what is the beggining of philosophy?

@Dasein,

"Awareness is a concept which is a combination of characteristics."

Exactly. Awareness is everything.

@TheEnlightenedOne,

TheEnlightenedOne wrote:

Descartes was wrong when he said "I think therefore I am." A thought can not watch it self. Awareness, the ultimate and indivisible Being does.

0 Replies

@TheEnlightenedOne,

EnlightenedOne, I don't think Decartes was referring to a "thought" being the agent of itself, of its own occurence. As I understand him he was tacitly presuming an agent (thinker) separate from and preceding "his" thought.
I do tend to agree with your notion of awareness as an "ultimate" Being of sorts. I'm thinking of what some mystics call the Witness or the Hindus call the Atman, two words for that which represents the Ultimate Mind or Brahmin in the myriad perspectives it takes.

2 Replies

@TheEnlightenedOne,

Awareness doesn't exist - you do.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Who watches the "thinker (mind)" that creates thoughts? Awareness, the Ultimate Intelligence found within and without the universe. Western thought lacks the inclusion of Awareness in its philosophy. Descartes was wrong.

0 Replies

@Dasein,

You and I do not exist. The mind in its egoic state created a construct called me briefly held in a space suit called a body. The mind identifies with ego and the body for it fears death. We are ultimately cosmic dust which comes and goes, with the remaining essence that which can not be described but is all that ever was, is and will be. Presence/The Watcher/Stillness/Supreme Intelligence/Space/Emptiness, whatever you want to call it, that's it. Dust to dust. All one.

1 Reply

http://www.artbrain.org/the-sense-of-agency-and-the-illusion-of-the-self/

Seems that neuroscientists have identified the places in the brain that are responsible for the sense of agency, of being a discrete entity. Self-hood seems to be a perception, an amalgamation of coordinated sense data. It's very useful for the survival of the organism, but it's an illusion that there exists a single, discrete entity outside/inside/behind/above possessing or performing the executive function on the senses, thoughts, volition.

The beginning of philosophy? Maybe when the brain had evolved enough for it to wonder about things other than where/how to get food, shelter, etc.

1 Reply

@TheEnlightenedOne,

TheEnlightenedOne wrote:

You and I do not exist. The mind in its egoic state created a construct called me briefly held in a space suit called a body. The mind identifies with ego and the body for it fears death. We are ultimately cosmic dust which comes and goes, with the remaining essence that which can not be described but is all that ever was, is and will be. Presence/The Watcher/Stillness/Supreme Intelligence/Space/Emptiness, whatever you want to call it, that's it. Dust to dust. All one.

I promise to not use any more of my time to introduce any other possibility to you. You won the prize. Now you're stuck with it.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

The beginning of philosophy? Maybe when the brain had evolved enough for it to wonder about things other than where/how to get food, shelter, etc.

That seems to be a good answer to me

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

EnlightenedOne, I don't think Decartes was referring to a "thought" being the agent of itself, of its own occurrence. As I understand him he was tacitly presuming an agent (thinker) separate from and preceding "his" thought.

Brilliant! I don't know if Descartes was capable of thinking what you're saying. However, I do know that you are. What you are pointing to is what I call 'Be'-ing and it precedes all of the description that proliferates in these posts. I suggest you stay with the thinking you're referring to in the first part of your post and not digress into the second part.

JLNobody wrote:

I do tend to agree with your notion of awareness as an "ultimate" Being of sorts. I'm thinking of what some mystics call the Witness or the Hindus call the Atman, two words for that which represents the Ultimate Mind or Brahmin in the myriad perspectives it takes.

"Witness", "Atman", "Ultimate Mind", and "Brahmin" are evidence you present to prove to others that you know what you're talking about. The first paragraph is all the evidence you need.

I have found that most people can't hear you no matter how much evidence you present. It is as if they can't let go of their "worldly riches" to be who they are.

Speak only as if there are the ones who can hear you, the others will always do what they do. To accommodate them is to lessen the purity of your thinking. You have no say in what the others do anyway.

I now know that JLNobody is one who knows. Thank you.

1 Reply

@Dasein,

What about me? I know too!

3 Replies

@TheEnlightenedOne,

Yes, EnlightenedOne, I have to share credit with you. You stated above:
"Who watches the "thinker (mind)" that creates thoughts? Awareness, the Ultimate Intelligence found within and without the universe. Western thought lacks the inclusion of Awareness in its philosophy. Descartes was wrong."
That was pretty similar to my utterance.
Your "watcher of thougths (in mindfulness meditation it is not ego--or as zen westerners call it, "small mind."--They often call it "big mind", or "mystics" call it Witness or Atman. And as you say, it is "found within" the "Ultimate Intelligence", or the Hindus' Brahmin.
And I agree that Decartes was (grotesquely) wrong.
Interesting that he and Plato made the gravest errors which were, nevertheless, the greatest influences on western thought: Plato's Idealism assigns our actual world--as does Christian theology--to less value than it deserves. And Decartes' Dualism devides our world into "me" (inside/subject) and all else (outside/objects).

0 Replies

@TheEnlightenedOne,

Who do you think you are?

Mooji?!?!?

0 Replies

@TheEnlightenedOne,

Anybody who can say that "You and I don't exist" doesn't know who "You and I" are. You're confusing "You and I" with a thing called an identity.

I know you know what this conversation is about. I just don't know if you know that you know. Knowing isn't something intellectual, it is an expression of 'Be'-ing and your speaking can only be congruent with your knowing. I don't have a doubt about your knowing, I have a problem with your speaking.

3 Replies

@Dasein,

Ohmmmmmmmm.

0 Replies

@Dasein,

I think 'TheEnlightenedOne' is just one of these rubes on here that made another account as some sort of 'joke'.

Now the question remains.......who is it?

I'm betting it's Sentana(or however you spell it).

3 Replies

@Dasein,

Everybody will tell you what they know, if you listen. Everybody's speaking is always congruent with their knowing.

What was brilliant about JLNobody's post is that the first paragraph came from knowing ('Be'-ing) and in the second part he digressed back into explaining. It's kind of like stepping off of a branch into thin air, noticing nothing is supporting your weight, and hurrying back to the safety of the branch.

Couldn't have been done more brilliantly.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

It doesn't matter. Just pay attention to your "listening" of what you're reading. That's all you have.

BTW - you have a proclivity towards inviting others to lead you around by the nose. Are you sure you want to keep doing that?

0 Replies

@Dasein,

What's interesting is that we are 'all' in that constant state-of-knowing, right?

Most just don't know it, or 'believe' it I guess.

1 Reply

@JPLosman0711,

All thoughts are false. They are conceptualizations of reality which can not be grasped by the human mind. "I think, therefore I am not." Who am I?

1 Reply

what is the beggining of philosophy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know