I peel potatoes therefore I am (was: I think, therefore I am)

[Guest guest]

> It would seem that

> Descartes was talking about the unenlightened life

> when arriving at

> " I think, therefore I am "

 

 

The statement is misleading period, and particularly for

the ''''''purposes''''''' of '''''''enlightenment'''''''.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Re " enlightenment " (hate that word), the statement:

 

" I believe *I am* therefore I am unenlightened. "

 

makes sense as a rule of thumb.

 

Which is why the statement, " I am enlightened, " is

self-contradictory. To attribute enlightenment to oneself

is to still be obsessed with one's own self-nature.

 

And to be obsessed with one's own self-nature is

to be in delusion.

 

It is like having one's eyes on the ground and failing

to see the sunset.

 

" One's own self-nature " is a no-thing.

 

So the problem with " I think therefore I am " is not

in the relation between thinking and being, it is in

the obsession with " I am " .

 

So funny that much is made of Descarte's statement.

It would have done as well to say, " I peel potatoes

therefore I am. "

 

Bill

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

> The statement is misleading period, and particularly for

> the ''''''purposes''''''' of '''''''enlightenment'''''''.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>

> Re " enlightenment " (hate that word), the statement:

>

> " I believe *I am* therefore I am unenlightened. "

>

> makes sense as a rule of thumb.

 

 

You could say that, yes.

 

 

> Which is why the statement, " I am enlightened, " is

> self-contradictory. To attribute enlightenment to oneself

> is to still be obsessed with one's own self-nature.

 

 

Yes.

 

'Enlightenment' doesn't happen to anyone.

 

 

 

> And to be obsessed with one's own self-nature is

> to be in delusion.

 

 

Yes, or not even obsessed!

 

 

> It is like having one's eyes on the ground and failing

> to see the sunset.

>

> " One's own self-nature " is a no-thing.

 

 

No, it's not that either

 

 

> So the problem with " I think therefore I am " is not

> in the relation between thinking and being, it is in

> the obsession with " I am " .

 

 

There is nothing wrong in stating and using 'I AM' *in a statement of

explanation*, it is the final limit of words.

 

If we are going to talk about 'IT' and formulate a statement then it

must be used.

 

Descartes statement using I AM *could* be written better and that is

the problem.

 

'I am' is what 'God' would say *if he could*.

 

Descartes statement is misleading because it offers thought and

thinking as a proof of this 'I am'.

 

 

> So funny that much is made of Descarte's statement.

> It would have done as well to say, " I peel potatoes

> therefore I am. "

 

 

Yes, it could have, but it doesn't sound nearly as cool does it??

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

Scott.