Rupert Sheldrake gave a talk on September 27, 2012, this past week for The
Study Society regarding some of the topics we discuss here. He makes reference
to Descarte and also challenges many of the dogmas that have been underpinnings
of our understanding of things. You can download it for free from The Study
Society. Here, hopefully is the link:
http://www.studysociety.com/downloads.html#rupertsheldrake
If this does not work you can simply Google "The Study Society" and on the left
home page are listed "Talks and Downloads."
Hopefully it will stimulate some constellation discussion. Waiting to
discuss!!! Anni
--- In ConstellationTalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, C Birkenkrahe <cbirkenkrahe@...>
wrote:
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@...> 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.
Ren� 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."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
