| Challenge the Philosophy - Disputes 31-35 |
Dispute of the response to Entry 411
"Accepted:
It does not follow how you can say one thing is more complete than another
thing, without using reason.
Augmented:
In order to establish potential completion the process of quantification must
be reasoned.
Accepted:
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.
Disputed:
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.
Dispute:
The combination of words ‘More reasonable’ is almost apples and oranges in.
Reasonableness, attempts, without adding more reasons, (other issues) to make
an existing reason greater. In addition the soundness of one’s position can be
established by usage without regard to completion making the quantification of
knowledge insignificant. In our day to day lives the quantity of knowledge can
easily not be what it was the day before but still be more than sufficient for
robust usefulness today. The concept of time and the inconsistencies of mental
events must be applied to the word ‘complete’ in order to be reasonable.
The challenge:
In concise words, tell us how the idea that we cannot [more reasonably] truly
know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time can be overcome.
The challenge requests definition of methodology for the ideation process by where we might not be able to know who we are, in part or in whole, as we are being of the same time. The challenge does indicate that the portion and total do not occur simultaneously. The knowing of who we are more reasonably does not indicate that completion is an element, which is wholly reasonable. The method that the conscious knows with proper uses of somnambulism is indirectly known or phrased, knowing ‘of’, who we are for a period of our lives. The usefulness of the knowledge determines after the use, during the time of evaluation, the factor of quantification. It is personal and complex to the many essential areas of our spiritual and emotional existence. The completion is only knowable by the one who is knowing who they are while living what they know by following the process in time for the right reasons. The knowing ‘of’, over time, is comprised of a complex set of feelings that are primarily indirectly known then directly, not simultaneous unless a form of expression is engaged whereupon the feelings guide autonomic complexity or the emotional flavor of expression while the conscious knowledge manifests the precise wordings. Music has this quality. Shall I play you a song to answer the challenge?
The role of the perceiver benefits from this duality and more rapidly and completely perceives the expression.
Disputed:
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.
The challenge:
In concise words, tell us how the idea that we cannot [more reasonably] truly
know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time can be overcome.
The effort to establish ‘more complete’ exceeds the stated criteria of the competition. The word ‘or’ in whole provides ‘partial’ as an alternative, which is more reasonable considering the totality of the self is patently unknowable in one moment.
Accepted:
Viz., there is nothing stated in the Competition which says
it is more reasonable than other competitions.(The omitted disclaimer shrewdly
inversed.)
Accepted:
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.
Accepted:
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,
Disputed:
and has the potential to attain more reasonable complete knowledge
When usable knowledge profoundly filling a void is overlooked, then forgotten in a quest for completion, the folly is apparent.
Accepted with moderation:
or barring that to strengthen the grounds for why complete knowledge is not
more reasonably attainable.
Moderation:
The attainment of such a quantity of knowledge based on the use of a mental
modality not generally recognized (somnambulism) is the actuality of completion
but is contained in areas of indirect knowledge sensed as relating to the
meanings of being who we are while knowing who we are.
Accepted with explanation:
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.
Explanation:
The limits of the conscious mind are exceeded well before an adequate quantity
of knowledge concerning the self is assimilated to a degree that could be
termed ‘complete’. The usage of reasonable knowledge from our limited
perspective, to increase the indirectly known aspects of ourselves, contributes
usefully to something that is more complete.
Disputed:
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.
Dispute:
The alternations of direct and knowledge gained from the unconscious as
indirect, constantly pushing the limits of our conscious knowing with indirect
knowledge ‘of’ who we are increases dynamics to consciousness and therefore
more product of reasonable investigation as the knowable quantity increases.
At this juncture it should be noted that other knowledge, not of the self, may
fall off the edge of conscious access and substantially decrease the quantity
of truly useful knowledge to the self thus impeding the self in its fundamental
purposes. To be certain, ignorance is bliss but that is not all we need to
know."
Chris Brown January 1 2003
Since you acknowledge that "the totality of the self is patently unknowable in one moment", you implicitly acknowledge that we cannot more reasonably truly know and be who we are at the same time. To get around this acknowledgement, you contend that the proposition refers to both partial knowledge and whole knowledge of who we are, so that by merely establishing more reasonable partial knowledge of who we are, the proposition can be overcome or in your words, "... The challenge does indicate that the portion and total do not occur simultaneously. The knowing of who we are more reasonably does not indicate that completion is an element, which is wholly reasonable." However, you are overlooking that the proposition refers to both true part knowledge and true whole knowledge, and since true part knowledge in order to be considered complete requires true whole knowledge as well, true part knowledge and true whole knowledge are simultaneous. You may wonder why we even make the distinction between part and whole, and the answer is we have done so for the sake of clarity, especially in regard to empiricists who may think that though they do not truly know all of themselves, and they truly know part of themselves.
To get around your acknowledgement in another way, you contend that the Competition is "folly" in its quest for completion. Viz., if you are correct that complete knowledge is "patently unknowable", then any quest for complete knowledge without entailing the quest for usable knowledge is nonsensical. What you overlook is that it is possible to completely know, and therefore the Competition, if the proposition is overcome, could result in usable knowledge, and even if the proposition is not overcome, it will result in usable knowledge. I.e. the knowledge that our identity is defined more reasonably by our inability to truly know our identity, which in turn may be used to shape our outlook. We do not see how you can refute this position, because knowledge of our more reasonable inability to truly know who we are is both knowledge of who we are and usable knowledge of who we are.
The argument you could make is that the Competition is inconsistent, because it requires internally that the concept of more reasonableness be the criteria of things, but the Competition itself does not face the same requirement. Viz., it does not necessarily follow that the focus of the Competition itself is more reasonable, and nor is it required that it is. This argument appears to be a problem, but as mentioned in the response to Entry 411, the Competition does not claim its focus is more reasonable, nor does it necessarily follow that the internal requirement of a system has to be applied to the system itself in order to maintain consistency.
Dispute of the response to Entry 412
"I had missed this ‘Other issue’ at the end of 411 Entry and address it here.
Other issue: (411 Entry)
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?
Indirect perceptions are what they are and willful efforts to increase them have limited gain. To commit much time to doing so very quickly becomes unreasonable hence the approach to knowing with sourcing of knowledge direct from the unconscious with somnambulism and devising ways to make it conscious so it may work with direct knowledge within the self as it arrives to optimize the satisfaction of life. Direct perceptions are filtered by the unconscious and so are not easily increased when a limit is unconsciously applied.
Request:
It appears that a common symantical vagary is clouding our more reasonable
knowing of how we might truly know ourselves in part or in whole. Accordingly
it seems reasonable at this point that the competition focus on the meaning of
the word ‘truly’. Our reasoning has traversed the qualities of; quantity and
has settled somewhat the temporal question in that the simultaneous aspect of
knowing is achieved by combinations of indirect with direct perceptions.
Disputes, 412 Entry:
Accepted with moderation:
Since you acknowledge that ‘the totality of the self is patently unknowable in
one moment’, you implicitly acknowledge that we
cannot more reasonably truly know and be who we are at the same time.
Moderation:
Yes in the moment where indirect knowledge of who we are transforms into direct
consciously accessed knowledge. Afterwards an increased conscious direct
experience of knowing occurs. This lasts for a few days as this is the
threshold for memory that addressees immediate needs. Ironically here, the
individual who is attempting to know themselves more reasonably and still be as
themselves actually has no immediate reasonable need to do so. The entire
effort is the product of compulsive desire for self knowledge and control.
The increases of indirect information continue until suddenly so much
unconscious knowledge has become conscious, that at a point, intermittently for
three days, the person subjectively cannot help but know, increasingly, of who
they are, while the action of doing so is manifesting exactly who they are.
Knowing and being simultaneously the same person in short periods. Since the
activity is not a need but a deep desire, the Ego accepts the activity as need
then the Id allows the activity to momentarily dominate the mental being on
a selectively filtered level. More on this at the end of the disputes.
Accepted with augmentation:
‘To get around this acknowledgement, you contend that.... by establishing
more reasonable partial knowledge of who we are, the proposition can be
overcome....’
Explanation:
The moderation to the first dispute addresses this fact of existential limit to
our existence.
Disputed with moderation:
However, you are overlooking that the proposition refers to both true part
knowledge and true whole knowledge, and since true part knowledge in order to
be considered complete requires true whole
knowledge as well,....
Moderation:
Consciously knowing of the complete aspects of partial knowledge by indirect
perception of intuition, feelings, allow us to accumulate factual basis. This
relates to the way time and knowledge of ourselves, accumulated as the Id makes
its way through a quest it cannot complete because it cannot reason, and the
Ego has only the facts the Id allows it until it can reason deeply enough, with
relation to the Ids purposes, to make it understand. The more indirect
knowledge of oneself released by the Id becomes knowable in the way the Id
demands but cannot provide itself.
Accepted with relation to first moderation and the above:
true part knowledge and true whole knowledge are simultaneous. You may wonder
why we even make the distinction between part and whole, and the answer is we
have done so for the sake of clarity, especially in regard to empiricists who
may think that though they do not truly know all of themselves, and they truly
know part of themselves.
Disputed:
To get around your acknowledgement in another way, you contend that the
Competition is ‘folly’ in its quest for completion.
Dispute:
The quest for completion is only folly when knowledge useful to more completely
knowing in the long term is ignored to enable a completion fulfilling a short
term fear or desire. Dissociative actions of memory are the main tool of the
Id to deprive the Ego as it tries to reason its way into an understanding that
might control the Id for its own purposes.
Accepted with moderation:
Viz., if you are correct that complete knowledge is ‘patently unknowable’, then
any quest for complete knowledge without entailing the quest for usable
knowledge is nonsensical.
Moderation:
The quest for complete knowledge directly in a single moment or even contiguous
moments is not within human mental capability. Indirect knowledge, strong
emotions and spiritual movements provide a very adequate ‘background’ for
knowledge of the self.
Disputed:
What you overlook is that it is possible to completely know,
Dispute:
Direct complete knowledge of who we are is not possible, indirect knowledge,
not fitting the strict criteria of ‘completion’ makes a sense of ‘completion’
felt.
Accepted without refute:
and therefore the Competition, if the proposition is overcome, could result in
usable knowledge, and even if the proposition is not overcome, it will result
in usable knowledge. I.e. the knowledge that our identity is defined more
reasonably by our inability to truly know our identity, which in turn may be
used to shape our outlook. We do not see how you can refute this position,
because knowledge of our more reasonable inability to truly know who we are is
both knowledge of who we are and usable knowledge of who we are.
Accepted with augmentation:
The argument you could make is that the Competition is inconsistent, because it
requires internally that the concept of more reasonableness be the criteria of
things, but the Competition itself does not face the same requirement. Viz., it
does not necessarily follow that the focus of the Competition itself is more
reasonable, and nor is it required that it is. This argument appears to be a
problem, but as mentioned in the response to Entry 411, the Competition does
not claim its focus is more reasonable, nor does it necessarily follow that the
internal requirement of a system has to be applied to the system itself in
order to maintain consistency.
It is understood that the word sequence ‘more reasonable’ has greater productive potential in the Competition’s execution. Complete, or more complete is stretching beyond a fit, the words applicability. More reasonable provides options for increased understanding. If we work to describe here how we might know ourselves, in our many hidden aspects, many of them totally unneeded to know, we will first reasonably identify those and accept them for that, then move on. This is the ‘more and more’ aspect rightfully enabled by the Competition. It is my perspective that the philosophical aspects of who we are; as can be identified in a way that will not be expressed with meaning that then changes us in the next minute of existence; becomes a distillation of our intentions in their infinitely increasing totality. Reasonably if intentions are not engaged initially, in the definition of how we might know ourselves more reasonably, the effort loses reasonableness. Who we are, becomes, why we are. Establishing this sets a foundation, a place to continue building agreement of of less vital aspects of who we are or why."
Chris Brown January 12 2003
You contend that there is a direct relationship between the unconscious and conscious through the act of somnambulism, but then later on in your reply you say that "direct complete knowledge is not possible" and "the quest for complete knowledge directly in the single moment or even contiguous moments is not within our mental capability." So we must rule out somnambulism as a means for attaining direct complete knowledge, especially since we have already established an indirect relationship between the unconscious and conscious through somnambulism. 1
From this position, you contend that "direct perceptions are filtered by the unconscious", or in other words, the unconscious itself is a source of direct complete knowledge, and that through the indirect transfer of the knowledge from the unconscious to the conscious, we can attain "an adequate background for knowledge of the self". Added to your argument, you propose that "intentions" must be included in an understanding of ourselves, otherwise our effort to know who we are loses reasonableness. Hence, by adding the notion of "intentions" you have established a one-way bridge between the unconscious and conscious.
Though it is unclear from our causal perspective, how our unconscious can more reasonably be a source of direct, complete perceptions or knowledge. What are the grounds for the direct, complete knowledge of the unconscious?
Also, even if we accept "intentions" as a necessary aspect of knowing who we are, it does not necessarily follow that "intentions" equate with complete knowledge, which takes us back to the unconscious itself and your grounds for its direct, complete knowledge? Yet because of the established indirect relation between the unconscious and conscious, it does not matter if you can more reasonably show the direct, complete knowledge of the unconscious. Therefore, your knowledge of who we are is limited to incomplete knowledge which may be more reasonably valid within limits, but that issue is outside of the confines of the Competition which is focused on the more reasonableness of complete self-knowledge versus incomplete self-knowledge.
_______________________
1. For example in Entry 404, you clearly define the epistemic limits of somnambulism: "knowing in the sense of the word as it has been used I assume means conscious knowledge. Somnambulism is used along with post hypnotic instruction that exploits phylogenetic instinct to create a motive to dissolve the barrier between the conscious and the unconscious and make a part of the past unconscious consciously available. Since consciously we are not static and the conscious through cognition alters the meaning of information the subconscious gains through the perceptions, the resulting ‘knowing’ is imperfect. However it has sufficient accuracy to state that we truly know who we are because the unconscious is still 99% as it was."
Dispute of the response to Entry 429
"What you describe as ‘the notion of completeness’ as being the obstacle to a solution is precisely what I intended by ‘metaphysical dualism’. As long as it is assumed that such completeness (or absoluteness) is required in both being or knowing, no solution is possible.
The claim that a solution is possible because ‘from our limited perspective possibility precedes impossibility, because in order for there to be impossibility there must be the possibility of it’ is irrelevant. The fact that impossibility is possible has no bearing at all on the question of whether reconciling knowing and being is possible or impossible, since it is this we are discussing rather than the notion of impossibility. That the notion of impossibility is logically dependent on that of possibility does not establish that any other particular claim is not impossible. This can be seen clearly by considering the absurd implications if it did, for if the possibility of impossibility also entailed that this proposition is possible to resolve, it would also entail that any other proposition was possible and nothing impossible. The terms ‘possible’ and ‘impossible’ would be entirely robbed of the meaning they gain by being distinguishable from one another.
It thus seems that in ‘the notion of completeness in the context of simultaneity of being and knowing appears to be the main obstacle to overcoming the proposition’ my point about the impossibility of overcoming the proposition in the absolute terms in which it is stated is in fact conceded on any reasonable interpretation of the term ‘impossibility’."
Robert Ellis May 22 2003
We agree that though impossibility is logically dependent on possibility, this dependency does not establish that any other particular claim is possible. Viz., there is a possibility of impossibility. So we are left, for example, with the possibility of a proposition including the possibility of its impossibility. However, to take that position and say as you appear to do that we must allow for outright impossibility of some propositions is inconsistent with the incomplete nature of human perspective which results in possibility preceding impossibility.
Also, by limiting impossibility by its possibility would not "rob", as you contend, the meaning gained by the distinction between possibility and impossibility. Rather, the meaning of the distinction would simply be limited to possibility and the (more reasonable) reasons for the possibility or (near) impossibility of a proposition. For you to argue that impossibility should be disconnected from its possibility is to view impossibility with completeness (or absoluteness) which as mentioned is inconsistent with human perspective itself. Hence, it appears to us that the so-called reasonable interpretation of impossibility ought to be limited by impossibility's possibility, which in the context of the Challenge Proposition would likely be translated into the Proposition being more reasonably nearly impossible to overcome due to a slight opening (or possibility) stemming from the incomplete nature of human perspective.
In short, for your argument to overcome the proposition you need to more reasonably establish the complete impossibility of overcoming the proposition. Though you have conceded this completeness is not more reasonably attainable; so you are left with at best establishing the near impossibility of overcoming the proposition, which falls short of invalidating the Competition, because there is an opening no matter how miniscule to overcome the proposition. To argue as mentioned that possibility and impossibility would loose their relational and reasonable meaning by limiting impossibility to its possibility is correct and incorrect: the relational meaning would simply account for possibility preceding impossibility, and the notion of impossibility disconnected from possibility would be more reasonably connected to it.
In the context of overcoming the proposition, near impossibility is more reasonable than impossibility.
Dispute of the response to Entry 439
"As consciousness is all that exists, it is the only 'knower', as well as all that can be known.
Similarly, consciousness is the only thinker, and when it thinks, its thoughts become objective to it, and are identical to it. Those thoughts in turn constitute the 'Instance of Its Revelation', of 'Its Being'. Consequently, 'we are those thoughts'.
The premise and its conclusion are supported by evidence given, of the point at which 'time-space' intersect. It is incontrovertible, irrespective of how much we philosophize it or think about it.
Contrary to what we may presume(from our limited perception), it is the explicit completeness of the premise we are compelled to assume, that sustains the logical soundness of its conclusion."
protomutant October 8 2003
Since we apparently cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are, all we can know is what we know. (Viz., consciousness is all that fundamentally exists from our perspective.) However, it is unclear how this premise compels us to assume its explicit completion, when it is conceded in the premise that we apparently cannot get outside our minds, and further for example our knowledge, including our knowledge of consciousness, is subject to infinite regress and defined by comparison.
What is the source of the compellability, and what is explicitly complete about the premise? (Note, by using the word "all" does not necessarily and more reasonably mean the premise is complete. The word "all" and the rest of the premise needs to be more reasonably shown to be complete.)
What more reasonable grounds do you have to assert that the Committee and all participants in the Competition are compelled to assume that "consciousness is all that exists" is explicitly complete?
Dispute of the response to Entry 440
"The premise indicates precisely the opposite of 'infinite regress' to be true.
From our 'limited perception', it is the recognition, demonstration, and 'conscious application' of this 'knowledge of ourselves' which shows our 'potential to be', as being unlimited.
'Infinite progress' as defined by comparison in relation to the premise, with respect to any part of the whole, is determined merely by the freedom, which 'conscious choice' presents.
Evolution of the part within the whole of 'Itself' is in other words, only dependent upon the 'conscious application' of that knowledge of ourselves, of that which is so.
The premise concurs that the 'part' is neither required to, nor can it know, outside of 'Itself', or the whole in which it exists.
Given that the condition of our existence is conscious, the station of our 'conscious being', is the point of that existence 'Itself'.
As the natural evidence of our existence is conscious of itself, its totality is naturally described by what we term consciousness.
That 'we are consciousness' is the simultaneous equivalent of the 'existence that we are'. The source of the compulsion is the presentation of the constitutional predisposition of mind, as that consciousness which is 'being itself'.
Diversification is neither intended nor implied by the use of the word "all" in the premise. It simply refers to the singularity of consciousness, as being the totality of existence.
Whereas no conscious being anywhere(including the Committee and all participants in the Competition), can ever deny the omni-presence, of the intersection of time-space - the philosophical conclusion of the premise is explicitly complete, and the proposition is more reasonably overcome."
protomutant October 11 2003
Your position that we (i.e. humanity) is fundamentally defined by consciousness, which you equate to "being itself" or "the existence that we are". Therefore, according to your position, you can more reasonably truly (i.e. completely) know who we are because everything we know, a part of (human) consciousness and thereby being itself, is who we are. You defend this position by claiming that consciousness is "omni-present" (viz., "an intersection of time-space") and the apparent the infinite nature of consciousness, and thereby conscious choice.
As stated in the response to Entry 440, we agree within the limit of what we know, that we cannot get outside of human consciousness nor can we exist without some form of consciousness. So in a limited (or incomplete) sense, consciousness may be viewed as "omni-present" in terms of our existence. Moreover, we agree that from our limited perspective, there is no conceivable end to human thought; so we agree with your equation of infinity with human consciousness.
However, the problem with your position is that you define human beings as ends themselves (or beings themselves), when based on the apparent interconnected/interactive nature of existence, we are more reasonably not beings themselves, except in a limited, crude, but necessary sense.1 Also, you present no epistemological defense of your position, and instead you rely solely on an assumed (universal) intuitive correctness (or more reasonableness) of your position. Again as mentioned in the response to Entry 440, it is unclear to us why every (functioning) human being would be compelled to believe the explicit completeness of your position, which links to the problem with being itself. Further, it is unclear to us what "compellability" has to do with more reasonableness. The Competition is not a question of being compelled, but a task of presenting the more reasonable reasons for or against the proposition. So we ask, what epistemological support do you have for your position, and how do you more reasonably overcome our criticism of your notion of "being itself"?
______________________
1. It is more reasonably inconceivable in our view, how our consciousness could make sense to ourselves without crudely distinguishing ourselves from each other and all other things.