Different realities

Hi Rufio, long time no see. It IS a virtual contradition to say things like "MY ego doesn't exist". But that is because of the structure of language. If I say (oops "I" did it again) simply "no ego here, or anywhere" that might do the job, but it would make "me" sound very strange, wouldn't it?
When I said that my "feeling" of self seemed to be situated behind my eyes, I was only speaking about my subjective perception, not for everyone's.
Descartes was doing more--or thought he was doing more-- than complying with grammar when he posited an "agent" behind thought. He was actually arguing that it necessarily (logically) followed that because there was thinking there MUST be a thinker. That only follows the rules of grammar. There is thinking, and there is the thinking that there must be a thinker-subject of the predicate-thought(s). That's pretty much like saying "IT'S raining" (What is it that's raining?) The tryanny of grammar.

Cogito, Ergo Sum If you stop thinking do you cease to exist or would it be considered Nirvana or extinction?

Or would it be considered Death if you stopped thinking?

PK, as I see it, Descartes was not saying "I exist because I think"; he was saying "I think because I exist". Thinking was presented as a proof of existence. But it seems clear now that this was not proof at all, simply a demonstration of the power of grammar over thought. If there is thinking (the predicate), there must be a thinker (the subject).

By the way, I do think that Nirvana is the experential state of one who is perceiving life "without thinking" (Dogen).

Hey JL.

Grammar aside, JLN, is there any effect that doesn't have a cause? You wouldn't say "the clouds are raining," but you can definitely say that the rain is caused by clouds and precipitation and all of that stuff I really should remember from elementary school. Similarly, regardless of where you think the thinking itself happens (as some sort of metaphysical thing, or chemical reactions, or what have you) isn't it true the ego is the cause of the thinking, or at least the cause of your perception of self? I seem to remember have conversations here along the lines that it was silly to divide up reality in the sense of "I" versus "everything else". Isn't the ego behind that? It's not just a convention of language - if it were, there would be languages in which it was not possible to refer to yourself, even by inference.



Is it grammar that has power over thought, or is it thought that has power over grammar? It seems to me that since thought came first, it should have priority.

There would be no Grammar without thought.

Yes, PK, and there would be no thought without some kind of grammar, because thought is for the most part linguistic.

Rufio, I think your notion of cause and effect as discrete entities could benefit from relevant discussions on the topic by Fredrik Nietzsche and David Hume.
Interesting that you remember our previous discussions that focused on the fallacy of dividing the world into "self" and "all else." The same fallacy applies to the division of the world into causes and effects, We do not SEE "causes" and "effects" in the world, but we do THINK in terms of causality. The notions serve rough explanatory, but not descriptive, functions.

Well, granted, Nietzsche was assigned in that part of the semester in which I tend to slack off and not do the reading, but I have read Hume and I don't think that kind of extreme empiricism is really useful for any kind of enquiry into the existance of anything. The whole premise of science is based upon the idea that there is a cause for every observable effect, and so far that hasn't proved a bad method. If we simply say that everything is a coincidence, and nothing is predictable and reproduceable, how can we possibly determine anything about the world?

You want to show the existance of something you call an 'ego', and in order to do this you have to describe an effect it has on you, as you would describe most objects (i.e. that you can see them, or touch them, or in this case, feel them). How is a 'feeling' any more empiricly sound than an act of thinking? The only way we can know anything, including this ego, is by observing the effects that it has outside of itself.



How could I forget? Did we ever actually talk about anything else?

I guess not. I hope your schooling is going well.

What about visual thinking or making your own form of self communication after all most people understand as much as possible about themselves.

PK, that's why I said that thought IS FOR THE MOST PART linguistic. Some of my "thinking" is too fluid and vague to be captured in words; the "thoughts" are almost invisible to my consciousness And in meditation one can experience mental processes that are not dualistic, as is language (e.g., the subject-object split).

so what came before human language was invented?

Probably pointing, waving and different tones of grunt which eventually refined into words. As language emerged consciousness probably emerged as well.

Sorry, JL, I didn't mean to offend - they were interesting discussions, and I'm sure we had others, but there were a lot on that topic.

As far as my schooling - I've changed schools, so that I can major in Linguistics, or at least that's the plan. My plans never seem to go according to plan.



Isn't that just a less efficient form of human language, though? I think the languages we have now are just the best method of communicating thoughts, barring actual mind-to-mind correspondence.

But I wonder - if we had some sort of telepathy, would we lose our sense of self, as we share everyone else's thoughts as well?

Resistance is futile!

Are you saying that thought has not been since the beginning of the earth?

Hey, JLN... Don't you think that consciousness is something that just "is"? ...that it's a useless word (as it applies to everything and nothing), sort of like the "ether"?

bm

Well, if we can take the word of the 19th century thinker, Nietzsche, thought AND language are a joint product of the evolutionary survival requirements of humans who must cooperate and coordinate their actions to compensate for their physical inadequacy. Hindus and other mystics seem to assume that human consciousness is an absolute cosmic phenomenon, an expression of Atman, which in turn are expressions of the absolute and eternal Brahmin, but it would seem obvious to me that HUMAN consciousness could not have existed before the evolutionary arrival of homo sapiens sapiens. Nietzsche believed, rightly or wrongly, that consciousness developed with the emergence of language. I'm not sure which he said comes first; I would think they developed together in some kind of dialectical fashion. But from my readings in anthropology (not linguistic or philological anthropology), no firm judgements have been published on this matter. But I wouldn't swear by it.

JLN,

Yes, I was thinking you would make such a point.

It also occurred to me that since "time" is a psychological construct, then arguments about the nature of "reality" prior to homo sapiens become problematic. When we speak of a "prehistoric earth" its "reality" lies in our "mind's eye". This point is inadvertently embraced by religious fundamentalists whose "mind's eyes" are wearing a particular set of spectacles !