| Challenge the Philosophy - Dispute 9 (24-25) |
"To accept interconnectedness does not necessitate the detachment from our minds. The identity of forms is not an intrinsic function of the forms themselves. Any separation of, this from that, is a projection of our individual conditioned perceptions and responses. This includes the concept of reason, the patterened way through which we create reality. To be selective through reason is to turn reason inward, upon itself. A "dark night of the soul" if you will. It is only through the realization that reason is only a part of our existence and not the defining form of it, that detachment from reason is possible.
The interconnectedness of individuals (which in itself is a type of oxymoron) is a function of our existence. Any contrived institutions which serve to facilitate this interconnectedness must inevitably create an artificial separation. Further they must do it at the expense of a living system. That living system is us, ourselves. We therefore become entangled within our contrivances and lose sight of the genuine unity that we share. To deconstruct reason through reason is to create being through awareness.
The choice that faces us is to determine the means through which existence is manifest. I agree that contrived existence is recursive, thats why a dynamic critique of the means through which existence is manifest is so important. We must question everything. If we, by any means, remove our ability to question, then we become doomed to repeat the cycle of conditioned existence.
We can't expect our species to continue in its present form, nor should we. Change is inevitable and acceptance is the only reasonable response. The concept of our long term survival is nothing more than a projection of the individual realization of death. To see death as an end is once again, a form of cognocentricity. Our existence is here, now, and needs not be defined extrinsically. The balance between our unconscious nature and our conscious affirmation exists through our deeds. It is only through the unity of thought and action that conscious realization of being exists.
Proto-knowledge is a necessary by-product of superposition. I make no claim that it exists as the basis of everything that we know. The connection that exists between our bodies and everything else is a conduit through which structured energy (information) flows both ways. What we know is the conscious categorization of a portion of this information with respect to ourselves. Superposition extends this process to a function of (matter/energy) itself, and therefore avoids unworkable inexpressibilities. Proto-knowledge exists as a function of our unrealized interconnectedness. The (creation/discovery) of new knowledge is the collapse of a portion of this proto-knowledge. The function of memory is to record a symbolic representation of the collapse in terms of a lingustic context. With this in mind, knowledge itself exists as a function of our entire being and not just our minds.
Truth is where you find it.
The concept of invention is itself an invention and is therefore unsuited to explain itself. We are once again within the realm of self referencing sets which has already been addressed in (Reply 20, P1) and (Reply 21, P2)"
Ken Bell February 16 2000
For "proto-knowledge" to be accepted as the bridge between our minds, and who we are, and everything else, we need to know how proto-knowledge, an appearance in our minds, bridges the gap, and how it bridges the gap with what really is. The difficulty, and perhaps impossibility of answering these questions, is that we cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are. So it appears that we have no way of identifying the bridge, and its nature, between our minds, and who we are, and everything else. If we turn to our knowledge and reason to identify it, we face the invented nature of knowledge, so that the bridge between our minds and everything else appears to be imagination.
We could counter that "the concept of invention is itself an invention and is therefore unsuited to explain itself" (Reply 24). Though this position only reconfirms the limits of what we know. Also, because we can’t know something solely through itself, we can never fully explain knowledge itself. Hence, the concept of invention, and unconscious assertion, though limited like all knowledge, from our perspective is a reasonable explanation for the origin of knowledge. So the dilemma we still face is whether through our unconscious sensory we have conscious connection to everything else, or through our unconscious sensory we have a limited conscious connection to everything else.
As far as we know, we label and invent knowledge according to our unconscious sensory and system(s) of thoughts. Further, we know that our knowledge could not have come from "proto-knowledge" because there would be no knowledge to collapse it. Finally, the concept of unconscious assertion, as a limited and reasonable explanation of the origin of knowledge, has not been refuted.
We agree that by us existing through thoughts, we have a limited conscious realization of being, though only within our evolved state.
The "unity of thought and action" may be considered an illusion, because to have a thought may be just as much an action as acting out the thought.
By deconstructing reason through reason, how do we create "being through awareness"? Also, how can we create who we are when who we are is behind the creation? It appears that to deconstruct reason through reason is merely to evolve a new state of being through awareness.
If we remove our ability to question, we could have safeguards, or reminders, in place which may prevent our return to our "conditioned existence". Moreover, the notion of returning to the "cycle of conditioned existence" does not make sense, because we appear to be always moving forward. And if we overcome our existence through thoughts, it does not follow that we would return to it.
Comments:
We agree wholeheartedly with the following statements:
"It is only through the realization that reason is only a part of our existence and not the defining form of it, that detachment from reason is possible."
"We therefore become entangled within our contrivances and lose sight of the genuine unity that we share."
"We can't expect our species to continue in it's present form, nor should we. Change is inevitable and acceptance is the only reasonable response."
Although the definition of knowledge exists within ourselves, the origin of knowledge is us ourselves. We exist consciously and unconsciously in contiguity with everything else. Awareness is the collapse of a portion of that contiguity into oneness, thus changing our self and the other. The realization of who we are can only be through the awareness of our being, not our selfs. Although these words may convey meaning and direction, they are only words and are, in and of themselves empty. The meaning comes from our shared existence. So it is with our being. To find out who we are, look to the gods.
The concept of the cycle of conditioned existence is in many ways similar to the idea of existence through material extensions. The major similarity being a lack of awareness.
Without going too far afield, the human capacity of reflection (ie. question the question) is by nature recursive and can't be bounded or contained in any fragmentary way. In fact the expansive nature of reflection and its repercussions are, in a fundamental way, at the root of ourselves. The expansion of any safeguards or reminders could only result in subjugation and a return to a blind alley. We cannot impose any perceived order from outside because there is no outside. We exist within ourselves and any lasting change comes solely from here. It's not necessary to get outside of ourselves, we are the mirror.
I agree that a thought is an action. However, the continuity of thought and action has, through language, been polarized by definition, albeit to greater or lesser degrees depending on the culture. The discontinuity that exists between them often results in ideotypes, inconsistent with the greater context. Since this greater context is generated at the limits of our individual perceptions, the discontinuity of thought and action must be seen as naturally occurring. We, as individuals and as a species, are no more bounded by this than by any other instinct. In fact the concept of freedom is a crude first attempt at reuniting thought and action. The idea however falls far short when dealing with dynamic interactions, such as group behaviour, or changing context. The transference of our infantile needs and expectations onto ideotypes is the price we pay for our alleged freedom. The concept of freedom can only be reasonably replaced by our intrinsic responsibility to ourselves."
Ken Bell February 20 2000
More on proto-knowledge and its implications:
Knowledge is an extension of matter in a limited sense (ie. we need unconscious sensory, or unconscious connection to matter, to know).
Knowledge can’t have a direct connection to matter, because matter is part of our knowledge, so there is no direct connection to matter. Knowledge can’t have a direct connection to the unknown behind our minds for the same reason. Though if we accept that there is something(s) behind our minds, how can knowledge be directly connected to it through our unconscious sensory? What is this process of making this connection? How can our knowledge be what really is when we cannot know infinity; we cannot know something solely through itself; we cannot know interconnected life-forms? Where does our knowledge come from if knowledge is not an invention?
How could knowledge exist in our minds if it is not an invention? If knowledge is an invention, how could it be an "extension of matter"?
Knowledge’s only extension of matter is through us in the sense that we invent from our unconscious sensory. So in a limited sense, knowledge is an extension of matter.
Invention in relation to previous inventions, or system(s) of thoughts, appears to be the link between our unconscious sensory and knowledge.
If knowledge is a conception of the mind, it does not follow how it could come from the universe and then through our unconscious sensory.
How do we collapse non-knowledge without having knowledge?
How does our unconscious sensory connect with matter and transfer matter’s knowledge to us?
Our unconscious sensory and thought process give us the ability to apply limited labels and meanings to things around us.
If knowledge comes from matter in the form of proto-knowledge, where does indirect knowledge in the form of knowledge from knowledge come from? It could be an extension of proto-knowledge, though this possibility does not correlate to the notion that knowledge is derived through our sensory connection to matter.
Proto-knowledge is a fabrication of what we cannot know. Since we cannot collapse proto-knowledge without knowledge, it follows that proto-knowledge is imaginary. In other words, we cannot have proto-knowledge without knowledge, and yet we cannot have knowledge without proto-knowledge. Since proto-knowledge comes before knowledge, we would have no way to collapse it. Therefore, there is no such thing as proto-knowledge, except in our minds.
Moreover, if proto-knowledge is unknown, we have no way of identifying it, since it comes through our UNCONSCIOUS sensory, and as soon as we know, we don’t know proto-knowledge. So the concept of proto-knowledge is unknowable. However, since the concept does not stand up to our reason, we conclude that proto-knowledge only exists as an illusion.
We are left with unconscious assertion as a limited explanation of the origin of knowledge, which correlates with your statement that "the origin of knowledge is us ourselves". However, it does not follow how the collapses of system(s) of thoughts on numerous levels corresponds to "the collapse of a portion of our contiguity with everything else". Could it be that through the dynamic unfolding of system(s) of thoughts, changes to the system(s) and ourselves occur in relation to everything else, and further, everything else, (including ourselves and our system(s) of thoughts), changes in various degrees in relation to the various collapses and non-collapses of the numerous parts of the whole, and the collapse and non-collapse of the whole itself?! So our existence appears to come from our interconnectedness with all life-forms and things. Also, the delicate and infinitely complex balance of preserving the basis of life in collapse and non-collapse reality appears best performed by unconscious nature. This latter point takes back to the dilemma that by us, as a species, existing through thoughts and their material extensions, we are gradually collapsing ourselves and all other life-forms into the emptiness of our thoughts and material extensions. This unnatural, accelerated, conscious collapse of finite life-forms and things is best illustrated by our devouring of many other life-forms, the planet itself, and each other through increasingly newer and more powerful material extensions (ie. technologies). The effects of our destructive way can be shown through the deterioration of water, air, soil, and life-forms, and the proliferation of increasingly deadly weaponry (nuclear, biological, chemical, conventional, propaganda, sanctions, economic growth). If we act out "our intrinsic responsibility to ourselves", and thereby to everything else, and it has lasting effect, we must face the root of our crisis: our existence through thoughts.
We face what appears to be a terrifying fall from great height: either we continue on with our self-destructive existence through thoughts, whereby the planet is becoming less conducive to life and the world more deadly, or we overcome our weakness for thoughts by existing unconsciously and face the dangerous risks involved with such a move. Do we have a choice? Can we turn our backs on the root of our crisis, while knowing that our lives will only become increasingly unbearable and inhuman? NO. We must look to the hope we have: to overcome our weakness while we have a chance, if it is not too late. For those of us who have doubt about detachment, we ask you to consider the claim that reason and knowledge, mere products of our unconscious assertion that there is conscious meaning, are "only parts of our existence and not the defining forms of it". We make this claim from a broad perspective rather than a narrow one, or our modern, evolved state whereby thoughts, and their material extensions, are becoming more and more the defining form of it. Hence, detachment from thoughts would require a gradual transition entailing many hundreds of years; and therefore, we face the risk that if we wait too late to make the transition, none of our species may be able to survive it.
Our hope lies in overcoming our weakness for thoughts without destroying ourselves at the same time.
Other issues:
Just because the origin of knowledge appears to be us ourselves, it does not follow that knowledge itself is the same as us ourselves. Knowledge appears to be an extension of us ourselves in a limited sense.
Besides the "unconscious assertion" theory of knowledge, is there another reasonable theory of knowledge we may be overlooking?
We think that the "transference of our infantile needs and expectations onto ideotypes" is only one price we pay for our alleged freedom. For instance, we pay with our lives.
Comments:
We think your statements below are very good:
"The concept of the cycle of conditioned existence is in many ways similar to the idea of existence through material extensions. The major similarity being a lack of awareness."
"The expansive nature of reflection and it's repercussions are, in a fundamental way, at the root of ourselves."
Dispute 9 (22-23)
Dispute 9 (26-28)