One Comment

  1. Travis

    As a progressive syllogism, I’m not totally convinced that all of your premises follow. Perhaps it’s my mind’s own mathematical poverty that is at fault here, and perhaps you would not be able to defend your mathematical premise to someone like me who is too ignorant of that language to legitimately confirm or deny it, but…I am not convinced that I am a “mathematical object”; I can concede that mathematics is able to describe that of me which is quantifiable, but I’m not convinced that the consciousness of a being is quantifiable (at least one has done so yet). So, this premise seems to more of an article of faith rather than fact, thus making your syllogistic logic diverge into various possibilities from that point on.

    Again, I like the way your mind works with these ideas, and I agree with many of your perspectives and theories. However, if you wish to be sincere and authentic, I also think you need to qualify some of your assertions as being personally favored/subjective “possibilities” rather than presenting them as though they are generalized objective “facts”.

    Here is a fun thought experiment to contemplate oneness and egolessness: imagine you are born, and survive, without any senses to detect the outside world. How would you even come to the understanding of the concepts of “I” or even “think” to make Descarte’s existential claim? The only way we come to know “I” is by perceiving that which is “not I” to “think” about and consider the relationship. We are because we perceive what we are not. What were not defines “I”. Therefore, what we are not must exist if “I” also exists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.