| Challenge the Philosophy - Disputes 26-30 |
Dispute of the response to Entry 406
"Accepted as query:
How does the combination of one's life experience and ancestry result in
knowledge with absolute truth-value (i.e. ‘the true meaning of value’)?
Answer:
The true meaning of the values known in our lives augmented with the values
known by our ancestors, inherited by us aid us in the living of our lives. By
knowing ourselves more entirely we come to know our purposes in the same way,
thusly we are enabled to live our lives in ways that more closely serve our
purposes which has a greater value with respect to our purposes.
Accepted as query:
What is it about our life experience and our ancestors' determinations of true
meaning of value that allow us to know with absolute truth-value?
Answer:
It is the love in our life experience that our ancestors had for us that
began our means of valuation later shared with our descendants that they in
turn know absolutely, diminishing the absolute effects of time on life as long
as the cycle remains.
Accepted as query:
What is it about our ancestors' determinations of the true meaning of value and
their life experiences that allow them to know with absolute truth-value?
Answer:
Their unconscious did, as does ours, have the ancestral knowledge of
survival/evolution value designating unconditional love as the feeling, above
and beyond a language definition of truth, freeing the genetic transmission
through time to us, with knowledge of the value of sacrifices protecting life.
Observation accepted with moderation:
It appears that you may be overlooking that ‘our ability to know the true
meaning of value to us’ does not necessarily equate to our ability to know with
absolute truth-value. ‘To us’ implies knowledge based on what we ourselves
perceive, rather than knowledge that is complete.
Moderation:
Due to the diminished effect of time by prior generations enabling our survival
and evolution, with successive sacrifices allowed by unconditional love, our
conscious perceptions, as filtered by our unconscious to more easily enable our
sacrifices in turn, becomes complete with the success of the next generation.
Accepted with moderation:
We agree that indirect knowledge which circumvents the normal filtrations of
the conscious mind is a reasonable source of information, but that does not
mean indirect knowledge is a more reasonable source of knowledge with absolute
truth-value.
Moderation:
It is not more reasonable; it has equal reason, in consideration of the
absolute diminishment of time that has occurred because the ancestral
valuations made possible, sacrifices, with indirect knowledge that were
correct, thus successful, leading to our survival and evolution."
Chris Brown December 22 2002
How do you more reasonably know that the "knowledge of the value of sacrifices protecting life" (or "unconditional love as feeling") has absolute truth-value? What is your ground(s) for your knowledge that "the value of sacrifices protecting life" (or "unconditional love as feeling") has absolute truth-value? (Note, there is an important distinction between what we know indirectly (limited truth-value) and what we know directly (unlimited truth-value): the former implies incompletion, and the latter implies completion.)
How do you more reasonably know in entirety that the ancestral valuations and their sacrifices are "correct, thus successful"? How do you more reasonably know in entirety that our survival and evolution is "successful"? Again note, there is an important distinction between what we know with limited truth-value and what we know with unlimited truth-value.
Dispute to the response Entry 407
"Accepted as Query:
How do you more reasonably know that the ‘knowledge of the value of sacrifices
protecting life’ (or ‘unconditional love as
feeling’) has absolute truth-value?
Answer:
I survive due to the sacrifices of my ancestors and I reasonably know as I
directly perceive the society I am a part of, as it looses respect for
unconditional love, appears, reasonably with respect to environment, diplomacy
and culture, to be in decline.
Accepted as Query after application of revised terms:
What is your ground(s) for your knowledge that ‘the value of sacrifices
protecting life’ (or ‘unconditional love as feeling’) has absolute truth-value?
(Note, there is an important distinction between what we know indirectly
(limited truth-value) and what we know directly (unlimited truth-value): the
former implies incompletion, and the latter implies completion.)
Query with application of revised terms:
The indirect knowledge, knowing ‘of’ value from the unconscious, does not have
inherent limits to its usage, (usage assumed as a completion of knowledge) only
its origin. That value we know directly from our senses is not inherently
useful despite our knowledge of its origin. Hence the distinction between
direct and indirect knowledge is dissolved. Rendering the query as, ‘What are
the grounds I have for knowing the value of sacrifices by one generation that
protects the lives of the next?’
Answer:
See the first answer of the first query of this dispute to response to 407
entry.
Accepted as Query:
How do you more reasonably know in entirety that the ancestral valuations and
their sacrifices are ‘correct, thus successful’?
Answer:
See the first answer of the first query of this dispute to response to 407
entry.
Accepted as Query: (NOTE: previously dissolved difference between indirect and
direct knowledge adopted removing notation)
How do you more reasonably know in entirety that our survival and evolution is
’successful’?
Answer:
There are two questions asked here. The first is answered by stating that we
survived because we reasonably exist and the second is not answerable because
we have not yet evolved. NOTE: Indirect knowledge asserts its usefulness with
regard to the answer of the second. If we do not assimilate an active
understanding of unconditional love as the purpose of life without question, we
will not be capable of the sacrifices needed to change or evolve and the
survival of subsequent generations is already in question with environmental
damage without consideration of failures of diplomacy and their potential for
very rapid loss of life."
Chris Brown December 23 2002
Though your contention about the direction of society and the value of unconditional love as feeling, may be valid in a limited sense, it is still unclear how your knowledge of society and unconditional love is more reasonably known in entirety. To answer this question, we suggest that you deal with the epistemology and ontology of your knowledge, rather than further indirect support like the problems and dangers associated with not adopting unconditional love as a purpose of life.
In this light, you refer to your "direct knowledge" of the society you are part of. Though in what sense is your perception direct, and how can you perceive directly when, for instance, there is apparently separation between the perceiver and the perceived, and things are apparently in flux so there is no fixed point to perceive?
Dispute of the response to Entry 408
"My assertions of the direction of society and dangers of not affirming why it exists in the first place was to reorient somewhat, the purposes of our debate.
Asserting reasonably that the usefulness of knowledge is far more valuable than the source of knowledge is easily added to the dissolutions of the differences between indirect and direct already reasoned.
Assigning the word ‘separation’ between perceiver and perceived rather than the word ‘difference’ disallows the valuative aspects between the two if it is agreed between them that the aspect of flux has for each, the same purpose. The effect of this is to lock them in a perpetual conflict because they are separate and therefore not together and not in agreement rather than simply different.
The perceiver is a role whereas perceived is a completed action of the mind or one who has been heard and knows it. The completion of the action of perception is far easier with the understanding overcoming a difference as compared to transit required to overcome a separation. When attitude plays such a determining role in perception, differences of direct and indirect perceptions are diminished further."
Chris Brown December 24 2002
The Competition is not about the "usefulness" of knowledge, but about the completion of knowledge.
If the perceiver and perceived are "different" rather than separate, so that they are in a state of oneness, then you face the question of what is behind the oneness to produce the same valuation aspects for the perceiver and perceived.
Though attitude as a determining role in perception may diminish the difference between direct and indirect knowledge, and assuming attitude implies subjectivity, the diminishment favors indirect knowledge. In response, you could refer back to the oneness of the perceiver and perceived, but that takes you as mentioned to the question of what is behind the oneness.
Dispute of the response to Entry 409
"Conditionally accepted:
The Competition is not about the ‘usefulness’ of knowledge, but about the
completion of knowledge.
Condition:
If true value or meaning of knowledge is a term defined by the competition, and
completed knowledge has more value, then the use of the knowledge defines its
value when it is applied successfully and used. Incomplete knowledge is not
often successfully applied.
Accepted with moderation:
If the perceiver and perceived are ‘different’ rather than separate, so that
they are in a state of oneness, then you face the question of what is behind
the oneness to produce the same valuation aspects for the perceiver and
perceived.
Moderation:
Use of the word different does not predicate oneness or sameness nor does it
dictate equity of value for the perceiver and perceived. The use of that word
merely says inversely that understanding can be applied to dissolve the values
of the differences in favor of the value of appreciations for what is shared
and the same.
Disputed with moderation:
Though attitude as a determining role in perception may diminish the difference
between direct and indirect knowledge, and assuming attitude implies
subjectivity, the diminishment favors indirect knowledge.
Moderation:
Since the unconscious is actually in control of both itself and the conscious
or direct knowledge as the perceptions are controlled by the unconscious, the
conscious merely, for the sake of efficacy is directed to believe it is in
control; the diminishment is the attitude itself as it is possessed by the
unconscious.
Accepted with moderation:
In response, you could refer back to the oneness of the perceiver and
perceived, but that takes you as mentioned to the question of what is behind
the oneness.
Moderation:
It is taken here that the perceiver is receiving information, and on his or her way
to knowing it, and the perceived has the direct knowledge of its expression
being received as it was expressed. The oneness as a potential element of the
unconscious of both perceiver and perceived or cannot be known directly by
either, therefore the indirect knowledge of both, of the oneness, serves them
to express and perceive with equity as to value facilitating their
understanding."
Chris Brown December 27 2002
The Competition is not a question of value or more or less value, but a question of more reasonableness based on the issue of completely knowing who we are versus incompletely knowing who we are.
It does not follow that your proposed equity of value of the unconscious and conscious’ expression and perception more reasonably establishes complete knowledge. Viz., it does not follow how a commonality of indirect knowledge with the unconscious and conscious can "facilitate understanding" based on complete knowledge. Nor does it follow how you can completely know the perceiver and perceived cannot completely know the proposed potential oneness of the unconscious.
We do not see a way out for you except by proposing the oneness of the unconscious and conscious, but that would take you to the apparent less reasonableness of ex nihilo (i.e. thing-in-itself) than causal infinity (i.e. something from something ad infinitium). (Note, Suvas Lukshmikutty in Entries 313, 317, 320 with reference to Schopenhauer attempts this oneness [of will] approach, but his position succumbs, among other things, to the contradiction (conceded by Schopenhauer) between "being-known of itself" and "being-in-itself".)
Dispute to the response to Entry 410
"Disputed entirely:
The Competition is not a question of value or more or less value, but a
question of more reasonableness based on the issue of completely knowing who we are versus incompletely knowing who we are.
Dispute:
It appears that the issue of priorities is central here. Is it more important
to the competition that the knowledge be more reasonable or more complete?
Think of it, we can always reason, but completion is somewhat rare if at all.
Perhaps this is then the essence for one and all of a party of perceivers who
might be in turn be perceived?
Completion
of perception occurs every instant. That is as good as it gets and entirely it. It is when one stops perceiving then commits to evaluating the product of the perceptions that one suddenly faces with the paradox of knowing everything it ever knew throughout its time, in one instant and still be conscious. With somnambulism perhaps, but I would not recommend trying, you might get what you asked for. You'll become a vegetable, catatonic instantly, once that kind of completion is attained.
Completion. Only the unconscious can fully fathom it and that is where we know it when we do. Completion is too big. Completion means, all of the knowledge now! It begins to become inexpressible and quite separate from the discussion productive to empowering ourselves to better know ourselves reasonably more entirely and still be, ourselves. In the quest for completion processes of functional, reasonable action based in history and psychology are overlooked. Dissociatiative compulsion?
Uses of somnambulism skilled and dedicated to our deepest most functional purposes respecting unconditional love as it protects and enables life can enable us to more completely know ourselves in fashions only dreamed by the infinite oneness of hidden visionaries of usable knowledge.
Is it reasonable to accept completion over reason as a criteria for describing what who we might be while we are unaffected by the description, remaining as we are?
As is reasoned in the following logic.
It is not reasonable to assert that complete although useless knowledge of
ourselves is reasonable due to the simple fact that it can be articulated
within a set of language rules. Similarly stated it is fully reasonable that
complete knowledge must also be useful in some way or the basis for knowing it
relates to nothing reasonably knowable. It must be usable to be reasonable.
It is also reasonable that incomplete knowledge that is useful to knowing more
completely who we are even though that extent may not be entirely complete, is
more reasonable knowledge than complete but useless knowledge that is known for
any purpose whatsoever.
Disputed with explanation:
It does not follow that your proposed equity of value of the unconscious and
conscious' expression and perception more reasonably establishes complete
knowledge.
Explanation:
In Entry 409. I stated that the use of the word ‘different does not dictate
equity of value for the perceiver and perceived. We confront a circularity
here in that the priorities of the competition may have to place reasonableness
over completeness or the reverse in order to position the relative usefulness
of the word ‘value’.
Disputed entirely:
Viz., it does not follow how a commonality of indirect knowledge with the
unconscious and conscious can ‘facilitate understanding’ based on complete
knowledge.
Dispute:
Knowledge of the unconscious by the conscious is only ‘common’ through very
special uses of somnambulism and I have only used the word ‘facilitate’ in
describing how this enables us to know who we are while still being who we are.
Accepted with moderation:
Nor does it follow how you can completely know the perceiver and
perceived cannot completely know the proposed potential oneness of the
unconscious.
Moderation:
The moderation here relates inclusively to the first dispute above. It is
assumed that the oneness of the unconscious relates to external aspects the
unconscious can only know inseparably as itself. From that it can be said that
each, the perceiver and the perceived have their separate unconscious minds
that do perceive the shared oneness.
Disputed entirely:
We do not see a way out for you except by proposing the oneness of the
unconscious and conscious, but that would take you to the
apparent less reasonableness of ex nihilo (i.e. thing-in-itself) than causal
infinity (i.e. something from something ad infinitum). (Note,
Suvas Lukshmikutty in Entries 313, 317, 320 with reference of Schopenhauer
attempts this oneness [of will] approach, but his
position succumbs, among other things, to the contradiction (conceded by
Schopenhauer) between ‘being-known of itself’ and
‘being-in-itself’.)
Dispute:
Our left brains and right brains are quite separate, similar differences to
conscious and unconscious operation."
Chris Brown December 28 2002
It does not follow how you can say one thing is more complete than another thing, without using reason. Viz., to establish more or less completion, one needs to establish the reasons, no matter how insignificant, for the position. To take one’s reasons further, and thereby partly out of relativity, one needs to establish the more or less reasonableness, or the equivalent, of one’s position. However, the inverse reasoning does not apply to more reasonableness because more reasonableness is only contingent on completion through establishing the degree of more or less soundness of one’s position.
To counter that the "value" of the Competition is less reasonable, because more reasonably establishing complete knowledge is less reasonable than more reasonably establishing more complete knowledge, undermines the Competition which is focused on more reasonably determining the completion of self-knowledge. Viz., there is nothing stated in the Competition which says its focus is more reasonable than the focus of other competitions. Also, the more complete knowledge is not necessarily the more valid and usable knowledge, and therefore more complete knowledge’s usability and value is questionable. Furthermore, the value of the Competition depends on one’s perspective. I.e. one could argue that the Competition has a lot of value because it deals with a wide spectrum of human thought, encourages discussion, and has the potential to attain more reasonable complete knowledge or barring that to strengthen the grounds for why complete knowledge is not more reasonably attainable. Yet someone else could argue, as you do, that the Competition would be more useful if it focused on attaining the more complete self-knowledge from our limited perspective rather than on evaluating the more reasonableness of complete self-knowledge. You have a valid point, but it is contingent on the assumption that the more reasonableness of complete self-knowledge is not worth investigating because complete self-knowledge is not more reasonably attainable. Perhaps once this Competition has run its course (September 2004), assuming complete self-knowledge is not more reasonably established in the process, it may be worth continuing the Competition based on the question, more reasonably who are we?
Other issue:
You say "completion of perception occurs every instant", and yet how do you more reasonably know that the perception in the instant is complete, and in what sense is it complete?