SpaceweaverFri, Aug 8, 2008 It is strange using a description as if 'mind' belongs to 'I', while 'I', whatever that is, is, in fact, a product of mind. Why should a thought, a feeling, an emotion, or even a whole mind be owned by anything? And having something at my disposal, is it not a kind of ownership?
Should Descartes' "I think therefore I am", have actually been "I possess therefore I am"?
Do we know ourselves for the thoughts that arise in our minds, or for owning these thoughts ?
What could possibly happen if we let thoughts and everything else be free of 'I' ?
Here is an alternative, not the only one, but one that can make a huge difference: I am the thought being thought now. Full identity instead of the asymmetry of owner-owned relation.
What would this imply? A complete paradigm shift in the way we interact with ourselves, with others, and with the world.
Our minds are conditioned by the language we use to describe ourselves. Yet in language there is a choice. What do you think?
It is strange using a description as if 'mind' belongs to 'I', while 'I', whatever that is, is, in fact, a product of mind. Why should a thought, a feeling, an emotion, or even a whole mind be owned by anything? And having something at my disposal, is it not a kind of ownership?
Should Descartes' "I think therefore I am", have actually been "I possess therefore I am"?
Do we know ourselves for the thoughts that arise in our minds, or for owning these thoughts ?
What could possibly happen if we let thoughts and everything else be free of 'I' ?
Here is an alternative, not the only one, but one that can make a huge difference: I am the thought being thought now. Full identity instead of the asymmetry of owner-owned relation.
What would this imply? A complete paradigm shift in the way we interact with ourselves, with others, and with the world.
Our minds are conditioned by the language we use to describe ourselves. Yet in language there is a choice. What do you think?