| Challenge the Philosophy - Dispute 10-13 |
"The challenge proposition is made nugatory by Kant's observation that existence is not a predicate."
David Broadhurst March 8 2000
To use the subject, "existence", you are affirming that you can know it and that it exists, thereby you are using "existence" as a predicate of itself through who you are. So your statement "existence cannot be a predicate" is contradictory and limited to specific system(s) of thoughts. Also, it follows from your statement, assuming that everything is part of "existence", that nothing could be a predicate, including predicate itself.
We assert that from our limited perspective, "existence" itself, whatever it is, is inexpressible. Moreover, we assert that "existence" cannot be a subject or predicate because we cannot know it. Though from our limited perspective, we can reason its existence. Therefore, we assert that existence, the label with invented meaning, can be a subject or predicate.
Further, Kant does not make the statement that "existence is not a predicate". He states that the use of "existence" as a predicate merely repeats the thing and all its predicates. Also, he clearly states that "being, [or who we are] is evidently not a real predicate." (The Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Dialectic, Book II, Chap. iii, Section iv) Rather, "being is merely a positing of a thing or positing certain determinations that are already in it". Hence, being can be used as a predicate because it repeats the conception of something else. (The concept of being appears "necessary to reason".)
"We disagree with your claim that through "sense data", we can understand outside of our minds. You appear to be overlooking that all sense data in the form of knowledge, including sense data itself, is from in our minds. So we can't get outside of our minds using sense data. Though we can compare sense data, which may give us the impression that we can understand , and thereby know, outside of our minds. However, through our unconscious sensory and thought process, we appear to have a limited understanding of outside of our minds."
Reply by SZ: The problem here is that it is incumbent upon you to provide an explanation of how we can distinguish between illusions and reality. For surely people do distinguish these perceptions all the time, and if we had no access to a world outside of our heads, how could we even make intelligible the concept of illusion? I cannot "deceive" myself into having pain, I either have it or don't. I can lie about having pain, but this involves no such self-deception. If there were no outside criterion for judging between an illusion and reality, there would be no room for such a concept. That would be imagining the unimaginable. You can't.
Response: We don’t believe that we can distinguish between illusion and reality. Rather, we believe that we can distinguish between illusions in the sense that one illusion may pertain more to our notion of reality than another. One reason that we take this position is that there appears to be an intrinsic difference between who we are and our thoughts themselves (ie. we can’t know knowledge solely through itself, which means what we know itself is an empty form). In terms of your analogy about experiencing pain, we do not deny that something like "pain" is occurring. Though we question whether you can really know, in terms of truth, that you are in pain and that pain itself exists other than as a label with invented meaning in your mind.
"In response to your remarks on the first proposition, using the case of pain, you appear to be making the assumption that what
we perceive is what really is, when we appear to perceive through system(s) of thoughts, including the labels and meanings of
"dog", "pain", "expression" ect. Also, in your remarks on the second proposition, you make the same assumption about
perceiving outside of our minds, instead of recognizing that we appear to perceive through our minds at whatever is outside of
them. For further explanation see Entry 24 and Dispute 9 (10-12)."
Reply by SZ: Your reply is confused. What the example is meant to draw out, is that our perceptions of what is happening evolve in the long term. As we gather more information, we make better judgments as to what is going on. I see no reason not to believe that things like dogs exist. If you don't believe such things exist, I suggest you go to a local pet store and see them for yourself.
Response: We disagree that as we gather more information, we make better judgments as to what is going on, because it depends on the knowledge we gather and the judgments we form from them.
We do not deny that life-forms like "dogs" exist. However, we question whether we can really know what they are.
"We disagree with your claim that epistemology is separate from reason, or logic, because in our view, we can't have
epistemology without reason (ie. all systems of thoughts, in a limited sense, appear to have their basis in reason). So we assert
that arguments about our relationship, as a species, to the proliferation of technology can be made through epistemic premises."
Reply by SZ: I never claimed that epistemology was separate from reason. I separated it from logic, and by logic I mean a formal system of deduction. Reason, broadly defined, is human faculties of understanding. Obviously, epistemology (Theories of Knowledge) involve reason. The mistake here is to think that if we don't know something for certain, we don't know it at all. Most things which I know are not certain, but to a very high degree probable. I, consequently act under the assumption they are true. Some of these assumptions are: The sun will rise in the east tomorrow, chocolate cake tastes good, dog bites will hurt, an election will occur in November. Now, any or all of these may turn out to be false, but the way I learn if they're false is if they fail to correspond to what should happen if they're true. Suppose tomorrow morning the sun rises from the west instead, I would have to drop by initial assumption. This may change the way I understand physics. Suppose the next time I eat a chocolate cake it tastes terrible. I'd probably first wonder if the cake was made correctly, but suppose from that point on, all chocolate cake tasted terrible to me. From then on I would say that chocolate cake doesn't taste good. The point is that just because my assumptions about the outside world are subject to revision, doesn't mean they are "empty".
Response: Since all knowledge appears to be limited, in terms of truth, it does not follow why we cannot use logic, as a system of deduction, to further our understanding of epistemology at least as part of our argument.
We don’t make the argument that because "we don’t know something for certain, we don’t know it at all". Our arguments involve epistemological, phenomenological, and ontological analysis of our thoughts themselves in relation to who we are. The apparent uncertainty of all knowledge, in terms of its place in our arguments, is that we can only know something in relation to other things.
If most things you know are not certain, what things to you are absolutely certain, and why do you believe that they are?
What will happen to your view of the "rising sun", "election", and "chocolate cake", if you realized that you don’t really know anything except in your mind?
Reply by SZ: Suppose you were reading a mystery novel, and right before you read the last page to discover the killer, you find the last page missing. You have a pretty good idea that the butler did it. You're not sure if he did, but upon looking over the book a second time, you confirm that he had the motive and means. You could be wrong, but you think you're right. You then call a friend to confirm your suspicion. He tells you that indeed, according to his copy of the book, the butler did do it. You then go to the bookstore and inspect a copy of the book to confirm what your friend said, and it does indeed say the butler did it. You continue to check copies of the book making sure they all conformed with each other. Do I know for certain that my copy isn't different than all the rest? No, but I am justified in believing it is the same as the rest. Your claim is, if we cannot find that last missing page then I can't know who did it, despite how much evidence to the contrary I gather. I may not know for certain that my particular copy of the book isn't different, but you cannot claim I don't have any basis for knowledge.
Response: In terms of your analogy about the "mystery novel", you are assuming that what we already know through reading the story, talking to your friend, and reading other books, is true. Though what you know about the story appears to be true only within the story, or its system of thoughts. We do not claim that you cannot know the last page, without having read it, from the rest of the pages. Though we claim that without you knowing the contents of the last page, you cannot be fully certain. Also, your argument about applying what we know about the story to what the content of the last page may be does not necessarily apply to our internal and external worlds, because what we know internally may only correspond in a limited sense to the external world.
Reply by SZ: In truth, I know quite a lot. I never claimed my knowledge was infallible, only that we can have good reasons for thinking some knowledge is certain.
The external world is like that. If you are so convinced it doesn't exist (or we can't know if it exists), then I find it odd you could even attempt something as fool-hardy as making a website, let along, write a book. After all, who will read it? You have no reason to believe there is anyone there (according to your criteria for knowledge). Ultimately, it is how someone acts in the long run which will most likely tell you what someone believes is the case. And from the way you're acting (writing books, websites, responding to people) is distinctly disingenuous with how someone who professed the beliefs your profess would behave.
Response: We do not claim that the external world and us ourselves do not exist. Rather, we claim that our knowledge of them is limited.
We disagree that our website is "distinctly disingenuous" with our professed beliefs, because as stated in the "Competition and Entry form" page of the site, the competition is partly about facing our uncertainty about the validness of the challenge proposition. Other purposes of the site, and competition, is to recognize someone for their work, encourage independent thinking and intellectual interaction, and through them, possibly improve our understanding of our existence.
Replies and responses on April 5 2000
Your response could be generated by a computer, methinks - as the use of syllogisms and rhetorical forensics is quite obvious.
However - your first statement relies on a "small" misstatement - as you turn non-being into "non-beings" - and subsequently postulate "beings" from this. The last sentence of my refutation was: We work with being, but non-being is what we use.
And this is, of course, significantly different from the use you make of this statement.
Now - your suggestion that it does not make sense to exist through the non-being of our thoughts? Your statement presupposes the infallibility of all of mankind not only belonging to but also being flawlessly connected with a collective unconscious (let's just use that term, as a simple shorthand). Why do I state this? Because I would claim that all of mankind has not thought the same thoughts - and that a significant portion of mankind has not done any thinking of note whatsoever. Thus - it appears we can exist without thought - or with a paucity of same. Actually - a harmonious existence would probably arise as we approach the level of instinctual behavior with automated responses to exterior and interior stimuli - which actually is an interesting notion, given your statement - as you can obviously gather on your own, without my having to delineate it here.
Your subsequent statement contains a fallacy. That we should exist directly through our thoughts. Far from it - thought, as such, poses a great threat to existence, and is only worthwhile in that it allows us to reflect and ruminate upon the same - and to build a library of experience which we can resort to in order to get us out of the trouble that thought gets us into. Here I am postulating that thought is linked to what is often mistermed creativity - which is a departure from norms and thus a destabilizing factor. We can also consider thought in many other ways - but your original claim contains a dynamic interpretation of knowing - which should allow me this relation between thought and creativity.
Now - the emptiness inside a clay pot will contain water - of great surcease to somewhat suffering from thirst; it could also contain food - both of which, embodied by the container which has replaced emptiness with sustenance are of much greater worth than thought to the survival of the species.
However - I could lean towards your using the word "exist" as encompassing a reflective property of the word "thoughts" - in that we do not exist unless we are able to think of our existence. Now - if that is your intention, then I have refuted your statement - or rather, you have refuted your statement and I have pointed it out to you. We cannot be who we are and know who we are, at the same time is perfectly negated by a sentence such as "We exist directly through our thoughts:"
Now - your last statement - which I'll quote: Yet, it appears that by existing directly through the emptiness of our thoughts, and their material extensions, we are gradually absorbing ourselves into their emptiness. This has some merit - however, it is unclear, and could have better focus. And it also has a certain "political" leaning which detracts from its potential as an expression of pure thought or reason. The claim of "the emptiness of our thoughts" is of course open to discussion - the material extensions of this purported emptiness is likewise open to discussion - that we should be gradually absorbing ourselves into the emptiness thus created is also an ideological claim, more than a statement of fact, or a product of reason.
All in all, your initial claim is an interesting spec of see-saw logic. Quite in the vein of "What happens when an irresistible force encounters an immovable object?" However, the claim is to open to unreasonable support and counter-argument - and basically does not make sense. It has the character of a Zen koan of sorts. Certain smart-aleck refutations, which try to couple Heisenberg, Heidegger, Wittgenstein and others to their constructions, are absurd attempts at defeating your claim.
Whereas "We join spokes together in a wheel, but it is the center hole that makes the wagon move" mirrors it quite amusingly.
Stein Leikanger April 14 2000
Thank you for your comments. A computer did not generate the response. Though we try to be concise in our responses. Obviously, in your case we were too concise.
We will respond briefly to your points.
A. "However - your first statement relies on a "small" misstatement - as you turn non-being into "non-beings" - and subsequently postulate "beings" from this. The last sentence of my refutation was: We work with being, but non-being is what we use.
And this is, of course, significantly different from the use you make of this statement."
We take your point. Though it is still unclear to us how we could only use "non-being", which was our main point.
We claim that we, the human species, use both non-being (ie. non life-forms) and being (ie. life-forms).
B. "Now - your suggestion that it does not make sense to exist through the
non-being of our thoughts? Your statement presupposes the infallibility
of all of mankind not only belonging to but also being flawlessly
connected with a collective unconscious (let's just use that term, as a
simple shorthand). Why do I state this? Because I would claim that all
of mankind has not thought the same thoughts - and that a significant
portion of mankind has not done any thinking of note whatsoever. Thus -
it appears we can exist without thought - or with a paucity of same.
Actually - a harmonious existence would probably arise as we approach
the level of instinctual behavior with automated responses to exterior
and interior stimuli - which actually is an interesting notion, given
your statement - as you can obviously gather on your own, without my
having to delineate it here."
We agree with you in principal; though because of our evolutionary development and increasing interconnectedness of our lives, the possibility of shifting to a "level of instinctual behaviour with automated responses to exterior and interior stimuli" may be beyond us as a species.
C. "Your subsequent statement contains a fallacy. That we should exist
directly through our thoughts. Far from it - thought, as such, poses a
great threat to existence, and is only worthwhile in that it allows us
to reflect and ruminate upon the same - and to build a library of
experience which we can resort to in order to get us out of the trouble
that thought gets us into. Here I am postulating that thought is linked
to what is often mistermed creativity - which is a departure from norms
and thus a destabilizing factor. We can also consider thought in many
other ways - but your original claim contains a dynamic interpretation
of knowing - which should allow me this relation between thought and
creativity."
We agree with your view of our relationship to thoughts. Our point was simply in terms of the modern world, in which we as a species exist through thoughts as a means for existence. We believe, through developed arguments, that our existence through thoughts themselves, including knowledge and reason, is not only absorbing ourselves into their emptiness, but making the means for our existence increasingly empty of who we are, or inhuman.
D. "Now - the emptiness inside a clay pot will contain water - of great
surcease to somewhat suffering from thirst; it could also contain food -
both of which, embodied by the container which has replaced emptiness
with sustenance are of much greater worth than thought to the survival
of the species."
We agree with you. Though one could argue that you would likely not have the clay pot and the food to go in it without thought. However, in terms of unconscious or wild nature, life-forms do not need thought, clay pot ect. to sustain themselves. They appear to exist directly.
E. "However - I could lean towards your using the word "exist" as
encompassing a reflective property of the word "thoughts" - in that we
do not exist unless we are able to think of our existence.
Now - if that is your intention, then I have refuted your statement - or
rather, you have refuted your statement and I have pointed it out to
you. We cannot be who we are and know who we are, at the same time is
perfectly negated by a sentence such as "We exist directly through our
thoughts."
When we are using the sentence, "we exist directly through thoughts", we are using it in contrast to our apparent indirect existence through the emptiness inside of objects like a clay pot. However, in terms of our relationship to thoughts themselves, our view is that we exist through thoughts, and that they are an extension who we are, while at the same time being empty of who we are. For further explanation see Premises and conclusions from Dispute 9 Response 29 and 30.
F. "Now - your last statement - which I'll quote: Yet, it appears that by
existing directly through the emptiness of our thoughts, and their
material extensions, we are gradually absorbing ourselves into their
emptiness.
This has some merit - however, it is unclear, and could have better
focus. And it also has a certain "political" leaning which detracts from
its potential as an expression of pure thought or reason.
The claim of "the emptiness of our thoughts" is of course open to
discussion - the material extensions of this purported emptiness is
likewise open to discussion - that we should be gradually absorbing
ourselves into the emptiness thus created is also an ideological claim,
more than a statement of fact, or a product of reason."
We disagree with your point of view. We refer you to the premises and conclusions from Dispute 9 Responses 29-30 for an introduction to why we believe that our existence through thoughts, and their material extensions, is harming the human species.
Why is the claim that we are being absorbed into the emptiness of thoughts, a political statement? Clearly, the statement has political and societal implications, but we think you are overlooking the epistemological and ontological roots of the claim.
G. "All in all, your initial claim is an interesting spec of see-saw logic.
Quite in the vein of "What happens when an irresistible force encounters
an immovable object?"
However, the claim is to open to unreasonable support and
counter-argument - and basically does not make sense. It has the
character of a Zen koan of sorts. Certain smart-aleck refutations, which
try to couple Heisenberg, Heidegger, Wittgenstein and others to their
constructions, are absurd attempts at defeating your claim."
If you can show the claim has unreasonable support, or counter it, or show that it does not make sense, we would more than welcome your input. However, so far you have not done any of these.
H. "Whereas "We join spokes together in a wheel, but it is the center hole
that makes the wagon move" mirrors it quite amusingly."
Oh by the way, this statement about the wheel makes sense only from a narrow perspective. (ie. clearly, it is more than the center hole that makes the wagon move!)
My suggestion that the reply could have been generated by a computer was not inferred from the response being too concise.
Have can we use "non-being" - there are innumerable thoughts that have already been thought, but that are now lost to us - yet, because they belong to the fabric of all thought, by having extant thoughts that were engendered, inspired or created by these now lost thoughts - we could state that we are, in fact, using non-being in a very active manner. Also, there remain an infinity of thoughts yet to be thought - however, we already have their seedlings amongst us - "can we beat cancer" - "can we conquer gravity" - "the speed of light" - to name just a few, more or less serious pursuits (in the case of cancer - more). Thus, whole thoughts, yet unthought, about to be thought - still radiate into our consciousness - our present - from the yet unexperienced future.
Your conception of being and non-being does fall somewhat short of the mark, I think - as you are chiefly concerned with life and "non" life. I believe that being and non-being, as demonstrated above, can have completely metaphysical properties, also - and that these are maybe the most relevant to your claim.
Is it beyond us as a species to shift to a level of automated responses to exterior and interior stimuli?
I do not know whether shifting to an instinctual level of reasoning is beyond us. Possibly so - as thought and creativity remove us from the more instinctual domain of the animals and "lower" beings. It is quite interesting to observe that nature, which is wholly "unfree" - is much more harmonious than mankind - who believe ourselves to be "free". Our freedom is created by choice - our choice a result of creative thought. Thus we approach a support of your claim which presupposes that the freedom we resort to is unnatural. Again, an ambivalent mode of support - as I strongly suspect you are looking for a universal rule, and not just a "rule" to aptly describe our aberrant behavior as humans.
Now - a little later in your argument you answer that thought is making existence increasingly empty and making us inhuman. ("We believe, through developed arguments, that our existence through thoughts themselves, including knowledge and reason, is not only absorbing ourselves into their emptiness, but making the means for our existence increasingly empty of who we are, or inhuman.")
This is a political (or ideological) statement - and not a product of pure reason. Many would argue that thought is precisely that which makes us human - and this would also be an argument, and not necessarily a fact. I believe the path to thoroughly deconstructing your argument lies in the via of pure reason. Whereas I note that both your counter-argument and its extrapolations (in your other writings) are of a more ideological bent - as you are attempting to construct a value-system which you believe will "cure" the world of certain ills. Again, something closely approaching an ideology - and not a product of pure reason.
Blessedly, I find that we agree perfectly in your next item of retort. Here you write: "However, in terms of unconscious or wild nature, life-forms do not need thought... to sustain themselves. They appear to exist directly."
I cannot state to what extent all beings think. I do believe that we humans think more than other beings on the planet. This "existing directly" is exactly what you are looking for - by existing directly, you can know who you are and be who you are - at the same time.
Thus, thought becomes an interpellate between direct experience and constructed experience. And since your premise "know" refers to the body of human knowledge - we are faced with a disparity between "knowing who we are" and "being who we are" - not because it is impossible to achieve harmony between these, but because of the impurity of our reason. Perfect reason would see only one solution to a problem - this is what Nature does in the present, while it creates avenues of evolution for future branchings. By impurity of reason, I mean the fact that humans have the hardest time agreeing on anything. From the most basic fight-or-flight response - to more abstract ruminations. Thus - the disconnection of being who we are from knowing who we are is a result of an ontological disagreement apparently inherent in our species - and not a rule of Nature. (I'm capitalizing Nature now, as I simply stand in awe of her or him or it...)
You disagree when I point out that your reasoning has the color of ideology rather than reason. One should never be ashamed when creating an ideology - in doing so, a human being is following its "nature". This ideology can be very basic or world-altering - yet, it will always be an ideology, and not a natural fact. Your argument obscures truth when it states that "our existence through thoughts, and their material extensions, is harming the human species." Not because this is ethically wrong, factually erroneous or simply silly. No - rather because we DO NOT KNOW whether our existence through thoughts, and their material extensions, is harming the human species." We can suspect that this is the case - we can fear that such may be the case - we can point to numerous incidents and events that seem to support this - but can we KNOW whether the sum total of human endeavour is harmful or beneficial?
Do not misunderstand me - I am as much aghast at the mess about us as anyone else - BUT the moment you make such a claim, you have abandoned reason, and resorted to argument, to dispute - along the continuum of which you would sooner or later touch on sophistry. Actually - your claim is only valid if one allows that reason does not exist, that all is argument. Yet, I suspect that you would like your argument to be supported by reason.
"In all things, emulate nature - it has found the way."
Stein Leikanger April 15 2000
Thank you for your reply. We think we are in agreement with you on most issues; though our position needs more clarification.
In terms of the claim that "we exist directly through thoughts", it does not necessarily follow that our thoughts themselves are intrinsically part of us ourselves. This claim simply means that we are using thoughts to exist in a direct, immediate way like in making decisions and acting them out.
Thank you for your further elaboration on your concept of "non-being". We find it interesting, just as we find your view of using space interesting. However, from our perspective, your concept of non-being still amounts to "using" non-being in the past, present, and future, regardless of metaphysical properties.
Your notion of linking the unknown to the metaphysical ignores our notion of inexpressible or who we are. In fact, we would go further than you, and assert that the unknown and known are both defined by the metaphysical, or in our terms, the inexpressible (ie. fundamental level of being from our limited perspective).
From our perspective, the concept of freedom is an illusion which exists in our minds only if we let it. Even unconscious nature, due to the apparent interconnectedness of life-forms, does not have freedom. However, there appears to be different levels of limited freedom, while no one is ever absolutely free. Though these levels of freedom appear to be subjective and possibly illusory.
In one way, you are correct in that we are looking for a universal axiom. Though we are doing so within the limits of reason and knowledge. In our view, as reasoning beings, all we can strive for is concepts that are consistent and sound in relation to all opposing concepts. The challenge proposition, from our perspective, comes the closest to this state, or may even be it. The competition is one way to support or reject this claim.
Further, there appears to be fundamental concepts, which explain our consciousness, just as there appears to be fundamental concepts which explain the physical world. To discover the former is to explain the conscious world. From our perspective, the premises, for instance, that our thoughts themselves are empty forms, and that we need intrinsic separation to know, may be fundamental concepts on consciousness.
Just because we observe that we, as a species, appear to be making the means for our existence increasingly inhuman through thoughts, does not necessarily make this observation a political statement. The observation stems from epistemological and ontological arguments. Again, we agree that there are political implications, though as stated that does not mean the observation is inherently politically motivated.
Yes, we agree that "thoughts" appear to be things which makes us human in relation to the rest of nature. However, this argument does not effect the claim that through thoughts, and their material extensions, we appear to be making the means for existence more inhuman.
If you can deconstruct our arguments, and show inconsistency or unreasonableness in them, we would welcome it.
We are confused by your notion of "pure reason"? What do you mean? How can any thought be absolutely pure? How can any thought not be ideological?
Our only ideology is to stay true to the dictates of reason, thereby maintain the consistency and soundness of our views in relation to all opposing views, by rejecting what does not hold up and staying open to new perspectives.
What is "perfect reason"? If reason is language, knowledge, and a means for thinking, how could it be part of unconscious nature? In our view, reason or conscious knowledge has no place in unconscious nature, which appears to be a full manifestation of life. In short, how can you claim that unconscious nature is epitome of "pure reason", when nature shows no signs of reasoning, even though its existence appears to be a state of perfection within the limits of life?
We agree that all knowledge is limited. However, when we claim that we are harming ourselves through thoughts, we are making this claim based on developed arguments. We may be correct or we may be mistaken. How do we decide? As reasoning beings, we must weigh the arguments for and against. Is there any inconsistency or unreasonableness?.... In terms of "sum total", we believe, within the limits of reason, that by us existing directly through something empty of who we are, we are inherently harming ourselves.
You appear to be claiming that "reason" is a thing that is "pure", and that if an argument is not from "pure reason", it is sophistry. Again what is this pure reason? How do you know it is absolute, in face of the apparent interconnectedness of all things? How can you associate unconscious nature with perfect reason, when as far as we know, there are no reasoning life-forms except for us? How can you equate instinct and unconsciousness with prefect reason?
From our perspective, in brief terms, reason is a word, concept, which we invented and which explains the dynamic between one meaning, or thought, and another. "Pure" refers to something in its original state. "Pure reason" appears to refer to an imaginary state of original, untainted cognition. Where is the connection to unconscious nature?
We agree with your last line; though we would go further and assert, "through gradual transition, be unconscious nature".
In reply to the response to Entry 218 .
"Why is there an assumption that roles do not correlate to who we are in a fundamental level of being?
What evidence shows that roles can NOT equal one's fundamental level of being?
The assumption that seems to be made by you here is that
there is
1) the fundamental level, and then, there are
2) masks, and
3) the masks are the roles.
Therefore,
4) roles do not correlate to fundamental level of being.
But why that assumption? If one takes all of the roles one plays, both with other people and with self, which is quite doable through introspection and maturity, does not one know themselves (by following the threads that appear in common through all roles) on a fundamental level, while also being?"
Kenneth Udut May 19 2001
What are roles? They are conscious phenomenon. Where do they come from? Through our sensory and thought process, we create conscious phenomenon, including roles.
Since we cannot create who we are through who we are, conscious phenomenon are not equal to our fundamental level of being or who we are.
If you want to challenge this line of reasoning, then you face the problem of more reasonably showing how conscious phenomenon can either come directly from the external world or be an innate part of our consciousness.
Also, if roles themselves are not our fundamental level of being, but simply phenomenon we exist from, then any threads we ascertain through roles are also not our fundamental level of being. In other words, our fundamental level of being is separate from roles and the perceived threads pertaining to them, while at the same time using them to manifest itself. So as we stated in Entry 218, there is a limited connection between roles and their perceived threads, and our fundamental level of being, which pertains to the limited connection between what we know and what really is.
Disputes 9(1-5) Disputes 14-16