Print

Print


Ray Brown scripsit:

> >"Cogito [ergo] sum" is simply a statement
> >that it is safe to assume that you exist; otherwise, who would be doing
> >the observing?
>
> Yes, seems fair enough to me.

It's really a Whorfian mind-lock based on subject-object metaphysics,
though (and small blame to Descartes for that); Buddhist metaphysics
has no problem with thinking-without-a-thinker, any more than
observing-without-an-observer.  From the Buddhist viewpoint, Descartes's
illegitimate move is when he extends a bare process-of-thinking into
something with a personal ego.

--
A poetical purist named Cowan           [that's me: [log in to unmask]]
Once put the rest of us dowan.          [on xml-dev]
    "Your verse would be sweeter        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    If it only had metre                http://www.reutershealth.com
And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan."     [overpacked line!] --Michael Kay