Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[That is enough of Descartes.
The time has come for a comparison between the intersection of the thought experiment where I choose ‘something’ and the message underlying the word ‘religion’.]
[The world out there is excluded by the normal context of Descartes’ thought experiment3H plus the normal context of his own existence as the seat of doubt3V.]
[Both existence (as something independent of my thoughts)1V and my mind (as a container of thoughts)1H belong to the realm of possibility.
They have the same structural character.
They have different normal contexts.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[My speculation, of course, stands outside of Descartes’ Age of Ideas.
Both something independent of what I think1V and myself as a container of thoughts1V belong to the realm of possibility.
That means that they are upwellings in a monadic sea.
These upwellings are like two ends of a string that tie together into a knot.]
[So what is the single actuality that is the intersection of Descartes’ determination2V and his thoughts that situates himself as a container of doubt2H?
It is the heart of Descartes.]
[Can Descartes’ formula be framed as an intersection with the same structure as the thought experiment where ‘I choose something’?
The fact that I think serves as a thought experiment3H.
What I think2H emerges from and situates my potential as a container of thoughts1H.
I am3V is the seat of what I think, which, in the case of Descartes, is doubt3V.
My determination of myself, as the seat of ‘what I think’2V, both emerges from and situates a possibility that is independent of myself as a container of thoughts1V.]
[In scholastic terms, the thinker–container belongs to ens reale (mind-independent realness) even though ‘thinking itself’ goes with ens rationis (mind-dependent realness).
Yet, the mind-independent-ness of the thinker as container is different than what the scholastics understood ‘ens reale’ to be.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 83 and 84
[The prior blog reminds me of the quandry posed by Decartes’ formula, “I think, therefore I am”.
“I think” goes with ideas inside of me. “Therefore, I am” asserts the existence of the thinker (as a container of I think).]
[If I can compare this nested form to the one derived from ‘the thought experiment where ‘I choose ‘something’‘ …
… then consciencespecified1V matches something1V in the potentials inherent in something that I may choose1V.
Something1V corresponds to value1V.]
