| Challenge the Philosophy - Dispute 9 (29-31) |
"Knowledge is clearly distinct from the self. Human culture is the evidence. Although the individual person can (create/discover) new knowledge, it is always within the context of the particular culture. The encoding and mapping of superpositions on an information space, be it linguistic or otherwise, represents shared knowledge. Since each mind is localized within the whole of knowledge, understanding can only be incomplete. Context juxtaposition or "metaphor" is proof of the non locality of knowledge. Within a unitary knowledge space metaphor cannot exist. Therefore the concept of omniscience in any form seems unlikely. The function of metaphor is to translate a set of interconnections from one context space to another, thereby preserving the functional relationships. This reflects the structure of awareness and translates (self/not self) superpositions across knowledge space. With this in mind lets us be aware of the medium of context.
Thoughts are the waves on the ocean of Language. Though we may define each as separate entities, they are acausally and intimately linked. What makes language unique is its ability to convey and manipulate thought through the use of generalized symbols as opposed to concrete representations. An example of this would be in giving road directions to someone. You might, perhaps simply give them a map and assume they know how to read it, or more likely you would use words, whose generalized definitions would become rigidly defined within the context space of the directions. To take this idea a little further, lets look at music. To accurately communicate emotions, music must also exist within a context. It's unlikely that reading a musical score would produce a sympathetic response. Further, music from other cultures requires context to be appreciated as intended. Rhythm, melody and harmony as the defining relationships of time, frequency and superposition are the physical and measurable boundaries of this non-linguistic form of communication. However, the context space within which any musical form exists is independent of mathematical permutation. Therefore a melody can only exist within a context space defined by other melodies of similar form. In this sense, the knowledge encoded through music depends entirely on the shared context space of the musicians(sender) and listeners(receiver). This demonstrates the acausal relationship between language and knowledge.
The fundamental basis of knowledge is accessible within the present. Context spaces are not created in a unitary form, but are an emergent property of language. In this sense individual (creation/discovery) is an illusion and the concept of unconscious assertion could not be contained within the individual self. So, to maintain a dynamic model of knowledge we must either remove the limits of self, or the notion of containment of knowledge, or both. This suggests a reasonable basis to meaningful coincidence or "synchronicity" as proposed by C.G. Jung. Knowledge is bounded by metaphor. Our understanding of the universe is synonymous with our understanding of ourselves. There is no distinction between our experience and who we are."
Ken Bell March 20 2000
We agree that the concepts of "context juxtaposition" and "metaphor" are proof of the non-locality of knowledge. Though it is unclear why a unitary knowledge space cannot include all possible knowledge spaces, with who we are as the basis of it.
We agree that there appears to be an acausal relationship between language and knowledge. Though we assert further that because the basis(s) for knowledge and language appear to be beyond our minds, and that we cannot have knowledge without language, and language without knowledge, and that language is a form of knowledge, and knowledge is a form of language, there appears to be only a fabricated difference between language and knowledge.
We agree with the claim that "context spaces are emergent properties of language". However, the claim begs the question, what is beyond language? We come to thought process--> unconscious sensory--> who we are--> inexpressible. So the conclusion that "the individual, in terms of creation and discovery, is an illusion," is limited. We don’t know what the basis to language or the individual are.
Moreover, the conclusion that the "fundamental basis to knowledge is accessible within the present" is limited by what we really can know, not to mention the illusory concept of "present", since everything appears to be in constant flux.
How can we remove the limits of self, when we have no conception of what they are?
If knowledge is bounded by metaphor, what bounds metaphor? Also, since metaphor is a form of knowledge, how can knowledge bound itself?
We agree that our understanding of the universe is synonymous with ourselves, in the sense that all knowledge appears to derive from ourselves. However, this claim is not the same as us really understanding the universe through really understanding ourselves.
We agree that our experience itself appears to be same as who we are. Though at the same time, it appears that our knowledge of our experience is distinct from who we are, or in other words, what we are experiencing, at least in terms of our thoughts themselves, appears distinct from who we are.
We assert, in continuation from Response 28, that because we cannot know what is outside of our minds, and that what we know itself appears to be an empty form, our only means to rationalize knowledge is in relation to who we are, without imagining anything outside of our minds. To assert knowledge beyond our minds, like "human culture", "universe", or "proto-knowledge", is to rationalize what we have no way of rationalizing. It is to imagine without having a basis to do so, except that we imagine. So our only rational understanding, from our perspective, can come from using concepts that pertain to within our minds.
Premise (1): we cannot know anything about knowledge itself, except through us the perceiver.
Conclusion (a): we can only know knowedge itself in relation to who we are.
Premise (2): we cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are.
Conclusion (b): we cannot rationalize anything outside of our minds, except who we are in a limited, indirect, relational sense.
Premise (3): we cannot know knowledge solely through itself.
Conclusion (c): knowledge is an empty form.
Premise (4): we cannot have language without knowledge, and knowledge without language.
Premise (5): language is a form of knowledge, and knowledge is a form of language.
Conclusion (d): language and knowledge are indistinguishable except through invention.
Premise (6): we cannot know something without intrinsic separation from it.
Conclusion (e): we ourselves are intrinsically different from knowledge itself. (ie. we are not an empty form).
Premise (7): knowledge itself cannot exist as an empty form, without something external asserting meaning onto it, and even though knowledge itself does not exist.
Conclusion (f): we ourselves imagine knowledge.
From Conclusion (c), Conclusion (g): we imagine knowledge from an unconscious assertion (ie. a state of not knowing or assuming anything).
What is beyond language indeed? Since we have demonstrated the unity of the Thought and the Word, and we agree that the basis of (knowledge/language) is beyond the individual mind as we perceive it, we are left with the question of "who we are" being defined in terms of "we" and not "us ourselves". The implication is that of a necessary social definition of our being. However, the deep underlying connection that exists between our individual bodies and everything else implies "self", that is, an individual being whose behaviors are environmentally determined. We have no way, at present to prove pre linguistic consciousness, but it seems reasonable to posit language as a logical limit. From these basis' one may conclude consciousness itself as a "collective" function, whose expression is found through our individual bodies. Every word that we speak is a thing which exists through us ourselves and not of us ourselves. In a sense, each of us is like an actor, playing a part as Shakespeare so eloquently noted. To carry the metaphor further, each of us, through the memory of our own personal experience, gives life to the part, and through this "giving" in a small way helps to write the script. This is who we are, both player and audience, so take a bow and applaud "yourself".
Metaphor is a function of (knowledge/language). More than a type of knowledge, it is a way of knowing, or transposing from one context domain to another. Metaphor is bounded only by its use.
It is agreed that "present" is a relative term. Therefore the basis of (knowledge/language) is a personal matter.
I agree that the (creation/discovery) of knowledge involves our bodies, but the "we" to which you refer is certainly not confined to these bodies. The continuum of consciousness that manifests throughout the world is the creator, and the discoverer of newness. As individuals each of us participates with the whole throughout our daily being. Through multiple channels, and in an acausal way, our perceptions and actions exist as superpositions of the whole through the node. As discussed earlier a node is defined as an area of state space where one or more dimensions has collapsed within the interference of out of phase attractors thereby allowing energy to "leak" along the fractal enthalpic path. From the model, we see that "who we are" is dynamic and causally irreducible, further localization of individual consciousness within being, is nothing more than an illusion. One conclusion being that so long as we think, we are never alone.
In Response 18 you stated "In the superposition part of the model, it is not stated whether the nodes are independent of each other, or are inherently the same, thereby from a single object." We are now prepared to address this specific issue. In terms of our recent discussion a node can be termed as a metaphor of itself, or to put it another way, a non-object through which energy is encoded and transmitted throughout a system. Within the category "exists", node remains unbounded by the class "object" since node can only be logically examined through negation. Like metaphor, node represents the collapse of (self/not self) within a set of domains so as to decrease potential energy within a system.
Some observations:
Intrinsic separation as a necessary pre-condition to knowledge implies a causally
determined link between "Us", and the rest of the universe. Further the implied
duality would extend to us ourselves through "Conclusion (f)". Once again we are
faced with a logical inconsistency. It would seem that the binary nature of
logical arguments is ill-equipped to resolve questions involving origination.
In regards to understanding. Why do you modify the word understanding with "really"?
If experience is distinct from knowledge, then I am unclear as to how you define experience.
When you state that "we ourselves are intrinsically different from knowledge itself," who is speaking?
Ken Bell March 27 2000
Yes, consciousness appears to have a "collective function whose expression is through individual bodies". But what is behind the collective function? Is there a single basis behind our existence, so that every individual regardless of space and time has the same intrinsic source of all knowledge? Interesting, but we are in our imagination due to the limit of what we can know.
We agree wholeheartedly with your statement that "every word that we speak, [or think] is a thing which exists through us ourselves and not of us ourselves." We have been asserting this concept since the beginning of the discussion, and it appears confirming in terms of its soundness that such a great mind as Shakespeare asserted the concept as well.
We agree with your view of nodes; though it is unclear why you assert that the purpose of nodes is to "decrease potential energy within a system." Surely, nodes have more purpose than decreasing energy?! This deficiency of purpose appears attributed to theoretical limitation. However, the basic concept of node, whereby energy behind a non-object is "encoded and transmitted throughout a system," appears to correlate to the non-object of light reflecting energy of the sun behind it, the non-object of sound reflecting the energy of life-form(s) or the energy of two or more objects making contact behind it, and the non-object of our thoughts reflecting the energy of who we are. The profound difference, unlike the energy of the sun or the energy source(s) of sounds, is that we exist through the non-objects of our thoughts. Though it is unclear why the "energy" has to be "encoded and transmitted" as though it is implanted with knowledge. In our view, this point is unreasonably bias to conscious knowledge, because we are discussing something we cannot rationalize. So, even though we agree that there appears to be purpose behind energy, it does not follow that the purpose can be expressed in conscious form. In our view, we must avoid unnecessary assumptions, especially when they are biased to our own existence, and by avoiding them, we may attain a clarity of thought that will allow us to see things that we would not have seen otherwise.
On that point of attaining greater clarity, your argument that conclusion (f) from Response 29 is limited because it does not include the "causal link between us and the universe", is not consistent with conclusion (b), which states that "we cannot rationalize anything outside of our minds, except who we are in a limited, indirect, relational sense." So it appears that logical arguments are equipped to resolve questions concerning origin as long as they stay within the limits of what we can rationalize.
In response 29, we modified the word "understanding" with "really" to emphasize the apparent limit of knowledge, thereby help keep the clarity and soundness of our perspective.
We define experience as an unconscious interaction between who we are, as individuals, with other life-forms and objects. Knowledge of experience refers to conscious non-objects reflecting the "energy" of our intrinsic interactions. In other words, knowledge is a limited means for us to express our experience, and yet at the same time, we can experience through knowledge. However, knowledge itself cannot be our experience, because there would be no way to experience. We can’t have experience and express it at the same time. Experience entails interaction, and expression entails extension of interaction. Though our expression is an experience. So our experience appears constant, which means that we can experience and express at the same time. Though, as mentioned, we cannot have a particular experience and express it at the same time.
When we state that "we ourselves are intrinsically different from knowledge itself", we ourselves are speaking through the non-object of our fabricated conscious selves.
Further rationalizations of knowledge from Response 29:
Premise (8): knowledge is progressive in nature.
Premise (9): at some past point, we did not have knowledge.
From Conclusion (e), "we ourselves are intrinsically different from knowledge itself", Conclusion (h): knowledge is not inherently part of us ourselves.
Conclusion (i): the origin of knowledge is after our own existence.
Conclusion (j): we have evolved to a state of having knowledge and existing through it.
Premise (10): we do not create knowledge.
Premise (11): we imagine conscious meaning, thereby knowledge, from a position complete ignorance.
Premise (12): we do not really imagine conscious meaning.
Premise (13): conscious meaning is implied in our imaginary attachment to knowledge.
Conclusion (k): conscious meaning is an unintended result of our imaginary attachment (ie. we did not first think conscious meaning and then imagine we attach to our thoughts).
Conclusion (l): we imagined we attached to knowledge just because we imagined we attached to it (ie. we unconsciously imagined we attached to our minds).
Premise (14): we exist through knowledge.
Premise (15): we imagined knowledge, and thereby attached to its illusion, as a means for us to exist.
Conclusion (m): we needed help existing.
From Conclusion (c), "knowledge is an empty form", Conclusion (n): by existing through the emptiness of knowledge, we are absorbing us ourselves into its emptiness.
Conclusion (o): the more we exist through the illusion of knowledge, the more we suppress ourselves.
"We cannot separate any aspect of ourselves from the observable universe and it's inherent interrelations. We are an extension of principals which have as their basis matter and energy, or more subtly inherent geometry. Therefore in terms of self organizing systems, the potential energy between system S(p1) and S(p2) whose union is bounded by a fuzzy set C, decreases, as C approaches K. Obviously it would be impossible to consciously include all members of C as well as unnecessary. The superposition itself provides the necessary context juxtaposition enabling metaphor to serve as the conduit of decreasing potential. Since, in this instance we can equate metaphor = node and therefore include the node's fractal properties, it becomes clear that an "instance" of metaphor i.e.. word, may within a local context space, actually increase potential energy between S(p1) and S(p2). We therefore show a connection between the creation of form and potential energy. "Form" being defined as the relative correspondence of matched data sets or "properties" within a context space. As to the nature of potential energy itself, we must wait for some cohesiveness in string theories or perhaps some M theory. In regard to the term "purpose", I regret having to resort to such a projection, as it implies causal determinism. However for the "purpose" of discussion I would wish to forgo any extrinsic interpretation and instead rely on good old pragmatism.
It is agreed that we cannot have a particular experience and express it at the same time. Since "who we are" is acausal there is no particular indicator or instance of who we are that can represent us directly in a causal manner. However we can attribute the universe as the basis of our bodies and physical laws as the basis of our understanding of the universe. Within the framework of the study of system dynamics we can create models which match and give a numerical (thus predictable) description to observed phenomenon. The way mathematics is able to do this will certainly require the efforts of future study. In lieu we must rely on the premise that "phenomenon are in and of themselves inexpressible through language", and be content with theories. . As stated earlier, self knowledge need not have a particular basis and may be gained from "any" context space. Since it has been shown that the boundary set C between the knowable(K) and the unknowable(U) is fuzzy, quantitative descriptions don't apply. Relative descriptors such as "more" or "less" are the only way to represent the direct knowledge of ourselves. Since it is agreed that our experience is shaped (at least in part) by our knowledge then the distinction between knowledge and experience equates to {for all(K) there exists some(E)} and {for some(E) there exists not(K) Therefore the proposition {within(E) there exists all(K)} we can deduce that knowledge is a form of experience. Any knowledge beyond direct experience can only be collective. Any expression of experience also becomes collective. We are once again faced with the remainder of unexpressed experience which I have labeled proto-knowledge for lack of a better term. In relation to collective knowledge our individual bodies serve as "experience buffers" through which information may be encoded and transmitted. Of course the necessary constraint of what information actually "is" has lead to the concept of encoding relative potential energy through the use of self similarity.
All of this aside, our individual beings are non computable, but the functions which generate these beings are. To live life is to know life, theory is a poor substitute.
On the simple point of expression, all concepts expressed are inherently self referential and cannot imply any basis beyond the set to which they belong. The concept of unconscious assertion has, as it's basis the conscious, and is therefore exposed to the full light of conscious computation. With this in mind, is it possible to frame Premises'{P7, P9, P10, P13, P14, P15} objectively? Is it possible that the "we ourselves" which speaks "through the non-object of our fabricated conscious selves", is in itself a fabrication?"
Ken Bell April 5 2000
If we can’t separate any aspect of ourselves from the observable universe, it follows, assuming that the observable universe and what comprises it, both known and unknown, is all there is, that we have no way of understanding ourselves. Yet, it does not follow how we could know that we are inseparable from the observable universe without separating ourselves from it! Though if we are inseparable from the universe, it means what we know is illusion, including our view on our inseparation. Moreover, since "ourselves" is an acausal concept, it does not follow how we could objectively claim that we ourselves are inseparable from the universe. The same argument applies to the limited nature of observation (ie. we don’t really know what is beyond our observations or even what our observations are, except for what is in our minds).
How can we be extensions of principals of inherent geometry, when "principals" are conscious, and we ourselves appear to be beyond conscious? We assert that all principals of our minds, including inherent geometry, are extensions of who we are.
Is it rational for us to wait for some cohesiveness in string theories or perhaps the M theory, or predictableness in mathematical models of observed phenomenon, when we know that we appear to have no conceivable way of knowing the inherent nature of anything?
How can we rely on "good old pragmatism" when it is clear that through the apparent uncertainty of all knowledge, we have no objective way of knowing anything?
It does not follow how "self-knowledge need not have a particular basis", when from our perspective, we as individuals view knowledge in our own way, so that no knowledge is identical from one individual perspective to another. Hence, the notion of "collective knowledge" appears to be a crude concept, which pertains only in a general way to the similarity of knowledge between individuals. In other words, it does not make sense how we can know knowledge beyond direct, individual experience, when all there appears to be is direct, individual experience. For instance, while standing at an intersection, someone witnesses a car accident, and then goes home and tells a friend, and thereby the friend has a direct experience of the knowledge about the accident. The point being that we can only have knowledge through direct experience and that knowledge itself must be both direct and indirect at the same time. For example, the person who witnessed the accident at the intersection did so directly because he was watching when it happened, and yet at the same time, he witnessed the accident indirectly because he did not know, and could not ever know, the full circumstances that led up to the accident.
We are confused by you equating "unexpressed experience" with "proto-knowledge" because it implies that our experience is preordained. Surely, experience itself is separate from both knowledge in terms of who we are, and certain experiences, like a surprised encounter which leaves us speechless.
If we can’t separate our individual beings from the "functions" of them, and still have a living being, it does not follow how the functions of beings generate them. It appears that our functions alone generate nothing, just as our beings alone generate nothing. So by knowing the functions of individual beings, we do not fully know how to generate life.
From our perspective, your statement, "To live life is to know life, theory is a poor substitute", stands out in your reply as crystal of truth. Why? You appear to be implying that by living life and learning through it, that there is a "being" aspect which is missing in a theoretical study of life. If we take your point further, it appears that there is an intrinsic difference between our thoughts themselves and who we are, which would account for this difference between knowing life through living versus knowing life through theorizing it. The missing element in the latter appears to be "living" or who we are.
Other issues:
Premises {P7, P9, P10, P13, P14, P15} follow objectively from Conclusion (c), which states that "thoughts themselves are empty forms". Though we concede that there is no such thing as absolute objectivity. Rather, there are different levels of subjectivity. However, we think that our list of premises and conclusions from Responses 29 and 30 are the least subjective, because they are formed from intuition, and by referring to in our minds in relation to who we are, rather than to the apparent unknowable outside of our minds.
Yes, "we ourselves" is a fabrication. Though we claim that it represents something "inexpressible", which exists through our fabricated conscious selves. The basis for our claim stems from our view that our individual beings are not non-existent nor are they everything. Though we concede that the fundamental basis behind us as individual beings, and all other life-forms, appears to be from the same source (ie. it does not make sense that there would be more than one life itself). If we follow this argument through, it means that our thoughts themselves must be intrinsically different from who we are, otherwise with everything themselves being from the same source, we would have no way of knowing anything. (Premise (6) from Response 29 states, "we cannot know something without intrinsic separation from it".)
We claim that we can’t rationalize whatever is outside of our minds because what we imagine we are rationalizing is beyond our minds. In other words, we can‘t rationalize what we can never know. The reason we think we can’t know whatever is outside of our minds is because we can't get outside of our minds and know that we are, and our thoughts themselves appear to be empty forms, which in our view does not correlate to whatever is outside of our minds. Also, we can’t rationalize what we can’t even imagine. There is no basis to know or imagine whatever itself is outside of our minds. So as rational beings, we are confined to reasoning what pertains to in our minds and in relation to us ourselves, the perceivers. To reason whatever is outside of our minds, like the concepts of "universe" and "proto-knowledge", is non-rational. It follows that theoretical study is limited to knowledge pertaining to in our minds and in relation to who we are.
Dispute 9 (26-28) Dispute 9 (32-36)