as "both/and") in itself."

Considering the statement of "I am" as the neutral axiom has a lot of implications. There is no neutrality in operation of the invention of "I"!
However the association of the "I" with this thought, is not equally affirmed by Descartes, indeed throughout the Meditations Descartes refers to himself as "what am I only a thing that thinks". There is a significant distance between the concepts of :

1) a thing that thinks
2) a thing that experiences thought
3) a thingless experience of thought
4) an 'I' thinking

I am not sure that Descartes's own goal was to promote a universal "I".

[Exan]

"Yes, but as I said above, you can't do anything with it logically unless you accept as true some axioms that you cannot prove, which in Descartes' case was that a good god exist that would not allow Descartes to be mistaken about his 'clear and distinct' ideas."

Probably you are right that Descartes could not complete his meditation without the belief in a Good God. Yet, in the most critical part of his doubt and suspension, he did not apply it. So, we can ask a question: what was his fundamental existential support in addition to a few beliefs and truths that you mentioned?

[Exan]

Nietzsche in aphorism 17 (BG&E) advanced a doubt in the existence of "I" with the empirically correct observation that "a thought comes when it wills" and not when this 'I' thing wills it. Therefore if thought simply comes when it wills and is not generated by the entirely presumptive 'I', we must conclude that thought is independent of the 'I' and to ask the fundamental question about the nature of thought.

[uwot]

Probably you are right that Descartes could not complete his meditation without the belief in a Good God.

Very gracious of you to say so.

Yet, in the most critical part of his doubt and suspension, he did not apply it.

True; that's because even he thought it was possible to doubt the existence of god.

So, we can ask a question: what was his fundamental existential support in addition to a few beliefs and truths that you mentioned?

A little thing called Cartesian dualism. Regardless of Descartes' view of god, he believed the temporal world was made of mind and matter.

[Exan]

"A little thing called Cartesian dualism. Regardless of Descartes' view of god, he believed the temporal world was made of mind and matter."

I am not sure in what I say, and I am not an expert at all. (though I was reading some of Descartes's texts).
I am just interested in some contemporary interpretations of Cogito.

[Eodnhoj7]

"The nature of "I" as qualitatively dependent upon the culture which we both form and forms us takes on a dual quantitative nature in the respect the "I" as both groups and composing groups exists as temporal."

Could you specify related to our Culture?

Sorry, wasn't aware you were addressing me.

All culture...let's say American culture, both forms and acts as an extension of the individual.

So I may grow up observing the ethics of consumerism and this ethics acts as the means which gives structure to my identity. Now I may agree or disagree with these ethics however my following or not-following these ethics effectively causes me to partake in that culture and in turn form it. A further form of alteration then occurs with me as a fraction of the culture and the culture existing as a fraction of me

Now the culture as an extension of multiple "I"'s in turn observes the culture as composed of various personalities (much in the same way the individual has different aspects of the self) with the culture existing as having a personality in itself (such as American's favoring freedom and equality but also being arrogant and generally stupid).

[Eodnhoj7]

"This aspect of the "I" as means of change, or the degree in itself, necessitates the temporal or finite nature of the "I" as one that it is inherently quantitative in the respect its means of change through continual multiplication and division of realities effectively exists through the actualization of phenomena by localizing them into singularities, whether it be through more abstract in the respect the "I" multiplies or divides thought or rather physical in the respect it empircally multiplies or divides realities through the acts of eating or reproduction."

Do you actually mean that singularities generating "I" are about "acts of eating or reproduction"?
Aren't they different socio-cultural assemblages?

All acts of eating and reproduction, quantitatively observe a dualism of division and multiplication. The act of eating observes this simultaneously multiplication and division in the respect the food contracts (broken down into smaller parts) through the "I" while the act of reproduction observes this multiplication/division simultaneously through an act of expansion through offspring.

In these respects the nature of "I" relativistically maintains itself through expansion and contraction across time.

Social-cultural assemblages follow this same set up as the act of being of one culture observes the consumption and reproduction of other cultures...I may have to elaborate further on this point.

[Eodnhoj7]

I think that abbreviating it to I am is better since makes it easier to understand
It may contain more complexity but essentially it is a confirmation of existence

This can be observed in the response to exan:



" I think therefore I am " assumes a fundamental split into the existing "I" and the thinking "I". So, replacing Descartes Cogito by just "I am" would eliminate the whole nature of Descartes's project.
[/quote]

Finally a real thinker here...yes I agree 100% it does explain, or rather point to, a split and that is the problem...the split.

In all actuality "I" alone would be the most justifiable of all statements of truth considering all action and non-action would stem from it...in these respect "I" is a neutral synthetic term of both "activity (movement)" and "non-activity" (no-movement).

To observe "I" as non-active and "am" as active observes an inherent dualism where "I" maintains a nature of "non-active" with the "am" as active with this dualism between active and non-active observing the statement of "I am" as being the neutral axiom in itself.

Reversing the values of "I" and "am", relative to which one is active and non-active still maintains this dualism with this dualism existing as a neutral statement (or having a third element as "both/and") in itself.

I may have to elaborate further...busy and head is fuzzy.

[Exan]

In these respects the nature of "I" relativistically maintains itself through expansion and contraction across time.

Social-cultural assemblages follow this same set up as the act of being of one culture observes the consumption and reproduction of other cultures...I may have to elaborate further on this point.

You are right in your intuitions, yet it is extremely huge gups and jumps since humans started using language and cultural means.
That is my post, taken from your thread:

"we are still left with the problem of consciousness as one of "degree" where the greater or lesser number of "I"'s determines the level of consciousness...in these respects the nature of consciousness as degree is still a facet of consciousness as the "degree" is merely a means of relation.

One could argue that a higher consciousness observes the degree, however a lower form still exists through these very same degrees...in these respects the consciousness as existing through degree is merely a degree in itself and the nature of consciousness as existing through degrees observes the consciousness as a mediator...the level of consciousness in these respects is less one of higher or lower but rather one of mediation as a point of origin. In these respects the "I" as consciousness exists as a means of change as continual relation with this continual relation as continual change observing the "I" as a median of change in itself...hence a constant."

You write about "the greater or lesser number of "I" ". How can we use the same notation of "I" for so many different acts, composing "Consciousness"?
Both "I"s and "consciousness" should be considered in terms of heterogenic external and internal generating processes, assembling what you call "I" and "consciousness".

[Eodnhoj7]

In these respects the nature of "I" relativistically maintains itself through expansion and contraction across time.

Social-cultural assemblages follow this same set up as the act of being of one culture observes the consumption and reproduction of other cultures...I may have to elaborate further on this point.

You are right in your intuitions, yet it is extremely huge gups and jumps since humans started using language and cultural means.
That is my post, taken from your thread:

These gaps, as the space between one part and another (such as the observation of "language" and "cultural" as relative parts within human evolution) still observe the inherent relation between these parts as fractals of these parts.

For example I may observe 1 progress to 2 through a series of fractals...the same occurs with language leading to culture (or vice versa considering time may be irrelevant in which started the other as both may be simultaneous as both are observations of group behavior). In simpler terms the continual progression of one inevitably leads to another as one effectively folds through into another (just as 1 folds through itself under fractions into 2).






"we are still left with the problem of consciousness as one of "degree" where the greater or lesser number of "I"'s determines the level of consciousness...in these respects the nature of consciousness as degree is still a facet of consciousness as the "degree" is merely a means of relation.

One could argue that a higher consciousness observes the degree, however a lower form still exists through these very same degrees...in these respects the consciousness as existing through degree is merely a degree in itself and the nature of consciousness as existing through degrees observes the consciousness as a mediator...the level of consciousness in these respects is less one of higher or lower but rather one of mediation as a point of origin. In these respects the "I" as consciousness exists as a means of change as continual relation with this continual relation as continual change observing the "I" as a median of change in itself...hence a constant."

You write about "the greater or lesser number of "I" ". How can we use the same notation of "I" for so many different acts, composing "Consciousness"?
Both "I"s and "consciousness" should be considered in terms of heterogenic external and internal generating processes, assembling what you call "I" and "consciousness".

Great question actually. If we look at the nature of "I" as the foundation of all consciousness in its ability to measure, with the act of measurement:

1) Observing the whole of a reality through a chain of causes as 1 structure.
2) Observing the relation of parts by localizing them into singular units.
3) Observing the connection of parts as 1 and the seperate of parts as multiple 1's.


The "external" projective nature of the "I", in which "I" projects itself past itself as both a part directed towards another part effectively observes the "I" as relativistic.

The "internal" reflective (mirroring) nature of the "I", in which "I" is directed through itself as itself observes an inherent degree of self-maintianance through self-structuring...in these respects the "I" as "I" through "I" manifests a degree of consistence.

The "I" is both relative and absolute in these respects and as both is inherent "neutral" as the "limit" of consciousness itself while effectively being neither absolute or relative in the respect all limits exist through no-limit (possible limits) where the "I" is fundamentally without boundaries.

The "I" in this respect exists through 1 as 1 where all acts of measurement are premised in qualititative unity/units and quantitative 1/1's.

All measurement is founded in the observation of 1 in these respects stemming through the "I" as one. We can see intuitively the "I" in english mirroring the one of its latin/roman roots where both seem to connect in some respect.

This point may be obscure and I may have to elaborate further.

[Exan]

I think that Felix Guattari brought a good example of how "I' and consciousness are actually split into multiple heterogenic components, nevertheless
composing one whole assemblage:
“When we drive, we activate subjectivity and a multiplicity of partial consciousness connected to the car ‘s technological mechanisms. There is no “individuated subject” that is in control of the driving. If one knows how to drive, one acts without thinking about it, without engaging reflexive consciousness…We are guided by the car’s machinic assemblage. Our actions and subjective components (memory, attention, perception, etc) are “automatized”, they are a part of the machinic, hydraulic, electronic, etc apparatuses, constituting non-human parts of the assemblage. Driving mobilizes different processes of conscientization,
one succeeding the next, superimposing one onto the other, connecting or disconnecting according to the current events of driving."