0
   

Thinking and Being

 
 
Reply Thu 10 Nov, 2011 10:56 am
This statement made by Rene Descartes seems to be a rather relevant assertion within the mind of the average person so I have taken it upon me to Re-Question such a commonly known assertion. It is rightfully a relevant assertion since it has played a fundamental and essential role in shaping the mentality of Westerners alike. In light of this should we accept Descartes proposition as possessing any truth in regards to being itself or is there any being which we can talk about in correlation to such an argument.


Should we have to define what it means to be before we can properly and adequately validate that I must think in order to be? I think the answer to the fundamental question lies in the process of thinking which is the fundamental source through which being being makes itself known to itself. There is no one way to answer the question of being in the fundamental sense but many ways in which being finds itself fallen into ineffably.


The question is how do we define and correlate the necessity of thinking of the concrete modes and forms in which being assumes itself so as to correlate itself in a passive sense to our thinking. This means is there a proper method which we can utilize and employ to gauge and measure the structures of being and to accord to each being a certain value which correlates with its own uniqueness. Or is their an appropriate way to approach being, that is the I am of Descartes, so as to ground and constitute it an accurate and authentic way?


This is a question which depends simply within the context of the individual and the situation which he finds himself within. This means that in order to determine with accuracy that we have grounded or constituted being in a correct way we must determine it in light as how each individual perceives or thinks of it as being. Being itself as Being which makes itself self-evident to us within the context of the relation between I and other selves obscures itself as a fluidity which is constantly fluxing both its internal and external representations.


This process of fluxing is passive and is something which is regulated by the mind and our sensibilities as it relates to the context of our reality as a matter that is being thought of. The possibility of Being which is determined through thought arises at this point and also cuts itself off from us in a "concrete" way. How are we to delineate ourselves from the possibility of thinking so as to open and uncover the "processes" and dynamics of being which are constantly changing? Is it necessary to do such a thing and if so is the only way in which we have to access this primordial state of being is through thinking alone?


These all raise important questions regarding the fundamental problems with being that each unique entity has self-awareness of. Thinking itself is something which is necessitated not merely on its ground alone but in "response" to the passive absorption and emission of information and sense data received by the empirical world around as it correlates to the I which represents all other selves or implies their I through self-consciousness.


This is to say that thinking is not just a concrete mode of our consciousness but is also an act of being and it because of being that we are able to think whatsoever. I am necessitates that I think to some degree or another and that the capacity to think is determined by the nature of Being both as an I and both through the form of other I's. This means that being has determined a given or pre-determined mode or capacity for thinking which encompasses many different modes of thinking.


This pre-determination "defines" itself through the uniqueness of the I or its authenticity as being. This "definition" posits itself through the orientation of a biological self-awareness which determines the capacity to think in correlation with other fluid and dynamic factors such as "intelligence" and psychological aspects. This is to say that although thinking has a fixed locality within being that de-centralizes or displaces itself in different modes of thinking its obligation is to fix being in essence to the process of thinking.


This is determined by the fluid nature and disjunction that exists between being and thinking. Both run tangent to each other but necessitate the other for each other in a reciprocal relationship which hinges on the multiplicity of thought which is given per se through the "multiple" modes of thinking. These "multiple" modes of thinking determine the I in a passive sense and are determined by the "I" in so far as it "represents" itself as a certain kind of being.


Being itself as has been stated before as the fundamental source from which the possibility of thinking arises not only gives way to the capacity to thinking by falling back into itself but necessitates itself as an essential quality of being by "uncovering" itself. The "uncovering" of being determines the nature of being as it "ascends" itself or as it approaches the plateau of the ever changing "modes" of thought. This "uncovering" process can only make itself apparent within the context of the empirical structure and extension of the substances of being all of which hinge upon the uniqueness which they "represent".


This is to say that not only do the structures of being "uncover" being itself as it stands before itself through the senses that is the passive collection and de-collection of the matter of the empirical world by determines itself through the "representations" of thinking. This is to say thinking "represents" by necessity in accordance with the fluidity of being the relationship in which the substances and "modes" of thought are determined within the context of the multiplicity of reality itself.


This empirical context passively supplies us with the possibility and grounds from which thinking becomes a "concrete" reality which is ever present and ever changing within the context of the I. This is to say that the I is the passive receptor through which being determines the necessity of thought and is through thinking that the I of being has the possibility of synthesizing concepts which are capable of being applied and employed within the context of the "representations" of the substances which appear to us in our empirical reality.

The I itself which compliments the process of thinking which we project onto the multiple forms and objects of our reality do not strictly compliment each other. Instead they coincide with each other within the context of our empirical reality as determined by our senses.

This coincidence ultimately hinges upon the I and the process of thinking which are by necessity and in accordance with the fluidity of being and natural laws "complimentary" "illusions" which neither are reciprocal or linear in relation to each other but which encompass each absolutely within the context of the I and the think. The I and the process of thinking posits the relevancy and correlation of being as being within the context of our empirical reality as perceived by our senses.

My thought is "enabled" through the given and logical nature of my empirical reality which is "perceived" through my senses but it is only through my thinking that I have any relevant correlation with the substances, beings, and modes of being which are determined within the "multiplicity" of empirical realities.

This "multiplicity" de-centralizes and self-alienates the I since the I as it pertains to a certain individual is unnecessary for the sustainability and self-preservation of this multiplicity all of which hinges upon the I in essence.


This creates a disjunction or "incompleteness" within the context of the I and thinking within the fluidity and ever changing presence of being. It is an "incompleteness" in my belief which can only be filled in partially through the processes of thinking.

The delineation of this process of thinking which makes it possible to posit the form and content of thought within the context of the senses and the substances of our empirical reality in essence can only posit correctly that it is as an all encompassing I am through a margin of error.


This means to think in an errant and misunderstood way is the only way in which we can come to an accurate and approximate understanding of being as it "uncovers" itself with the "modes" of our thought as it relates to the substances of our empirical reality as "perceived" through the senses.

Thinking is enabled simply through in "correlation" to our empirical reality through our senses and other such psychological processes which "uncover" themselves through the substances of our "perceived" reality.


It is only through thinking and the I that the passivity of the I as a "multiplicity" of beings all correlating to each in a disjunctive union that we can access being itself as a fluidity which is constantly "re-locating" and "re-framing" itself in the context of our empirical reality.

Thus the I as thought is the absolute facilitator through which that which enables us to think can take on any coherent or relevant meaning as it pertains to our sensibilities.

The I is which all thought and being in and of itself as a discrete "mode" of thinking or that which is posited through the "multiplicities" of Is is that on which being itself hinges upon in the absolute sense out of absolute necessity.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,073 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Nov, 2011 02:31 am
@HegelMeister,
See my sig line.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Nov, 2011 12:36 pm
@HegelMeister,
Wow... I can hardly waste a word on the notion of thought being essential to being... Yes, we must think in order to survive and the better thinking we do the better chance we have against others thinking as much of their own survival... What thought gives primarily is consciousness: The awareness of our being... But we are very little rational, using reason to accomplish unreasonable goals, or using it as chess players do, because the other is using it... We have for the most part succeeded to the point of failure because we related rather than reasoned...Humanity has never reasoned so much as when they have argued, and in primitive democratic societies, argument, social reasoning was more common that private reasoning... Humanity has survived almost to the present because it has availed itself of the common mind which it did out of the needs and abilities offered by the relationship, primarily gentile in nature, but always natural to a degree... Two heads are better than one, and many minds are better than a few, but no matter how much the mind of the individual is multiplied, the quality of thought is no better or more likely to result in continued being...
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Nov, 2011 04:31 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

Wow... I can hardly waste a word on the notion of thought being essential to being... Yes, we must think in order to survive and the better thinking we do the better chance we have against others thinking as much of their own survival... What thought gives primarily is consciousness: The awareness of our being... But we are very little rational, using reason to accomplish unreasonable goals, or using it as chess players do, because the other is using it... We have for the most part succeeded to the point of failure because we related rather than reasoned...Humanity has never reasoned so much as when they have argued, and in primitive democratic societies, argument, social reasoning was more common that private reasoning... Humanity has survived almost to the present because it has availed itself of the common mind which it did out of the needs and abilities offered by the relationship, primarily gentile in nature, but always natural to a degree... Two heads are better than one, and many minds are better than a few, but no matter how much the mind of the individual is multiplied, the quality of thought is no better or more likely to result in continued being...


Fido

THIS IS VERY GOOD , IF NOT EXCELLENTENCE in thought of Humanties present state

towards ourselves and others , is fundamentally true

now how to right the ship ......hmm
NORTH
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Thinking and Being
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/01/2020 at 02:48:00