September 29, 2008 at 11:51 am #29254September 29, 2008 at 12:34 pm #29255
You’ll recall that I cited it in the article I
wrote on here a while back “An Introduction to
Spirituality and the Tao”
SSeptember 29, 2008 at 12:58 pm #29257
I would recall it if I read it. 🙂
“FACT: You are a conscious being.
Proof: “I think, therefore I am” — Rene Descartes”
I believe it was Jon Paul Sartre that later noticed the I was the one noticing the thinking.September 29, 2008 at 5:12 pm #29259
Re: Sartre–Yeah, that sounds about right.
FYI, did you know that Descartes’ was also a mathematician?
Creator of analytic geometry, the cornerstone of precalculus.
As to Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem, you see how key it is.
It basically demonstrates how fundamentally limited science is.
Moreover, due to the effect of division by infinity, no matter
how much scientific information about the universe is revealed,
it will proportionally still be 0% of the total mystery!!
Therefore best to tap directly into the conscious field using
time-tested spiritual techniques; e.g. Healing Tao
SSeptember 29, 2008 at 11:15 pm #29261
Steven our mighty insider in the world of academia.
My grand father was a PHD in Math and worked for the NSA his specialty was matrix theory I think. His brother my uncle was a minister, and my other uncle a play boy made for interesting conversations. If I ever find it I was going to post a book of wisdom passed down to me from my uncle the mister it kinda reflects all of them in a nice accepting fashion. I think people would really enjoy it.October 1, 2008 at 2:13 pm #29263
I don’t know if Descartes was ‘right’ in his statement ‘i think, therefore i am.’ remember also that he came to that statement by trying to find a basis for science. last Spring in my philosophy class we had assignment where we would read things then answer questions about them. in class we read descartes, but we could also do an extra credit reading and answer the questions that went with it. both the Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu had excerpts in our text book. i did the extra credit assignment for Chuang Tzu (chapter 2 was in the text book). one of the questions asked something about the differences between the examples Descartes used of his dreams and waking life and Chuang Tzu’s dream where he dreamt he was a butterfly. here’s the response i wrote:
The difference I see between Descartes’ dream example and Chuang-Tzu’s is that in Descartes’, he speaks of himself dreaming as himself, while Chuang-Tzu speaks of himself dreaming as not-himself. Chuang-Tzu dreamed that [he] was a butterfly, fluttering hither and thither, having all the intents and purposes of a butterfly…[He] had no consciousness of his individuality as a man. I think that Chuang-Tzu’s example undermines waking life perception even more than Descartes’ as a result. Descartes is kind of saying ‘crazy things happen in dreams, so I don’t know if I’m dreaming or awake’, while Chuang-Tzu is kind of saying ‘I become something other than myself while dreaming, so I don’t even know if I’m myself.’ That position also undermines Descartes’ I think, therefore I am.
i suppose what i wrote kind of goes along with the Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, and we could further dissolve the meaning of ‘am’, but Chuang Tzu already did that 😉October 1, 2008 at 2:14 pm #29265
I would love to read that book Dog, please do share =)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.