Hello
Someone, and I'm darned if I can remember who but maybe it was Rupert
Sheldrake, said that we must all be somewhat telepathic or we couldn't
communicate at all. Including all of what you said and adding mild
telepathy, I would have to agree that there is no "I think".
Carlye Birkenkrahe
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 4:41 PM, anni <annimukkala@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
**
Hi everyone on CT! I am pasting so I hope the font transfers easily and
doesn't create a lot of unintelligible symbols. Here are a couple of
thoughts.
René Descartes set into place a momentum of thought that was already
present but was reduced to a philosophically narrow perspective when he
declared, "Cogito ergo sum" (French: Je pense, donc je suis; English: I
think, therefore I am). In various forms, this expression has underpinned
most of scientific and cultural thought in the West for centuries. It
begins with the premise that "I" constitutes an objective, whole and
truthful perspective on universal truths. I think that basically what I
observe in constellations is a moving away from the idea that "I"
constitutes a valid basis for thought. My thought is not reduced to a
singular but is always impacted by the connection that I have to others
both consciously and unconsciously. My observation is that the term "I
think" is neither possible nor applicable. It may be more apt to say "We
think, therefore I am." How does this landscape of always being in
reference to another point affect our thoughts, conversation, words,
meanings and actions? There are inherent in the language we currently use,
almost consistently meanings that convey a singular point not in reference
to any other point. This is the basis perhaps of "objective" or
"scientific" observation. What I see, however, in the constellation is that
all is in relationship. Relationship supersedes the individual. Perhaps it
is "Relationship thinks, therefore I am."
