Challenge the Philosophy - Comments 17-21

17. Comment:

"COMMENT - Challenge The Philosophy Competition

In sharing my point of view, I believe it is imperative that the Organizer(s) of the Competition be commended, for conceiving what I believe to be THE PROPOSITION that has the capacity to precipitate the Realization of the potential of Consciousness per se, within a 'limited perception' based on 'more reasonableness'.

The potential implications of the proposition as presented, together with the conditions required for refutation thereof are far too easily overlooked. Their subtlety lies hidden within the 'precise' wording of the proposition itself.

I am asserting that this challenge will soon be seen as a Central Focal point, if not the Key Focus itself for the ACTUAL showing of the existence of Perfect Deity.

It is far easier to criticize & point fingers, than to see a PROFOUND SIMPLICITY staring us right in the face. I believe many, will have by-passed the essential fact that PRECISELY by identifying our REAL IDENTITIES - we are catapulted into a New Perception of Being, which will not only establish ONTOLOGY as THE most spoken about subject on our Planet but will inevitably lead to the Realization of the so-called,
UNIVERSAL PARADIGM.

When the required precedent has been agreeably achieved the precise procedure will be revealed.

I believe the Organizer(s) and/or Committee are well aware of this. Perhaps THEY would like to comment. I for one Welcome it."

Thank You - protomutant July 1 2002

Response:

Also, it is our contention that more reasonableness as a decision-making method has the potential to lead to a universal paradigm within the limits of what we know. We think there is no way around the method than to contradict one’s own reasons. (In conjunction with Fiction House, from Lahore, Inexpressible Publications will be publishing in September 2002, “The Critique of Reasonableness”, which establishes the grounds for the method of more reasonableness, provides fifty evaluations using the method involving abstract thought, contentious issues, and individual/collective scenarios, deals extensively with criticism of the method, and a concluding statement.)

18. Comment:

"I am sorry that you chose to regard my Entry #351 and the Disputes that followed as closed, however I will accept graciously and end with a parting comment if I may. I also welcome your response as I am aware it is within your rights to have the last word, in as much as it pertains to 'any' Entry in the Competition.

I fully realized the context in which you were presenting your response. I.E. - I realize that you were simply saying the words ‘cannot truly’ in the proposition stand as a unit. viz [cannot truly]. Unfortunately you also assumed this as the basis of my dispute, so I will use this as a final opportunity to clarify my position.

My dispute was based on your description of:
1) - ‘we cannot truly know’
2) - ‘we cannot know’

.in your: - ‘ Further explanation of ‘we cannot truly know’:’

The first two paragraphs appear to reasonably show a distinct separation between, The words ‘cannot’ and ‘truly’.

Also your complete quote in the second paragraph of the explanation reads:

RQ - ‘We cannot know’ refers to our inability to more reasonably show how we can know something. The notion of know refers to the more reasonable correlation of meaning between thought and objects/occurrences.
I fail to see how my statement - ‘All Knowledge is a ‘result’ of thinking’, is unreasonable. To sense something simply means ‘to become more conscious of it’. There is therefore a direct correlation between thinking and sense. We would not have any ‘indirect conscious knowledge’ or limited perception in the first instance if we were not able to think.

The statement is proved with 'more reason' - the ‘exact’ correlation is shown within the terms of the Competition. You are asking me to ‘Detail’ the correlation (which I am able to do), but I believe this is an unfair request, as it is ‘entirely’ proven in the first instance merely by reason. Sure the detail will simply add to the confirmation, but it is not a requirement here, in the light of the fact, that it is already proven by reason*.

Add to this the 'more reasonableness' of my invitation to yourselves to disprove the statement, by showing ANY other way in which knowledge may be attained, and I believe I have fully answered the terms and conditions.

*Reason - I am aware that you assert that reason is the basis for thought, but this is incorrect. This is proved simply by looking in the Dictionary. To reason is to ‘think straight’ - therefore ‘Thinking is the Basis of Reason’, for there is also 'no way' we would be capable of reasoning, unless we were able to think in the first instance. This is, in fact, 'more reasonably' fairly obvious.
Forgive me, but integrity directs that it would be a gross injustice to ‘Descartes’ were I not to include this parting statement:

‘I Think, Therefore I am’ - is an Absolute Truth

and his just reward is forthcoming.

Finally, I must confess, that I realized too late that it is against 'All Universal Law', for the ‘inexpressible’ to ‘express’ the ‘Expressible’ and it was unreasonable of me to expect this as being possible. For this I apologize. Alas, only in hindsight did I grasp that the reversal demands, you would not follow me to real reason.

It is quite understandable, the burden of relativity is a heavy one to bear. I hope I may be of more assistance in the future.

In addition I would like to thank the Committee for what has been an extremely educational exchange of thought, and for the enthusiasm with which you engaged in the undertaking. Also, I again congratulate you on the 'conception' of the proposition. As I have already pointed out I believe it to be a Philosophical feat equal to the Scientific 'conception' of the ‘Theory of Relativity’.

I trust that my Original Entry #351 will ‘Bear Witness’ at the correct time, to my contribution towards the Competition."

protomutant July 6 2002

Response:

The competition is not about having the last word. It is about determining what is more reasonable within the limits of what we know and in the context of the challenge proposition. In this regard, we determine that your seven entries beginning with Entry 351 have fallen short of overcoming the proposition, and we will show this once again with the arguments you raise in your comment.

You say that your dispute is based on our description of "we cannot truly know" and "we cannot know", or the difference between "cannot" and "truly". What you do not say is that you view the use of "[cannot] truly" as meaning absolute truth-value, and the use of "cannot" as not meaning absolute truth-value, and therefore, the proposition’s use of [cannot] truly implies an assertion of absolute truth-value. This observation is incorrect. Truly refers to knowing something in entirety; it does not refer to statements, in which it is used, as having absolute truth-value. What you have ignored repeatedly is that we are using truly, cannot, cannot truly, we cannot truly etc. with limited truth-value.

Also, we do not refer to your statement "All knowledge is the result of thinking" as "unreasonable". We have never used that term with reference to your statement, (nor would we use it with reference to any other statement because we think all thoughts themselves are reasonable.) What we say is that your statement as an expression of absolute truth-value you can know is less reasonable. Viz., your statement is not "entirely provable by reason in the first instance", because it does not necessarily follow that thinking precedes knowing. I.e. you need knowledge to think, and the act of thinking to have knowledge, so it is unclear which if any precedes the other. Moreover, your claim of "entirely provable" is in our view a reckless statement which as we have shown in the response to Entry 358 succumbs to infinite regress.

Further, we define reason as the dynamic of comparison, and since all conscious thought is based on comparison, we conclude within the limits of what we know that reason is the basis of thought, and can be equated to the act of thinking. To think is to reason; to reason is to think. But to put thinking prior to reason as you have done simply does not make sense.

Other issue:

Why Descartes’ statement, "I think, therefore I am" is a statement of absolute truth-value is unclear to us. You may claim that the statement is "entirely reasonable", but it does not follow how you can know with certainty and from your causal perspective that it is entirely reasonable. We suggest that you think carefully about the notion of absolute truth-value (i.e. complete, whole, doubtless knowledge), and the requirements for proving it from our limited perspective.

19. Comment:

Comment on the response to Inquiry 6

"Thank you, at least we have resolved the issue of the proposition and its Absolute Truth-Value. If the information concerning the original proposition is mentioned somewhere on the site, forgive me, but I had not seen it before. We could have avoided a lot of confusion.

However, I did point out that the proposition boils down to - ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Being’, which brings us to the Absolute Truth-Value being the fact that: ‘Absolute Being either exists or it does not’. This is what I consider 'entirely reasonable'.

I am happy for now to accept that I have indeed, as you say, shown the 'possibility'. It IS extremely important at this point to show that the POSSIBILITY does indeed exist. The ‘impossibility’ will NEVER be shown !

I shall make a new entry to sustain the possibility & keep it alive, as it is more important we ENJOY the pursuit of the possibility, than dwell on the impossibility. Survival, rather than Non-survival is the need of the moment and that survival merely requires adaptation. Only it is obviously 'more reasonable' to adapt to the possibility.

Your argument concerning knowledge is a mere splitting of hairs, as I have already stated that irrespective of whether knowledge exists in some form or not, it is only available to us via our thinking apparatus. From 'our limited perception' knowledge is only knowledge when we 'know' it, we only 'know' it when we are conscious of it. If all knowledge somehow exists before we, as a 'result' of thinking perceive it, it only serves to re- emphasize the possibility of the existence of Absolute Being. Unless you have a way of showing how we know what we know other than by thinking, my statement stands. From 'our limited perception' it is inconceivable that we could know anything, if we were not able to think.

It may well be that all knowledge exists already as part of thinking, but again this only re-iterates what I have already said. It is only available to us as we break the barriers of 'our limited perception', & realize it through conscious effort. The concurrence of knowledge with thinking does not refute the statement at all, it underlines it.

‘result’ = to proceed or arise as a consequence, effect, or conclusion from something specified

Instead of identifying knowledge, you are identifying 'with' it. Certainly, I agree that we need knowledge to know that we think (which is what you are attempting to argue), but it cannot be denied that even the knowledge of the fact that we think, of necessity proceeds from thinking itself.

Looks like 'Descartes' was right after all. The statement is irrefutable.

Reason is the power to think in an orderly, rational way. I stated that I am happy to accept your definition - 'dynamic of comparison'. Unfortunately you are unable to see that thinking is the - ‘Dynamic of Mind’.
Again, I agree, that thinking IS THE REASON we are able to reason, but reason(just like knowledge) proceeds from thinking.

Inability to correctly define 2 of the key issues of Philosophy - Reason & Knowledge, is precisely why, after hundreds of years, philosophic relativity continues unabated. It is a pity, that when ‘George Bernard Shaw’ surmised - ‘Politics is the last refuge of scoundrels’ - he did not include Philosophy. No matter - to be sure ‘Relativity per se, is the final outpost of 'our limited perception' ‘. Soon we shall bid it a fond farewell. Its time to move on !

-For the record-(see your Response to Entry 359) - a viable alternative framework for decision making, political or other, will never arise out of the impossible. Of necessity it will be based on ‘POTENTIAL’ and therefore will proceed from possibility. So long as possibility exists we have a right to exercise our apathy towards the impossible. Current political systems are based on relativity and like ‘philosophical relativity’ lie inextricably bound within the morbid confusion of intellectual jargon based on the abhorrent abuse of rhetoric for selfish ends.

Little wonder then, the daily news of 'our limited perception' is dominated by wars & rumours of war - a direct indication of the abuse and misuse of knowledge and reason. Thank goodness for ‘Light’, for inevitably it will expose false knowledge and illumine reason.

‘Representational definition is imperative for the clarification of a viable decision making framework’.

Other Issue: RQ - ‘one entry, and six entries in the form of disputes’..????
More exposure is 'more reasonable' - confusing entries with disputes is not.
Sorry, beg to differ: ‘One entry, and six disputes, exposed in the form of entries’
BIG difference.
Thank You"

protomutant July 18 2002

Response:

The validity of your statement that "all knowledge is a result of thinking" is contingent on how you define knowledge and thinking. If knowledge is defined as both conscious and unconscious forms, then your statement is invalid. However, if knowledge is defined as only as conscious form, then your statement is valid within limits, while bearing in mind that thinking is a result of knowledge viz., if there is no knowledge, there is no thinking. Moreover, to more reasonably show that your statement has absolute truth-value, you need to establish a more reasonable ground(s) for absolute truth-value. To merely claim that your statement is "entirely reasonable" is to overlook the necessity for a more reasonable ground(s) for absolute truth-value. (Though we concede within your own thoughts, you can think and prove whatever you want.)

Also, we do not agree with your assertion that thinking precedes reason (and knowledge), because thinking must entail reason (and knowledge) in order for there to be thinking. In our view, thinking, reason, and knowledge must all occur simultaneously.

Finally, we do not recognize the notion of impossibility itself, because in our view possibility precedes impossibility (Response to Entry 168). What we recognize is the possibility of impossibility. So your distinction between possibility and impossibility is correct, but impossibility as mentioned can be viewed as possible.

Note, we call disputes, "entries in the form of disputes", because disputes themselves through the ideas presented in them can be used to overcome the proposition.

20. Comment:

"To the Inexpressible Committee:

Please do not accept this as an entry, as I admit to finding most of your latest response incomprehensible (Response to Entry 469), and do not feel that I could adequately reply.

From what I can gather you seem to have concluded that Reality has human limitations, and subject to our conventional understanding, and our consequent limitations. Only when we momentarily escape from those limitations is it possible to understand that our beingness exists in a reality not only through, and within our senses, but quite significantly beyond them, but available. Our senses I contend are used as a filter through which Reality can be realized at any moment, but that moment although it is eternally real, when related back through our senses reverts to the condition of sensory perception only, and our conventional assessments of that form. My assumption would be that the illumination experience of an Archimedes, or anyone else, would go through that process so that the practical application could be 'made known', and we subsequently benefit from it.

From that perspective please find my extended definition of Communication:

'Good communication, and its purpose, is to make it easy to 'make known' , and in the exchange must contain recognizable standards that promote truth, and knowledge. The production of basic information that is reasonable, acceptable, and accurate is the foundation of our dependence on each other. Communicated information must yield up recognizable facts that we can find acceptable in evaluating the reality we all share.'

.......................

Although as I have said, the debate has been enjoyable, my personal enjoyment must not take precedence over my obligation to continue the definition process, that will occupy my remaining years. It has seemed to me that much of what I have forwarded as entries has had little impact on seeking a resolve to the Challenge, and consequently as it is getting more difficult for me to understand the responses, it may be wise for me to restrict my entries.

........................

Only through ideas of separation from Reality can we consider that existence is an illusion.

........................

Supplementary comment: Concerning your reference to the first human being it sounds like a very implausible term. May I postulate that there could not have been a first human being - there could not have been continuity of understanding, no sharing of knowledge, no sharing of reason, no available recognition. Please consider the proposition that at the beginning, there were two human beings of equal qualities with innate common value systems. In that circumstance there would be immediate mutual reverence for our human existence. There would be recognition, sharing, knowledge, complementation, and continuity from the same basic understanding which would be correct. Here at once is established the correct foundation for all human ethics, morality, education, science, art. The only way we can understand 'who we are' is through the existence of at least one other human being, who shares, and exhibits the same qualities we have.

Please find my personal commentary on our human condition as it is now, in contrast to the above proposition.

Lost Shadows

The shadows move

Lost in confusion

Lost in despair

Imagination shrouds the Real

Looking back

Looking forward

Is this the Centre?

Concerning regression: If something is true, it is true no matter how much the point is regressed.

..........................

I suspect that you have presumed that principles as we conventionally experience them must be of an absolute nature. You will note that I have expressed their position as I understand them when we address concepts like intelligence. Stupidity is a measure of intelligence. My position is that we function well below any absolute standard of intelligence (if there is one), and only occasionally when there is unison between our available realization, and what is, do we then have some form of understanding that makes sense to us.

Is the principle of leverage a reality, does it make sense?

Reality containing all knowledge, implicitly contains itself at every level.

So long as comparative language is used to define 'what is' there will never be any progress made toward an understanding of Reality. Comparative language deals inevitably with separation, and fragmentation, and indeed promotes it. You cannot truly know 'what is' or 'who we are' so long as there is a divisional concept of Reality. It is possible to truly know who we are, but the first step toward that would be to recognize that we function in direct denial of our own reality. To compare stupidity (as a supposed reality), with intelligence, is information based on a wrong premise, and in extension is seriously wide of the mark.

My thanks to the Committee for the encouragement you have given me, but if for the moment my reflections above do not reach your standards, then I will restrict my entries."

Sincerely,

Bridie March 18 2004

Response:

We have one question for you to consider:

How do you or anyone else overcome the comparative nature of human consciousness, thereby divisional conceptions, when you or anyone else cannot more reasonably get outside (or "escape") the comparative nature of your consciousness and know that you have?

21. Comment:

"While we 'cannot truly know who we are' it would stand to reason that more flexibility in the form of DIPLOMACY would behove us in being sensitive to other customs especially regarding their cultures.
We certainly don't need another war dictated by ignorance of the facts."

Terry Kocher June 30 2004

Comments 11-16 Comments 22-

| Inquiry:01 | Entries1:504-508 | Comp 1 Summary (239-358) | Comp 1 Summary (359-366) | Reasons Accepted: 1-6 | Dispute Draft | | Reasons Unaccepted | MessageBoard | | Books | Contact Us | Home | | LID 169