"Your idea is inherent in knowing with its derivation in being. The solution to your problem is to be inherent in being with its derivation in knowing."

Mark Evanshen September 28 1999

Response:

Not all knowing is necessarily inherent in being. As the idea in question shows: knowledge itself is in fact different from the inexpressible behind who we are. So the solution to the problem, if there is one, may or may not be inherent in the inexpressible or "being" as you say. One reason for this, besides the idea in question, is that ALL we know is what we reason, so we have no way of knowing what is outside of what we reason.

2. Entry:

"We can't know who we are and be who we are at precisely the same time but I have found that through thinking about what I am I can influence different states of being that I can experience."

Mark Evanshen October 19 1999

Response:

Since we can't know who we are, or what we really are, we have no way of knowing if we can influence who we are. Moreover, it is impossible to influence who we are and be who we are at the same time. We can only be who we are, without really knowing that we are. Also, since we can't get outside of our minds, all we can know is what is on our minds. It follows from these premises that everything we know itself, from our perspective, is empty of who we are.

3. Entry:

"Interesting. The Heisenburg uncertainty principle of philosophy!
Your conjecture has 2 of it's own premises - that WHO you are is dynamic and constantly changing, and that you CAN know yourself. Accepting that, the moment one knows oneself, that is a revelation, which of course changes you, so you no longer know yourself, ad ifinitum. In fact, as thought is based on electrical impulses, quantum physics and Heisenberg's principle can actually be applied. Result: we can never know what we'll think of next!
Thus if the inherent premises are true, so is the entire conjecture.

But... what if WHO WE ARE is CONSTANT (our reactions change and vary with our environment, but this essential "driving force" of SELF never changes). In that case you must ALWAYS BE who you are (if you're not being yourself, who are you being?), and the Superman's Idea is overcome."

Scott Hudson November 8 1999

Response:

It is unclear in your reasoning how someone could know the basis of who they are. In other words, how can someone know them themselves, while at the same time being them themselves? How can there be a MOMENT of revelation? According to the proposition in question, it is impossible.
We agree that we must always be who we are, whether in a dynamic or static form, otherwise when we are not, we would cease to exist as we are. However, it still does not prove how we can KNOW ourselves and BE ourselves at the same time. In other words, our thoughts themselves may be DIFFERENT from who we are, as suggested by the proposition in question.

4. Entry:

"'I, Stephen Garvey, have not only been unable to overcome the Superman's idea that we can't know who we are and be who we are at the same time.'
Here the trick is that who we are includes our knowing ourselves but then it looks like we are always behind in time, since while we are trying to come to know who we are, our trying to do this seems to be later than the information that we take to be ourselves.
Well, one way to handle this is not to construe knowledge to be final, finished, fixed. Instead, we ourselves have some basic attributes and if we know these, it can point to what we will be even as we are trying to know who we are. But now we get into some really difficult things, namely, what counts as knowing ourselves."

Anonymous November 10 1999

Response:

We can't use "some basic attributes" of us ourselves to know who we are in the present, because who we are in the past is part of who we are in the present, and since we can't know who we are in the present, it follows that we have no way of knowing who we are in the past or future. Added to this, we would have no way of knowing attributes of who we are from the past, present, or future, if any. Therefore, there would be no attributes to use to know who we are in the present.

5. Entry:

"(1) One cannot know anything for sure, ever, except this point.

(2) If one is not who one is, then there is nothing of who one is to know about in any case."

James E. Petts November 14 1999

Resonse:

(1) We can only know something "for sure, ever" according to our perspective. If we try to go beyond our perspective, or minds, all knowledge reaches an unknown, which causes uncertainty regarding knowledge.
We agree that from our perspective the proposition in question can't be overcome. Also, we agree with you that this is the only "point" from our perspective that can be known. We believe that it gets to the basis of our conscious existence.

(2) Yes. That is what the proposition is saying. What we know is empty of who we are. The implications of this conclusion are profound.

6. Entry:

"THIS CRUX IS PART OF NATURE."

Anonymous November 15 1999

Response:

We are agree that the proposition in question is in many ways a "crux." Though from our perspective, it is "part" of our conscious existence, and its implications for humankind could be considered a reflection of "nature."

7. Entry:

"We are THAT THE NON-EXISTENCE OF WHICH WE CAN NEITHER CONTEMPLATE NOR PERCEIVE. This statement can be justified because the concepts of contemplating and perceiving are of course rooted in our own existence. (Besides which, you can simply TRY IT.)

Now, does this definition really say anything? Certainly. For even if matter, energy, and even THOUGHT are illusory, we cannot deny the fact that we OBSERVE them. And not only do we observe, but we are SELF-OBSERVING entities. In observing, we are who we are. Recognizing ourselves as such is merely another observation."

Elric Kline November 15 1999

Response:

Through the proposition in question, it follows that regardless of what the basis of who we are is, we can't know our basis and be it at the same time. Hence, it is impossible for our thoughts, observations, contemplations, perceptions themselves to have the same basis as who we are, without us ceasing to be who we are. If all we can do is "OBSERVE" without knowing anything, there would be nothing to observe. We can't observe without reasoning and knowing. And by doing so, we can't know what we observe itself and be it at the same time. (All we can observe itself is in our minds). The basis of who we are called "THE NON-EXISTENCE OF WHICH WE CAN NEITHER CONTEMPLATE NOR PERCEIVE" is imaginary. It cannot exist, without us having no conscious existence.

8. Entry:

"Wear a name tag for easy reference."

John Hubbard November 16 1999

Response:

Your statement is similar to what we do in society in response, unintentionally or intentionally, to the proposition in question. The proposition shows the arbitrariness of our labels for each other, by proving that they are empty of who we are.

9. Entry:

"My argument is that a person is defined by his/her actions therefore the state of being who we are is defined by self-knowledge (introspection) and acting upon this knowledge. In order to know ourselves annd be ourselves, we must act according to who we are. Since the self-knowledge of "being" is confirmed by our actions, I believe it is possible to simultaneously know who we are and be who we are at the same time."

Jeffrey Brown November 17 1999

Response:

Just because we make decisions and have actions, it does not necessarily follow that they stem from "self-knowledge." They could stem from beyond our knowledge, so that we respond, for instance, instinctually to what we know. And according to the proposition in question, it is impossible for us to have "self-knowledge" because we can't know who we are, without ceasing to be it.

"Self-knowledge" exists only as an illusion because we have no way of knowing, or even imagining, who we are. So the knowledge we respond to and act through is fabrication in a fabricated existence.

10. Entry:

"I spent some more time thinking about the problem and I could see how the argument could be thought to be true, whether this is the case or not is still up to individual interpretation. A person who is constantly growing, changing, evolving would not be able to know him/herself and be himself because he/she would be constantly changing. However, a person who was conscious of this change and practiced daily meditation to continue to learn about him/herself should be able to maintain a parallel between the two. It may be a situation where one state raises and the other must also raise to meet it in a constant yin-yang or oroboros effect."

Jeffrey Brown November 17 1999

Response:

The validity of your argument, or any other, is up to "individual interpretation." Though, as thinking beings, we are all guided by REASON. If he or she did know who he or she is, there would be nothing to know, because that is who he or she is. So we can never know who we are, regardless if we "practiced daily meditation." Added to this, we can't be "conscious of our change" because we don't know who or what is changing, if at all.

11. Entry:

"The idea is vague, but two alternative interpretations can be addressed. The simple claim that we can't know who we are would render the larger proposition true, and is very likely the automatic consequence of Godel's proven limit on self-description. But that's hardly interesting enough to inspire a question like this. If the intended claim is the "at the same time" part, and it is agreed that we CAN know ourselves (if not completely, at least our essential nature), then the proposition is trivially FASLE; after all, we can't stop BEING what we essentially are -- a fact our self-knowledge can't change."

Kent Van Cleave November 18 1999

Response:

Please note that the terms of the proposition are defined in the "contest" section of the website, inexpressible.com.
We agree that "we can't stop BEING what we essentially are," unless we cease to exist. However, the proposition is claiming that we can't KNOW the basis for who we are, or our "essential nature," and thereby what we know itself is EMPTY of it. This is significant because by us existing through our thoughts, we are existing through what is empty of who we are. And by doing so, we are making the MEANS for our existence empty of who we are, or inhuman.

12. Entry:

"Your logic defeats itself. Within your definitions you state that we do not know who we are-- who we are is life-force, essence, and etcetera but unknown. You then say that we cannot refute the proposition of who we are despite the fact that a proposition as to who we are has not been established. Alternatively, what you seem to be doing is backing into the statement 'I think therefore I am' by saying that one cannot refute that they are without being, or as you put it we are unable to refute the proposition, using reason, without contradicting our use of reason, of our state of living or existing and live or exist at the same time-- a thought that does little for our understanding of who we are."

Corr November 19 1999

Response:

By representing who we are as "life-force, essence, and etcetera," does not necessarily imply that we know who we are. It implies that there is who we are, whatever it is. To assert this, we DO NOT need to know who we are. One way to refute the proposition is to show that we do not exist. It is not necessary for the proposition to show that we exist. Our existence is ASSUMED in the proposition. We agree that the proposition does not further our understanding of who we are. Rather, it furthers our understanding of who we are in relation to our thoughts themselves, or in other words, our conscious existence.

13. Entry:

"The only way to discover who you are while being who you are is to admit that you cannot do it. First realize that you cannot seek yourself without changing yourself, and that one cannot be the same as the thing examined. Then, when you're good and convinced that you can never do it, try to do it anyway.

One can only be who they are when one does what one does purely; for no other reason or justification than because they want to. And one can only know who they are when they've overcome the stigma of not-being-able-to-know. When one knows that they cannot know, and is what they are not, but then knows and is what they are anyway. That is where real truth is found.

Your council which will judge this "based only on reason," will surely scoff at this --making reasonable arguments about contradicting reason. Your adherence to reason blinds you from seeing the energy that is generated from the fission of reason. You think that the particles of reason are indivisible, and that there is a perfect "knowing" and a perfect "being." And there may be. But the reasonable truth on the other side of reason is that though I may not know myself, I still know who I am. And though I may not be myself, I can be no other than myself."

Jason Spratley November 20 1999

Response:

We agree that "you cannot seek yourself without changing yourself." Also, we agree that one can't help from being who they are, unless they cease to exist. But also, we assert that one cannot KNOW who they are.

We judge the entries "based only on reason" not because we think reason is above anything else, but because we can't get outside of our minds, except by not using them. (Though even here, we can't know that we are really outside of our minds.) So all we can know is what we reason. Even your idea about "energy that is generated from the fission of reason" is from reason. It is impossible for us to get beyond reason because we must use reason to do so.

We disagree that we can't know who we are, while knowing ourselves. If we can't know the basis of who we are, it is impossible to know ourselves.
We agree that we can't help from being ourselves, whatever it is. Though, we assert that we can't know who we are as well, and this doesn't stop us from being who we are.

14. Entry:

"(Response to Entry 13):... and the monk closed his eyes and smiled."

Jason Spratley November 20 1999

Response:

Does the monk KNOW what he is smiling at? Or is he just being, without having any thoughts?!

15. Entry:

"At some times in our lives there manifests a state within us that is an inner knowing of who we are. This state does not require one to focus on it as you would focus on knowledge normally, as it is within us like an inner flame lighting the way. Once we know who we are then we automatically are being who we are. For example, once a robot is programmed to make use of its limbs then it begins to use all of those limbs. At this point, to be who we are becomes difficult at times because we must smooth the flaws and cherish the gems."

Well1 November 24 1999

Response:

We agree that we can't help from being who we are, as long as we are living. Though it is unclear how we could know who we are.
This "inner knowing of who we are," if there really is such a thing, may just be us sensing our being, which we put into words without having any basis to do so, except that we do. And just because we may sense the "inner flame," it does not mean that we can know it or that we have to know it.
Also, it does not make sense that we have to know who we are to be who we are.

16. Entry:

"Knowledge and being. Our propositional knowledge of who we are, which consists of i.e :"I am a white bucket" will never equal our being, even when the propositions approximate more than my example. But there is a knowledge that comes before the propositions. For a proposition to be true it must be derived and conformable to this. This primary state is the same thing as our being. So we cannot have perfect propositional knowledge of who we are, but the grasp of being is always there - we always know who we are, although we may not be able to express it. Your problem is typical of contemporary ideas about "reason" and knowledge. Pre-modern thinkers may offer a hint of a solution."

Christoffer November 25 1999

Response:

"There is a knowledge that comes before the propositions," and there is something unknown that comes before the knowledge. It is unclear what it is. Though we know it is not who we are.

If we can never express or think who we are, what does that say about our knowledge itself?!

17. Entry:

"We can be who we are when we ultimately realize the emptiness of knowing and we realize the emptiness of knowing when we KNOW that we cannot be who we are and know who we are at the same time. (Clarification of the phrase "knowing is inherent in being" from Entry 1)."

Mark Evanshen December 14 1999

Response:

As long as we are alive, we must be who we are whether we realize the emptiness of knowing or not.

18. Entry:

"The Superman's idea or crisis that "we can't know who we are and be who we are at the same time" can be overcome or solved by merely being who we are without knowing who we are. This is known as meditation, the full realization of the emptiness of thought of being and the vehicle towards a state of being outside the construct of knowing. The modus operandi by which we can enrich our state of being.

(The knowing served as the key to open the door of not knowing)."

Mark Evanshen December 14 1999

Response:

Whether we exist "outside the construct of knowing" or not, we still have not overcome the Superman's idea. Rather, we have avoided its implications or "crisis". Though we face the "crisis" of existing "outside the construct of knowing" after not doing so for thousands of years.

We agree that "the knowing serves as the key to open the door of not knowing." But by the same token, not knowing, at least in terms of who we are, appears to have led to knowing.

19. Entry:

"Look to the tribal society.They know with certainty who they are, and though it upsets the rest of the human race, because they cling to that knowledge, and exist as that knowledge. The ancients that they worship are what they are;they are the culmination of legends and morals passed down by their fathers and mothers.It may be simplistic to say this, and others may say the same, but that is my belief."

Dustin Daugherty January 29 2000

Response:

We agree that the ancients tribal societies' worship, and their legends, morals, and customs are in a limited sense what they are. Though it is unclear how they, or anyone, can know with certainty who they are. However, we believe that tribal societies are the closest organization of people to being what they really are, in contrast to rest of the human race. In other words, tribal societies relatively natural and simplistic ways compared to the unnatural and complicated ways of modern society appear to be more connected to who they are. Perhaps, this is why tribal societies "upset the rest of the human race".

20. Entry:

"Perhaps we already know who we are. Are we not alive? Isn't that who we are? Life? And if so, we can't stop being alive because we know we are alive. As Korpotkin stated in a speech on social anarchist morality, "We do what we do not for soul, for good or evil, but for the basic need of life to find pleasure and avoid pain."

Dustin Daugherty February 1 2000

Response:

Just because we know we are alive, and we can't help from being alive because we know something, it does not follow that what we know is who we are. Moreover, just because we know we are alive, it does not follow that we really know we are alive. Since we can't know infinity, and therefore knowledge is not absolute, we can't really know anything, except from within our invented system(s) of thoughts.

One basic need of life, from our perspective, is for one being to exist through another. In simple terms, this means that one being must eat another and possibly exist through the emotional bond with another being. It appears that this "basic need of life" has nothing to do with finding pleasure or avoiding pain.

21. Entry:

"'Know' implies "limit".

"Be" implies "result".

One can assume knowledge of oneself, arbitrarily define oneself, and yet exceed oneself. Indeed, surprise oneself. One can know one is unlimited, having been surprised by the results."

Edwin C. Turner February 24 2000

Response:

We can't get outside of our minds and know that we are. So all we can know is from in the "limit" of our minds. If follows that we can only "exceed oneself", and know that we do, from in the limit of our minds. In other words, "be" is a part of "know", and since know implies "limit", so does "be" as well. Hence, "surprised by the results" implies limit.

22. Entry:

"'Know' infers 'complete familiarity'. This is a premise. The statement, 'We can know who we are'... is a premise. 'We cannot know who we are' is likewise conjecture.

A statement based upon premise, conjecture, is yet another statement, and refutes itself."

Edwin Carroll Turner March 1 2000

Response:

If we took your line of reasoning, we would not be able to know anything, because in every statement lies premises within premises. If the limit of knowledge is your point, then you face the problem of really knowing that we don't really know anything, or are "not completely familiar" with anything.

Also, just because statements are based upon premises, it does not follow that statements refute themselves. Refutation is contingent on the statement itself and the premises which make it up. For example, if one of the premises supporting a statement is refuted, it follows that the statement would be refuted as well.

Entries 23-29