I do, therefore I am

Let's skip all chit-chat :p

JLNobody: "He proved nothing, unless you consider the rules of grammar evidence for the structure of reality--viz., predicates must have subjects. "
Why would this NOT be valid?

"but for 85% of the time you are moving to fast to think" ('real')Statistics tolled me that 95% of all our actions are conditioned and/or automatic. Nevertheless, it is my understanding that eg. the little meditating pause done just before and after practicing aikido(which I happen to do), you're just trying to make the gap between consciousness and and the sub-consciousness collapse.
Mokuso: Meditation. Practice often begins or ends with a brief period of meditation. The purpose of meditation is to clear one's mind and to develop cognitive equanimity. Perhaps more importantly, meditation is an opportunity to become aware of conditioned patterns of thought and behavior so that such patterns can be modified, eliminated or more efficiently put to use. In addition, meditation may occasion experiences of insight into various aspects of aikido (or, if one accepts certain buddhist claims, into the very structure of reality). Ideally, the sort of cognitive awareness and focus that one cultivates in meditation should carry over into the rest of one's practice, so that the distinction between the "meditative mind" and the "normal mind" collapses.

But let's conclude with that joke mentioned earlier

Rene walked in a bar, 'Want a drink' the bartender asked. "I think not" he replied, and vanished in a puff of logic.

Sounds similar to some of what Dostoevsky talked about (not just him, but that's what came to mind first.) Notes from Underground talks about how over-thinking leads to inactivity, while the Rash act without thinking and feel better about it.

Rex, you ask what's wrong with my challenge to the notion that all actions must have agents, all predicates subjects? Is that right? I'm just saying that the structure of grammar does not necessarily reflect the structure of reality. An action just is, but we presume that it cannot be understood except as an action OF "an agent". I can sit here and experience breath. It is an unnecessary addition to conclude that there must be an I to complete awareness of breath. Descarte said, "I think therefore I am." If he were to more accurately report on his experience, he would have said simply, "There is thinking" or just "thinking."
And then there are the early Rationalists in philosophy, including Spinoza and Decartes, who assumed that the structure of reality parallels the structure of human logic. You don't see something presumptous in that? Would intelligent creatures from distant galaxies be living in different realities if their logic were radically different from ours? Because of our tendencies toward rationalism we do not seem to be able to live with the possibility of other orientations; that would entail different corresponding realities. That's probably why StarTrek and its spin offs always have aliens speaking middle class English, or at least doing middle class 20th century thinking.

As always, I enjoyed reading your reply. However, I was referring to the concept of cause & effect. "I think(effect) therefor I exist(there is a cause/agent)". I was referring to this logical and grammatical construction which defines thought as being the effect(which 'exists') of a(or multiple but we simply it and give it one co-ordinated name, but this would lead us to 'subjects' as being essentially non-existent but defined by various interdependent actions) cause, namely 'me/ego'. If it really is cogito cogito ergo cogito sum. I think I think therefor I think I am, surely, one remains to think, therefor one still exists.

Even if he more accurately states that there simply is thinking and nothing more (leaving the consciousness debate aside), one must conclude that there is existence. Be it, merely that of thought. And yes, I do see it's presumptuous nature. But do you know any valid alternatives which can be explored and has no inherent fault in its system of thought? And surely, one CAN agree that there are parallels, how else would you explain the 'structures' which we perceive, which may not exist, nevertheless they form complex objects. We see many parallels in all things, why not in human logic and the structure of reality(assume there is structure, why would it be a different kind of structure?).

As for Star Trek: We are communicating in what may perceive as to be a primitive means, talking in english(to some, not there native language) over the internet in text(reading and writing). Surely, one can convey thoughts with a certain intonation better when spoken(but perhaps not, internet HAS allowed us to form many accents and nuances in mere text). You could state that real life experience would be even better including non-verbal communicating or the absence of thought(meditation which should transcend thought), but this primitive means of communication will have to do for now. Unless you have another alternative(again). Star Trek HAD this inclination because the layman was to understand it better and because of its limited resources. They couldn't start off, as they're doing more and more now with somewhat more 'advanced' and different species on several plains and aspects. And no, I am NOT a trekkie damn it!

I no longer require you to respond, I read your thoughts on the 'vase'. I still don't fully understand them in the sense that I could reconstruct them and defend them properly. But I suppose the fault is mine and further explanations are too much of a burden for you to bear. Seeing how this would imply mysticism, which in turns includes zen, which in turn does not know words because when you DO try and say it, you get your incoherent babbling which is too esoteric to get. It's like poetry, the sounds and isolated(in mind) words just form thoughts even though you said something else. It's not that you say one thing and mean another, it's that you say it in an incomplete manner(enigmatic and complex) that one must reconstruct it in the mind to come to the same conclusions. This largely due to the structures and lacking definitions which we have form which we must first eliminate and only then can we see things as they truly are and not as we try and categorize them. But this seems a bit of topic.

Rex, thanks for reading my long diatribe so carefully. I was afraid it would go unread. I tend to pass over many posts when they are too long--unless their topic of great interest for me, or if the person is generally interesting. You don't need much more from me. I would say, regarding the core dualism, cause and effect, that they do not exist in the world, only in our heads. We see an event or condition, and that's what it is. If we want to know how it got to be as it is, we lay an explanatory scheme on it. We call it an "effect", and look for its corresponding "cause" or causes. In our analytical or explanatory scheme CAUSE precedes EFFECT. In fact we refer to "cause" as ANTECEDENT VARIABLE. But note that in our experience the effect came first; we look for the cause afterward. I tend to see cause and effect as analytical fictions that are useful. But in reality an "effect" is really more like the last chapter of a book. It is not "caused" by the earlier chapters, but it would make less sense without them.

"I do, therefore I am."

Yes, are we really just our actions? What else do we leave behind when we leave this place? It seems we leave our actions behind, primarily. Are we simply our actions?

Have we been given this human form simply as a platform to act from? So we can leave behind actions?

Yes JLN, I quite confident I get it now. Thank you for you screed :p

tcis: We are actions which agitate other actions, which in turn agitate others which are one of many actions which agitate us(us being actions, relations). I know that's a short answer, but if you've read all the other posts(and perhaps some other threads) carefully, you'll see what I mean.

I bear children,therefore i am.

I do things according to my will,therfore I am.

This is of course specious: existence is not defined by action. I think Descartes syllogism should be reversed I am therefore I think makes sense.

Welcome to those who have recently commented on this thread.
The critical issue seens to be that of the nature of "existence".

If we consider the concept "I" in comparison to the concept "The USA" as in the sentence "The USA's actions were decisive in ending WW2", then we see the dilemma of on the one hand acknowledging the sentence as meaningful, yet at the same time aknowledging that "the USA" is not a "thinking agent" inthe sense which we might ascribe to an "I". But my argument is that the existential status of "I" is precisely equivalent to the that of "the USA". Such status is evoked as a segmentation of "reality" involving "actors" and "objects of action" such a dichotomy being at the root of the dualistic nature of the flux of human consciousness. Yet that dichotomy has no independent existential credentials apart from its "utility" in describing "conscioius operations". Both "I" and "thought" are necessarily co-existent as in the case of "football" and "goal posts"...the first pair being merely a "game of the intellect". The "unity of of self" is a myth exposed for all those who would step back from "the game".

SLIGHT EDIT OF ABOVE
If we consider the concept "I" in comparison to the concept "The USA" as in the sentence "The USA's actions were decisive in ending WW2", then we see the dilemma of on the one hand acknowledging the sentence as meaningful, yet at the same time acknowledging that "the USA" is not a "unified thinking agent" inthe sense which we might ascribe to an "I". But my argument is that the existential status of "I" is precisely equivalent to that of "the USA". Such status is evoked as a segmentation of "reality" involving "actors" and "objects of action" such a dichotomy being at the root of the dualistic nature of the flux of human consciousness. Yet that dichotomy has no independent existential credentials apart from its utility in describing "conscious operations" like a snapshot of the flux. Both "I" and "thought" are necessarily co-existent as in the case of "football player" and "football"...the first pair being merely a "game of the intellect". The unity of “self" is a myth exposed for all those who would step back from "the game".

I would contend that thinking is less harmful than acting: one of the tenets of eastern philosophy is that people do less damage when they are asleep: therefore they should sleep more.
By Eastern I didn't mean New York: I meant the rest of the world. Certainly less people have come to hard by thinking about things before acting on them. Lemmings are big on action.Not so big on thought. Do you dig it?

Failing to plan is planning to fail.





WHAT do u claim is "absurd"
about the world ?

What woud make it less "absurd" ?





David

Anti Intellectualism has been tried> Hitler promoted the idea that intelligence was less important than force: the argument kinda lost credibility after that.

Fountofwisdom,

Welcome to the A2K philosphy forum.

You cite "Eastern Philosophy" which you presumably know puts "the intellect" under critical scrutiny. Indeed "rationality" in general, and "the self" in particular are subject to demolition. Perhaps you expand a little on your ideas in these areas.

I was getting bored by all the old chestnuts. The idea that mind and body are separate. Cartesian Dualism was based on much older prejudices. You need thoughts to act, and vice versa.
The material and the ideal are two aspects of the same thing. Attempts to seperate them are problematic.
Justifying your existence from the damage you are causing doesn't seem necesarily constructive. It would imply that when we are asleep we cease to exist.

Notes from the underground was about revolutionary acts>the argument was you had to act sooner or later, or you cant make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Isaac Asimov proposed the opposite in the Foundation trilogy.

Correct !.....on the basis that "Existence" = "Relationship". Sleep by definition alters relationships hence "that which sleeps" is not synonymous with "that which is conscious" except to coincidently be associated with the same body. Similarly I1 need not be synonymous with I2, the numbers denotong different occasions/relationships. (See Gurdjieff about the illusion of a unified self).