Before Or After?

[bito]

I think, therefore I am.

I Am, therefore I think.

Is there a difference?

[WanderingTaoist]

I think, therefore I am.

I Am, therefore I think.

Is there a difference?


Descartes seems to be coming up quite a bit in the philosophy forum these days! :D

The difference exists only in our minds. Obviously the first step in self-conciousness is the awareness that one is. How do I know that I am? I'm thinking, aren't I?

On the other hand, this then throws the notion of "I" into question. Am I only my thoughts? Am I, as Descartes maintains, "a substance the whole essence or nature of which is simply to think"? What about when "I" am developing in the womb? What about when I am asleep and do not dream? What of the Buddhist, deep in meditation? What of people born with irreperable brain damage? Does the "I" still exist?

If we want to understand what it is to be human, we must obviously come to terms with thought and knowledge, since they are of primary importance. But are they all that is? In a different thread abaris remarked that logos (reason or speech, for the purposes of this discussion) is a vital (maybe the primary) component of human existence, but it is not the only component.

To answer this question more, we must ask: Does "I" denote merely "conciousness"? Or the human being as a whole?

Maybe this is just ultimately a very thourough way of saying "I don't know." Perhaps the best philosophy is merely a very thourough way of saying "I don't know"...

[locomotive]

yes, beeing does not require thinking.

[WanderingTaoist]

yes, beeing does not require thinking.

Fair enough! :thumbsup:

[locomotive]

but there are more things like when you look at something you say I am looking or when you hear you say I am hearing. Or I am walking.

[scameter]

Yes, there is a large difference. Thinking therefore being is idealist, and being therefore thinking is it's opposite, materialist.

[WanderingTaoist]

Yes, there is a large difference. Thinking therefore being is idealist, and being therefore thinking is it's opposite, materialist.

I agree.

And I wonder, can we synthesize these two views? Sure "material" and "ideas" are intertwined in reality?

[scameter]

Not with certainty. :)

[MidnightSun]

I think, therefore I am

Simone Weil. :)

[Thomas Knierim]

Taoist: Perhaps the best philosophy is merely a very thourough way of saying "I don't know"...

:lol: Hilarious! I guess you are in good company with this point of view. In an interview with Steven Pinker I recently saw, Steven referred to philosophy as the "science of unanswerable question." He may be right. For example, in ancient times, people mused about atoms and the shape of the world and this was called philosophy. The question whether matter was infinitely divisible belonged to the class of unanswerable questions. Today, these types of questions have become the subject of mainstream science, while philosophy has moved on to greener pastures.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Midnight, I think that Descartes said that originally actually, although you may be quoting someone else saying it.

And psyche, I agree. Philosophy deals with what more certain fields like science and history are too particular to.

[sahyo]

I think, therefore I am.

I Am, therefore I think.

Is there a difference?



the water in the bathtub isn't draining

[venom mama]

When the mind is attracted
To anything it senses,
You are bound.

Where there is no I,
You are free.

Where there is I,
You are bound.

Consider this.

It is easy.

Embrace nothing,
Turn nothing away.

-Ashtavakra Gita 8:3-4

[WanderingTaoist]

I've noticed that in our discussions of thought, Descartes name has come up consistantly, but there's one Western philosopher whose name has not come up, and who might help us shed some light on the issue:

"It then might seem correct to say that there is something that does not bear being thought, and this is existence. But, then, the difficulty remains, that, since he who thinks also exists, existence is posited as soon as thinking itself is."

(Soren Kirkegaard)

[scameter]

the water in the bathtub isn't draining

Nice seeing you again. :)

"It then might seem correct to say that there is something that does not bear being thought, and this is existence. But, then, the difficulty remains, that, since he who thinks also exists, existence is posited as soon as thinking itself is."

And I agree entirely with him. Thanks for bringing that up.

[bito]

I think, therefore I am

I am Buddhist, I am a husband, I am a daughter, I am Christian, I am human, I am a woman, I am a man, I am good, I am evil, I am a champion cyclist, I am a lousy tennis player, I am a manager, I am a janitor, I am stupid, I am intelligent, I am wise, I am old, I am young, I am enlightened, I am not enlightened.

I Am, therefore I think

I am cold, I am drinking coffee, I am typing, the cat is curled in my lap, the radio is playing, the sky is dark, my computer is humming, my ankles are intertwined, the lamp shines it light from behind me, I am leaving these words to take a shower.

[scameter]

"The goal of becoming a Buddha is the abandonment of becoming." -Buddha.

[bito]

"It then might seem correct to say that there is something that does not bear being thought, and this is existence. But, then, the difficulty remains, that, since he who thinks also exists, existence is posited as soon as thinking itself is." - Soren Kirkegaard

Thinking and existence are not separate. Belief in separation arises when doubt arises.

"might" "seem" "correct" "to say" "but" "difficulty" "remains" "since" "also" "posited" "soon" = doubt.

[bito]

Doubt gives rise to experiencing separation as if separation is real, as if separation is true.

Experiencing separation as if real, as if true, gives rise to desiring to experience no separation as if real, as if true or separation as if not real, not true.

See the silliness of the whole situation?

Thinking and existence are one. Thinking and existence are not separate. Thinking and existence have never been separate.

Stop looking to find yourself!

[bito]

:dancing:

[venom mama]

Who is this Self on whom we meditate?
Is it the Self by which we see, hear, smell, and taste,
Through which we speak in words? Is Self the mind
By which we perceive, direct, understand,
Know, remember, think, will, desire, and love?

These are but servants of the Self, who is
Pure consciousness.
This Self is all in all.
He is all the gods, the five elements,
Earth, air, fire, water, and space; all creatures,
Great or small, born of eggs, of wombs, of heat,
Of shoots; horses, cows, elephants, men, and women;
All beings that walk, all beings that fly,
And all that neither walk nor fly. Prajna
Is pure consciousness, guiding all. The world
Rests on prajna, and prajna is Brahman.

[scameter]

Thinking and existence are one. Thinking and existence are not separate. Thinking and existence have never been separate.

If that is true, then we would be exactly like every other animal mentally. We would not see existence as anything different than simply what it is, and have no conscious abilities to conceive of more than what we experience.

[WanderingTaoist]

If that is true, then we would be exactly like every other animal mentally. We would not see existence as anything different than simply what it is, and have no conscious abilities to conceive of more than what we experience.

True. And yet, thoughts exist. And you must exist in order to have existing thoughts. And your thoughts are necessarily of things that exist.

Your response seems more geared toward "what it is", whereas the statement about thought and existance seems to focus on "that it is". And of course, these two are also one. In order to be, one must be something, and to be something is, of course, to be.

Duality is the greatest of all illusions, but it is an illusion nevertheless.
:)

[WanderingTaoist]

At twighlight's end,
The shadow's crossed,
A new world birthed,
The elder lost

Yet on the morn,
We wake to find
That mem'ry left
So far behind
To defeaned ears,
We ask, unseen:

"Which is life?

"And which, the dream?"

(poetic interpretation of Chuang Tzu)

[scameter]

True. And yet, thoughts exist. And you must exist in order to have existing thoughts. And your thoughts are necessarily of things that exist.

By saying that, you are denying the existence of imagination. If what I think of is only about things that exist, how can I imagine? I have never seen a unicorn, and yet I am capable of imagining it. How can this be?

[bito]

Thinking and existence are one. Thinking and existence are not separate. Thinking and existence have never been separate.

If that is true, then we would be exactly like every other animal mentally. We would not see existence as anything different than simply what it is, and have no conscious abilities to conceive of more than what we experience.

But we are not animals.

So thinking for us is not thinking as it is to a goat or to a giraffe or to a blue whale. My monologue above as to what "I Am, therefore I think" is to me, was a verbal display of what was happening at that very moment that I was typing, and to use the Garden of Eden analogy, it is the moment that is paradise . Had someone come in and kicked me, or if someone had come in with a million dollars on a silver platter while I was typing my early morning words, the energy of my monologue would have been significantly different. This difference would then reflect the multidimensional aspect of consciousness, specifically, in this case, my individual (thinking) conscience.

What I have come to see is that we are all individual consciences of God. No exceptions. Mother Teresa and Hitler are included. Jesus Christ said the Kingdom of Heaven is within us. The Kingdom of Heaven is the Garden of Eden realized and transcended. Until the New Testament, until Jesus Christ, the idea that all thinking of good and evil is wholly within, that the serpent lives within our own garden, was not realized. Perhaps in parts, perhaps in pieces, but Jesus was the first individual to understand that God works wholly through us.

Logic and intuition both declare that there cannot be two powers in Life, in the universe. If this were true, God, Life would be actually torn asunder, or torn literally in two. Instead, we feel this being torn apart within us, as the sense of sin, the sense of disturbing Paradise/The Heavenly Kingdom.

To follow this line of thinking all the way through using my two examples above:

If someone had come in and kicked me while I was in my early morning posting reveree, and I am not a wholly instinctual creature as a goat or a giraffe might be, I wait for God's touch and he waits for my response. Depending on how much I am aware of the Glory that is the Kingdom withiin me will dictact the choice that I make vis a vis my response to the kicker. Likewise the offer of the million dollars on the silver platter. Same principle, wholly different temptation or challenge to (my) conscience. The (my) refers to this indiviudal consciousness that is God within me, (which is also in you, of course) and as this consciousness evolves as a result of (years? eons?) of internal dialogue/debating/realizing/understanding what good and evil means, God's debating and dualistic "I" consciousness becomes God's One Realized Conscience. This One Realized Conscience resides above good and evil for it knows good and evil within its own creation. In this perfect knowing is the always choosing what is good - without thinking of what good is and what evil is so that a choice must be made. The Kingdom of Heaven is never having to choose - it is to always know. This is our journey.

So when I say that existence and thinking are one, I am saying that "I and the Father are One". Perhaps I should have said "consciousness and thinking are one" and/or "conscience and thinking are one".

A long answer to your short, but very pointed question. As always, responding to the conscience of 'another'' helps me to see my own Garden, so that my Kingdom can be realized, so, to you, scam: :star:

[WanderingTaoist]

y saying that, you are denying the existence of imagination. If what I think of is only about things that exist, how can I imagine? I have never seen a unicorn, and yet I am capable of imagining it. How can this be?

What is a unicorn? Is it not a composite of creatures which actually exist? i.e. a horse, a goat (in some versions!), and any number of horned animals. Even imagination is dependant upon what exists.

[Michael]

'I' is the trap we have all fallen into. This discussion is our seeking the way out.

Night Shore

That night on the beach
In the moonlight
Which were the stones
Which the clouds
Where did sea end
and sky begin -
where did I end
or begin?

[bito]

'I' is the trap we have all fallen into. This discussion is our seeking the way out.

Both Jesus and the Buddha declared their "I", but their "I" is not the self-consciousness worldly "I" from which, as you say, we seek escape.

The Buddha said "I am awake". Jesus said "I am Light of the World". They found a way out of their little cramped "I"s ... if they can do it, so can we!

That night on the beach
In the moonlight
Which were the stones
Which the clouds
Where did sea end
and sky begin -
where did I end
or begin?

Your infinite "I" writes kick-ass poetry! B)

[scameter]

But we are not animals.

How are we not animals?

What is a unicorn? Is it not a composite of creatures which actually exist? i.e. a horse, a goat (in some versions!), and any number of horned animals. Even imagination is dependant upon what exists.

And yet, we take those things that exist and imaginatively mold and change them in our minds. No other animal does this. If we only got what was from experience, we wouldn't be able to invent a unicorn; we would simply think of what we experienced.

[MidnightSun]

What is a unicorn? Is it not a composite of creatures which actually exist? i.e. a horse, a goat (in some versions!), and any number of horned animals. Even imagination is dependant upon what exists

Unicorn is possible to create with nowadays science, chirurgy it is. Horse + horn equals Unicorn. Some scientists think that people were able to do it long time ago too.

[scameter]

So, with modern science, would the blood of the horse+horn give us everlasting life too?

[MidnightSun]

Truth is somewhere between.

[sahyo]

evening scameter :)

[scameter]

:)

[WanderingTaoist]

And yet, we take those things that exist and imaginatively mold and change them in our minds. No other animal does this. If we only got what was from experience, we wouldn't be able to invent a unicorn; we would simply think of what we experienced.


Oh, I quite agree :). My point was not so much about human nature (the "whatness" or "thing-hood" or "essence" of a human being) as much as it was about the primacy of existence.

[WanderingTaoist]

Unicorn is possible to create with nowadays science, chirurgy it is. Horse + horn equals Unicorn. Some scientists think that people were able to do it long time ago too.

So, with modern science, would the blood of the horse+horn give us everlasting life too?

Interesting, we seem to have raised the question of identity. Is the whole the sum of its parts, or is it something more?

[Michael]

Thank you for you kind comment bito, I'll pass it on.

But back to the question. Who is this 'I' we are talking about? And who does the thinking? Consider how often your thoughts are in conflict with your 'self'.

Personally the most glorious moments in my life have been when I was simply aware, without thought, without a sense of self . And as soon as thought or self appeared the bubble popped and there I was back with the 'i' (stet) and thought.

The 'i' is very happy with the idea of 'I think therefore I am' but it makes me very uncomfortable.
Rational discussion only confuses these issues, it is better to feel them.


The Wood Out of Silence

The wood out of silence
Growing direct to its purpose,
The tide poised full beneath the moon,
One hand another touching the root of being,
tears.

These are enough, too much to bear.
Thought carries them away,
The pallbearer of Paradise.

[scameter]

Everything in existence has an identity, as everything in existence, every part of the whole, is individual and unique as apart, with it's own existence. Even though existence is a whole entity, that doesn't take away the identity, place or importance of the individual aspects of that whole, as with anything else.

[bito]

The 'i' is very happy with the idea of 'I think therefore I am' but it makes me very uncomfortable.

Rational discussion only confuses these issues, it is better to feel them.

Rational discussion can never say what living is, and living is what we are. We are energy, we are intelligence, we are awareness - ever moving, ever dancing, even when we appear to be absolutely still. So when you say 'it is better to feel', you are eons closer to knowing your true nature than is the one who says 'it is better to logic' (one's nature). Logic can declare intellectually what being is not, but logic can never know what being is.

The I think, therefore I am believes it is separated from the energy that is life. This is the dualistic I am, the I am that uses thought as a fear buffer so the spaciousness that is I Am can be held at a distance. And, as real as it can seem to be to the thought-building I, this fear of being, of infinitely thinking (voicing) is but a paper tiger. So silly, so unnecessary is this fear.

The I Am that is singing-thinking, however, sees no separation anywhere. This I Am is the eternal declaration of delight that is the innate nature of I Am.

I Am glory! I Am luminosity! I Am the thundering silence! I Am the cosmic orgasm! I Am this! Oh, joy, oh bliss, I Am this! What can be said about I Am? Nothing, for I Am is doing the saying!

Whew! I am is needing resting. :)

[Michael]

Thank you for that bito, very beautiful, the work of a diamond cutter.

Poems in the form of the exultant 'I am' appear in many young cultures.

I am who am
The stars above
In the eyes
of the old whore
fallen on drink
and easy times

[bito]

:)

Poems in the form of the exultant 'I am' appear in many young cultures.

The exultant I Am appears when culture disappears, no matter how young or how old seems the body that is singing.

[Michael]

The culture remains, consciousness moves by being still.

The old whore was a symbol for the whole human existence, the bitter, the sweet, the transcendant. She also saw the stars and there there is no age.

[bito]

The culture remains, consciousness moves by being still.

"The" culture? :unsure:

[Michael]

Generic, any. As concept of.

[bito]

The belief that concepts exist is an attempt to affix or attach I Am somewhere in time so I Am can be seen or held or grasped.

I Am is one without a second.

[Michael]

Know what you mean but I am perforce speaking within the domain of I, thought and therefore concept, as you are perforce. I am speaking of that which is within this realm and the One realm because it embraces all. Paradoxical, but there it is. If I didn't we couldn't communicate as we are communicating.

Not sure about your time reference. I think it may be more an attempt to fix the I to the action of thought and that species of thought is subject to time, I think therefore I am.



I can see why the 'The' led to misapprehension, clumsy, shouldn't have been there.

[bito]

:tao:

[Noway2Zero]

to be consious is to know Life ..,
Life is the greatest gift of all..
Life is everything, Life is a collective whole(One).
to want more than this you have to remove some to make room (in consiousness) since its a collective 'One' you have to remove all (if any). so here we sit not knowing Life classifiable as "dead" from a consious standpoint.

[sahyo]

I Am



don't stop at a place (there-here)