@gorski & yen.. how is this for a clash of cultures? as gorski pointed out before, he has got some expertise to offer, and he did too.. i dunno, yen, i do not really think that one can oppose one`s impressions or perceptions against a rational scientific way of looking at the history of some western philosophical thought.. whatever thought that might be.. we may be discussing descartes here, but it might as well be nietzsche, jung, or whatever.. it is this difference in the way one looks at it, from the perspective of one`s own culture, thats makes the difference, imho..
But its very threatening/challenging to some 'cos the contributors to this thread, are in disagreement with, their so called attitude, in establishing the claims like 'self', 'I am' or 'existence is', 'absolute' etc. in this debate to allude the reader. No not like that. 'I think' is becoming more challenging than 'I am'
I had a drummer colleague, who I played with, when I lived in London, a long time ago... He was a Japanese guy but seriously critically minded, "unorthodox" for "his country", playing jazz, thinking for himself on all matters, borne, grown and brought up in Japan but he was a worldly Man, I suppose... So, one day we were debating some of the issues of the day, on a global level and I asked him "What is the state of debate in Japan (on the topic)"... He kinda looked at me, startled by the question, paused, then looked away and with mixed emotions said "Debate? In Japan? What debate...?!?" The mixed emotions were quite a give-away, I would say! And he was a capable guy, not somebody who would run away from a challenge! But... Tells a story, you see... Maybe I could tell you of Habermas, who came to Zagreb for a lecture, coming back straight from Japan, being asked of these differences... If you're interested...??
Few people would understand the deeper meaning of the quote. Its same to us when you talk about bios modding to add slic 2.1 /2.0 to the bios . One shouldn't speak at all or only learn if not well versed in the subject like as lay person as we seem to you when we poke our nose in to your business (bios modding or writing a new program)
Indeed. In such a case I only ask questions but hold no firm views, if I am not really well versed in such matters... Is that too much to ask for in Philosophy?!?
You keep pushing this "philosophy" stuff here? What's "modern" philosophy after all? It's just a BS started by a couple of narrow-minded "elitists"... Philosophy is the matter of the spirit not of the mind. See: Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Pitagoras, Marcus Aurelius and other like them. The modern ones are just a vague resemblance of the real ones. Gorski and sid_16 you both quote the "modern" philosophers...but what's their accomplishment? ZERO! Nothing but poorly designed mind-games... I wish I was next to you both and I could have given you a taste (just a bit) of the real philosophy...and you would have been like "WOW! WTF? Am I real or what's going on here?" My experiences in philosophy value more than a million books written by Descartes or Kant or any other "modern" philosopher.
Yes, sure. But gorski (one) addresses the public with intent when having a signature and not professional Philosophers only. So it's a sort of invitation to confront everyone with it. IMO one can not have the claim that only professionals are allowed to reflect it when addressing the public. And it's the same with BIOSmodding. When reading my posts about my intention had always been to post instructions to do it yourself...and 2006 I had no clue how to mod BIOSES. I had grown with the matter...never knowing where it would end. I wanted to 'infect' others with my euphoria to modify... And: There were situations where I was that much involved that I hadn't been able to change my view. People came (people which where not very familiar with that matter) who suddenly concluded a simple thing. What I want to say with that is that being an expert in something has also cons, the so called own prejudice. So when saying: You are not accepted to be a part of the matter, because of your lack of professional backgrounds and established theses / theories can prevent own progresses....
This post will be understood as a slap in the face and will end in massive self defense. It sounds boastful. So it's actually contra-productive. One who is involved in studied matters and has reached a high level of knowledge, will also use the mind (and its attributes will shine) to defend the learned construct. I know the old Yen and the new Yen, but the old (studied) Yen is here to have its function in a capitalistic society. One cannot be forced to downgrade 'learned' matters to its real importance....it will happen or not. I know what you mean, though. . But each of us has to go its own personal path, that what really IS will ever become the final destination, which is actually no destination....
No one said that, Yen (and I am not dignifying whatever Socrate wrote with an answer...)!!! What was said was that you should be a little more open-minded to learning about stuff you do not know about just as you were learning about modding BIOS or chemistry or as we are learning from you when it comes to chemistry or IT. (Simple and yet so difficult to understand and accept by you. And you were telling me off as arrogant and stand-offish. My word...) Besides, we are all using physics and chemistry (products) every day of our lives, but we are not all invited to have "expert views" on it, whether it be on conferences or net forums, are we? Moreover, we are invited to show some "humility" when in the presence of "real scientists"... Well, Socrate and you could do with a little bit of that, too, you see... Truth be told... There, it's not exactly "rocket science"...
Socrate, you've said enough, when irrationality crosses the limit then there remain no limit for the rational to pwnage. Unfortunately, none of your sad rhetoric has saved "I am" and "Self" etc from the dustbin of simplistic delusion. One last but repeated post from me. I will do you the favor of granting the possibility that your failure to understand this pure philosophical matter is not due to any intellectual deficiency of yours. Rather, you're speaking as or on behalf of a spiritualist, I suspect that this logical contradiction (I am / I think) refutes one of two closely-held, cherished beliefs of yours can be psychologically traumatic, so you're compensating with symptoms of what's known as "cognitive dissonance" - sort of a mystical blind spot which prevents you from thinking about these philosophical issues in any meaningful depth. That's all from me. thanks, sid_16.
I am sorry as well. I didn't want you to make feel bad or the like. I am glad that you are here contributing and glad that there is 'one' sharing that what actually cannot be expressed using words. And I know the 'issues' that might come up when trying anyway. I know what 'you' feel when for instance watching the sunset, when there is actually no-one watching anything. I know the feeling to be. I know the feeling when stretching out my arms on a high mountain and Iamness is me and I am Iamness. Pure love to be pure being to love to live. There is no theory ever getting one bit of it. I know the tears appearing when the 'Self' shines through. I know what is meant when Tolle had that experience 'the first time'. The need to want everybody can have 'that', but actually having no real way of communication that might be sufficient is the 'issue'. The most simplest thing, wrapped by the mind into something else...an issue of the mind. I struggle with it and I apologize for my crude words....I actually should reply every time with Buddha who holds that flower....saying nothing at all.... Maharshi decided to remain silent he did it years..until he decided to welcome everybody visiting him, answering any questions. But how to contribute at a forum then? That what one really is neither can be taken away nor explained to somebody, anyway Tolle, Maharshi had written their books and we are here to talk....I would have strictly denied anything of this when I was younger. The mind categorizes anything...it's its job....I know theories will never explain the reality, but everybody needs to figure the truth by oneself.
That's not what I mean. Nullus cogito, nullus ergo. Sum. (I actually never had been a active part at Latin lessons, so please correct the grammar)...
Yes, it is "logic" and it is logical. But you don't want it to be "logic"/logical, so it isn't... for you... Blimey, what intransigence... And you are telling me stories of my closed mind?
What am I but the epitome of realism crashing onto the barren coasts of misguided dogma. - R29k at the MDL thread while drinking Heineken
okay, folks glad that you discern the good stuff, even if it is a bit off topic.. edit; perhaps there are some things that we agree upon, after all..
Yes, nodnar. One should always celebrate the good traditions. To meet friends and to enjoy the evening . Attention huge post. (by a night lover 4 am here.) May I ask you to read it IF at all, then carefully. Guess what? I do not disagree with that. To me the classic example of logic had been always: If A=B and B=C then A must be C. It is not a question of what I want. I am sure you know what I did in my life concerning logical matters. They even got honored. To get honors actually means: Congrats you are conform to our logically defined complex of thoughts at best. You may join the club. You are as stereotype as we are. Here is your gold medal. Or: proof is achieved when one agrees with the commonly established mistake. We have our mind and the mind has its rules. It's the home of logical matters, of conclusions, it is based on relations. (See equations above). But the mind has no logical connection to the absolute. I am not saying now something about the absolute, I mean strictly the word's meaning. When applying pure logic then one can conclude schtum. Schtum and nothing else. OK, let me reflect what schtum means. I know my native word stumm. It means closed lips, no talking, no thinking, no own contribution. Nullus cogito, nullus ergo. Sum. Or Nullus cogito, nullus ergo. Schtum. What is true? We have one problem here at this thread. It is no problem to someone who strictly remains in the mind's world of logic, of relations. I can that (why else I could study Chemistry?) A Philosopher can also, a BIOS modder also, a programmer also. I am very careful now. I am is a matter that can extend logical matters. Approach: We have a subject which is established as subject in the mind. When questioning it and evaluate its realness it fades away. It does even when applying pure logic approaches. (There are far more hints that 'I am' might extend logical matters). I am Yen. 'I' is the subject. But Yen is actually an object. (male, scientist, human, admin). The imagination of what Yen is is always an object. But we do not recognize it as object, because we say 'I'. And those objects are mental objects. So when asking Who Am I? The question about one's subject the answer follows: I am.... The subject becomes objectified. So when trying to determine the subject it eludes to the questioner. Here is where the logic mind of relation has no ways to go on.... So one can now say: I will strictly stay there where logic applies, anything else is not valid to me. (Old Yen). One can build a construct of defense, keeping that separated. (Away)... Or one can decide to figure it further, with the risk to become ridiculed. Fair or not. I myself have decided to go further and most of my posts here have that character.... Nullus cogito, nullus ergo. Schtum. IS logical when staying at the mind. It has its validity there. A pure mind orientated person finds here agreement and finds agreements at other persons who are also. The story of Buddha. As some have doubted his wisdom and asked him to tell the (absolute) truth. He came with a flower to the audience smiled and said nothing , stayed a while and went away. Pure schtum! People discussed about and got polarized. He's got it or he's fake. THIS situation is actually reflected here as well. Socrate+Yen / gorski, sid_16, R29k. Another example: The highest form of communication is to remain silent. Pure schtum from the view of a pure mind orientated. So we are at a point where arguing ( mind operations) end. Nullus cogito, nullus ergo. Sum. Or Nullus cogito, nullus ergo. Schtum. Which will be seen as truth depends on each of us humans. There are methods which are mind related who can approach the 'absolute'. One can leave them alone the entire life. And we have cultures and their treasures. Saying: Schtum of the mind is REQUIRED to break the objectifying process of the real subject. The core of this is: Can there be awareness when schtum or belongs the ability to be aware to the mind. In deep sleep we have schtum and no awareness. The state is comparable to swoon. And people say meditative state is schtum and full awareness. IF that conditions can meet each others THEN one has access to the real subject I am. This real subject is nothing else than it's called at religions: god.. It cannot have a name though. So if one wants to explore matters which cannot be explored by the logical mind one MUST turn the sight to that what's called, esoteric, mystic, irrational, yes it IS irrational, it must be! One cannot claim to use attributes of the mind (where science, Philosophy is situated) when exploring the real subject. Here we have it, it is so funny. To get access to the original, the un-objectified subject one needs to go to the 'irrational' areas. There is no reason to fight / discuss about. Do it or not, there is no other way. What schtum does is found at this 'model'. The real subject lays down on the sea ground. The sea with its waves is the thinking mind cogito. The observer looks at the surface and sees anything but the real ground. Schtum is a quiet mind, no waves, the ground which is the real subject can be seen. The real subject is sum, I am. So this all includes what is my opinion about cogito ergo sum and 'the' issue. One cannot proof Nullus cogito, nullus ergo. Sum. Since the mind has no job here. One only can experience it. I know that awareness and schtum of the mind is coexistent. So one lives then 'his' real subject. Don't try to use wrong tools, those of the mind. It ever will fail. Stay at pure mind related matters and deny those mechanisms which causes objectifying of the real subject. Remain a pure scientist. I did it a long time. But 'something' drove me to go further. Here is no proof that could be declared to be valid, no western Philosophy. The instructions are not go study, go reading, go thinking. The instructions are: Use your mind to find discrepancies, veiled by habits. Just take cultural treasures as a measure. (This matter is no new matter). Then practice them on your own, practically. The same applies here too: No effort, no progress. If they take no effect go back to your mind where you are at home all the time. We are familiar to ever use our mind, any progressive matters are mind related. Explore it, study, learn, have fun. I hope I could express that there is actually no issue at this thread. I hope I could illustrate why we have here complete different 'worlds' and why one doesn't comply with the other. Why socrate posted like he did why I posted like I did and why every one here posted like he did. Let me end with a story, I like to create stories: A man, lets say his name is Tim, stands on the top of a high mountain, stretched out his hands being fully present now. Iamness uninterrupted focused. Schtum mind.... Desactes saying: I think therefore I am. A milestone of Modernity. Suddenly noticing about Tim on the mountain. "Oh there is Tim, a human individual. Does he know that he actually exists? Hmm. he says nothing, his mind is lacking of distracting thoughts, and lacks of always thinking about who he could be, I guess not...." Tim is Descartes and Descartes is Tim. I am is their origin. Everywhere Tim looks 'he' sees 'I am.' But it's only Descartes who sees Tim. Don't try to use your mind to get it. One ever will fail. No closed mind, but no mind.