Dear Sir -

It was with some interest, that I received your last communication, which I believe you sent while you were incarcerated.

Are you still in prison? -

Whatever your state of freedom, I hope you are well.

 

Having said that - I further hope, that you do not find this, my communication - upsetting - and that if you do find it in a sense disagreeable - you will accept that my comments are made in good faith, and as you attempt to “ascertain Truth.” 

 

Like you, I am a seeker of Truth - but not a SOTI member, as you are, but I can say, that your communication reached me by a rather circuitous way, involving the Justice Department - the “Ministry of Thought Correction”  - and “Law Enforcement Officers.” 

 

I am an Official of one of the departments - but do not be concerned for I am not a “Censorship Inspector” -

Ahh - so I have helped you - I am sure with a mind as “sharp” and “bright” as yours, even though you are in prison (if that is your state) - that you will easily be able to exclude one of the former 3 departments and offices of state, I referred to earlier on - in describing the manner in which I received your communication - entitled - “I Feel - Therefore I Exist.”

 

This now rather brings me conveniently to the purpose of my communication to you - which I have headed - “OUCH!” (I can both see and hear you chuckling at my title - there was no deliberate and intended play on your, what is it? - is it an ‘axiom’ or an ‘aphorism?’ - as I have said, I am not a SOTI member and in your next communication to me, if there is to be one - perhaps you could clarify - the category / classification of that - I was about to say “fine,” ‘axiom’ or ‘aphorism,’ but as I have explained to you, that I have written to you to criticise it - not to “condemn” - for I am not a “Censorship Inspector Of Thought.”

 

Now - where do I start with that above sentence, hmmm - you may or may not still be in prison… Lets cut to the chase, as they say - (before we cut to the chase - I’ve often thought of the statement - cutting to the chase - as a form of Occam’s Razor, which as I am sure that you are aware of that phrase, in view of the fine writing that I have experienced - you have clarity of expression.)

 

Now - back to “OUCH!” -

In order for me to properly criticise your - I shall call it an ‘aphorism’ - and I am sure that if I am incorrect, you will not feel offended and will correct me - as you know I have requested above, that you clarify whether it is an ‘axiom’ or ‘aphorism.’

 

Now - back to “OUCH” - I shall repeat first your ‘aphorism’ - 

 

“I Feel -

Therefore

I Exist!”

 

As I have stated above, I disagree with your commentary, which follows your ‘aphorism,’ wherein you compare the ‘aphorism’ with that of Descartes.

 

You refer to his famous ‘aphorism’ - “I think therefore I am” - in your commentary - then you compare it with your own ‘aphorism’ and in particular the elements “I AM” with ‘Existence’ and I quote you - 

 

“Is "I AM," equivalent to EXISTENCE? - if not, which is the 'anterior' - element? - or which precedes the other?

 

Which is the 'greater set?' - qualitatively - 'in that it precedes the other within 'ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS'?' - To 'THINK' or to 'FEEL'? - Yes - I believe - 'I feel - therefore I EXIST' is the more fundamental!!! - ”

 

Your ‘aphorism’ itself I take no objection to, but it is your commentary, wherein you claim - “I feel - therefore I EXIST' is the more fundamental!!! - ”

 

It is with that comment that I disagree. 

 

I shall take the liberty of adopting the SOTI style - even though, as I have told you I am not a SOTI Student - I am sure you will therefore grant me the indulgence - of forgiveness, if I err in my application, of any ‘technical’ or SOTI procedural rules.

 

Let us take the terms ‘to think’ and ‘to feel’ as ‘elements’ as you would say in SOTI.  You are comparing ‘think’ and ‘feel’ and state that, ‘to feel’ is anterior to - ‘to think.’

​

I disagree.  How is the element ‘to feel’ (feeling) ‘communicated’ to you or as you would style it, in SOTI - by what ‘mode’ of communication is the element ‘to feel’ conveyed to you (‘Individual Consciousness.’) 

​

It is clear that the ‘Mode of Communication’ is through ‘Thought.’  The element of ‘Thought’- is the process ‘thinking’ (in accordance with The Language Of The Science Of Abstract Consciousness.) 

​

This is incorrect - ‘to feel’ cannot precede ‘to think,’ because the ‘Mode of Communication’ is ‘thinking.’  The element ‘to think,’  is the ‘Mode of Communication,’ therefore ‘to think,’ precedes ‘to feel’  - So you are in error here. 

 

Later on you state and I quote - 

​

“For what is to 'feel' - than to include the entirety - of what it is to be a 'Human Existence?' -

An 'Individual Consciousness?' -

Thus! - to 'Feel' - outflanks! - to 'Think'! - it is the 'greater set!!!'”

​

You have made an error here - see above - thinking is the ‘Mode of Communication’ - which has conveyed the feeling to the - ‘Self’/ ‘You’ / ‘Individual Consciousness.’ 

​

And you continue - 

 

“ But what of the objection that you cannot 'feel' - without thinking - so what comes first - to think or to feel? - can you feel without thinking? ”

​

See the error you made above.

​

“ You can think without feeling - for to think, does not imply to feel.

 

Therefore to 'feel' is not necessarily included in the process to 'think.' ”

​

This is incorrect, because ‘thinking’ (the element ‘to think’) is the ‘Mode of Communication.’   So you see your error here. 

​

I puzzled over my logical findings and the errors you made, for some time - I was unable to convince myself, you were right - and therefore, I have come to the conclusion, that you are wrong.

 

I hope you will not take offence at my providing what I would term - a commentary of my own - I further hope that you will take the trouble and time to consider this matter and if you agree, make the appropriate changes to your commentary (all this can be achieved in private - for I am not a professional ‘Agitator’ or ‘Disputantiff’) - and as I have said, I do not work for the ‘Department of Thought Censorship.’

 

Finally - let me say this and as an incentive for you to take up my offer.

 

If you are still in prison - I can assure you I shall use all effort to seek and to obtain your release - ahh - have I not given you a further indication in what ‘Department of COSmetropolis,’ I function…. - this is all too easy for a ‘Mind’ like yours.  Anyway, you may not be in prison. 

 

I am also sure that you would have now have realised that your ‘Thoughts,’ ‘Comments’ and ‘Observations’ - ARE ALL CAREFULLY BEING WATCHED - know that - there are some of us here, who object to what the ‘Artificial Intelligence Agencies,’ in particular the ‘Central Integrated Network Information Centre’ (CINIC) - is doing to your kind - you Humans.  Ahh - I may have given you further information about myself... I had better shut up.

 

Cheerfully yours (wherever you are) -

Signed most affectionately,