Re: Function and functional organization

["John Kineman" <***>]

Hi Tim and JohnM.,

There was a parallel discussion on this topic on the *** list,
so I'm cross posting some snips from that (including a corny story).
Ron, Georg, and list:

I am a great fan of paradox - it seems to be closely associated with out
quest for truth.

So, I said "I Am" [as a simplification of Descartes' "I think, therefore I am"] and then indicated that I also understood Georg's remark about the impossibility of "I Am"

Philosophers (I like Alan Watts) who look at paradox point out that it is
impossible to have something without also implying its opposite. If I affirm
"I am" as a statement of my existence and God, the opposite becomes a
logical possibility. Since God/existence must encompass everything, then "I
am not" must also be true. Theologians discuss the light and the void
alternatively as the ultimate reality (St. John of the Cross, the ultimate
formless void of Hindu belief, etc.). It is our choice which to focus on,
but if we choose only one and deny the other, we create an opinion which is
only partial, and perhaps fear and denial of its opposite, which is then no
longer truth. At this level we have to admit "I don't know."

It makes sense to affirm "I am" if I want to do something special. "I am
not" makes sense when I want to identify with the whole of creation, all of
humanity, etc. One is ego existence, the other absence of all ego. Answers
aren't simple.

Just for laughs, I heard a segment on a British radio program called "Word
Play" where linguists compete in a game about language. I loved the program.
They would answer and discuss various semantic questions, but at the
beginning each panelist was given a quote to work with while they were
competing on the other questions. At the end, each would give an original
explation of the origin or the quote and they were then judged on
cleverness,etc.  So, given the quote "I think therefore I am" one of the
contestants concocted a story about Descartes, a good friend Descartes would
frequently work late nights with, and Descartes nagging wife, who saw
herself as the practical member of the duo who would frequently imposing
some discipline on Descartes wistful ways, much to his annoyance. One night
his wife had fixed some nice cookies for a very late reception for friends
returning from the Opera. However, Descartes' friend [whom I should mention was an Englishman]
came over earlier and as they were working he noticed the cookies and started to make a motion
toward them. Descartes, wanting to warn his friend and save him from his
wife's wrath, and also not wanting his wife to notice, scribbled a warning
on a piece of paper and handed it quickly to his friend.  
He wrote: "I think they're for 1am!"

JKineman

> Ron Cottam wrote:
>   
> Hi Georg and all
>   
> I entirely concur with your suspicions of Descartes' conclusion/guess, but
> in a similar manner I find it difficult to see how it is possible to
> conclude the impossibility of *I am*. This appears to be a conclusion which
> is drawn 'in a map' - i.e. "just a guess".
>   
> Ron

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Kineman [mailto:***]
> > Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 9:06 AM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: [life] cogito ergo sum
> >     
> > Georg,
> >     
> > I think I understand this. It is a good point.
> >   

> > > At 07:09 AM 8/30/03 +0300, Georg wrote:
> > >             
> > > You mentioned Descartes before and we left the point out then.
> > >       
> > > We now from Galilei that many of his experiments were only guesses. he
> > > never did them. However, they turned out to be quite correct under certain
> > > circumstances.
> > >       
> > > I believe Descartes' also made a guess in his cogito ergo sum and never
> > > really investigated his thinking process. Classic Buddhist meditation
> > > practice is to investigate the thinking process. In this investigation I
> > > personally came to the conclusion that it is impossible that *I am*. I
> > > came to the conclusion independent of the classic Buddhist text that I
> > > read later and that say the same thing. Now I found in Varela's Embodied
> > > mind the same conclusion. Descartes came to his statement only because
> > > he  did not the experiment. It was just a guess.
> > >       
> > > Best wishes
> > > --
> > > ___________________
> > > Georg Ivanovas
> > > Milatos
> > > GR 72400 Neapoli
> > > Greece - Crete
> > >       
> > >       
> > >       http://www.ivanovas.com/
> > >       
> > >       
> >