Good morning,
excuse me, it's difficult to express myself in English.
1) In Spiritual Warfare you are describing (pg. 18) "The whole Truth". You are saying there is nothing we can really know. Only I AM.
To prove this you write "I think, therefore I am" by Descartes.
In my opinion, we cannot prove this "I AM".
Could you explain why this is true?
I would say we cannot prove the "I" who is thinking and we cannot have any idea what a thought is!
The only fact we can know is (in my opinion): "Something is" (not "I AM")
This something is not necessary "I".
2) The second question was the idea to change the foundation (Enlightened/Unenlightened) without deconstructing the building (Self) on it.
But since yesterday, it's obvious to me
Thank you Jed!
PS: Would it be okay to share some parts of the autolysis I am doing?