Dear Dana and Checo,
This is a departure from what I’ve done so far (which, unfortunately has not been much). I plan to write this in a process to discover what is true. I am still questioning why am I choosing to blog it instead of simply writing it in a notebook. The nice acceptable answer, is that by making it public, I hope to force me and make a serious commitment to it (I have not been very constant in writing here). However, there is another possible answer, one less acceptable or not so altruistic, if I am honest enough, there is a little part of me who is hoping that this is going to be so great that eventually somebody is going to discover it and I’ll become famous or something (the need for recognition is great, and although it has diminished in the past few years, is still around. I’ll keep and eye on it) or these writing are going to be the “best next thing”. I kind of hope that this latter reason is not what moves me the most (I, like everybody else, am motivated by a mixture of reasons) but I want to be honest about it, hence I’ll own that these motives are here as well as my altruistic (and honest) desire to find truth.
I am writing to you two because I love you very much and you represent to moments of time, Checo the past which is still present, Dana the future unfolding in front of my very eyes. I have fantasies about you (especially Dana) reading this sometime in the future and by it getting to know me better (or perhaps this is just another grandeur delusion). I won’t worry much about spelling and I’ll be writing sometimes in English and sometimes in Spanish. Ok, too many introductions and I only have like 15 minutes left! Let’s begin somewhere.
So, what do I know that is true? The question itself is useful because it give us a starting point. “I know”? “I”? Who is this I? (I knew beforehand that I was not going to get very far before stumbling in this problem. I (feel funny keep using the very same I that I am questioning) guess much of this will be about questioning “I”.
Of course for me the starting point is Descartes “Cogito ergo sum”. The very fact that I am questioning if I exist, is proof that I do exist, otherwise who would be asking the question. Well, fortunately others have thought about it as well (I am not planning to base anything I do here on second hand experience, but I do plan to use their knowledge to save me some thinking, not having to reinvent the wheel). However figuring out is not a easy thing to do (and I guess it will take me many posts) since the best minds of our Western world have explored it, from Nietzsche to Kierkegaard (never know how to spell it) have question the validity of the cogito. One thing appears obvious, it does not seem like a conclusive evidence of existence. It does (so far) proves that thought or thinking exists, but how does anyone concludes that just because are thought a thinker exists? Mark Epstein, following Buddhist thinking concludes precisely the opposite, that it is possible for thoughts to exist without a thinking. That the “thinker”idea is yet just another thought. So where are all such thoughts coming from? Out of nowhere? Agreed, the existence of thought does not demonstrate the existence of I, but the question remains, and I might stick with it. In order to attack the cogito, we must assume that it is possible to arrive to a different conclusion, thought exist but that does not mean that a thinker exists. Ok, but such thought are coming out of somewhere and just saying the are coming out of god, source or something else seems to me is doing the same, using a different label. So the question is, where do thought come from?
Uff! Times up! This has been fun to begin with. “I” ;0) will keep thinking about it.
