[MD] Where does DQ end and SQ begin and SQ end and DQ begin? It's all bananas isn't it?

[MarshaV]

Hi Ant,
 
I merely explained to J-A that I did not relate David Bohm's comment with Descartes' cognito ergo sum.  I did relate Bohm's statement to naive realism (in the psychological sense).  If you'd like to present a post about Northrop's concepts of postulation versus concepts of intuition, and/or Descartes' cognito ergo sum, please do.  I am sure you would make it an interesting topic.  


Marsha
 
p.s. Bohm comment:
  
"Reality is what we take to be true.  What we take to be true is what we
believe.  What we believe is based upon our perceptions.  What we perceive
depends upon what we look for.  What we look for depends on what we think.
What we think depends on what we perceive.  What we perceive determines
what we believe.  What we believe determines what we take to be true.  What
we take to be true is our reality."
 
    (Mathieu Ricard & Trinh Xuan Thuan, 'The Quantum and the Lotus: 
           A Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet', p.121)  
 
 
On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Ant McWatt wrote:

> 
> Well, Descartes didn't have Northrop at hand to sharpen up his thinking.  If he did, old Rene might have corrected what he said (about what can be considered certain ontologically) and said instead: "Something thinks therefore something is"!
> 
> The "I" and "we" are all concepts by postulation (and, therefore, strictly speaking, not ontologically certain).
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ant
> 
> 
> Marsha said to Jan-Anders, March 24th 2013:
> 
> J-A,
> 
> It seems to me it represents a naive realism in the psychological sense, even to many among us who need certainty and think they own truth. I do not relate it to Descartes. But if you do, well, then you do.
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> On Mar 24, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Jan Anders Andersson <jananderses at telia.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Cogito, we think, therefore we are...
>> J A
> 
> 
> .


 
___