Reply to the response to Entry 11

"I do not have any more difficulty understanding the concept of infinity than I have difficulty understanding what a table is. When is a table not a table? When you use it as a bed. When is infinity not infinite? When it is finite. When is the reasonable unreasonable? When we see it as unreasonable. One term defines the other but only we give them meaning and, demonstrably, we do so in the context of our immediate observations, needs, and desires.

Not only do we determine the meaning of words personally and for the purpose of communication, but these meanings change with our self-perceived needs and desires. Thus, if you wish to view existence as a causal infinity and continuum somehow divorced from synergy you may, but it is no more reasonable than to perceive existence as discontinuously finite and synergistic. Both perspectives have their practical uses but, again, only because we decide individually and/or collectively they have meaning. To assert otherwise is absurd by its own definition because, of course, what is absurd is determined by our immediate observations, needs, and desires as we define them.

Count Korzibsky first stated that, 'The map is not the territory.' I expand upon this principle by stating that, 'The map is obviously made from a tree cut down within the territory, turned into paper, and then scribbled upon by someone who (hopefully!) has a decent idea of what the territory looks like and what my needs and desires are for information concerning the territory. Otherwise, I shall either not use the map in the first place or throw the map away with the rest of yesterday's garbage. Clearly, what matters most is not the particular symbols used on the map or my interpretation of what these mean, but rather, how well the map serves my purposes.'"

Wu Li June 20 2003

Response:

We agree, due to the apparent possibility of all human thought, that you or us or anyone else may view existence, for instance, based on causal infinity and continuity, or synergy and discontinuity, and still maintain a consistent view. However, it is another matter to assert that existence defined by causal infinity is "no more reasonable" than existence defined by synergy. More reasonableness, though with its basis in the possibility of all human thought, is contingent on the comparative soundness and consistency of antagonistic views. So as we have pointed out in the response to Entry 10, the discontinuity of synergy is inconsistent with the apparent comparative, continuous nature of human perspective; whereas causal infinity is not inconsistent. Therefore, since our human perspective defines primarily everything we know, synergy in terms of existence is less reasonable than causal infinity.

For you to argue that what we know is merely based on our "needs, desires, and immediate observations", and therefore, there is no right (more reasonable) or wrong (less reasonable) knowledge, is correct in the sense of possibility defining all human thought, and incorrect in the sense of human thought being defined by reason (i.e. comparative dynamic), and thereby, in conjunction with the possibility of all human thought and our apparent inability to get outside of our minds, the necessity of reason as thinking beings to determine the more reasonable view.

You may still choose to ignore the more reasonable view, but you would be choosing the less reasonable view and acting inconsistent with reason which defines your thoughts. Note, "your purposes" or perceived "needs, desires, and immediate observations" are not disconnected from your thoughts and reason, but manifestations of them, and therefore your purposes, needs, desires, or immediate observations are not ways to avoid the dictates of reason, unless as mentioned you are willing to accept a less reasonable, internally inconsistent view.

13. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 12

"Reasonably speaking, function in context supports meaning which is the basis of all purpose and possibility in human thought. Without meaning, reason and thought by definition cannot exist much less serve any function or purpose. Attempting to invert this reasoning and assert that reasoning itself dictates meaning, thought, purpose, and function is absurd. It is absurd precisely because meaning and reason connote more than just organization.

Again, because we are ignorant we may learn. Significantly, answers and insights can seem to come to us effortlessly if we just allow ourselves to admit and accept our ignorance and other so-called failings. Before we can accept any answers we might discover, we must first be willing to accept the validity and meaningfulness of our questions and observations. In fact, at times the questions and observations themselves can be more meaningful and important for us than any answers. If we are to search for meaning and import then, rather than just reasonable sounding questions and answers, nurturing acceptance is critical.

On the contrary, this is not a less reasonable or consistent view but a more reasonable and consistent perspective precisely because it accounts for all of who we are and what we can observe. It allows for an organic self-assembling perspective of meaning, function, context, and reason rather than an apparently merely abstract one. As I have already explained, this is not just a personal perspective either but one supported by clinical evidence, the trends in the modern sciences over the last century, and a train of historical evidence reaching all the way back to before the agricultural revolution.

Beneath any conceptualizations and observations of a continuum of infinity and reason lies the human heart, essentially unperturbed by the passing eons and the progress of civilization. To quote the immortal bard, ‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy.’ To assert otherwise is the height of absurdity, as Lao Tzu wrote:

Belief is a colorful hope or fear,
The beginning of folly.
The sage goes by harmony, not by hope;
She dwells in the fruit, not the flower;
She accepts substance,
And does not put abstractions on a pedestal."

Wu Li June 22 2003

Response:

We view "function in context" and "comparative dynamic" as the same thing, and we agree that "function in context" or "comparative dynamic", which we label as reason itself, is "the [primary] basis of possibility in human thought". However, we do not assert that reason itself has an absolute dictatorship over "meaning, thought, purpose, and function". Rather, we assert that from our limited perspective, reason itself has a dictatorship in the sense that "meaning, thought, purpose, and function", or whatever else, cannot more reasonably avoid it. Viz., from our limited perspective, reason itself is necessarily tied to all our thought. This point is important because it means that reason itself defines everything we know, and that in consideration of the possibility of all human thought, reason itself becomes a common means to distinguish one thought from another. To argue for, as you have done, "an organic self-assembling perspective" rooted in the so-called "human heart", and thereby transcend "merely abstract [views of knowledge]" is illusory, because you are using the so-called "human heart" to get outside of your mind when in apparent reality, the human heart is firmly entrenched in your mind as any other concept is. Also, your identification of reason itself as "merely abstract" overlooks that abstract is a relative term, and since we apparently cannot get outside of our minds, and our knowledge is defined by incompleteness, everything we know, including the concept of human heart, is necessarily abstract.

To accept the incompleteness of what we know or in your words, "... to admit and accept our ignorance and other so-called failings" is not grounds to take any position one chooses, because those premises (i.e. incompleteness and ignorance) have their basis like any other thought, in reason itself.

In our view, your only way out of what we call the dictate of reason itself is to more reasonably demonstrate how you can get outside of your mind and know that you have, and as mentioned, the notion of human heart is an illusory step outside of your mind, unless you can show otherwise.

14. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 13

"Reason is not demonstrably tied to all our thought, but the other way around. Clearly, if the words reasonable and unreasonable are to have any meaning, we have irrational and unreasonable thoughts. This is not necessarily any different qualitatively than my computer suffering a random voltage surge. Zap someone's brain with a little electricity in the correct location and they will respond in a manner that may have nothing to do with reason. Similarly, the human heart is not just in the human mind or reasoning process, but exists within the human body and brain. This is, of course, something I have already pointed out and is part of the strength of pantheistic and mystical philosophies over the traditional western dichotomy of idealism and materialism.

Abstractions may be relative, but they are relative in a personal context. My feelings and heart are not abstract to me even if they are to you. For me, they are much more concrete, self-evident, and clear than your arguments for example. Certainly, I would not describe my feelings as abstract.

The easiest way to demonstrate how one can get outside of their mind is through the act of acceptance or surrender. As I have already stated, there exists countless demonstrations of viable ways of achieving this and the American Medical Association now recommends meditation. If you require more than demonstrable proof and an explanation that is self-consistent and scientifically testable, you may of course take up the practice yourself."

Wu Li June 23 2003

Response:

In consideration of your example of an individual producing a response devoid of reason, it appears to us that human conscious thought, in order to be conscious thought, must have meaning (and contain reason) in some sense to at least a single human being. Viz., it does not follow how there could be human conscious thought unless we are consciously aware that there is, and if we are not consciously aware of conscious thought, then from our non-perspective conscious thought does not exist. (Note, the mere claim that a thought is devoid of reason shows that the thought at least indirectly contains reason.)

Your argument that human thought is tied to reason, and not the reverse, because of your accounting for the distinctions between reasonable and unreasonable, and rational and irrational, overlooks that apparently all human thought is possible; so it follows that all human thought is reasonable and rational at some level, and therefore, human thought can only be viewed as unreasonable and irrational in a crude, non-theoretical sense versus being viewed as less reasonable or less rational.

Even though you may think your feelings and heart are not abstract, your (mere) opinion does not theoretically prove your feelings or heart are clear. All your opinion establishes is the possibility that your feelings and heart may be clear, and in consideration of the apparent incompleteness of all human thought, it appears more reasonably that all human thought, including thought in the form of your feelings and heart, are abstract at some level.

We think meditation ("an act of acceptance or surrender") may be a way to get outside of one’s mind (i.e. exist without conscious awareness). Though it is unclear to us how meditation or any other form of acceptance or surrender could more reasonably be a means to get outside of our minds and know that we are. The extra step ("know that we are"), which we think you have not considered, is significant because it suggests the idea of knowing outside of our minds and the nature of human consciousness, including reason which apparently bounds our thought. Unless you or anyone else can more reasonably demonstrate the "know that we are" step, your notion of "human heart" (from Entry 13) or any other notion is bounded and defined by the nature of human consciousness. Viz., theoretically, the notion of human heart does not more reasonably trump the comparative and incomplete nature of human consciousness.

15. Entry:

"Firstly, a description of infinite existence. I feel that it gives a good introduction on 'how' it exists, and that its 'reason' is self contained.

Fundamental concepts in an approximate order of existence: infinity, singularity, dimension, quantum, energy, wave, magnet, gravity, time, space, matter, particle, physics, universe, galaxy, star, planet, element, combine, random, chemistry, structure, dna, life, death, mutation, evolution, cell, complexity, order, control, system, sense, brain, instinct, cognition, memory, conscious, thought, predict, uncertainty, principle, theory, philosophy, reason, understand, believe.

In concise words, tell us how the proposition that we are [more reasonably] human beings who are part of the causal infinity of existence, can be overcome:

Human beings can overcome any proposition using knowledge, thought, logic, reason, comparisons, simplification, and infinite recursion. However, an inexpressible proposition can never be overcome. (viz., the sum total of all entries to Competition 1.)"

Ryan Monk June 25 2003

Response:

The notion "inexpressible proposition" is self-contradictory because it expresses something (i.e. "inexpressible proposition") about something that is supposed to be inexpressible (i.e. non-expressible, whether a sound, thought or any other form, and thereby non-knowable as well).

Note, though it is possible for human beings to overcome any proposition using "knowledge, thought, logic, reason, comparisons, simplification, and infinite recursion", the important question in the context of Competition 2 is whether or not anyone can overcome (in terms of more reasonableness) Proposition 2.

Entries 8-11 Entries 16-20