Reply to the response to Entry 7

To state that something has no beginning or end, yet insist you are not envisioning it as complete, is to utter a paradox. If it is not complete in at least one aspect, then by definition it is finite. A circle, for example, can be said to have no beginning or end but only if it is complete. Asserting that something is "infinitely incomplete" is semantically meaningless.

Because we are ignorant we may learn. This is an essential paradoxical wisdom everyone can understand intuitively, and what is commonly used to distinguish simple awareness from what we call "consciousness". Our acceptance of this paradoxical wisdom is an indispensable facet of life. It is thus that the finger pointing at the moon is not confused with the moon itself. To a significant extent the answers will come to us seemingly without effort if we just allow ourselves to accept our ignorance. Acceptance of our ignorance and other so-called imperfections is, in a very meaningful way, the source from which all answers spring forth.

For any epistemological or ontological inquiry or stance we might pose then, acceptance is crucial. Whether or not we wish to conceive of acceptance at any given moment as merely a tool or something much more personal and affective, its influence on our consciousness is profound and inescapable. From the prosaic acceptance of the air we breathe to the most inspiring and moving of events or, ostensibly, abstract and impersonal of intellectual insights, acceptance plays a central role in what we know and how we learn. The gift of the sincere questions acceptance of our ignorance and the paradox of existence make possible is the pearl beyond price for philosophical inquiry.

This classic prehistoric Shamanistic wisdom has been dramatically substantiated in academic circles within the last thirty years through the development of Relational Frame Theory. By approaching the subject of consciousness from a Functional Contextualist perspective academic philosophers and others have, for the first time, managed to rigorously bridge the cognitive and behavioral sciences in a self-consistent, non-trivial, and scientifically verified manner. Among the many implications of this landmark development is that we may now quantitatively analyze consciousness using theories based on first principles, observation, and linguistic analysis.

In other words the common application of the paradoxical yet circumscribed and scientifically unsubstantiated concept of infinity to consciousness, is slowly giving way in academic circles to the more inclusive and unabashedly paradoxical. Historians have noted this trend over the last hundred years since the advent of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and this is one reason is why I presented my thesis in a historical context. I would have included more details such as these I present here, but you requested brevity. Quantum Mechanics is a remarkably useful but ad hoc statistical theory and, thus, can only demonstrate its relevance to reality through the history of observations. Hence, it appears that a more pragmatic approach incorporating more mystical paradox as the central theme can be more productive than the use of the concept of infinity alone.

This is really a no-brainer to use a common colloquialism. Mystical and Pantheistic theories have proven to be, as any child playing word games soon discovers, much more inclusive, descriptive, and adaptable than the alternatives. Infinity as a concept can easily be derived from either of these two schools of thought and, inevitably, leads back to the use of these paradigms. As a result not only physics, but also every other scientific school of thought is either currently investigating expanding in these directions or apparently headed in this direction and a rush has ensued to fill the gaps in our knowledge between the extremes of the currently accepted cognitive and physical schools of thought. Science is not in the business of proving what is real but, rather, what is useful and meaningful. Likewise, demonstrably, philosophy is not in the business of proving what is "true" but evidently more clearly interested in what is acceptable and wise.

The relentless boundaries of logic and the vague concept of infinity have proved themselves invaluable to the establishment of the modern sciences, theologies, and philosophies, but the journey does not end there. Beyond our personal awareness of the inter-connectedness of things and the apparently acausal nature of existence, lies a realm largely unexplored by modern philosophers and scientists. I contend it is only through the pragmatic acceptance of the apparent paradox of existence that further progress in understanding, not to mention rationally communicating this understanding, becomes possible. As any child knows, infinity and paradox are fun to play with, but difficult to communicate meaningfully and, if you aren’t careful with your concepts, they may make you dizzy.

Wu Li June 12 2003

Response:

We think you are overlooking that our use of infinity is based on the so-called "paradox" or circularity of existence from our perspective, in which no complete answer to things can more reasonably be attained. To illustrate this point further, Competition 2 evolved out of Competition 1, or our more reasonable inability to completely know who we are. So when we propose that humanity is more reasonably defined by being part of the causal infinity of existence, we are proposing from our limited or paradoxical/circular perspective, and thereby with the view that our use of infinity (i.e. no beginning or end within the context of causality) is not necessarily complete from our own perspective. To get out of the dilemma of the origin of infinity having no beginning (apparent state of ex nihlo), we acknowledge a possible inexpressible force behind causal infinity, which as we are aware leads to infinite regress, just as any other concept does when epistemologically broken down. However, the important point is that from our comparative perspective, and our apparent inability to get outside of our minds and know that we are, we think infinity as a description of existence is more reasonable than any other concept. Viz., infinity is consistent with the nature of our perspective itself which defines primarily what we know. You suggest that "Mystical and Pantheistic theories" are more reasonable alternatives than causal infinity, but what theories specifically do you have in mind? Are they more consistent with the comparative, incomplete nature of human perspective than causal infinity?

9. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 8

"Synergy is the natural observation and principle that any two or more things together possess unique properties they do not have separately. Yin and Yang, or complementary opposites, is likewise a fundamental principle and natural observation, albeit a historically Asian one that accommodates the paradox of existence. The complementary opposites of Yin and Yang expand upon synergy unifying its disparate elements in singularity. In harmony and static equilibrium, synergy and singularity comprise rudimentary complementary opposites from which both pantheistic and mystical theories can be derived, and as a result yin yang is ubiquitous in Asian schools of thought.

Causal infinity then is synergistic change without origin or conclusion, and can be derived from any number of pantheistic and mystical theories using this principle of complementary opposites. The Theory of Relativity, for example, is a remarkably rational pantheistic theory, which can be construed as positing existence consists of causal infinity within static equilibrium. Likewise, because of its contextualist approach, Relational Frame Theory also presents a very pantheistic approach and frequently uses analogies from philosophical Buddhism. Quantum Mechanics is a notably mystical theory, which revolves around the enigma of the quantum.

These pantheistic and mystical theories and philosophies are decidedly more reasonable and consistent with the human perception of existence than that of causal infinity alone. As I have already pointed out, they do not contradict the perspective of causal infinity but, rather, simply expand upon it using various interpretations of the principle of complimentary opposites. Rather than just describing the perception of causal infinity, they also describe other perceptions of existence that people report and how they are related and interact. Without necessarily promoting one perspective over another, they allow for all of them and more comprehensively connect them with our experience.

As I have expressed previously, because we are ignorant we may learn. Rather than assuming that the normal state of human consciousness provides an accurate and complete perspective of existence, Asians and others assert that by quieting the mind our awareness of existence expands to encompass these other perspectives as well. This is supported by experimental evidence and, in fact, the American Medical Association now recommends meditation for physical and psychological health. Hence for personal explorations, as well as the physical and cognitive sciences, the paradox of existence provides a more comprehensive, reasonable, and sometimes more viable approach to exploring our existence, who we are, and what we can and cannot know."

Wu Li June 14 2003

Response:

Beginning with Entry 7, you criticized the concept of "causal infinity" by attacking the notion of infinity with claims that it is paradoxical (contradicts itself), non-demonstrable, and vague. Now in Entry 9, you accept the concept of causal infinity, but contend that the concept alone is not a more reasonable description of who we are. Your main support for this position is the paradox (or circularity) of existence from our perspective which in your view necessitates that we take an eclectic view of things; and inconsideration of who we are, the view would entail various Mythical and Pantheistic theories like Synergy, Yin/Yang, Theory of Relativity, Rational Frame Theory, and Causal Infinity.

We agree with your overall position that the circularity and thereby uncertainty of what we know necessitates that we take a broad perspective on things (and allow for error). However, in terms of Competition 2, there is nothing proposed in Proposition 2 that we (i.e. humanity) are exclusively part of causal infinity. Viz., Proposition 2 does not rule out us being part of other things like Synergy and Yin/Yang. Therefore, though you may have more reasonably expanded upon Proposition 2, you have not overcome the Proposition itself.

It should be pointed out that we have problems with the concept of Synergy because it is contingent on individual (or separate) identities which according to the concept of causal infinity is illusionary, and Yin/Yang appears at best to be a casual reflection of our comparative perspective, rather than reflective of the actual existence of complete, complementary opposites. The problem with the Theory of Relativity, which you allude to, is that the theory posits a "static equilibrium" which is inconsistent with the apparent incomplete, dynamic nature of our perspective, and if we factor in Causal Infinity, there is no equilibrium except in a casual sense that can be attained. Viz., things are apparently in an endless state of flux. Finally, Quantum Mechanics is consistent with Causal Infinity by positing an inexpressible variable(s) (or force(s)) and in the process avoiding the ex nihlo (or something from nothing) problem.

10. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 9

"Paradox has different meanings depending upon the context in which we use the word and who you ask. People also have different ideas about exactly what reason and truth are which makes defining paradox all that much more difficult. Broadly paradox refers to the irrational, inexplicable, self-referential and self-contradictory, or merely apparently contradictory but somehow true. Therefore it may be that paradox also refers ultimately to the ineffable.

Causal infinity, by your definition, involves either synergy or paradox. Interaction between ‘things’ has no clear semantic meaning unless the interaction can be distinguished from the things themselves, or we can literally point to these ‘things’ themselves. Hence, if you have difficulty with the concept of synergy your definition of causal infinity is, again, paradoxical.

Whether or not paradox can be said to be more reasonable than causal infinity as you define it or vice versa then, is debatable. What we are left with by default is the pragmatic common usage of words. From my perspective, your use of the term causal infinity is redundant, misleading, and counterproductive for the purpose of communication. Therefore it is a less reasonable position to take than simply accepting the apparent paradox of existence, the simplest and least confusing ways of expressing this apparent paradox, and the utility of the many ways it can be interpreted.

Quantum Mechanics does not avoid the issue of ex nihlo creation by positing any inexpressible variable(s) (or force(s)). Quite the contrary, as I have already stated the theory is essentially a mystical theory and exactly what it ultimately describes, if anything, is the subject of intense debate. As is the case with paradox in general, Quantum Mechanics merely makes statistical predictions based on the pragmatic observation and acceptance of the utility of the Uncertainty Principle.

This leads once again back to the simple issue that existence, casual infinity, etc. are vague paradoxical concepts even if nonetheless extremely useful ones. Natural language is replete with vague but useful terms and, therefore, this situation is unsurprising. The more reasonable and pragmatic approach then is to neither assume vague and demonstrably paradoxical terms are axiomatically correct or incorrect, reasonable or unreasonable but, rather, simply to explore their utility and personal meaningfulness."

Supplementary explanation as requested by the Inexpressible Committee

"I use ‘paradox’ [i.e. paradox of existence] in the broadest sense of the word, the apparently irrational and contradictory but somehow true. I use the word paradox rather than absurd when discussing existence because it is a noun rather than an adjective and, thus, covers all the conceivable possibilities capable of being communicated."

Wu Li June 15 2003

Response:

We agree with your point that if causal infinity does not distinguish individual things, then the concept is apparently contradictory. However, the concept from our apparently necessary, unavoidable limited perspective does distinguish individual things to establish causality, but if we factor in infinity (i.e. endless interconnectedness), then the distinction of individual things becomes a mere reflection of our limited perspective. Viz., we cannot fully grasp causal infinity due to our limited perspective. Though this limitation on our part in our view should not be applied to the concept of causal infinity or any other concept. So we say that causal infinity is not consistent with synergy itself which is contingent on the separate identity to things, and causal infinity is only paradoxical in the sense of self-referential as any other concept is.

Your notion of paradox [of existence] defined by "irrationality", "contradiction", and "somehow true" is antagonistic to the concept of causal infinity which is defined by reasonableness and incompleteness. Therefore, you have come up with a position that is a challenge to causal infinity and Proposition 2.

In consideration of your challenge, it is unclear to us what is "irrational" except in a crude sense, because we apparently have no way of completely disproving anything; so everything we are consciously aware of is possible, and thereby rational (i.e. we can make sense of at some level).

Also, it is unclear to us what is "somehow true", when you or anyone else have not more reasonably established truth or complete knowledge.

Moreover, it is unclear to us what is contradictory about "existence" itself. It appears to us that you should be saying only if more reasonably established that our perspective, not existence, is contradictory.

In terms of causal infinity, it is unclear to us why you view the phrase as "counterproductive" (or "vague"), when it is clearly defined from our limited perspective as interaction between things at an infinite (or endless) level. What is "misleading" and "redundant" about this definition? Your alternative "paradox of existence", barring its questionable definition of paradox, establishes the uncertainty of what we know (the infinite aspect of Proposition 2), but does not factor in the causality aspect which is derived from our comparative perspective.

In summary, if your definition of paradox is more reasonably going to stand, you need to more reasonably establish irrationality and truth, and then the application of irrationality, contradiction, and truth to existence.

Note, if you dilute the definition of paradox to such a point it will no longer be antagonistic to causal infinity.

Also, from a theoretical standpoint, it does not necessarily follow that existence is paradoxical. Viz., the paradox or non-paradox of something depends on one’s perspective. What is important in the context of the Competition and your entries as mentioned is whether or not existence is more reasonably paradoxical. Based on the self-referential nature of human perspective and by defining paradox as self-referential, it follows that existence is paradoxical. However, as stated if paradox is irrational and somehow true, it is unclear how paradox can be applied to existence since those terms do not theoretically apply to human perspective.

11. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 10

"So many questions, I shall attempt to addresses these in reverse order. Once again, for I don’t know how many times, I do not assert existence actually is paradoxical. I merely assert it can be demonstrated that it appears to be paradoxical. My entire argument is based on reductio ad absurdum and is not an attempt to prove existence is paradoxical or to construe paradox as antagonistic to causal infinity, the idea is simply to show that the paradox of existence is no more absurd than your causal infinity or any other proposed explanations for existence. Thus, by default it over comes the idea that causal infinity is the most reasonable proposition.

You claim that causal infinity as you have defined it is merely self-referential and that some people might not perceive existence as paradoxical, but neither of these can be demonstrated much less proven as far as I can see. People can claim whatever they want, but without a clear explanation that can be communicated unambiguously they might as well be asserting pigs have wings. Just what does causal mean when divorced from the concept of synergy? Where can you point to infinity? These are not merely self-referential assertions, but more clearly paradoxical conundrums. That is, they appear to involve contradiction yet might somehow be true or real nonetheless.

Reason and truth are likewise concepts evidently based on the principle of reductio ad absurdum and, as such, are as much emotional affairs as logical. This is precisely why they can be demonstrated to be such vague concepts when deconstructed, not simply because they are self-referential or crude. Without emotional context not even existence has meaning, much less reason and truth. On the one hand this presents an extremely vague definition, but on the other hand it is again demonstrable with examples that can be pointed to. My computer for example, is a wonderful machine that runs logical programs flawlessly, but it is apparently wholly incapable of reason or understanding truth much less appreciating its own existence.

This has also been documented in a peculiar case study of a man who suffered a brain injury and is believed to have lost most of his emotional capacity. Without emotional context all he has left are habits and memories of how to place things in any sort of meaningful context. You can teach him how to apply logic or whatever just as I can do so with my computer, but independent reason and truth are apparently beyond his capacity.

Being possibly unable to ever definitively disprove anything does not seem to be a problem for most people. I cannot disprove beyond a shadow of a doubt that an invisible little green man does not live in my bathroom, but I can resort to a pragmatic approach to the issue. I’ve never perceived any such a man, have no reason to suspect he is there, and evidently if he is it makes no difference in my life whatsoever. Hence, with the possible exception of entertainment purposes, I shall ignore the idea unless someone demonstrates its utility.

To conclude, words only have meaning because we either give them personal meanings or we agree to common meanings for the purpose of communication. These may be vague meanings or rather explicit ones, but if they possess too many possible interpretations communication becomes difficult. You are more than welcome to whatever personal meaning the ideas of ‘cause without synergy’, ‘infinity’, or ‘undetectable force(s)’ might bring you, but if you are to communicate these ideas effectively I would suggest it is best if they were less ambiguous. As it is, you assert these are rational ideas and personal perceptions, but fail to distinguish how they are not paradoxical and fail to point to examples I can perceive. Therefore, their use for communication purposes is vague, misleading, and counterproductive towards the stated purpose."

Wu Li June 17 2003

Response:

Proposition 2 does not propose that it is the most reasonable proposition regarding a description of who we are. Rather the proposition proposes that we (i.e. humanity) are more reasonably part of the causal infinity of existence. Therefore, your challenge based on the "paradox of existence" being no more absurd than causal infinity is overcome without even considering the issue of absurdity. (Note, it is unclear to us what grounds you have for defining paradox of existence and causal infinity by absurdity.)

As before we disagree with your use of "somehow true" and "real nonetheless", because you or anyone else, deceased or living, has failed to more reasonably demonstrate true, real, or complete knowledge.

The notion of causal infinity disconnected from synergy (i.e. separate individual things) stems from the causality of things in an endless (or infinite) state, so that separate individual identity though necessary from our limited perspective, is in terms of causal infinity and due to the causal interconnection between things cancelled out. Viz., no separate individual thing can be isolated without including everything else in its identity. Take for instance a table. It would be crude and limited to identify the table as merely a rectangle structure made of wood and with four legs. No, to accurately from a theoretical standpoint establish the identity of the table we must include, for example, the carpenter who built the table including all tools and materials he used to build it, the actual tree the table derived from, the seed of the tree, the origin of the seed from another tree.... the earth itself, the sun, outerspace, and on and on, so that we end with the identity of the table being connected to everything else at some level. All we are capturing in this exercise is the limited, incomplete nature of human perspective which, as mentioned in the response to Entry 8, defines everything we know. How is this separation of synergy (i.e. separate individual identities) from causal infinity (i.e. interconnected identities) a "paradoxical conundrum"? Why is it difficult for you to grasp the concept of infinity (or state of no beginning or end) from your limited, incomplete perspective? Why cannot you realize that you or anyone else cannot more reasonably demonstrate a complete beginning or end to anything, and that this incompletion of our perspective points more reasonably, in terms of existence, to infinity rather than finity? Obviously, it is possible that existence may be defined by finity, but according to our perspective as mentioned there is no beginning or end to anything we know whether a table, skyscraper, sub-atomic particle, or planet earth. So the evidence, regardless of its demonstrable limitations which all evidence is subject to, points clearly and more reasonably in favour of infinity.

Note, our apparent inability to completely disprove anything we know establishes the possibility of everything we know, including your hypothetical "little green man", and this universal plane of possibility establishes the ground for the determination of more reasonableness. Viz., due to the universal plane of possibilities, there is a necessity of reason as thinking beings to determine the more reasonable thought (or make the more reasonable decision). (Garvey, The Critique of Reasonableness)

Entries 5-7 Entries 12-15