"Frankly, I don't believe we can ever know who we are, let alone be what we are, until we can pull away the layers of hypocrisy, deceit, and self-importance. Assuming that the goal of this exercise is to seek the truth about ourselves, I've taken the liberty to present a list from Dr. Sheldon Kopp's eschatological laundry list. Some of it isn't pretty, most of them are downers, but many hit the mark at least in my view.

1. This is it.
2. There are no hidden meanings.
3. You can't get there from here, and besides there is no place to go.
4. We are already dying.
5. Nothing lasts.
6. There is no way of getting all you want.
7. You can't have anything unless you let go of it.
8. You only get to keep what you give away.
9. There is no particular reason why you lost out on some things.
10. The world is not necessarily just. Being good often does not pay off and there's no compensation for misfortune.
11. You have the responsibility to do your best nonetheless.
12. It's a random universe to which we bring meaning.
13. You really don't control anything.
14. You can't make anyone love you.
15. No one is any stronger or any weaker than anyone else.
16. Everyone is, in his own way, vulnerable.
17. There are no great men.
18. If you have a hero, look again; you have diminished yourself in some way.
19. Everyone lies, cheats, pretends. (yes, you too, and most certainly myself.)
20. All evil is potentially vitality in need of transformation.
21. All of you is worth something if you will only own it.
22. Progress is an illusion.
23. Evil can be displaced but never eradicated, as all solutions breed new problems.
24. Yet it is necessary to keep struggling toward solution.
25. Childhood is a nightmare.
26. But it is so hard to be on your own, take care of yourself cause there's no one else to do it for you grown up.
27. Each of us is ultimately alone.
28. The most important things, man must do for himself.
29. Love is not enough, but it sure helps.
30. We have only ourselves, and one another. That may not be much, but that's all there is.
31. How strange, that so often, it all seems worth it.
32. We must live within the ambiguity of partial freedom, partial power, and partial knowledge.
33. All important decisions must be made on the basis of insufficient data.
34. Yet we are responsible for everything we do.
35. No excuses will be accepted.
36. You can run, but you can't hide.
37. It is most important not to run out of scapegoats.
38. We must learn the power of living with our helplessness.
39. The only victory is in surrender to oneself.
40. All of the significant battles are waged within the self.
41. You are free to do whatever you like. You need only face the consequences.
42. What do you know for sure...anyway?
43. Learn to forgive yourself, again, again, again, again, again..."

Richard L. Stover September 13 2000

Response:

If we pull away the "layers of hypocrisy, deceit, and self-importance", how can we know who we are?

Also, if we cannot help from being who we are regardless of what we believe or do, how can we ever be what we are not?

We like your list because it emphasizes individuality by cutting away at societal controls, thereby may have a positive influence on those who are trying to overcome the challenge proposition or understand its implications. Though it appears that only statement 12. pertains directly to the challenge proposition, and even then the statement is contradictory because "random" is a conscious phenomenon, so it does not follow how we could bring meaning to a universe that already has meaning.

Moreover, the claim that the universe is random does not hold up, if we consider that we cannot know knowledge solely through itself, so what we know itself appears non-existent, thereby cannot be the basis for the universe. In other words, because of our apparent inability to know the basis for anything, and the non-existence of knowledge itself, it appears that the basis for the so-called universe is beyond our minds, thereby is not random.

However, the notion that we "bring meaning", the latter part of statement 12., is consistent with our claim that we create meaning.

115. Entry:

-When you state that "we can know in a limited way while being"( Excerpt from the Response to Entry 113).
-And furthermore that "we can't know who we are and be who we are at the same time."
-Aren't you yourself evoking that "supreme reason" I referred to in Entry 113?
Forever beyond our reach, making our points of view more or less "unreasonable" in relation to it?

Furthermore, if you don't agree that we are compelled to view the ultimate "reason" as being "the being" in itself, you reduce your proposition to a statement equivalent to: "We can't be two different things at once". In my opinion it would take all the juice out of it.

"You are assuming that being equates with ultimate or supreme reason. If we consider your response to 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 you have fabricated." (Excerpt from the Response).
-This is not inconsistent, since I did set out to prove that someone can have an unreasonable perspective and be conscious of it at the same time. Implying that the nature of being is still beyond my mind, since I stress that I don't know this ultimate reason, making my limited perceptions of it "unreasonable". Earlier on you asked me to show how a person could know his perspective to be "unreasonable": This above is how. It doesn't exclude persons who know their perspectives to be "reasonable", but regarding the "limited" status you've given to these perspectives, we should end up chasing ourselves around a table, or simply splashing water around (which is entertaining in a creative sense, I wish to add)."

Raoul Starren September 14 2000

Response:

When we make statements like "we cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time", we are using supreme reason in terms of our perspective, and not in terms of our being. In other words, we cannot get outside of our minds, so anything we know is through reason.

In our view, reducing the challenge proposition to "we can’t be two different things at once" does not include a profound consideration, that thoughts themselves are not who we are, and especially since we exist through thoughts.

Your example of you having an unreasonable perspective and knowing that you do, does not stand because you conceded that you have "limited" perspectives of being, which due to the uncertainty of being, could be true or false. Hence, your perspective appears reasonable.

Just because our perspectives appear limited, does not mean that we cannot come to concrete conclusions within limits. For instance, we both agree that being is beyond our minds, and that we cannot get outside of our minds.
In our view, the human perspective is characterized by reasonableness. It is up to us, in the open realm of reason, to discover what knowledge is the most reasonable.

116. Entry:

"To reach a full, personal understanding of what we know, we must first discard everything we have ever heard or read about from all the theoretical fields and start from scratch. As it stands now, what we think we know is only accumulated information we acquired from countless sources. This leaves us with only ineffectual word descriptions, our feelings, and our experiences. However, we still have our senses and the instinct to know what works and what doesn't work. Where do we go from here?

As I sit here at my computer and look around the room, I see very real things. A lamp, a desk, pencils, paper, etc. and they all have one thing in common--presence and substance. Another condition they all have in common is that they weren't always as I see them now. Each item had to move from somewhere else to get where it is. And taking them back even further, they had to move from someplace to get where they were before that, and before that, and before that, all the way back to where the items were first manufactured, and even further back than that to wherever you want to take it. Not only that, but each has a continuity link, or history of it's own that affected everything and everybody it came in contact with. This isn't only happening in my office, it's happening to everything and everything in the universe.

It doesn't stop there, because I know that every item in this room will eventually be moved again, and again, and again, but I have no idea when or where or for what reason. Where do we go from here? That's the random part.

Of course, you may already know this, but it doesn't hurt to touch base again.

How does this relate to knowing who we are and being who we are, sequentially? It's just that our body functions the same way as the rest of the universe. Nothing appears out of nowhere. It has to be linked in a straight line with events from the past. In that respect, everything we do or say or think has a continuity link with something that happened before, and it's all sequential (Although very complex) somewhat like a ball of knotted string with only two ends."

Richard Stover September 15 2000

Response:

Just because you cannot comprehend the basis for things does not mean that they are inherently random. Though we concede that things from your limited perspective appear random, but only because you are unable to comprehend the basis for things.

Also, continuity does not necessarily imply intrinsic connection. Whereas, link implies limited connection between two different objects. However, we concede that there is a limited connection between our thoughts and who we are. To assert further that there is an unlimited connection between our thoughts and who we are, we would run into problems like how can we know without separation from what we know, and how can knowledge itself not be non-existent, when we know through what we know and we cannot know knowledge solely through itself?

117. Entry:

"In order to illustrate my perspective further, I've chosen first to rewrite your reply on entry 115 in its image, so to speak:

When I investigate statements like "We cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time", I am using supreme reason in terms of our being, not in terms of our perspective.
In other words, we cannot get outside of our minds, so anything we know is through being.
(The being makes up our minds, not vice versa: Its law determines what we can know, not that we can know its law)

In my view, reducing the challenge proposition to "we can't be two different things at once" does not exclude the consideration, that thoughts themselves are not who we are, especially since any thought exists through our being.

My example of me having an unreasonable perspective and knowing that I do, can stand because I conceded that I have "limited" perspectives of being, which due to the certainty of being, are never true nor false, yet a manifestation of THAT which is beyond my reach, the supreme reason "being". Since THAT is beyond my reach, my ideas about it will contain unreasonableness in one form or the other.

I can never reasonably claim to be more reasonable than you, as my perspective implies.
What I can claim in my opinion, is that my perspective is equivalent in this particular context. Were we to play a game with preset rules, it might be different. But I have a feeling this isn't, or can't be perceived as such a game, considering the topic.

The fact that I state my perspective to be "unreasonable" since it is limited, is in my view equivalent qualitatively to your perspective, that is "reasonable" within limits. In my view the proposition NEEDS the supreme reason "being" to make any (limited) sense.
If not, I wonder where the whole proposition came from to begin with. I sympathize with the notion that we can never reach this so called beyond, but stress that this same limit prevents us from getting rid of it. As I see it, our truth consists of a large body being our minds contents, and a non-definable symmetry breaker, present in every part of these contents.
A seed of dynamics, so to speak, or in terms of Goedels theorem, that one blasted term that always gets away.

I'm not sure that the human perspective is characterized by reasonableness, although I'm unreasonably certain that it is constituted by reason. For us to discover in the open realm of reason what knowledge is the most reasonable, is in my opinion an attempt to reduce the diversity of existence to a single form, not unlike the formulation of a deity, or the election of a miss America. To discover the most reasonable perspective might be "reasonable" when it comes to the distribution of food or other means of existence in a given context, but I don't think it applies to a matter like the one we are discussing. As soon as terms such as irrefutability come into play, we have to concede that behind the scene an absolute is lurking. Speaking of a "most absolutish" leaves the scent of a matter of taste. This might not be enough to count as a refutation, but seems sufficient to induce "reasonable doubt".
Were this to be conceded, turning the proposition into something as:

"This proposition, and yet there's Goedel.", or a similarly "holographic" projection (meaning the suggestion of an extra dimension like perspective does in a painting), I would no longer see reasonable grounds to contest it.

Finally, I emphasize that this modified proposition goes for my own perspective as well, implying that anybody who sets out to find unreasonableness within it, can always do so.
But since this is my point to begin with, a reason that contains its own refutation as the axis of it all, I state that this is the exact reason my perspective might be more reasonable than the proposition's, which in my opinion is less reasonable in the sense that it defies its own refutation, where my perspective doesn't. My perspective honors Goedel's theorem, so to speak, where the proposition's does not. To rephrase this, Aristotle's principium contradictionis can only be part of the whole equation.

I hope you will look for the sense in this, before you take it apart. (I hope to have proven that according to my perspective, you could somehow do either)."

Raoul Starren September 18 2000

Response:

Just because we apparently cannot get outside of our minds, it does not follow that anything we know is through our being. What follows is that anything we know is from our being and through our minds.

Also, it does not follow that being, which we agree is beyond our minds, makes up our minds. Though we concede that there must be a limited connection between mind and being. If you can show that being is intrinsically part of our minds, and thereby our knowledge, we would like know how.

In regard to your claim about having an unreasonable perspective and knowing that you do, you assert the "certainty of being" without realizing that it is subjected to the same limitedness of any other knowledge, so that your manifestation of that which is beyond your mind (ie. being) is only a limited manifestation. Hence, the claim that your ideas about being is beyond your mental reach will "contain unreasonableness in one form or another" is false. You are not comparing limited perspective to absolute perspective, but limited to limited.
In short, what we know is neither certain nor uncertain, so our perspective cannot help from being caught between reasonableness and unreasonableness. However, since all thought is subject to the same non-existent state of knowing, and that reason is behind all thought and not subject to flux, we use reason in a relational mode between thoughts, to determine the reasonableness of one thought to another within the limits of what we can know. So instead of labeling being as the supreme reason, we label reason as the supreme comparative.

Your claim that worldly things like distribution of food and election of Miss America, can be determined through reasonableness and that questions of being and knowing cannot, overlooks that all knowledge including questions of food distribution and election of Miss America, is epistemologically limited, or in your words, with an absolute lurking behind the scene.

We agree that a thinking individual can find unreasonableness in most, if not all, propositions. However, we contend that a thinking individual cannot find unreasonableness in any proposition in an enclosed, comparative mode of reasonableness between propositions.

Finally, your usage of Aristotle’s principium contradictionis, whereby contradiction must be part of the whole equation, as an absolute contradicts the agreed limitedness of our perspective. Also, your argument using Aristotle overlooks that the challenge proposition can be viewed as a contradiction from an individual perspective self-contained within a system of thought, but up to now, it cannot do so in the open realm of reason. Moreover, if we agreed to your position of principium contradictionis, we would succumb to relativism, with no way to distinguish one perspective from another, except that we do. Hence, we contend that it is a necessity of a perspective to be anchored in the supreme comparative, thereby take us out of relativism. In fact, as long as we are thinking, our perspective is anchored in reason whether we acknowledge it or not, so that principium contradictionis or relativity will be part of the comparative process. The question remains: in the context of this discussion, what is most reasonable comparative position? Since the challenge proposition appears beyond comparative contradiction, Aristotle’s principium contradictionis succumbs to its own contradiction, thereby unreasonableness while relativity is negated by the necessity of the supreme comparative.

118. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Dispute 9 Reply 33.

"From our point of view, living systems can only be considered an extension of ourselves and therefore any definition of self or not self with regards to such systems must necessarily be a function of a rational projection or "model". With this in mind, (self and non self) superpositions in terms of living systems can only be defined retroactively (since we cannot predict the precise form,{or state space location} only the general shape of the orbit) in terms of a given set of measurable parameters. So, for example within a stable ecosystem(defined as one within which we can make fairly accurate predictions of population cycles, energy pathways, etc...) an introduced genotype will precipitate changes to all phenotypes(including itself) and thus perminately encode the superposition as a function of complexity (often with the effect of increasing the total system entropy for a period of time, until the system settles to an area of state space of lower intrinsic potential energy). The key to understanding how algorithmic complexity can increase is by measuring system response (time) in terms of energy differentials. Plainly put, we can't rush things. Also, in terms of the universe, there are no unitary phenomenon, only unitary perceptions.(A tree is not a tree. It is only a tree because we say that it is.).

Consciousness is not prerequisite to encode, however it seems that it "is" to decode. In this way matter speaks, and we listen. On the other hand, since we have no clear definition of consciousness(and thus unconsciousness), your question extends an undefined attribute to a category.

In regards to your last question, I regret that I must begin by asking:

Do you believe that there is a definable boundary between a living thing and a non living thing?

If so, can you demonstrate (living/non living) interactions in terms of absolutes?

If you would be so kind, please indulge me in a small demonstration. After reading this sentence, please pick up the nearest non living object and consider what has just happened, in terms of a single event. Put aside notions of causality and time for a moment. We, that is, you and I are separated by almost two thousand miles and several hours and yet in terms of this small system a measurable change of energy has occurred.

Once again, it seems, we're led to a reexamination of what a "tool" actually is.

Could it be perhaps that our ability to make tools far exceeds our ability to use them wisely? Perhaps the simple awareness of this recursive cycle will be enough to reverse some of the suffering that we've inflicted upon the environment and ourselves."

Ken Bell September 18 2000

Response:

In terms of your living system, it does not follow that it is necessary that the living system contain (self and non self) superpositions. By asserting this point, we do not question the notion of self and non self; rather, we question the notion of superposition which is scientifically unverifiable, and it can only be theorized within a self-contained system of thought, rather than in the open realm of reason. We would like to know why superposition is a necessary feature of your notion of a living system.

Could it be that your notion of a living system, and not living system itself, is dependent on superposition?

Also, it is unclear why you do not incorporate being or "ourselves" directly into your notion of a living system, instead of using energy as the central component.

If consciousness is not a prerequisite to encode, it follows that there are other forms of knowledge that are beyond consciousness. Though could it be that there is no other encoding than through consciousness, so that a life-form’s sensory unconsciously gives birth to unconscious information? In other words, could it not be that sensory does not encode information from outside of it, since its information is in relation to itself and whatever is outside of it, but that sensory is information?

No, we do not believe that there is a definable boundary between a living thing and a non-existent thing. Though our assertion does not mean that a living thing is the same as a non-existent thing. It means that there is a connection between a living thing and non-existent thing, which prevents us from making a concrete boundary between them. In other words, any boundary we define between a living thing and a non-existent thing will be overshadowed by a connection between the living thing and non-existent thing. (ie. apparently, there is no non-existent thing without a living thing. Hence, if there is any definable boundary that could reasonably be set, it is that a non-existent thing is dependent on a living thing; whereas, a living thing, depending on the case, is not dependent on a non-existent thing. For example, non-thinking animals apparently exist without a need for a non-existent thing like thought. (We have left out consideration of the definable boundary between a living thing and non-living thing, because they appear dependent on each other, like a life-form needing to feed off a dead life-form, and a dead life-form needing prior living existence in order to be a dead life-form.))

We agree that things, living and non-living, are influenced by changes in energy. Though it appears that a non-existent thing does not measure energy, and through for instance our use of thought, a non-existent thing can help bring about changes in energy in living and non-living things.

We agree with your point that by being aware of our ability to make tools exceeds our ability to use them wisely, we may be able to reverse some of the suffering that we have inflicted on the environment and ourselves. But we need to answer in what ways do we use tools unwisely? Could it be that the use of tools themselves, or material extensions of thought, is inherently unreasonable in terms of our preservation? What are the effects of using tools on us ourselves? What is the nature of ourselves and the nature of tools themselves? What is the nature of us ourselves and the nature of thoughts themselves? Could Garvey be right that beneath the benefits of using tools, the human species is gradually diminuting itself and most other life-forms through its conscious use of tools?

119 Entry:

"As a continuation to Entry 116, I left out some things that need to be addressed. When I referred to "event," I should have added that my version of event is anything that starts, runs it's course, then stops, but it really doesn't stop. It only pauses until the next start. The length of time it takes between stop and start again can take a millisecond or thousands of years. This applies to anything and everything in the universe. Some call it evolution, but I call it transition. Nothing mysterious, just the natural sequence of events.

Although it would be impossible to demonstrate or even figure out how the process works, I'm convinced that this on-going transition didn't start from nowhere, that it has always existed in some ever-changing form.

Another thing I need to explain in more detail is this ball of string concept. What I should have said to further illustrate my contention was that the string was knotted every few inches, that each knot represented a start/stop event. (electrical switching, chemical action, etc.), and that there were other off-shoots from each knot that represent off-line activities, but didn't interfere with the main continuity. Another example of this continuity could be likened to a railroad train and the shunts that lead away from the main track but don't interfere with the main line.

The five senses and a possible sixth, equilibrium, send electrical and chemical stimulation to the brain. The brain compares the stimuli with similar stimulation and similar levels of intensity (somewhat like a search engine) then commands the glands and muscles to react in programmed patterns. The resulting feedback is updated and stored, and the entire event takes less than a millisecond. However, in situations the brain determines as being dangerous or life- threatening, it overrides some programmed patterns to prepare the body to run or fight. Since the brain is self contained and only deviates from its programmed patterns when some outside stimuli from the senses causes it to, that means that the continuity (string) starts with the input from the senses, this includes so-called thinking. (Actually this is essentially the way a computer works. Except that the computer only has one input--the keyboard, and the human has five. The computer is also at rest until someone turns it on)

So you see, knowing who we are and being who we are, is at rest until the stimulation from the senses wakes it up. The stimulation can be as infinitesimal as a breath of air or as loud as a clap of thunder; or something we see that doesn't register in our consciousness; or a faint odor we don't even notice. Or it could be something we read like-- In concise words, tell us how the proposition that we cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time, can be overcome: Now there's a stimulation for you."

Richard Stover September 19 2000

Response:

Regarding your perspective on sensory and its relationship to the brain, there are some important questions that need answering:

1. what is the nature of the stimulation itself?

2. how does the stimulation transfer into conscious form?

One thing we do know is that the stimulation is not solely from outside of our sensory, but from our sensory in relation to what is outside of it, including ourselves, which means that our sensory either creates information or is simply information. Since creation is a conscious phenomenon, and our sensory exhibits no consciousness, we assert that sensory is the latter, and that the information is not conscious or in mental form. Now, it appears that through our thought process, we use our sensory information to create thought, thereby also create a connection between our sensory and what we think. For instance, the word ‘hot’, is naturally formed through the reaction of an individual to touching a hot plate, and the meaning of the word ‘hot’ is created through our connection to the sensory. However, this perspective is far from asserting that what we think is a mirror of what we sense. Though as implied, it is a necessity of our thought to have at least a limited connection to our sensory. Yet, we disagree that the continuity between sensory and thought starts with sensory, because we need ourselves and whatever is outside of sensory to have sensory and thought.

In terms of your comparison of a computer to a human being, we look at the computer as an extension of thought, and since we have established that continuity exists between our thought, sensory, ourselves, and outside of our sensory, the computer represents us ourselves in a limited way: though no one turns us off and on, we are turned off and on by the demands of existence, and though the computer requires conscious input, we require sensory input, and though the computer is a product of our minds, its material composition is not, and though we ourselves are apparently not a product of our minds, our existence in modernity is a product of our minds. Hence, it appears that the computer is at odds with our existence, since it comes from the mind, whereas, we ourselves do not.

Your claim that stimulation from the senses makes an individual, as though sensory is the central component behind an individual, overlooks the being behind the individual.

It is questionable that there are moments when there is no stimulation from the senses, because the living human being body can never completely shut down, unless it is no longer living.

Yes, when we are not thinking, there is no thoughts of knowing who we are and being who we are, because there are no thoughts. Yet, as the challenge proposition implies, it is not dealing with knowing or being, but knowing and being simultaneously.

Entries 105-113 Entries 120-125