Cognito Ergo Sum [Archive]

Ronagon

30th May 2004, 12:07 PM

There are two possible reasons why nobody's arguing with you:

1) Nobody disagrees with you... Most people nowadays have been so utterly indoctrinated with the kind of absolute subjectivism that you're talking about, that their only response is: Well, DUH...! In their minds, to debate it is like debating the existence of gravity.

Of course, I'm an objectivist, and to me your sentiment only applies in certain cases where reality allows for human will to shape things. But ultimately, if reality dictates that no amount of human will can change things, then that's all there is to it.

2) The crowd in here has been in here for several years, and maybe they've exhausted their need to discuss philosophy any further, or maybe it's just for the time being.

Best of luck...

But if you really want to piss people off - and it sounds like you do - Go over to this one forum at http://www.solohq.com and start saying what you said here; they'll go insane, most likely.

shifu

2nd June 2004, 03:03 PM

Holy Tao:

Just a thought bout your profound comment:

I'm not a Philosophy student - I prefer Religion/Spirituality.

Were are all student of philosophy…well to some degree, hence were are asking questions….! The fact of asking question is in fact a move towards what we may call the act of philosophizing. And BTW, Religion and or spirituality is a component of philosophy…

To me, this Quote "Cognito Ergo Sum" could be interpreted better as...
"What I Think, becomes my Reality".

The original text was or is in Descartes’ methodic doubt he says or wrote ….cogito sum, which means i am a thinking self….cogito ergo sum is the product of philosophical bigotry and make believe. You may be right when you will say …. “ What I Think, becomes my Reality", but that is not the case of cogito sum…hence it is an object fact…. we are all thinking being.

I thought you Philosophers would be calling me a heretic by now.

Well, as far as i have known nobody has been burn-at-stake coz of philosophical heresy…I think philosophical heretics are those people who have heard philosophical jargons and think they knew too well that they preach it other people without reading the whole text… its like blind man leading another blind man to its doom.

<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>What does it take to bring this forum back to life?</span>

sensible question and comments ….

Welcome and best luck

shifu :)

sonrisa

3rd June 2004, 03:16 AM

hi Holy Tao, welcome to TBV! I don't mean to make fun of you- I'm not, but look- if what I think determines my reality, then how come my numbers haven't hit, & I don't have my beach house on some warm weather beach someplace where & I can do art all day or what ever else I feel like doing, or hop off in my Learjet & go visit all those places I love to go see some day.... :lol:
my day to day reality couldn't be further from that wonderful vision!! :lol:

What I do think is that your day to day personal experiences form your reality, & this in turn, influences how you think, dertermines your pov. New experiences can change your thinking/pov.

HolyTao

4th June 2004, 12:52 AM

Everything that mankind has made, and done, in the "real" world began as an idea in someone's head.

That is part of what is meant by "What I think, becomes my reality" :)

Also, the thoughts in our mind are a part of our experience and "reality". If we believe in them, and desire them enough, we will do all we can to make them a reality in the "objective"/"real" physical world.

sahyo

4th June 2004, 11:43 AM

does seem as though an entity clinging to desire/belief? :)

HolyTao

5th June 2004, 04:16 PM

The world around us (that we have control over) reflects our state of mind.

sahyo

5th June 2004, 05:11 PM

seems "reflects" "around" "us" "we" "control"
as though can divide?

HolyTao

6th June 2004, 10:33 AM

asheera mind nonsence reflects pointless :P

sonrisa

14th June 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by HolyTao@Jun 3 2004, 12:52 PM
Everything that mankind has made, and done, in the "real" world began as an idea in someone's head.

That is part of what is meant by "What I think, becomes my reality" :)

Also, the thoughts in our mind are a part of our experience and "reality". If we believe in them, and desire them enough, we will do all we can to make them a reality in the "objective"/"real" physical world.

ah, so what you're referring to involves some elbow grease. I was thinking more along the lines of A Field Of Dreams, you know, if you build it they will come- if you think it it will come into existence.... There are techniques to do that ya know, to literally think something into existence. But I have never been very good at them.

what I have noticed, looking over my life, is that best things that have ever come to me are generally the result of serendipity. Whenever I try to make something happen, it generally blows up in my face. The more I tried to make it happen, the bigger it blew too. So now I just go with the flow, to wherever life takes me. :)

slayer

15th June 2004, 01:25 AM

Holy Tao,

Let me offer another reason for why nobody is debating with you: you have no idea what you're talking about!

First, it pains me to read Cognito Ergo Sum. Are we talking about comic superheroes now? It's COGITO, not Cognito.

Second, why would "Cogito ergo sum" mean what you say it means? You're certainly not interepreting Descartes. You're at best giving it your own definition, but this is uninteresting because the Cogito is specifically Descartes's expression. If you're going to offer us your own personal philosophic take on something, then at least don't misrepresent Descartes in the process.

I have nothing to say with regards to your naive understanding of reality. I leave that topic for the other deluded ones here to take up and cheer you on about.

Now let me concentrate really hard so I can fly.

up up and away!

slayer

HolyTao

15th June 2004, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by sonrisa@Jun 14 2004, 03:39 PM
"What I have noticed, looking over my life, is that best things that have ever come to me are generally the result of serendipity. Whenever I try to make something happen, it generally blows up in my face. The more I tried to make it happen, the bigger it blew too. So now I just go with the flow, to wherever life takes me. :)"

I still like "Cognito" - I think I sounds neat. :)
If Crowley can spell Magic as Magick, then I can say "Cognito".
I'm happy to be a Heretic ... it's needed in the world today - things are changing fast now, and nothing is sacred.

I like what sonrisa said...it's best to calmly and confidently envision what you would like to see, but not try to "force" it to happen - it will fall into place at the right time - just be ready for it when it does.

sonrisa

17th June 2004, 03:48 PM

why thanx Holy Tao! :)

re:cognito- u GO!! :thumbsup:

I wonder if J Page is still living in Crowley's old mansion?

J Page rules!! :thumbsup:

todd

30th June 2004, 04:35 PM

Cognito comes from cognos that means knowledge.
Cogito means "I think"

I think(!?) that if I think, I exist. So, do we really think? or we think we think?

sahyo

30th June 2004, 04:45 PM

did you think?

a random hack

30th June 2004, 08:25 PM

do you stop existing if you stop thinking?

vicente

30th June 2004, 11:23 PM

do you stop existing if you stop thinking?

Actually, you become aware of existence when thinking stops. Thinking merely feeds and sustains the illusion of separation.

:)

slayer

1st July 2004, 12:58 AM

[Todd...] Cognito comes from cognos that means knowledge.
Cogito means "I think"

I think(!?) that if I think, I exist. So, do we really think? or we think we think?

Yes, Cognito comes from cognosco, which can mean 'I know,' but Cogito comes from cogitare which means 'to think.' Cogitabilis means 'conceivable.'

So, though I'm not saying anything Todd said was incompatible with what I just said, I think there is a possible confusion to be avoided: that Cogito comes from cognos. It does not.

You're not aware of anything if you stop thinking. Because by 'aware' you mean you can understand the true nature of things, or something gaybob like that, but you cannot understand anything if you don't reason, which requires thinking. If all you are is an object that takes in visual objects, that is, perceives, then you don't understand anything at all. A movie camera isn't aware of anything, much like you all.

Cogito ergo I am smarter than you,

slayer

sahyo

1st July 2004, 04:12 AM

Actually, you become aware of existence when thinking stops.

when thinking ceases, not possible "you become aware of existence" as though separate

Thinking merely feeds and sustains the illusion of separation.

thinking doesn't "feeds and sustains" as though separate

sahyo

1st July 2004, 04:15 AM

but you cannot understand anything if you don't reason, which requires thinking.

imagined reason cannot understand

vicente

1st July 2004, 04:25 AM

You're not aware of anything if you stop thinking. Because by 'aware' you mean you can understand the true nature of things, or something gaybob like that, but you cannot understand anything if you don't reason, which requires thinking. If all you are is an object that takes in visual objects, that is, perceives, then you don't understand anything at all.

Slayer,...dear philosopher,...all your points-of-view are upsidedown,...no wonder you opted for a delusioned life of anti-American neo-conservatism.

Descartes, one of the eminent Priests of Science and Philosophy, said "I think, therefore I Am", which could be written in Latin, however I do not wish New Liturgy Catholics to get confused. This above, so-called first principle in resolving universal doubt, is insane. How does the "I think", the little i, the ego, come before the "I Am"? Thinking does not and cannot experience the world directly; it is a result of the past. Simply try to think in the Now; it's impossible. Thinking is a product of space-time. Our thinking-selfs is one of ego's means which reinforces the false through an imagined continuity in separation.

A Buddhist story spoke of a student who wished to make an offering to Buddha, and so brought a flowering branch to a gathering. On approaching, Buddha said to the pupil, "throw it away". Quickly, thinking he was to discard the branch, the pupil threw it away. Yet Buddha again said "throw it away", however the student could comprehend what to do. Buddha then said, "throw yourself away". And the novice stood there confounded, thinking how he could throw himself away.

If the student had his I Am before his I think, there would not have been a reason to "throw it away".

Unfortunately, most, like Slayer, have an object-ive, scientific view of our world. Science comes from the word scientia, meaning knowledge, which is: 1. to perceive directly through the senses; comprehend through the intellect; psyche. 2. to experience through the intellect or memory, something as true. 3. to be acquainted with or have a practical understanding of, as through sensory experience; know how to cook. 4. to comprehend noologically; through thought/intellect.

Knowledge is converse to gnowledge; that is, sapience, from the word sapientia, which is: 1. to understand directly through metasensory awareness; comprehend through the heart of essence; thymos. 2. to experience without predisposition, something as true. 3. to be acquainted with or have gnostic understanding of, as through metasensory experience; to gnow love. 4. to comprehend ontosophically; through wisdom/gnosis.

The Greeks said "Gnothi Seauton", not Know Thyself, but Gnow Thyself. Nothing real can be understood through knowledge. Knowledge is for those who fear their Heart. There is no awareness of the Heart through Knowledge. Thus is why the Mahasiddha's taught the practice of Stillness.

:)

slayer

1st July 2004, 05:01 AM

Slayer,...dear philosopher,...all your points-of-view are upsidedown,...no wonder you opted for a delusioned life of anti-American neo-conservatism.

Rhetoric. You understand why I don't bother to say more on this.

Descartes, one of the eminent Priests of Science and Philosophy, said "I think, therefore I Am", which could be written in Latin, however I do not wish New Liturgy Catholics to get confused. This above, so-called first principle in resolving universal doubt, is insane. How does the "I think", the little i, the ego, come before the "I Am"? Thinking does not and cannot experience the world directly; it is a result of the past. Simply try to think in the Now; it's impossible. Thinking is a product of space-time. Our thinking-selfs is one of ego's means which reinforces the false through an imagined continuity in separation.

Uhm, wrong. Descartes simply was saying that because no matter his ontological status, no matter the source of his thoughts, that thinking was going on. Well, he thought himself the location of this thinking, even if the thoughts didn't originate with him, and since for thinking to be going on there is needed a thing to do this thinking (that is, thinking entails existence), that he (the thinking thing) existed. Well, another way to express this is to say: Cogito ergo sum.

I truly don't understand your very confused talk. Yes, thinking is a process which takes time. Let me ask you: What is the present? Is in an instant in time? If so, how many thoughts can you fit into one instant of time? None? If none, then how do we ever think?

Nobody is claiming that thinking experiences the world directly. I'm not sure that's even coherent. We experience the world and then we think about what he we experienced. What's the problem?

What's this silly talk of asking me to try to think in the Now. You can only think in the Now. The Now is the present, and since the past doesn't exist and the future doesn't either, that leaves us the Now. You're just confusing yourself with philosophical terms you misapprehend.

I recommend that you stop using philosophical terms -- advice that I too try to follow -- and keep to ordinary English expressions and meanings. Most people go astray when they try to incorporate philosophical terms, when really these terms are very specific and usually aren't fully grasped by their users. This leads only to confusion.

I confess to not having read anything past "A Buddhist story spoke..." I probably will never read anything with such a beginning.

respectfully,

slayer

vicente

1st July 2004, 10:30 AM

I truly don't understand your very confused talk. Yes, thinking is a process which takes time. Let me ask you: What is the present? Is in an instant in time? If so, how many thoughts can you fit into one instant of time? None? If none, then how do we ever think?

There is no instant in time. The idea of a 'present in time' is only for the insane. As for thought, it arises from stored memory, and is only in the past. Thought does not, cannot, exist in the present. Only those who think the perceived present is the Present (nearly all Philosophers and Scientists) believe that thinking is real.

how many thoughts can you fit into one instant of time?

None. Just like one cannot bring a condition into the Unconditional and have the Unconditional remain Unconditional.

I confess to not having read anything past "A Buddhist story spoke..." I probably will never read anything with such a beginning.

And thus you shall not realize awareness, in any way, in this life time.

You can only think in the Now.

Silly boy,...I'll tell you what, if you can think anything in the Now, I'll will be your personal slave for a year.

The truth is that you don't have a clue Slayer,...nor do your posts suggest that you ever had a direct experience. Your experiences are born of conditions, and as such are only experienced through conditions, thus not a real experience.

Slayer, you're upsidedown.

:)

sonrisa

1st July 2004, 04:32 PM

Vicente, a question, well 2 questions-

The idea of a 'present in time' is only for the insane.

does that mean the idea of a present king of France is for the insane? Does that mean the present king of France is insane? just asking :)

sahyo

1st July 2004, 04:36 PM

:goodlaugh:

sonrisa

1st July 2004, 05:17 PM

asheera.... these are serious questions!

sahyo

1st July 2004, 05:38 PM

:goodlaugh: :goodlaugh: :goodlaugh:

vicente

1st July 2004, 11:14 PM

Vicente, a question, well 2 questions-does that mean the idea of a present king of France is for the insane?

Sonrisa,...time is in motion,...the present is Still. The Still cannot be put in motion and still be Still.

There is no Present in Time.

The idea of a king of France in the present is only a perceptual present, not the real Present, or Now.

There is no time in the Now. Time is always in the past,...and the past is not real. Understanding that is a necessary threshold to unveiling the essence of Buddhism.

:)

sahyo

2nd July 2004, 04:02 AM

The Still cannot be put in motion and still be Still.

:lol:

sonrisa

2nd July 2004, 05:39 AM

so then, there is no king of France in the real present then?
thanx Vicente, that's what what I thought! :)

this perceptual present-- that would depend on whose percieving it, right?

slayer

2nd July 2004, 09:05 AM

Wow, that was some of the biggest nonsense I've ever read.

Vicente, dear boy, you're in serious need of a philosophy of Space and Time course or book. I recommend Sklar.

Sonrisa, quit fishing for answers. It's pathetically obvious what you're up to. You're so far from understanding why I said that I was the present king of France that it would be futile to try to explain it to you.

Vicente, it's not so much that reality is beyond your grasp, it's that you've let grammar lead you into believing the most ludicruous philosophical position -- that the present doesn't exist.

It only looks like I'm upsidedown because you're standing Truth on its head,

slayer

vicente

2nd July 2004, 11:46 AM

you've let grammar lead you into believing the most ludicruous philosophical position -- that the present doesn't exist.

Slayer, I hadn't said that the Present does not exist,...I said there is no Present in time,...only the insane would "think" otherwise. Where do you find these no nothing authors like Sklar? I suggest you turn off the Fox News channel, Rush Limbaugh radio, neo-conservative writers and your other Object-ive activities, and take up a meditation class.

Although I prefer to understand time through Vajrayana Buddhism, you may be more comfortable with Peter Lynds' Indeterminacy vs Discontinuity
http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index...act=ST&f=5&t=53 (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=53)
However,...I doubt you could grasp any truth in your current veiled state.

You remind me of a quote in ACIM:
"the ego uses the body to conspire against your Mind (in this context the Mind has no relation to intellect), and because the ego realizes that its 'enemy' (the Mind) can end them both (ego and body) merely by recognizing they are not part of You (the Mind), they join in the attack together. This is perhaps the strangest perception of all, if you consider what it really involves.
The ego, which is not real, attempts to persuade the Mind, which is real, that the Mind is ego's learning device; and further, that the body is more real then the Mind is.
No one in their right Mind could possibly believe this, and no one in Their 'right Mind' does believe it"

You're not in your right Mind Slayer. You're as insane as the 87% who believed Saddam was threat to America.

:)

todd

2nd July 2004, 01:08 PM

So, vicente said - that in a matter of terms, Mind (cogito) is real (sum), body is real (sum) but Ego (conscience) is not (~sum).
If we agree with "cogito ergo sum", we agree that the mind is the necessary and sufficient condition of our existence -"Me". ===

"Me " as a whole, as vicente describes, is a combination of "Mind", "Body" and "Ego", two real and one nonreal component.

When "Ego" - the non real element - is getting dangerously big, it is dominating the real elements and thus threatening our existence !
While "Mind" is such a limited resource among us, the only way to compensate is the body.
Now, we can all understand why people are getting fat.

With other words: Cogito Ergo Sum Obesus :thumbsup:

a random hack

2nd July 2004, 01:37 PM

Cogito ergo I am smarter than you,

no, cogito ergo I think I am smarter than you
:lol:

sonrisa

2nd July 2004, 04:41 PM

I'm not fishing for anything. I was attempting to clarify something, but Vicente went ahead & made the point for me (thanx Vicente! :) )

Originally posted by vicente@Jul 1 2004, 11:46 PM

You're not in your right Mind Slayer. You're as insane as the 87% who believed Saddam was threat to America.

(aside to Vicente- that's becuz he doesn't use his right brain)

so wut wuz I up to?

todd, I think I like you! :)

sonrisa

2nd July 2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by vicente@Jul 1 2004, 11:46 PM
you've let grammar lead you into believing the most ludicruous philosophical position -- that the present doesn't exist.

Slayer, I hadn't said that the Present does not exist,...I said there is no Present in time,...only the insane would "think" otherwise.

he also has poor reading/comprehension skills, most likely becuz he doesn't read with his right brain

and his bloated-up ego is, unfortunately, all too real

vicente

2nd July 2004, 11:35 PM

"Me " as a whole, as vicente describes, is a combination of "Mind", "Body" and "Ego", two real and one nonreal component.

No,...Vicente described nothing of the sort. First, only the Mind is real. This Mind is not the "mind" identified with intellect or sciential understanding, but the "Mind" at the Heart of our essense which is aware of sapiential understanding. The Greeks differentiated these as 'psyche', the intellect/ego, and thymos, the heart/Mind. When the Greeks spoke of 'Mind' they pointed to the chest and said thymos.

The Body and Ego, as was said in the above posted ACIM quote, are NOT real. The Body and Ego are merely perceived to be real.

As for "Me, as a whole", that is solely a humancentric point of view. When conscious (that is, awareness not obscured from the Mind), is aware, the concept of a "me" dissolves, for there is no longer a "this and that", a "here and there", a "center and edge".

Division and separation are not real,...that is the delusion, especially for Christian Conservatives, beginning with Paul, whom the Dead Sea Scrolls identified as the "Spouter of Lies". Paul, like todays Christians, are afraid of gnosis and the gnowledge which arises from the heart. Instead, they prefer the knowledge of an object-ive reality conceived through division.

Know god, no Peace; Gnow Peace, no god.

:)

sahyo

3rd July 2004, 02:33 AM

The Body and Ego, as was said in the above posted ACIM quote, are NOT real. The Body and Ego are merely perceived to be real.

bodying happening,
though not body like vicente imagining

:)

sonrisa

6th July 2004, 04:19 PM

ok Vicente, another question- how is my body not real? It feels real to me. What body are you referring to?

a random hack

6th July 2004, 06:21 PM

:lol:

sonrisa

7th July 2004, 06:22 PM

Random.... not you too! (groan)
Look, it occurred to me that maybe Vicente wasn't referring to physical bodies, that's all. Just trying to clarify what he meant.

vicente

8th July 2004, 12:46 AM

ok Vicente, another question- how is my body not real? It feels real to me. What body are you referring t

Yes, I am referring to the physical body. Put your hand under a microscope,...what you perceived as solid is now dancing particles,...now microfy it,...even the particles are no longer there.

In the 60's Physicists said if the Earth, everything on it and in it, was squeezed into a solid, it would be the size of a soccerball. Matter, they say, is 99.999% empty space. Today, Quantum Cosmologists will tell you that even the soccerball will not be there, for the sum of all matter and anti-matter equals zero.

The body (that we think is real) is simply a projection, no more real than the projection on a movie screen. You may think it (a body) feels pain and pleasure,...but thinking is no more real than the body is.

Only the Now is real. Have the you, the you you think you are, or the body you perceive, ever been in the Now? The answer is no. Both the body, and the you you think you are, are in the past.

For example, are you "seeing" your computer moniter in the Now? No,...it is impossible. All the words you read, everything you "see", is in the past. The physical senses, being products of the past, cannot interact with the Now.

From "thinkings" point of view the Now does not exist,...however, just as hundreds of Mahasiddha's have said for thousands of years, when we STILL our thinking, we realize Reality.

For me, I've been Thoughtless for hours, days, and on two occassions for a month,...and can tell you, contrary to common belief, that they were the most productive periods in my life.

:)

sahyo

8th July 2004, 03:22 AM

I've been Thoughtless for hours, days, and on two occassions for a month

didn't happen....if had happened "thoughtless" most people call an-instant, wouldn't have happened vicente stating false:

when we STILL our thinking, we realize Reality.

a random hack

8th July 2004, 10:48 AM

Random.... not you too! (groan)

not me too what?

no, cogito ergo I think I am smarter than you???

sonrisa

10th July 2004, 03:11 PM

thanx for clarifying that Vicente. :)

slayer

11th July 2004, 06:01 AM

Vicente, back away from philosophy, you're going to hurt yourself.

Yes, I am referring to the physical body. Put your hand under a microscope,...what you perceived as solid is now dancing particles,...now microfy it,...even the particles are no longer there.

What nonsense this is. Why is this compelling to anyone! Listen, Genius, when I'm standing on my lawn I can see the facade of my house, but when I'm inside I can't -- that doesn't mean it no longer exists! All you've done in change perspectives. So stop looking at the Grand Canyon with a microscope and telling me it's disappeared, you sophist clown.

The body (that we think is real) is simply a projection, no more real than the projection on a movie screen. You may think it (a body) feels pain and pleasure,...but thinking is no more real than the body is.

Here's news for you: Projections are real! Here's more news: Projections have a source, and that source is the physical body. Here's more news: The way you're using 'projections' implies someone is taking in these images or projections, so now you're posited three things: the source (the body), the projection (the representation in your mind), and a separate person's mind (which survives because of the body). If you bother to diagnose your own writing, you'd know that you agree with me here. You're right, thinking is no more real than the body is -- they're both real.

Only the Now is real. Have the you, the you you think you are, or the body you perceive, ever been in the Now? The answer is no. Both the body, and the you you think you are, are in the past.

What is this the Now you keep babbling about? No one can literally live in the past and the same goes for the future, so that leaves the present. We all live in the present (your only coherent interpretation of the Now). This means that my body is in the present, was in the past, and will be in the future (most likely). Why is time such a difficult concept for you? Do you believe in Static Time? If so, put forth an argument for it. Otherwise, we're going with our intuitions, not your nonsense.

For example, are you "seeing" your computer moniter in the Now? No,...it is impossible. All the words you read, everything you "see", is in the past. The physical senses, being products of the past, cannot interact with the Now.

Nonsense which is at least consistent with your other nonsense.

You're a pathetic reasoner, Vicente, as your opinions about all matters suggests. You're the stereoptypical religious studies major -- incapable of thinking past your emotions. You've been blessed with intuitions, and what do you do? You let some mystic's word games talk you out of your most valuable beliefs. You lack horse sense, Vicente, but probably because you're a Jackass.

now fetch the carrot,

slayer

vicente

11th July 2004, 01:51 PM

Slayer, you are the epitome of a reactionary translationist in the post TRANSLATION VS. TRANSFORMATION http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index...ct=ST&f=3&t=145 (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=145)

Your fear Slayer, is what clings to insane delusions for your identity. As Ken Wilber says, you belong to the 99% who are too asleep to get it.

You're the type of person Slayer who looks a star, 20 lightyears from Earth, and you think you are seeing the light that star is radiating at that moment. Don't deny it,...for that is exactly what you said:
Nonsense which is at least consistent with your other nonsense.

You live in the past Slayer, and understand nothing. That is not meant to be an insult,...only an irrefutable observation. You haven't a clue as to the difference between the past and the Now. Your every 202 posts in this forum suggests you have never experience the world which surrounds you, but only the world you have perceived around you.

This fear you have of the present is shared with 99% of your fellows,...so you, the you you think you are, thinks the perceived present is real,...that your "horse sense" is somehow an admirable trait. In reality however, your self-imagined reason 100% false.

The fact is Slayer,...just as the light seen from a star is not in the Now that it is seen, neither is anything else you observe as separate from your perceived self.

Only the deluded say 'knowledge is power'. From reality's point of view, knowledge is that which feeds the ego complex, and thus keeps you asleep from your unseparated self.

In the Valley of the Blind, Slayer helps his fellow blindmen treat the one-eyed man for his illness. Now that is truely pathetic.

:)

Comus

14th August 2004, 02:22 PM

Vincente,
Because I am depressed for the moment, and feel sorry for the idiots in the world, I will save you further embarrassment: it's spelled "truly". And for now, I take my bow.
Sincerely,
Your Benevolent God

Comus

14th August 2004, 02:35 PM

Vincente,
In addition, given that I am severely inebriated for the moment, I will grant you further help: Elipses (...) never follow commas (,). You must use one or the other. In order to be a true Philosopher, you must first learn the rules of punctuation and have a general conception of correct spelling. Now, you at the very least have something stupid to say with accurately spelled and punctuated thoughts. Why is this still on the board, by the way? Shouldn't it be corrected? Descartes is currently being perverted by some cretin's mis-quoting. If it isn't a crime, it should be. First of all, "cognito"? I hope I'm just drunk and am seeing "cognito" in the title of this discussion because my brain is miscommunicating the reality that exists, despite what I see. But given the blatent imbecility I've thus far witnessed on this board, I severely doubt that it is the folly of my very blurred vision.
Still Your God

a random hack

14th August 2004, 07:36 PM

great, just what this board needs, another depressed, drunk god...
are you a loving god, or a vengeful god, commas?

"This six-piece certainly lived up to their name. In Greek mythology Comus is the god of revelry, the son of Circe and Bacchus. Comus is also the title of a dramatic poem by the renowned 17th Century English poet, John Milton, and the poem's central theme - female chastity tempted in the archetypal 'wild wood' of moral perplexity by the demonic enchanter, Comus - sets the tone for First Utterance, especially 'The Song To Comus'. 'Diana', another allusion to Greek/Roman myth, also describes the threat of insatiable lust to virtue."

Comus (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~rneckmag/comus.html)

todd

15th August 2004, 09:20 AM

For those who forget:

Rules of Conduct

In order to participate in thebigview.com discussion, users must agree to certain rules. These are short and simple:

(1) Respect each other.
(2) Abstain from abusive, violent, hateful, threatening, and obscene language.
(3) Do not assume the identity of another user or person.
(4) Do not upload copyrighted material to thebigview.com.
(5) Do not publish material posted to thebigview.com somewhere else without the permission of its author.
(6) Do not post spam and advertisements.
(7) Do not try to disrupt the discussion board service.
(8) Adhere to basic netiquette:

- Do not post a quote without making it clear who said it.
- Do not complain about orthography or grammar in other people's posts.
- Do not post facts or quotations without a reference to their source.
- Do not post in ALL CAPS.
- Do not edit your post after it has already been responded to.
- Do not post large images or other things that mess up the forum's table alignment.
- Do not post using an excessively large custom signature (no more than a few lines, please).

a random hack

16th August 2004, 12:55 PM

thanks todd :)

sonrisa

16th August 2004, 01:31 PM

thanx for the Comus link Random. I wonder if this Comus would recognize Comus lyrix if somebody postied them. I wonder if anybody would recognize Comus lyrix if somebody posted them.

ps to Comus, well drinking's a start (so now who's the sop?). Keep it up & we'll have you mardi grasing by next winter, :)

a random hack

16th August 2004, 08:54 PM

I wonder if anybody would recognize Comus lyrix if somebody posted them
lololololol

couldn't find any on a brief browse :lol:

Titus Rivas

10th October 2004, 04:23 PM

In my view, Descartes simply meant to say that we can be sure of our existence the very moment we are thinking about it.
The reason is very simple: anything that really thinks about any topic must be real. As I'm really thinking about my existence, I must be real. So it has nothing to do with one type or another of human identity or creation, but it simply solves Descartes' doubts about his own existence.
The crux is not that reasoning would completely determine our existence, but that as soon as we can be certain of our doubt, we can also be certain of our existence as doubting beings.
The structure of the cogito is very old as it would go back to Augustine and all the way to Plotin. It is a classical argument used to silence nihilistic concerns about one's own existence.

Titus Rivas

slayer

16th October 2004, 06:43 AM

For me, I've been Thoughtless for hours, days, and on two occassions for a month,...and can tell you, contrary to common belief, that they were the most productive periods in my life.

You're being too modest, Vicente, because you've been thought-less as long as you've posted on this site, without interruption.

Oh man, what utter stupidity passes off for philosophy in this forum now. Now? Always!

Hey, genius, since we don't exist in the past, then when did all this writing happen? It didn't happen in the future, so it happened, as all things happen, in the present. Time isn't static. If you believe it is static, then argue for it. Oh that's right, you wouldn't know how.

The NOW? You're too inept to understand even the simplest philosophical points, so I won't tax your relativistic brain by trying to explain to you any further how preposterous your views are.

And then we get dumb-ass Sonrisa thanking you for clearing things up. LOL. That's brilliant. I guarantee you that she has no clue what your position is, because it's incoherent.

Stop reading Asian literature and passing it off as philosophy. You have no clue what philosophy is, or how to do philosophy.

While I'm here....Hey, Asheera, you mental dwarf, how about you stop making claims that end with question marks. Those are called rhetorical questions. A rhetorical question is a funny way of making a claim, which is what you do all the time. The only person you're fooling by inserting the word "perhaps" and the question mark in your statements...is YOU: you're making claims!

And what was truly funny, though you would have missed it, was that you accused NIHIL of NOT UNDERSTANDING, but yet you're the idiot who keeps saying there's nothing to understand when it comes to words. So make up your self-contradicting mind. Oh that's right, you choose both p and ~p, I forgot.

Titus Rivas,

Welcome to this forum. I'm not a frequent member, and you'll soon learn why after trying to discuss things with these....uhm.....people.

You have a good idea of what Descartes was doing, but it's not quite right. You're right, Descartes was searching for a way to prove that he existed. He figured that because he was thinking (i.e., doubting, questioning, dreaming, pondering, etc.), then he existed. And that's because for something to think, it must exist. Or, another way of putting it, thinking entails existence.

Now, Descartes concluded that not only did he know that he existed, but that he could be certain that he existed. That is, this was something he could not be wrong about. From this one point of certainty, sort of speak, he went on to say what other things we could be certain about. His project was ultimately to prove the existence of God, which he thought he did. Of course we think differently now-a-days.

Now, I caution you, don't waste your time discussing things with Asheera, Sonrisa, Hack, Rich, or Vicente. There are others, but these are the biggest clowns. I wouldn't even respond to anything Asheera says, because she'll never clarify any of her ungrammatical, incoherent ramblings. Sonrisa will never see any point you try to explain to her. Vicente is too stupid to know a point when he sees one, let alone understand it. And Richie is just too kind of a man to be intelligent, because he doesn't discriminate when it comes to information.

There are one or two people here worth discussing things with though, but I'll leave it to you as to whether the few are worth the blathering multitude.

Uhm: the NOW is real, I thought about the Now when I stopped thinking, uhm, I'm a moron!

slayer