Scot

Philosophy Foundation: what can we know for certain

10 posts in this topic

Philosophy Foundation: what can we know for certain

Rene Descartes wrote papers that he called Meditations. Descartes was a foundationalist.  That means, he was looking for a foundation for philosophy that is solid and certain.  

To find a solid foundation, he started a thought experiment to reject completely anything that had ever tricked him.  Optical illusions had tricked his eyes so he rejected the input from his eyes.   By analogy he thought perhaps all of his senses could be tricked and so he rejected them all.  

While he was at his sitting table thinking about his foundations, he noted that sometimes in dreams he believed he was at his table where in reality his body was in actuality in his bed.  So he rejected that he was in fact awake because he couldn't prove for certain that he wasn't dreaming.  Moreover he couldn't prove that he really has the body he thinks he has while awake and asleep.  Perhaps he merely thinks he has a body.  

He doubted his thoughts themselves.  Sometimes we have erroneous thoughts.  So if thoughts can ever be incorrect then thoughts themselves are not certain and solid.   But something that Descartes found undoubtable was the fact that HE has these thoughts. Even if the thoughts are false, he exists to have the thoughts.  And that is Descartes foundation: He exists. He exists in the form of a thinking thing. "He exists" and the proof is that he thinks.  It is usually stated as "I think.  therefore I am"

But according to eastern mystics, buddhists and yogis, Descartes didn't go far enough.  Have you ever been so absorbed by a movie that you have completely forgotten that you were sitting in a movie theatre?  Have you ever been so engrossed in a story in a book that you forgot you were actually reading words off a page?  Have you ever been talking to someone and felt so close and so connected that you seemed to temporarily melt into a single soul?  Separate identity can also be called into question.  And if it can be called into question then it must be rejected in our aim to find a solid and certain foundation  

 There is a continuum from:

"self-conscious" - unduly self aware and uneasy, to

"self-aware" without any uneasiness,  to

"absorbed by something - where you temporarily lose track of your separate identity, to

"absorbed by everything" where the only thing you, experience is consciousness with no sense of "I".  (I have not fully experienced this level of consciousness but I have come close enough to believe such a possibility exists)

So Descartes should not have concluded "I exist".  He should have concluded "There is thought". Or "There is consciousness."   

At the "core", at the "root" when we let go of all things that are doubtable, the only thing that remains is consciousness.  Figuratively maybe one might say "At the beginning".  

And using figurative language, "thought" or "consciousness" might be represented by the word "Word"

           John 1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I no longer consider myself Christian but I take John 1:1 as two ways:

        "Before the Universe (in the beginning) God had an idea (the Word) and God's idea became reality"

which might just be saying:

        "When you let go of everything doubtable, the only thing left is consciousness"

Edited by Scot
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The problem is not in the ANSWER, but the need to ask the QUESTION."

"There's only a required destination once you believe there was a point of departure."  :)

Only those who've asked me questions have erroneously concluded I don't know everything..

Edited by Kielbasa Johansen
profundity kept coming.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this stuff. as far as I know as long as I have a ego I will be limited and bias, but my higher self can correct me. for example we live in western society where very limited subjective truth is shoved down our throats, but that is a small part of the whole, even science is biased, its cool that we all have a different perspective but if a complete perspective was like a rainbow most people are seeing life with just red and orange, all the other colors don't exist in their belief system. like in the west god is just a concept and people are still debating about it meanwhile in the east the yogis aren't eating and Chinese kids are learning telekinesis, both of these realities exist on the same planet, its just we are limited by where we live and what our collective society believes to be true, and we are separated by language and all of this is in us, which is the funny thing, just the mental body I guess you can call it cancels all the other ones and they lose their connection to their own higher self,(their own personal god that is them) even their body. if I listen to my higher self it just sees people as being limited in their understanding and very few have a complete perspective and still treat spirituality as if it were a new religion when it is just how life works, we have a soul and are god also, its not a theory. People in the mind are limited by subjective reality, you cant get very far in subjective reality, you are just using red and orange and maybe some yellow, but you cant see the other colors, but they also exist, I hope that analogy makes sense, and there are different shades of the red, orange, etc. I was born into a very old collective consciousness but the ones connected to their higher self are the minority, that's so crazy lol. the heart, the heart, the heart, I'll say it a million times!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2017 at 4:19 PM, Scot said:

That is very profound, Keilbasa.

What does it mean?

@scot

The man with no questions lacks no answers.

Attractions reveal the Magnet is.

"To leave the NOW moment just add the WAIT of heavy thoughts."

NOTE: This last quote I brazenly stole from a great SOUL of the 21st century.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scot-

Thought is a necessary 3D-based encumbrance of this realm and can be productive  when employed to heal emotions such that subsequent thoughts originate from purer intention & higher_frequency points not emotional_error-based. This is PRODUCTIVE thinking and the kind Teal assists one in employing.

Your current consciousness_frequency/vibration determines the quality of thought you can receive from your spirit_body and higher_self.  The higher your vibration the purer and higher-quality your  thoughts. [ "The divine archer shoots tru-th at still minds." ]

Since Stillness of mind is unburdened with heavy thought it is a high frequency state.  A still mind receives more potent & enlightened thoughts. Thought has a frequency of its own which can then attract further thoughts based on how they influence your overall vibration.

The more "enlightened" a person is,  the more they are enable to INTEND thought downloads from higher-self upon demand.. not thinking at other times, but just being.

In sum, thought is every bit as much a RESULT as it is a CREATIVE TOOL.

It's not "I think therefore I am".. but "Am" - except when you intend something - in which case it is "I am ###".

The "therefore" part is tantamount to asking the question that doesn't ever need to be asked. It is creating doubt where there need not be any for no proof is required as disproof is immediately self-refuting. If "I do not exist" is paradoxically non-sensical and it is.. then opposing converse proof statement is thereby unnecessary for "I am" is proof itself.

Have a great day! :)

 
Edited by Kielbasa Johansen
better word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with "AM", or "IS".  I think what you are saying has also been expressed as "Atman is Brahman".   And I don't know, but my intuition tells me that you might say that the full experience of "Atman is Brahman" or simply "IS" is the highest frequency of all.  

Now I have had some "higher frequency" experiences (where feeling at-one with the locality around me.   I can't tell you that I have experienced the highest frequency of all).  And I have had some intuitions when in those states that have been dead wrong.   Totally wrong. Some have been right. 

In my current state of mind, my intuitions tell me that those thoughts that have occurred to me when I have been in a "higher frequency state" should be able to stand up to scrunity from the 3D mind.  

My goal lately is to live more wholeheartedly, to experience "IS" when and if I can, and to use the full power of my brain. 

Live wholeheartedly AND wholebrainedly. 

Scot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. Very deep.

3 hours ago, Scot said:

In my current state of mind, my intuitions tell me that those thoughts that have occurred to me when I have been in a "higher frequency state" should be able to stand up to scrunity from the 3D mind. 

It will be both, higher dimensional mechanics can make it so that we do not necessarily receive a stream of information that is in order or even tailored to our 3D selves. Intuition can feel or appear wrong, and often does, because that's how we're conditioned to be. If an intuitive stream comes through that completely and utterly contradicts our logical mind, which is going to be believed?

Maybe try to consider how your "wrong" intuitions were right in some way. How could they be right? Maybe they were right in some alternative reality that you will never see or experience. Maybe it was pure imagination and projection - in which case you were "right" from the perspective of that individual self which imagined it. Do you need it to be right at all? Maybe getting intuitions about tiny pocket realities in your mind that you'll never see, is enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good conversation. Yes, intuition is simply a term meaning you are at least trying to receive insight the right way now.  However, even it is subject to interpretation and is easily biased by current emotional error and perspective. An example of TOTALLY ELIMINATING interpretation from thought would be REMOTE VIEWING.  However,  a growth-seeking person should never attempt to eliminate interpretation, but rather clear the personal error and shadow that biases it. Interpreting intuitive insight with clarity and confidence is a vital aspect of psychic development.

- - - -

["my intuitions tell me that those thoughts that have occurred to me when I have been in a "higher frequency state" should be able to stand up to scrunity from the 3D mind."]

The "3D mind" is of lower frequency and should not be the post-processor.. as it will DOUBT and FEAR and LINEARIZE the value out of intuition.  Rather, thoughts of the 3D mind, generally speaking, should be run by/assessed through the intuitive feeling filter.

That said, there actually is no "3D mind". The mind is 4D+_Spirit and passes consciousness to your 3D being.. whose brain then projects a version of reality before you. The human brain wasn't designed to  solve any problem or even think.. just receive CONSCIOUSNESS from higher dimensional aspects and then perceive/create your YOUniverse filled with what seems to be chairs and thoughts.  :)

- - - - With that in mind..

Human language itself is a self-perpetuating separation AND creational 3D world modeling engine.  Space_Time_linearity and separation (from One_Existence) are woven into language and thus language supports the non-unity 3D "mindset".

"Thoughts are like wheels of an airplane taking off. Only lack of necessity proves their worth."  -#### 2017

Keep talking until you have the need to talk no more. Once you get there, please let me know.  ;)

Peace. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now