| Challenge the Philosophy - Comments 1-10 |
"You are apparantely purporting that who/what we are is statically assigned. (Nature vs Nurture Mr. Garvey?) I assert that who/what we are is dynamically being formed. -aka in flux-. If you are specifically concerned with hypothecating a fundamental level of being, you ought to change the wording of your explanation with respect to the delineation of what "who we are" refers to.
Furthermore, your axiom has both epistemic and ontological
implications. Hence, how do you address a priori
knowledge?"
Rolf William Erickson February 19 2000
Sorry for any confusion.
We are purporting that because of the limits of what we can know, we cannot
really assign anything to who/what we are. Hence, in an imperfect situation, we have assigned the limited, and almost valueless,
concept, inexpressible to who/what we are. However, we are also purporting that who/what we are, whatever it is, is a basis
for our existence.
You may be correct in asserting that who/what we are is "dynamically being formed". Though from our standpoint that is something we can never know, and therefore is not for us to assert. Moreover, even if who/what we are is "dynamically being formed", it would not effect the axiom because if we can't know in the present, it follows that we would not be able to know in the past, or if who/what we are is constantly changing, we would always be a step behind in really knowing it.
We agree with your point about the ambiguous definition of "who we are", and we have made the necessary change. ("'Who we are' refers to an inexpressible level of being.")
In terms of "a priori" knowledge, we view it as a label with invented meaning, which only has limited meaning within system(s) of thoughts which include the concept. ( Dispute 9 (16 & 17) deal in part with a priori knowledge).
"Insofar as what "who we are" refers to, I continue to urge that you at least include the word fundamental in your phraseology. Or better yet, possibly include a short note that expounds on what "inexpressible" embodies and/or a link to another section on your website that does this?
Almost oxymoronic considering the definition of "inexpressible", but from what I've read elsewhere on the website I presume "inexpressible" somewhat parallels Arthur Schopenhauer's analysis of an Intelligible Character.
(synopsis of his definition)
The fundamental, pre-established, timeless, unchanging character of a human.
Metaphysically, this intelligible character is an individual essence,
specific to the person whose character it is and determines that person's
basic and invariant desires.
Or, even Heidegger's Sein -(state of being at the deepest level).
Hope this helps somehow. I do find it to be a good axiom and portions of
your reply mirrored my thoughts. However, this may be due to the fact that
you allow the participant some freedom to induct a personal value on what
"inexpressible" can embody. I believe that this terminology "freedom" has a
duality of being both the axiom's invincible horse, and its Achilles heel
depending on the participant's position / angle of attack."
Rolf William Erickson February 20 2000
We agree with your comments about sharpening the definition of "who we are". However, the only way we could use "fundamental" in its definition is if we qualified the word. Hence, we have changed the definition of "who we are" to: "refers to the fundamental level of our being from our limited perspective." Moreover, we have added a link to a page explaining the concept of "who we are" in more detail.
"The "statement" very well may be truly "atomic". My obvious complaint (or confusion) lies in the term "know". Can we know ourselves wholly and totally? For instance, is memory a part of the self? It's been estimated that we understand about 5% of the memory process. It's possible that "know the self" should infer 100% "knowledge of the self". If indeed we cannot know ourselves fully, the statement employs an "atomic" statement (be ourselves) in conjuntion with yet another "atomic" statement (cannot know ourselves)."
Edwin Turner March 2 2000
Since all knowledge bottoms out into an "unknown", we could apply the "atomic" argument to any statement.
"Know ourselves" refers to 100% knowledge of ourselves. To get around the "atomic" issue, we are claiming that we cannot know ourselves, so to refute this claim, one must show how we could reasonably know ourselves. Hence, the claim can be refuted without knowing ourselves. Please note that we view "who we are" (ie. self, ourselves) as a label of the "fundamental level of our being from our limited perspective". For further explanation see "who we are" and "we can't know" and "know".
"Memory", like all thoughts, appears to be a limited subset of "who we are". The "memory process" appears to be beyond our minds, because all we can know are the thoughts which, partly or wholly, make up its conscious and unconscious content.
"I am interested in the notion that rational thought is to be avoided and, instinct be one's guide to what is. Feeling and intuition fit in some where too, I suppose. I have usually defined philosophy as thought and reason, rationality...a collective body of writing from all sorts of thinkers from which I am free to pick and choose. I do recognize that instinct is another element of our animal, limbic-brained self. I need to read a second time what you have provided me. I don't reject or accept a word of it without more rereads. Presently, I am reading some of what an institute has to offer me in the way of understanding myself and how I fit into the "picture." As an educator I am interested in learning --how we learn. In addition, the balance of dynamic systems that the SFI refers to interests me. I can tell you this: There is order and there is chaos and a point or line ot balance between the two--Complexity. Matter could not exist without some order. Dynamic systems (life, economies, etc.) could not exist without both order and chaos."
Richard E. Steinhauer June 20 2000
"...in our view, "nihilism" is an illusion." (From a previous response)
"In saying that "nihilism" is an illusion, you are saying that nothingness is nothing. That's a tautology.
I only glanced at your "Aphorisms on Deconstruction," but my impression is that you seem to like it and in fact are proposing deconstruction as a Westernized, secularist version of Buddhism or yoga, in which the goal is, through exercises - whether contemplative or physical - to free oneself from "the particular," or karma, and achieve the pure and immediate undifferentiated consciousness which underlies all beings. This idea - this "perennial philosophy" - has been expressed in the West by Judeo-Christian-Muslim asceticism (monasticism) and syncretism or in the anthropology of Joseph Campbell. In Campbell's view, your mistake would be to equate symbol (or metaphor or myth), with the reality behind the symbol. Language is by nature a system of symbols, a convention by which we articulate and communicate thought, which is itself a symbol or what you are calling "intuition". Deconstruction assumes that thought is somehow "in the way" of "intuition." But, unless we can prove the existence of ESP and can use it, we must be content with the next-best faculties of thought and language. I think history shows us that these have served us quite well. Perhaps, one day, we can all have Jedi masters teach us how to use The Force and avoid the thought process. But until then, like all symbols and metaphors, thought through language - for example, the language of myth - can serve as the transcendental aesthetic through which we are able to abstract our intuitions - our categorized of understanding - give them expression, and establish kinship and empathy, as opposed to the alienation and solipsism which are the results of the deconstructive exercise.
As my little screed asserts, philosophy has been rendered a tautology by mid-century Anglo-American philosophy and by French comp-lit criticism. By the imposition of these schools on contemporary philosophy and the humanities they have been rendered unresolvable and therefore useless in a world of action.
To say that thought "interferes" with insight is like saying a hammer interferes with the nail. To suggest we must dispense with thought is to suggest that we start pounding nails with our bare hands. Perhaps we can achieve the immediacy we would all prefer, but we will probably never construct so much as a house - either literally or figuratively - much less survive the process.
From what I've seen of your site so far, it is refreshingly free of the kind of
recondite argumentation and super-abstruse terminology that has become a fetish
with the pedantic hucksters who populate the academy these days. Their smug,
self-satisfied phoniness makes me want to beat the shit out of each and every one
of them for the mischief they do on callow, impressionable minds. If those of us
who know better had any sense at all, we'd kick their asses out of their tenured
satrapies and rejoin philosophy where we abandoned it, somewhere around Kant,
Hegel, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche."
What's behind the illusion itself? It appears that even nothingness has form otherwise it would not exist in our minds. So (nihilism = illusion) does not necessarily equal nothing. In fact, as mentioned, we argue that it cannot, unless you give form to nothingness, and yet that would contradict its intended meaning.
We are against deconstruction. Though we accept it as a possible direction for the human species. The "Challenge the Philosophy" competition is a way to overcome, if possible, ideas which support deconstruction.
What is the reality behind symbols of language if all we can know is the symbols of language, including "reality"? (ie. it appears that we cannot get outside of our minds (or knowledge/language/reason) and know that we are).
"Intuition" is a form of language. How can we express who we are through something (ie. thoughts) that is apparently empty of who we are? How can we exist through something (ie. thoughts and their material extensions) empty of who we are and not have it suppress who we are and other living beings? Tell us how we can know without intrinsic separation from what we know?
Surely, not all philosophy! Moreover, tautologies are not absolute. They can easily be broken down, using reason, outside of their systems of thought.
"Insight" is a thought, so how can a thought interfere with a thought?
Birds, beavers, ants ect. construct their own homes without thought. Yes, deconstruction is a risky endeavour, but so is the world today.
We are free of the "academy", probably for the same reasons you may be. Though we respect freedom of thought and the ability and means to express it.
Dr. T.H.Wilson August 5 2000
We do not deny another "limited know" as long as it reasonably refutes our "limited know".
In terms of the Inexpressible Committee being the final arbiter, we can only say that no conscious system is perfect. Though we try to make the competition as true to its purpose of testing the validity of the challenge proposition as possible: allowing replies and disputes; having a two week public forum on unresolved challenges; and making the entries, replies, disputes, and responses public. If you have any suggestions for improving the administration of the competition we would welcome them.
"Perhaps a better way of presenting this human predicament is not by creating a fictional opposition between knowledge and being. Rather, the core issue, it would seem, is about the totality of immediate experience and its exact/faithful representation to the point of replication. Example: I can view a game on TV...but the representation does not create for me the totality of the experience of being there first hand. Indeed, the only way to know the totality of immediate experience is to live it...any knowledge conveyed therefrom is historic."
G-man August 12 2000
How do you know there is a "fictional opposition" between knowledge itself and being itself? In other words, how do you know there is a no opposition between being and knowing?
How can we know the totality of anything, including immediate experience?
"If it cannot be refuted, why then do you ask people to refute it? You say you "know" that it cannot be refuted, but unfortunately that does not make "you" irrefutable."
Chris August 12 2000
We are not absolutely certain that the challenge proposition is irrefutable. Though, from our limited perspective, we think the proposition cannot be reasonably refuted. The "Challenge the Philosophy" competition is one way to help us find out whether or not, it can be reasonably refuted. For further explanation see Entry 78.
"Your biological philosophy is not, in my view, biologically sound. Why does "asserting conscious meaning", however you may chose to define this, guarantee extinction? How do you know other animals don't do this? A dog finds "meaning" in the chase. Animals find 'meaning' in their territorial tendencies. Plainly, many animal species have emotions, and they 'think'. In any event, why does "asserting conscious meaning" guarantee extinction in any species? And how do you know animals don't do this regularly??"
Roger McEvilly August 21 2000
It is not that "asserting conscious meaning" guarantees extinction, but the fact that we exist through conscious meaning in contrast to the directness of unconscious nature will likely bring about our extinction. (ie. indirect means of existence versus direct means of existence. Life-forms of the indirect means of existence become weaker in relation to life-forms which exist directly (ie. from and through who they are.))
By claiming that a dog finds meaning in a chase, and animals find meaning from territorial tendencies, you are imputing meaning onto their actions as if animals really think. Does a dog think to itself that "I like to chase because I derive meaning from it", or does a dog act from unconscious instinct? What about a grizzly bear that identifies and defends its territory by making claw marks into the trunks of trees? Does the bear think to itself that "this area is my territory, and I will warn others", or does the bear act unconsciously through instinct?
We agree that animals derive meaning from certain actions. Though we do not agree that they do certain actions because they know they derive meaning from them.
Yes, we agree that animals exhibit emotions (ie. feelings), though how do you know they actually think? Why do you stop short of saying that all animals, and even all life-forms, think?
One reason we know animals do not exist through conscious meaning, is that none of them show a tendency to exist through material inventions. (ie. does a bird design a blueprint for its nest, and then build the nest? We argue that its acts unconsciously through instinct, and that its nest is an unconscious creation.)
Another reason is that there is no indisputable evidence that animals exist through their thoughts, and that they even have any thoughts. However, even if there are animals that think, we would face the same dilemma as asserting conscious meaning from existing through something (ie. thoughts and their material extensions) apparently empty of who we are, thereby gradually replacing the environment and ourselves with what is empty of who we are. So we appear caught by the emptiness of thoughts and their material extensions, regardless of the directness or indirectness of unconscious nature. Added to this dilemma, if we detach from existing through thoughts and their material extensions, we
will become caught by the directness or indirectness of unconscious nature. Hence, there does not appear to be a way out of our dilemma than succumbing to it, with hope that some of us can survive in unconscious nature.
In short, the crux of Garvey’s theory is that by us, the human species existing through what is empty of who we are (ie. thoughts and their material extensions), we are gradually diminuting ourselves and other life-forms.
"You say that:
"Conclusion (d): knowledge itself is non-existent (or empty)." (Excerpt from the Proof.)
Yet that is a piece of knowledge. Which is empty and meaningless, and not fit to have further theories based upon it. This could get very circular....
I would go for a different argument. That learning something about who you are changes who you are, thus meaning you have to learn something more about yourself. So you can never learn everything about who you are.
Should animals eat poisonous fruit just so one member of their species who might be resistant to it could survive or should they realize it tastes bad and not eat it. It makes less of their species.... however the one who can eat the poisonous fruit may not be able to stand arctic temperatures.
A configuration that encourages its supersystem to be stable at conditions which make that configuration stable, is more stable than one that doesn't, and the inverse."
Will Pearson August 28 2000
Conclusion (c): "knowledge is an empty form" accounts for the "piece", and thereby allows further theories to based upon this perspective. In other words, though knowledge itself is non-existent, knowledge exists from our perspective through the imaginary meaning we attach to the illusion of knowledge.
Circularity is a problem with all theories, including cybernetic theory, and even though the circularity in that theory tends to be more spread out in it.
How can knowledge about yourself change who you are, if who you are is the basis for knowledge? If it is not, what is the basis for knowledge?
We agree that there are limits to resistance. However, your perspective does not include the notion of dependency on knowledge and its material extensions versus life-forms existing independently of knowledge and its material extensions. For further explanation see Comment 8.
Stability does not necessarily result in stability, assuming that outside of a configuration, there is only partial or no control over what is a stable or unstable influence.
Some problems with cybernetic theory is that it can become overly general from incorporating so many concepts, and that it assumes there is unifying theory from complexity or unity of different systems of thoughts, which may not be the case. In our view, the important consideration is epistemology, because it is the basis for all other systems of thought (ie. we cannot get outside of our minds), and therefore, by having a reasonable explanation of knowledge, we can understand all other systems of thoughts through it. In other words, a reasonably unifying perspective does not stem from complexity or unifying many concepts, but understanding the basis for them all: knowledge itself.
I offer the following statements for your examination: (1) Identity is the impossibility of self- reference without difference; (2) In the Present Moment, nothing can be compared to itself; (3) The Principle of Identity is a contingent of the Principle of Contradiction; (4) Nothing can be separated from itself and still remain self-identical; (5) Nothing is Impossible except Everything; (6) All Knowledge requires Comparison & Contrast. Questions: (i) What is already what is not yet?; (ii) what includes everything that it excludes? Wise words: Moses said (according to the Dead Sea Scrolls): I am not, so that I might be. Finally visit Uncle Greg’s Tree
G-man August 29 2000
(1) We agree--we cannot have identity itself, but through relation or comparison to other ideas.
(2) We agree--there is no comparison in the present moment.
(3) The contradiction is that the identity is not really identity?
(4) We agree--in terms of space of time: nothing identical.
(5) We disagree--the concept of "nothing" is impossible; we cannot get outside of our minds is impossible ect.
(6) We agree.
Questions:
(i) Change.
(ii) How and why what includes everything that it excludes? What excludes?
"I am not, so that I might be." Does not make sense--you will be whether you are not or you are. If the quote means "I am not something", then "I might be what"?
Thank you for telling us about your interesting site.
"(3) Identification requires contrast/comparison--A is A because A can be differentiated from a not-A. (5) Nothing is impossible except Everything. The superset which includes all sets cannot itself be established to be included in any superior set, hence it cannot follow from such and is thus itself logically impossible (to prove). Its corollary: within the set which contains all sets, all is (can be) logically possible. (This follows from Godels set theorems.) Finally, the quote: I am not so that I might be. Possible interpretation: I exist only as a potential of myself...?"
G-man September 1 2000
Regarding (3), A can be differentiated from A as well. (A and A are differentiated by space and time.) Apparently, there is no such thing as two identical things.
Regarding (5), it depends on how you define superset and the sets within it. Outside the system of sets, the proposition, "nothing is impossible except everything" does not necessarily hold.
Regarding "I am not so that I might be", how about "I exist untitled, unknown so that I might be (ie. who I am—inexpressible)?