"According to Hegel the absolute is expressible to the extent that the law condemns the human being as a contribution to society letting him know he is as such and hence ashamed of who he is as such. Everything is expressible in the whole. According to Hegel there is an auxiliary view of reflection causing (for a lack of a better term for that would refer to an expression at this moment) pride which comes into Consciousness of the Nature in wholeness and makes the 'condemnation' so-called inexpressible."

Chris Krajewski September 1 2000

Response:

Is the human being ashamed of contributing to society because he has no choice within limits?

How is everything expressible, except an auxiliary view of reflection, in the whole of law?

If "pride" equates with who we are, are you agreeing from a Hegelian perspective that we cannot know who we are?

106. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 104.

"How does experience allow us to know unlimited or infinity?" (Excerpt from Response)

Example: Einstein had the experience of E=mc(squared) in which a small part of the unknown/God/truth/light was grasped/made known to him.

"How do you see truth, without knowing that you do?" (Excerpt from Response)

Is this a trick question 8)? To see truth in wholeness/insight is to know it is truth, at other times you have to listen for the "ring of truth", but the ego can deceive you in this, so it's not so certain or wise to believe.

"How can we know we have a relationship with a God/the creator/the whole, since we cannot "think of or imagine the whole"?" (Except from Response)

By the experience of wholeness. Do we have insights/knowledge from outside self, do our creative works come not from the labor of the mind, does our physical movement and/or strength come not from self, do we hear and/or see the minds of others, etc. (Key word in all of these is "effortlessness". See J. Krishnamurti, one of my favorites, for much info. on this and many more very important and related things.) There are many ways in which the spirit works. Sometimes it's just an illusion from the deceptive ego, sometimes maybe not. It's easy to know what is not of the self when it has "deadly" real world impact. This power manifest is unstoppable. Not only does it scare and/or awe those who witness it, it awes the one it happens through and makes a "firm believer".

"How can someone use their mind to combine with their clone body in a state of oneness and know wholeness through that state?" (Excerpt from Response)

That was just an example. Didn't you watch Star Trek as a kid? Spock, the Vulcan, could join the minds of other individuals. They would become one, one knowing the other, neat science fiction trick. Anyway, look at the clone's perspective, realizing it was created as a copy from a certain individual and realizing it was an incomplete copy. Now, if the original could do the Vulcan mind meld thing with it's clone the clone could experience wholeness as being that original individual. I'm not talking about the wholeness/God in this example, just the wholeness of the complete individual. In this way the clone could come to know it's original.

"How can anyone help a fragment of himself get to know the whole of himself, since the whole is beyond our minds?" (Excerpt from Response)

Yes, you clearly misunderstood me in the way I thought you did, so, the above should have cleared this one up too. Also, one more thing. J. Krishnamuti is awesome, but I don't think you'd understand him at all based on the questions you've asked me. Still, his style of language is different than mine and maybe it would be more clear to you than mine is so give him a try and see what you think. Think on These Things was one of the best books of his I read and the first. It was very strange for me reading that book as I kept reliving memories from my past. By the end of the book I felt as if he'd summed up every significant thing I'd ever learned and realized throughout my life and this really helped me to organize and put things in there proper places. Plus, I had gained a language to express what I'd come to understand about life that also enabled me to understand the different styles of expressions others use. One day after this I happened to pick up a bible and for the first time in my life I understood the truth that was being said in it. Of course there's a lot of mankind's BS in there as well, that still sounds like BS 8). The problems I'd always had with religions were clearly seen as well during this time. My favorite J.K. quote: "All religions stand in the way of truth." or something like that, the words may be a little off, but the meaning is very much the same.

Kevin Ward September 2 2000

Response:

Is "E=mc(squared)" a truth or limited truth? We contend that the equation is only true within its system of mathematical thought.

How do you go from seeing a truth to knowing a truth?

How can we experience wholeness and know that we do, when we cannot know wholeness?

107. Entry:

Reply from the Response to Entry 106.

"Is "E=mc(squared)" a truth or limited truth? We contend that the equation is only true within its system of mathematical thought." (Excerpt from Response)

This equation has been proven in modern times with modern equipment. It represents an actual relationship within our universe that energy=mass x the speed of light(squared). I don't know what limited truth is, unless you mean it's a portion of the whole of truth, which it obviously is. Or maybe you're looking at it as the E symbol=m symbol... which of course isn't really true and therefore limited. Of course looked at it that way nothing would be true except E=E, m=m, *=*, etc.

"How do you go from seeing a truth to knowing a truth?" (Excerpt from Response)

Only one sure way which is to both see and know truth in a moment of wholeness. To hear/see truth by it's "ring" and then see it apparently proved is another, but there's a possibility of deception by ego in this method. Thus, "it is better to believe without seeing." I think this is what that bible quote was getting at. If we have to have everything proved to our egos we are apt to be deceived, but if we come to know by experiences of wholeness there can be no deception.

"How can we experience wholeness and know that we do, when we cannot know wholeness?" (Excerpt from Response)

Like I said before, we can know of wholeness by our experiences of it. We can know wholeness while in the experience of it yet our minds cannot fully grasp it while incomplete/not in wholeness. Like another famous quote from the bible that says something with the meaning of: those who do not know of me/wholeness/God will not see/love the truth and will hear only foolishness in my words.

Kevin Ward September 3 2000

Response:

If the symbols of "E=mc(squared)" are not true, it does not follow how the equation as a whole could be true. Also, it does not follow that "E=E, or m=m, or *=*" are true, because in terms of space and time, there is no such thing as two identical things.

It does not make sense how we can be aware of a "moment of wholeness" and know that we are, without being able to truly conceptualize wholeness; and since we apparently cannot conceptualize wholeness or as you assert from Entry 103, "we cannot think of the whole or imagine the whole either," it follows that we cannot be aware of the moment of wholeness and know that we are.

Further, it does not make sense how experience of wholeness allows us to know wholeness, when we cannot know wholeness, and thereby cannot know we are experiencing wholeness. In other words, we need to conceptualize wholeness in order to know we are experiencing it, and yet since we cannot conceptualize wholeness, it follows that we cannot know we are experiencing it. However, to claim that we first experience wholeness and then know it, does not explain how we go from experiencing wholeness to knowing it, or how we even know we are first experiencing wholeness.

It appears that the only way to know that we are experiencing wholeness is to imagine we are experiencing it, without actually being able to do so. Hence, we rule that your challenge, now consisting of seven entries, does not reasonably overcome the challenge proposition.

108. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 102.

"First, I need a question answered: is there any knowledge that is NOT empty of ourselves?

It seems to me that the problems our society is facing are NOT because of the knowledge we have "created" but because of the LACK of knowledge we have attained.

Technology, being a natural part of our lives, is not "taking over". Technology has no real power over human beings. You cannot blame technology when it is US who are to blame for our own degradation. It is our own CHOICES that lead us to our dependencies, and NOT the technology itself. Technology is a tool and, like any other tool, can either be used efficiently or, as in most technological cases, it can be used poorly.

So I say we need to "create" MORE knowledge, not ignore it. We need to make CLEARER the hazards, the dangers, AND the preventions.

You can only "create" this knowledge and put it out in the open. It is up to each individual to take it to heart."

Marc Reside September 7 2000

Response:

From our perspective, there is no knowledge that is the same as us ourselves. Or in your words, there is no knowledge that is NOT empty of ourselves.
We imagine the illusion of knowledge, though knowledge itself does not exist, which translates into knowledge only existing as our imagination.

We agree that we ourselves, and not technology, are behind our apparent degradation. Also, we agree that technology can be used "efficiently" or "poorly" like the operation of a nuclear plant. However, we contend that there is a deeper issue behind our use of knowledge and its material extensions, including technology, which undermines our use of these things in terms of our survival. In essence, if knowledge and its material extensions are empty of who we are, it follows that by increasingly existing through them, we are gradually diminuting ourselves, as illustrated by the rapid modern day destruction of cultures and the natural world.

Further, we agree that hazards, dangers, and preventions to them need to be made clearer. Though it is Garvey’s contention that the necessity of individual perspectives to be reasonable is not applicable to the collective perspective, because there is no collective individual behind it; rather, the collective perspective is an imposed, imaginary identity. In other words, the collective organizations of the world, like states and international financial and military organizations, appear to be accelerating the world forward, while being the source of its apparently unreasonable direction. Moreover, another problem is the uncertainty of knowledge, so that no matter how clear you make an apparent danger like Global Warming, there will always be doubt, and thereby room for a counter position, which may lead to a limited prevention or none at all.

Finally, we agree that it is up to each individual to decide what knowledge is reasonable to him or her. However, there are many organizations and individuals which use rhetoric and propaganda to get the individual to believe something, which he or she upon careful reflection and review of further evidence from alternative sources would reject.

109. Entry:

"The first thing I asked myself was why am I filling out this form? Am I doing it to achieve a certain amount of recognition, or do I truly believe I have the answer you're seeking. I also have to ask myself if this is some kind of trick question that has no acceptable answer. Not that I suspect any chicanery on your part, but the possibility is there, even if it's only subconscious. I also wonder whether this is an academic exercise, because some of the statements I've read, seem to be pedantic by nature. Finally, before I give you my answer, I'd like you to consider the possibility that you might have subconscious preferences which could color your decisions. Not being able to delve into your predilections is a handicap, but I will do my best.

The nearest we can come to knowing who we are is to be able to honestly admit to ourselves all of our weaknesses and prejudices (notice I omitted the word strength because I don't think strength exists as an attribute. These are only circumstances that have to be resolved the only way we know how.) However, honesty is difficult if not impossible to achieve. One of the reasons is that we can't really fool ourselves (at least I can't). I found that out when I went through a siege of panic attacks. Each night before I went to sleep, I asked myself if the problem was something I did or didn't do in the past. All the time, the overview part of my brain kept feeding me negative thoughts. After months of unbelievable introspection, I finally accepted the fact that the negative overview was also part of my brain. Once I accepted this, the panic attacks stopped.

In a sense, I did bring the duality together. I did it by simply admitting that the negativity would continue to bug me for the rest of my life, and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it. With the resistance gone, I now live with both entities existing side by side in a form of semi contentment. It's not easy, but it's all I have.

The way it works is the negative part is the effort to know who we are, the functional side is what we are. I suppose during any given time, the roles could be reversed. Physiologically, the negative side is what trips the sympathetic nervous system emergency button. The functional side conversely becomes the vegetative state. And as most psychologists know, either can be activated when the person perceives an emergency situation.

I personally believe that the "who we are" was the result of emulating our parents when we were in our formative years. We not only imitated their actions, we imitated their emotions. Unfortunately, we didn't have the sense nor the experience to understand why we act the way we do today, so we rationalize our actions and thoughts and hope for the best.

If I could find some person who isn't fully indoctrinated in what he can't do, I'll bet I can get him to know who he is and what he is with a simple explanation of how it came to be. I would say to him/her that we all have this duality inside of us, because we learned to act out parts we didn't believe when we were children, and since we all do it, it isn't just you. There is nothing to be afraid of. I'd next put him/her in front of a mirror and explain that the person in the mirror is "who we are," and the person looking into the mirror is "what we are." And that both are necessary to make the whole. That we act, and then we wonder why we did it. That there are no mysteries, only things yet to be explained. Of course, that type of unconditioned person may be impossible to find, but we keep trying."

Richard L. Stover September 8 2000

Response:

The "Challenge the Philosophy" competition is not an "academic exercise", but a "real" attempt to resolve the issue of whether or not we can know who we are through shared input and discussion. Anyone is welcome to participate.

We agree that we may have "subconscious preferences" which could color our decisions. Though we have mechanisms in place such as transparency of entries and responses, and a two week public forum process for disputed entries, to compensate for the possibility of human error.

We find your negative part and functional side theory about the effects of not knowing who we are interesting. The only thing we would add is that the dichotomy of who we are and what we know, appears to preside over your dichotomy of negative and function.

Also, we agree that the "who we are" and "what we are" are necessary, in terms of modernity, to make the whole. Though their necessity now does not mean that they will always be necessary to make the whole. (ie. we may evolve to exist from and through who we are.)

110. Entry:

"Having reviewed the proposition, it appears to me that it is in fact impossible to overcome. BUT ONLY BY PHILOSOPHERS, who by their nature, are unable to accept a priori their own existence, let alone to do both 'know' and 'be' at the same time (this is often reflected in a concurrent inability to cross the street and chew bubble gum at the same time). For lesser mortals, this proposition is nonsensical in the extreme, since it is refuted on a daily basis. While building a ship, a shipwright both 'knows' that he is a shipwright (since otherwise he wouldn't be there) and 'is' a shipwright (since he is building a ship). The same can be demonstrated for any number of professions, with the exception of philosophy, which is generally the fruitless pursuit of that which is intangible, and thus of little concern to the world at large (who need to 'be' and 'know' themselves on a daily basis in order to pay the bills)."

Eric Husher September 9 2000

Response:

We disagree that philosophers are unable to accept a priori their own existence. You appear to be overlooking that thinking is their existence: in most cases it is about increasing our understanding instead of just accepting the status quo.

Your claim that you have refuted the challenge proposition by showing that we can be something like a shipwright and know it at the same time (ie. build a ship), does not answer the question of whether we can be who we are (ie. our fundamental level of being) and know who we are at the same time.

Also, your claim that philosophy is "generally the fruitless pursuit of that which is intangible" overlooks that philosophy is the foundation for all systems of thoughts (ie. it deals with general conceptions which define the fundamental purposes behind all systems of thoughts), thereby has a major influence on the world at large, regardless if most people are not concerned about philosophy.

111. Entry:

"It's difficult, if not impossible, to relate to feelings because we all have different backgrounds and perceptions, prejudices, and fears. (finish the following--I feel like...) So I'll give you the practical reason why we can't know who we are and be what we are at the same time.

It's all based upon the structure of our minds and how we emulate our parents actions and emotions and that "something" special inside of us that makes us a being, a person, an entity, which compels to be "I" above everything else. (As a side issue, my retarded son never used the word "I" It was always, Rickie wants this or that.)

Now, getting to the process. It's as simple as this, we bring an incredible amount of memory and feelings with us wherever we go, and when we encounter some outside situation or force that reminds of something else, the brain evaluates the new data with the old data and causes our muscles and glands to react in a programmed manner. That's the process.

Here's the explanations of the feelings. Again it's a simple process that can be explained in one paragraph. Basically, the complete dynamic system causes us to react in a programmed manner. It happens so fast, we think it's our choice. That's the being part of our existence. The knowing part is the thoughts and rationalizations that come after the act. There you have it. We act and then the "I" part of us needs to know it was our choice.

The "I" is the knowing part, and the "act" is the being part. The reason we can't be both at the same time is that the act comes before the thought. However, the time it takes to make the interchange is in milliseconds. So the practical side says no, and the philosophical side says yes. Take your pick."

Richard L. Stover September 9 2000

Response:

Since thinking is an act, in terms of mental exertion, then your distinction between knowing and being, or act and thought, does not stand. (Though we agree, assuming that who we are is the basis for our actions, that there is a temporal lag between acting and who we are.)

Hence, the reason we cannot know who we are and be who we are is that knowledge itself and who we are appear intrinsically separate, which explains how we can think and be at the same time.

112. Entry:

"I can now see that your quest to unravel the mystery of the human psyche is sincere and unwavering. I too am a dedicated truth seeker, and I will continue to beat the bushes until the day I die. I personally commend you for your steadfastness under fire. Now, getting back to business...

In order to understand the human psyche and ascertain who we are and what we are, we must first categorize, analyze, and dissect all or most of our actual defensive rationalizations. Then and only then can we honestly ascertain the complete entity. Here are a few of the obvious ones (don't take this personally):

Finding ways to satisfy our immediate and long term goals.

Finding ways to cope with our disappointments.

Finding ways to defend our status and beliefs.

Finding ways to hide our true feelings.

Emulating those we admire.

Finding ways to keep our minds free from unpleasant thoughts.

Finding ways to keep from getting bored.

Seeking answers to unexplained phenomena.

Getting even when we think we have been taken advantage of

Rationalizing our perceived weaknesses and prejudices.

Finding something or someone to blame our misfortunes on."

Richard L. Stover September 11 2000

Response:

We question whether we must "first categorize, analyze, and dissect all or most of our actual defensive rationalizations", because in our view reasonableness, from our limited perspective, is the ultimate judge of our rationalizations. In other words, by relying on reasonableness as our guide, we eliminate defensive rationalizations unless they turn out to be the most reasonable of all our rationalizations; whereas, to focus solely on defensive rationalizations, we run into subjectivity and the possibility of missing our target: how can we know who we are.

Another problem with your approach is that everything we think appears to be from who we are, so it does not follow how we can distinguish a pure or positive thought from an impure or negative thought. However, we acknowledge that your ten points about understanding our perspective are excellent reminders of the need to maintain objectivity, rather than letting our defensive rationalizations blind us from a more reasonable position. Though at the same time, we must be careful because defensive rationalizations may, paradoxically, be a positive force which gives us the desire and determination to better our understanding.

Finally, if you can come up with a more reasonable position than we have taken in the responses to the previous entries, we would welcome it.

113. Entry:

"At your request (see Response to Entry 98), I will show how someone can have an unreasonable perspective and know that he himself has an unreasonable perspective:

-I can't know who I am and be who I am simultaneously.
-Yet I have "limited" perceptions of who I am, while I'm being at the same time (my heart beats on, indifferent to any knowing activities.)
-Reason demands, according to your own definition, that there must be "a most reasonable perspective ", whatever that may mean.
-It will be judged the "least limited".
-Therefore, it is limited.
-Therefore, it will deviate from the ultimate reason, which is the "being" itself.
-Therefore, purely through means of deduction I know my perspective "unreasonable".

"How can we know at the moment of our death?" (Excerpt from Response to Entry 98)

It seems to me that you missed my point. I took your proposition as if it was a right one, and followed the implications, disregarding where they lead. I stated that a human BEING can't stop and start BEING at will. If one accepts this, the only way to uphold the proposition is to accept the fact that we start to know as soon as we stop to be. When we die, that is.
Then you ask ME how we can do that.
Well , that's what I'd like to hear from You!"

Raoul Starren September 12 2000

Response:

You are assuming that being equates with "ultimate" or supreme reason. If we consider your Entry 86, you made it clear that the nature of being is something beyond our minds. Hence, we conclude that the example you have provided is not really YOUR perspective, but one that you fabricated.

Regarding your statement that a human being can’t stop and start being at will, we would add that a human being can stop being at will. The obvious example being suicide.

Further, your claim that the only way to uphold the challenge proposition is to accept that we start to know as soon as we stop to be, overlooks that we can know in a limited way while being. Also, it is reasonably clear that once we cease to be, we would have no consciousness, and therefore no means to know. Hence, if the challenge proposition is correct, we cannot ever know in an absolute way, assuming that the absolute equates to who we are, and that we can only know in a limited way while being.

Entries 98-104 Entries 114-119