| Challenge the Philosophy - Dispute 9 (22-23) |
"When you say that "knowledge is empty of who we are", who is speaking. If it is your knowledge speaking through your language, then according to your model "who we are", our essence, is nothing but a fabrication. In fact every conclusion that you arrive at using your knowledge and reason has, as it's basis the unconscious assertion that your statements have meaning, or that meaning even exists.
If, as you claim, knowledge is empty of who we are then the conclusion of a necessary deconstruction of knowledge, by knowledge would have nothing to do with our being and everything to do with our concepts.
In terms of your model of knowledge we can define some terms:
(knowledge)-> unconscious assertion [meaningless]
(language) -> invention [meaningless]
(being)-> label -> word -> language -> knowledge -> unconscious assertion
[meaningless]
(essence) -> label -> word -> language -> knowledge -> invention [meaningless]
(fabrication) -> -> label -> word -> language -> knowledge -> invention
[meaningless]
(meaning)-> label -> knowledge -> invention [meaningless]
(invention) -> label -> word -> language -> invention [teleological redundancy]
(unconscious assertion)-> label -> word -> language -> knowledge -> unconscious
assertion [(b) in (k)]
Quote: "We can't know something solely through itself." (Response 20)
If you believe that the idea of our existence is not part of "who we are" then "assertion" and "invention" have no basis outside of our knowledge, that is unless you feel these concepts have their origin outside of our bodies.
There is no evidence that our existence through knowledge ie. invention leads in any way to a diminution of our being or any type of absorption into your undefined nothingness. In regards to any species, overpopulation which can be the result of enviromental or emergent genetic factors can unleash what we might consider destruction of an enviroment or even the entire globe.
It would appear that our reliance upon technology is not so important as which
technology we rely on. Technologies which short circuit entropy at the expense of
living systems are the greatest danger to the world. A diverse living system has a
huge capacity to adapt to changes, imposed:
A) At a low level over the entire system over time.
B) At a higher level within small pockets over time.
C) Catastrophically, outside of the regeneration cycle."
Ken Bell February 7 2000
Yes, "who we are" is a fabrication. It is a label for whoever or whatever is behind our existence. (In our view, "inexpressible" is the preferred label in this case, because it attaches the least value to something we can’t even imagine).
The conscious meaning from our unconscious assertion, without prior knowledge or assumption, is a fabrication. In other words, the basis for our conscious meaning is from a blind, ignorant assertion, with no basis except that we assert.
Can we just create conscious meaning by merely asserting that it exists? Yes, we can in a limited sense or fabricated sense. In other words, we can believe whatever we want. Though it does not make sense how we can transfer who we are to something we merely assert, since we ourselves are behind the assertion.
Since we exist through knowledge as a means to exist, and we appear to be the inventors of knowledge, the necessary destruction of knowledge would have to come from us ourselves, or at least through us ourselves.
Additions to our model of knowledge
From a phenomenological view:
(knowledge) -->label --> word --> appearance --> unknown
(language) -->label --> word --> appearance --> unknown
(being) -->label --> word --> appearance --> unknown
(essence) -->label --> word --> appearance --> unknown
(fabrication) -->label --> word --> appearance --> unknown
(meaning) -->label --> word --> appearance --> unknown
(meaningless) -->label --> word --> appearance --> unknown
(invention) -->label --> word --> appearance --> unknown
(who we are) -->label --> word --> appearance --> unknown
(unconscious assertion) -->label --> word --> appearance --> unknown
From an epistemological view:
(knowledge) --> invention --> fabrication --> imagination --> unknown
(language) --> invention --> fabrication --> imagination --> unknown
(being) --> invention --> fabrication --> imagination --> unknown
(essence) --> invention --> fabrication --> imagination --> unknown
(fabrication) --> invention --> fabrication --> imagination --> unknown
(meaning) --> invention --> fabrication --> imagination --> unknown
(meaningless) --> invention --> fabrication --> imagination --> unknown
*(who we are) --> invention --> fabrication --> imagination --> inexpressible
(unconscious assertion) --> invention --> fabrication --> imagination --> unknown
[Limits of knowledge]
The concepts of "assertion" and "invention" are fabricated labels for what appears to be the origin of knowledge. (Of course, these concepts don’t go to the fundamental basis. Though it appears that the basis is something we can never know. (ie. what is behind our assertion)).
Since we can’t get outside of our minds, we must rely on what we know, thereby use reason as our guide. All systems of thoughts have their basis in the reason, including the notion of faith.
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence which suggests that our existence through knowledge and invention causes an absorption of our being into the emptiness of knowledge and invention. For example, the gradual decline, or softening, of our physical bodies (ie. we are losing hair, finger and toe nails, overall physical strength ect.) can be attributed to our existence through knowledge and invention. Also, it can be inferred that the destructive direction of the world (ie. proliferation of lethal arms, overpopulation, environmental degradation, species extinction, economic growth) are signs of a diminution of our being. Moreover, the medical industry, through physicians and pharmacists, for example, appears to be shielding people from their struggle with unconscious nature, thereby overtime weakening them in relation to unconscious nature, which exists direct compared to our species. This shielding process can be applied to all thoughts and material inventions we exist through.
Further, we have significant and vast amounts of evidence that our existence through thoughts and inventions can be destructive to who we are. For instance, the invention of lethal weaponry has had disastrous effects in both society and the world, just as the invention of politics and religion have had as well.
Yes, overpopulation and its natural correction occurs in unconscious nature. Though it does not follow that the problems with our species are the same as unconscious nature, especially since we exist through our minds, and unconscious nature does not.
The difficulty with the claim that our existence through knowledge and invention leads to an absorption of our beings into their emptiness is that there are short-term benefits from them which cloud over the long-term consequences of them. For example, we have evolved and habituated ourselves to existing through thoughts, and even invented a global system which rewards us for our inventions and our ability to use inventions. So the researcher who is inventing a potentially deadly, or at least environmentally harmful, genetically engineered tomato is compensated by the salary she is paid, just as the judge existing though the empty, fabricated law and his empty intellect, is also paid a salary. Further still, the genetic company paying the researcher is rewarded in the marketplace through the market and tax biased government, and uninformed consumer, just as the government behind the judge’s salary is rewarded through having an invented, self-serving legal system to control people. However, the uninformed consumer buying the tomato, and the environment adapting to a genetically altered produce, and the person facing the judge partial to his salary and possible appointment, and his own values and beliefs, and those behind the government appear to represent a glimpse of the long-term consequences.
We agree that some technologies are of greater danger to the world than others. Though we think that there is no such thing as a benign technology. They all infringe on life itself.
Other issues:
Though we assert that knowledge itself is empty of who we are, we do not assert that knowledge, or anything else, is empty or meaningless. We think that even emptiness and meaninglessness have a form of existence, otherwise they would not exist even in our minds. In other words, there is no such thing as emptiness or meaninglessness, except for the illusions that may exist in our minds. So when we assert that knowledge and invention are empty, we mean that they are empty of who we are.
Regarding the origin of knowledge, we look into the unknown through our system(s) of thoughts. Our system(s) of thoughts are a reflection of the unknown. They connect us consciously with the universe in a limited sense, or not at all.
If we ourselves are connected to the so-called universe, what is there to connect to?
If our system(s) of thoughts are a product of invention, it follows that the unknown knowledge is as well.
Does knowledge come before non-knowledge, or the reverse, or are they the same thing?
From our perspective, in order to look into the unknown, we need knowledge. It follows that knowledge / non-knowledge could not have derived from the unknown, because there would be nothing we could know. There must have been a starting place for knowledge: an assertion, and through it, we fabricate new knowledge from the unknown of our imagination. This process creates a limited connection between us and the universe, and takes on more connection within our system(s) of thoughts, and less connection outside of them, the more we attach to our system(s) of thoughts.
From a similar perspective, if our knowledge comes from an "uncollapsed proto-knowledge", it does not follow how we can collapse knowledge, which is unknown to us, without having collapsed knowledge to do it. It follows that uncollapsed knowledge does not exist, except as an illusion.
Collapsed knowledge and uncollapsed knowledge appear to be the same: imagination. So when we acquire new knowledge from our imagination, we are merely adding to our system(s) of thoughts. There is no uncollapsed knowledge nor is there collapsed knowledge. There is our imagined knowledge and unimagined knowledge.
"From my perspective it appears that one of the fundamental issues to be resolved in the progress of our discussion, is whether knowledge and language are based on Invention or Extension. The former being the product of mind and the latter of matter.
The form of emptiness is (not self). If the form of (self) is based on
emptiness, then (self / not self) hold an identity.
A wall of artificiality exists between our thoughts and ourselves, we are not
our thoughts and they are not us, however the same can be said for any other
part of us. This wall is the result of our cognocentricity with respect to
the universe as a whole. So long as we perceive a disconnection between what
we do, and who we are, a distance will separate us from the other. Awareness
is the mirror of matter.
To consider our knowledge and language as somehow separate from our true selves is nothing less than the height of hubris. Our thoughts and our words are part of a single continium which extends beyond the limits of our perception. It is through the enfolding of our individual being, and the universe, that we come to know ourselves.
Existence through means is universal.
There is no existence without a dynamic through which existence is manifest.
In terms of ruminants, (antelope, bison, ...etc.) some dynamics of their
existence are, the ability to coexist in a heard, the ability to digest grass,
the ability to communicate the presence of predators and so on. In terms of
the grass upon which they feed, existence is manifest through the ability to
grow from the leaf base or the ability to push out many competing species,
etc. .
From a limited perspective the buffalo, and the grass exist as separate entities, connected only through the physical absorption of one into the other. From a broader perspective we can see that any ontogenically confined concepts such as, relationship, co-existence or symbiosis are wholly inadequate to describe the (Buffalo / Grass) existence. What we see when watching a heard of buffalo feeding is nothing more than the present manifestation of (Buffalo / Grass) existence. The grass has shaped the ruminant and the ruminant the grass. Their existence is enfolded in such a way as to render any separate definition incomplete.
Using a reductionist approach to divide our perceptions into classes and
categories is a useful way to understand the world. However reductionism
faces its limits, when presented with existence. The concept of definition
requires a basis so that the defined exists as a separate workable entity. We
are that basis.
It is not possible to understand "who we are" in relation to anything outside
of ourselves. Our existence is manifest through our thoughts and actions and
has no meaning beyond the dynamic.
We must take ultimate responsibility for the fruits of our knowledge.
To alienate ourselves from our works is to create, within us a scapegoat, upon
which we can place the blame of suffering. Our concepts, ideologies and
technologies are more than mere invention or extension. They are the outward
manifestation of our inner individual selves. They are no more separate from
us, than the roots and branches are separate from the tree. Existence through
our material extensions, is at first glance a terrifing concept, but to revert
to the point of nihilism is to withdraw ourselves from our existence and our
responsibility. Knowledge and language are not gifts from the gods, their
existence is causally irreducible, they are as much the product of us, as we
are of them. In terms of the globe the collective application of our knowledge
will determine our intertwined fate. Change is inevitable, both for us and the
world. Our task is to plot a course through that change which leads to
ourselves.
To exist within the moment is to let it go."
Ken Bell February 11 2000
How can we be selective in what we believe through reason, and yet be guided by reason? Is it reasonable to be selective? Or could it be a sign of our unwillingness to face things that show doubt about the preservation of our own existence?
However, we could take the position that everything appears to be interconnected, so that there is really no separation between the "buffalo and grass", just as there is no separation between our thoughts and who we are. Though if we carry this reasoning through, there is no separation between anything. So our consciousness, made up of system(s) of "classes and categories", is really an illusion. In other words, what we know is not what really is. We have a choice: either to accept our conscious divisions or not accept them. If we accept them, we face the dilemma that our thoughts themselves, and their material extensions, appear empty of who we are, which leads to detachment from our minds. If we don’t accept them, we detach from our minds. So both choices lead to detachment from our minds. We are entrapped because to ignore these choices, by attaching to the concept of interconnectedness is contradictory.
Again we ask: Can we be selective in what we believe through reason? Regardless of the consequences, we answer a resounding no. To answer yes appears to be a sure sign of our demise.
Other issues:
Knowledge and language appear to be based on extension and invention at the same time. For example, they appear to be an extension of who we are and unconscious sensory in the form of invention.
How can the form of self be based on emptiness? Either it itself is a form of emptiness or it is not.
Self and non-self hold identities in our minds. Since they are both mere labels with unknown bases, it does not make sense that they are inherently different. Added to this point, it does not make sense how one thought (self) could be based inherently on another thought (non-self).
If we don’t know who we are, we really don’t know what we do, and further, what we think we do is not really what we ourselves are doing.
To consider our knowledge and language the same, and separate from who we are is the height of rationality. It is to turn reason on itself and face it for what it is in relation to who we are.
Do we really know ourselves through the unfolding of our individual beings and the universe, or do we know a fabricated conception of who we are? Since we can’t know infinity, how can we really know anything? Since we need separation from ourselves to know ourselves, how can we know ourselves through ourselves?
We can distinguish who we are from our thoughts themselves through our thoughts. What makes this work is that we are behind our thoughts.
Yes, it is not our thoughts, and their material extensions, which are to blame for the problems with our existence. We are to blame for existing through thoughts, and their material extensions, and the effects of doing so.
Though our thoughts, and their material extensions, are an inseparable part of us through evolution, it does not follow that our existence through them is to our long-term benefit, nor does it follow that we cannot through transition, exist without them.
Just because existence through means, or dynamics, is universal, it does not follow that our existence through thoughts is beneficial to us ourselves in the long-term. In other words, just because we exist through something, it does not make sense that it will benefit us in the long-term. For instance, we may exist through a vacine contaminated with a virus, and end up contracting cancer, or we may exist through a gun, and end up unnecessarily harming other people.
What responsibility do we have when we know that through thoughts, and their material extensions, we are destroying ourselves? Why are we, as a society and world, beyond our own fundamental criticism of ourselves?
To accept the reality of our existence is different from withdrawing from our existence, just as to face the contradiction of our existence through thoughts, and their material extensions, is different from ignoring the contradiction. To return to unconscious nature, through a realization that we taken ourselves off course, is not to revert to the "point of nihilism", but to return to us ourselves and our place in the delicate balance between life and death.
Knowledge is a product of us because we invent it. We are a product of knowledge because we exist through it. We are a product of ourselves.
To plot a course with any reliability, we must have a theory of knowledge which can stand the scrutiny of our reason. To not do so, is to plot a course without really knowing where we are going or why we are going.
Since the "uncollapsed proto-knowledge" does not stand to reason (Response 22), where does knowledge itself come from? Is it a mere product of our assertion and invention, or could there be something behind it that allows us to make conscious connections with the universe? What connections is there to make, if we ourselves are part of the universe? What connections could there really be when we appear to invent them? How can we make a connection to the so-called universe without first having knowledge to make the connection or to collapse the uncollapsed knowledge?
The fundamental issue we face is not whether knowledge is based on invention through mind or based on extension through matter, because invention is based on extension through matter as well as its form of existence. The fundamental issue is whether knowledge is really a source of truth or an invention with a limited sense of truth.
How can knowledge be an extension of matter, and invention an extension of knowledge and matter when, from our perspective, we can’t have matter and knowledge without invention, just as we can’t have invention without knowledge and matter?
Could matter and knowledge exist beyond invention? We answer no, because in one sense, matter and knowledge are labels with invented meaning, which brings us to the dilemma that we can’t get outside of our minds and know that we are. Therefore, everything in our minds, including matter and knowledge, must be inventions with limited connections to whatever is outside of our minds. To assert otherwise is to fabricate what we cannot know and to contradict what we do know. So the laws of science, for example, are limited connections to outside of our minds through our advanced system(s) of invented thoughts.
Dispute 9 (20-21)
Dispute 9 (24-25)