How odd the prerogative is that the Cogito tries to seize, as if thinking were the precondition for being - and was Heidegger so far beyond this with his 'language is the house of being'?. 'I think therefore I am' is the very name of the mind. When it ceases thinking it ceases to be, but this has nothing to do with the 'I'. It is not strictly an error, since to understand it is to begin to understand the mind, to glimpse the mind's functioning from a point outside it. From a certain angle, a natural angle it might be added, although one difficult for the over-educated mind to stably maintain, there is a tremendous logical force to this purported axiom, and the nature of this force points to everything we understand as necessity. If we then ask the deeper question as to how such necessity can arise this can only receive the answer, 'by witnessing', which in Descartes' language, tainted by objectivism, was called God. Who is to go from 'I think' to 'I am', who is to verify the 'I think' with sufficient clarity that the necessary entailment of a thinker must follow? How is attention licensed to move to the pure sense of being, the being behind the thinking, the thinker, the subject, how if not by the witnessing? Witnessing which is thus no sort of thought or function of thinking, and which entirely lacks the transitivity which is the chief feature of thinking which is always a vector, effecting, like a sentence or utterance, a transition between states.