THE DEAD AMONG US.

> Are you  perfectly certain of "I am"?  Well, I posit that there is not
> such an "I" and that it's existence is purely imaginary.

    Do you deny the existence of perfect certainties, those that can
not be wrong?

    Who or what is this I that posits that I does not exist?

    If you do not exist, then what does?

    How do you, who does not exist, know?

    Who or what speaks for its own non existence?

    Who or what denies agency for self condition?

    Stupid and missing the point.

    *SOMETHING EXISTS*

    That is perfectly certain.

    Existence IS the quality of consciousness that allows it to be aware of 
itself, which awareness of EXISTENCE is not in error, although 
specific descriptions of the nature of that thing may be less than optimal 
given present limitations.

    How you define that something, whether it is the little ego I,
or the big all that is I, consciousness of consciousness exists,
that is self evident.

     Do you deny the existence of everything?

     Do you deny the existence of pain?

     That would be mind broke as there would be no one to make such a 
denial.

     The space time physicality of the cross may be an illusion, but the 
dream of the cross is not and the suffering on it certainly is not.

    You seem to have more certainty of the stupid statements you make than 
of the being that makes those statements.

> I therefor challenge you to find this "I" that thinks and describe it to
> me in some way that indicates its existence.
>
> "I think, therefore I am?"  Descartes argument is faulty on many
> levels.  "I think" assumes "I" already exists.

    Sorry, descartes 'argument' is not faulty on any level at all,
and in fact is not an argument, its a statement of observation,
I EXIST.

    What Descartes meant by I THINK was to mean I WONDER IF, cogito means 
to cogitate on.

    Self perception of self doubt is self evidence of the existence of that 
doubt, which then banishes that doubt.

    To claim more existence to the doubt than to the doubter is nuts.

    Perfect certainty of doubt is the first perfect certainty.

    Perfect certainty of the doubter is the second perfect certainty.

    Perfect certainty that something exsits is the third perfect certainty.

    What Descartes said was:

    I doubt I am, therefore I am, because a nothing could not wonder
whether it was a something or a nothing.

    A blind man can not see red, so proving to him there is red
is hopeless.

    A dead man can not see his own consciousness, therefore proving
to him that he is a conscious unit with self awareness is also hopeless.

    You are slipping Pip.

    You have never experienced your own non existence except maybe as 
illusion of non existence, so to report that you do not exist is 
nuts.

    Lots of people subscribe to the I AM NOT club, that's bottom tone scale 
all the way.  They do not WANT TO BE, therefore they deny they are, or 
hope.

    If you do not exist, then your words that you do not exist mean nothing 
as they have not been said by anything that exists.

    I treat you with respect during your momentary fit of total
inanity because of our past relationship.

    Do not test my temper for very long, or I will rip that I out of your 
skull and put it on a pike until you see that you see, and admit it in 
your shame for the whole world to see.

    The dream is not an illusion, and the dreamer exists just as
the dream exists.

    These things are for sure.

    Homer


>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
>
> Pip
>
>
> Transremaxculver wrote:
>
>> On Jan 14, 4:55 am, Jane Elizabeth Staller  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Transremaxculver wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jan 14, 12:05 am, Jane Elizabeth Staller 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Transremaxculver wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 13, 8:06 am, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     CHECK-OUT-ABLE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I guess in part what drives me crazy about people claiming to be
>>>>>>> perfectly certain of things that are wrong is they have separated the
>>>>>>> state of certainty from the object that the certainty is about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     In other words they are claiming certainty to a truth that they
>>>>>>> can not check out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     For example I present you with a black box and I say "There is a
>>>>>>> red card inside this box."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     If I ask you what is in the box, and you say a red card, and I
>>>>>>> ask how do you know, you would say "Well Homer told me and he is
>>>>>>> trustable etc."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     But that's not a CHECKABLE CERTAINTY, because there is no
>>>>>>> *DIRECT* connection between the observer and the card in the box.
>>>>>>> Homer could be lying or be mistaken himself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Even if God came down and TOLD you there is a red card in the
>>>>>>> box, you still wouldn't have CHECKABLE CERTAINTY because again there
>>>>>>> is no direct perception of the card in the box.  Even God could be
>>>>>>> lying.  Even if God COULDN'T lie and you were certain of that, you
>>>>>>> still wouldn't have direct checkable certainty of the card in the box.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Now we open the box and you look at the card.  You can SEE it is
>>>>>>> red, how can you doubt what you see?  You can say it might be a
>>>>>>> hallucination, there might not be a card there, you might be dreaming,
>>>>>>> but we arn't talking about 'the card', we are talking about what you
>>>>>>> SEE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     If you SEE a red card, you can then say "Yes I SEE A RED CARD, of
>>>>>>> this I am certain."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Now this certainty is not just a belief, an arbitrary or
>>>>>>> willfully chosen state of mind in the being, the certainty is
>>>>>>> CHECKABLE, the certainty has a direct CAUSAL relationship to the
>>>>>>> experience being observed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     The knowledge gleaned and what the knowledge is about are
>>>>>>> have a direct causal link between them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     The observer and the observed are related by CAUSATION, the red
>>>>>>> experience is causally responsible for knowing that it is red, the
>>>>>>> observer isn't just being TOLD that it is red, he SEES it is red.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Do you see the difference?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     So when we talk about perfect certainties, we aren't talking
>>>>>>> about a mere state of mind concerning a truth, but a state of causal
>>>>>>> connection between the observer and the observed, between the
>>>>>>> certainty and what the certainty is about, allowing us to check the
>>>>>>> certainty for its truth continuously in real present time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     This is what makes the certainty perfect, can not be wrong etc,
>>>>>>> the real time causal connection is there and the being can SEE it is
>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     The certainty is 'check-out-able'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Homer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conclusions all drawn from a set of deductions arived at without first
>>>>>> taking the leap of faith that there is a method of reasoning known as
>>>>>> Logic. So either way it is impossible to be perfectly certain of
>>>>>> anything other than, da Da DA, cogito ergo et sum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>          And of this you are perfectly certain?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Of course I am not 'perfectly certain' that's the point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>          And you are not perfectly certain of that statement
>>> either, are you?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>>
>>
>>>          Are you prefectly certain of anything?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Cogito Ergo et sum.
>>
>>
>>
>>>          If you are not certain of anything, there is
>>> nothing to learn from what you say,
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You can't be certain of that.
>>
>>
>>
>>> so why bother saying it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>>
>>
>>>          Your statements come off as if you are very certain
>>> of your views,
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Oh I am very certain, but not perfectly certain.
>>
>>
>>
>>> so I find your denial of certainty to be
>>> disingenous.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>>
>>
>>> You deny your certainty as fast as you can.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I'm pretty certain I dont imply perfect certainty to begin with.
>>
>>
>>>>>          God, you are stupid or evil or both.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Then explain to my how it is possible to deduce anything other than a
>>>> knowledge of self without using Logic, and where it is possible to
>>>> derive logic from without accepting on faith the existance of an
>>>> external referent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>            No, that's your homework assignment.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Then I'm almost certain that your premise falls at the first
>> challenge.
>>
>>
>>
>>>            What I want to know is why you hang out here
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm fairly certain I was implicitly invited.
>>
>>
>>
>>> bringing
>>> your ugly, low toneness to this forum?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm as certain as I can be that the tone scale is as much use as a
>> chocolate fire guard.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Have you no creativity
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I have reasonable confidence that I have a high level of creativity,
>> and percieve that I enjoy my creativity, though there is a vanishingly
>> small chance that I do not.
>>
>>
>>
>>> yourself to post something new, brilliant and useful
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I believe that I do.
>>
>>
>>
>>> instead being
>>> reactive
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't believe I am.
>>
>>
>>
>>> and attacking to people who are creative?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am as certain as I am that the sun will come up in the morning that
>> I am attacking no-one. Though I am equally certain that I am
>> challenging a specific idea.
>>
>>
>>
>>>            I understand why the vegans get so upset when Health
>>> Food Stores carry meat.  Vegans want at least one place to go
>>> where they won't have raw meat staring them in the face.  So,
>>> too, I feel this way about clear-l, act and ars when meat like
>>> you shows up I find it very unbecoming.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There is a high probablility that if you post in public forums, then
>> you are highly likely to encounter opinions that are contrary to your
>> own.
>>
>>
>>
>>> You add nothing but
>>> destructiveness.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I am 99.9% recurring  sure that we are both entitled to our opinions.
>>
>>
>>>>>          I fear for the people who come to you for help.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thankfully they do not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>        Time will tell.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It is very highly likely.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Clearing practioners will be cleaning
>>> up in future lifetimes the messes you are making of your
>>> clients now, thankfully.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I believe that to be highly improbable. And I have a high level of
>> confidence that many of my clients are doing very well thankyou.
>>
>>
>>
>>>              Jane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>          Jane
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,  Art Matrix - Lightlink
>>>>>>> (607) 277-0959       A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>>>>>>> ho...@lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask?http://www.lightlink.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ================http://www.clearing.org====================
>>>>>>> Thu Jan 13 03:06:02 EST 2011ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic26.memo
>>>>>>> Send mail to arch...@lightlink.com saying help
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>>>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> iD8DBQFNLrJqURT1lqxE3HERAj5WAJ99Dg52cJUQBXW2LjyrxNylFG8wogCePg3H
>>>>>>> NEMFyX6UHuB9TfrfIt1BMYg=
>>>>>>> =nXmO
>>>>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
>>>>>>> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>>>>>>> ho...@lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Clear-L mailing list
>>>>>> Clea...@mailman.lightlink.com
>>>>>> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l-Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Clear-L mailing list
>>>> Clea...@mailman.lightlink.com
>>>> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clear-L mailing list
>> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
>> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
Sat Jan 15 14:12:30 EST 2011