"An appropriate response to this or any proposition must begin with upon what it turns, that is, what renders it a problem. This proposition turns on time insofar as it may separate knowledge and being. So both knowledge and being must be investigated in respect of time separately and then compared in those respects. However, this must be carried out with presuppositions, at least before an application to the we in question is defined: embodied, individualized, etc. Knowledge is looking aback, taking leave of an imperfect present for the idealized future, which is used to view how far and in what way a present become static, measures up based upon stable out of time divisions. Knowledge forgets the past in order to order it according to the same forgotten present out of which arises the supposed objective future that measures all. Being, however, moves within the present by remembering its origins of the past and repeating them differently, and thus a subjective, or more objective, future arises in a measure of perfecting time. There is no stability, no essential divisions between times, eras, and none in space for there is an inherent logic passed through all along as being becomes in its own time, its own way. As knowledge divides time and differently orders time than does being, it may seem that one can know and be at the same time the same thing or way of it. However, this is concluded according to knowledge's way. Seen from being and knowledge as arising from it, then its time must as well arise from being's time. It can only be stated now as an imperative, a mere preliminary, that only when or if we return to being and in its own time can knowledge be returned as well to being. In other words, knowledge understood as a way of being and not separated, opposed to it, would not be of a different timing but being one among many ways of being as it becomes. This is only an imperative as knowledge, in its derivative and opposing systemicity, so dominates in the present. Only in being opposed to such dominance would know how to be, as this seems to be lost in these divisive times. Dividing time so drastically, dangerously, limits concern to the past faith, future hope, and present despairs. Be knowingly!"

Arik Issan February 6 2001

Response:

We agree that if knowledge is viewed as a way of being, and therefore in time with being when it is ‘a way of being’, then knowledge would be one of many ways of being as being becomes. However, it is questionable whether knowledge’s time, as opposed to knowledge's time as a way of being, can be viewed as the same as being’s time (i.e. "moves within the present by remembering its origins of the past and repeating them differently, and thus a subjective, or more objective, future arises in a measure of perfecting time"), because knowledge as form shows no sign of remembering its origins of the past. We contend that knowledge as form is static, and it is only indirectly through our use of knowledge that knowledge becomes dynamic.

Also, just because knowledge arises from being, does not mean that knowledge is the same as being. In fact, if we take the word "arise" literally, then there is an implied separation between being and knowing, even though knowing is contingent on being. (i.e. something cannot arise from something else, without being different from it.)

If we examine further, and regardless of how you define "arise", you face problems like how can we create who we are, or being, through who we are, or being? If you respond that we cannot separate knowing from the being, because the latter is contingent on the former or is only a way of being, then it does not follow that contingency implies identicalness.

We come to the challenge of showing how what we know as form is intrinsically the same as who we are.

162. Entry:

"In all actuality, we can know who we are and be who we are, because the process of curiosity, of finding who we are, is actually, "who we are." If we were not, "US" then we would simply not "be." The ones that think about who we are, are the ones that should know that they are the question in itself. They are the curious ones that NEED an answer, they cannot go through life not knowing. That is who WE (the human race) are. But, what is the human race? just the clay figures that our ancestors molded with time and little effort. If we are something that is curious why things occur, then we are the very essence of life. WE know that what people do not know intrigues them more. So why get up in the morning? why try? why not? If people were not lazy and so important to the further development of this world, maybe the existence of our kind would not have lasted more that 100 years, or even 10 years. It's the questions that keep us all going, like how a couple after about 50 years has no intimacy. The intimacy has left with the curiosity, but the couple is so used to seeing each other, they stay till the end. And THAT basically is who we all are, just a few lazy self-centered individual's that could make a difference in the further destruction of this world, that will never be happy with just one answer."

Bob Balonek February 7 2001

Response:

The process of our curiosity is not necessarily who we are as in fundamental level of being, because it may be an extension of being without actually being it. Though we agree that we cannot help from being who we are as long as we are alive, or as you say, "if we were not who we are, we would simply not be". Yet, your point does not change that the process or extension of being may not be the same as the being itself, so that what we know as form, while being an extension of being, may only have limited connection to being.

163. Entry:

"Being who you are is not an option. You cannot be who you are because then you would not be you. expanding on what I wrote earlier: the problem with assuming that you only know yourself in a limited way, although seems like a valid inference, is that it implicitly follows that somehow you have knowledge that there is something more than this limited knowledge. How do you know there is something more (that the limited is not the absolute) with having some idea what it is that you know?

As a person, I am a project that at least will not be completed until I die. Who I am is not only who I was in the past, but who I will be in the future, who at each moment I am becoming. So you see, your proposition is only valid is you assume that there is an un-changing self. In other words, one is going to have to prove that there is something to know before they show us what it is they know - -unless of course it is just so self-evident that no one can deny it, and I do not see that happening. As well, because this "self" is unchanging, and all we have knowledge of is the phenomenal; this person will have to show how we can have knowledge of the 'beyond'--after they prove that there is such."

Trey February 8 2001

Response:

We agree that being who we are is not an option, because we cannot help from being who we are. For the same reason, we also agree that we cannot be who we are. However, in terms of the challenge proposition, through the phrase "be who we are", we are identifying an inexpressible entity in relation to "know who we are", so the question resolves around whether or not we can know who we are, while being who we are. (i.e. there is no connotation in the proposition about being who we are and not being who we are. In other words, being who we are is a constant.)

We know from our limited perspective that there is something more than our limited knowledge from what we reason:

1. we exist. (i.e. in order for us to be consciously aware of thoughts, we must exist.)

2. there is a basis behind our existence. (i.e. we are not nothing nor everything--we cannot be nothing and be aware of thoughts, just as we cannot be intrinsically everything and be consciously aware of everything intrinsically.)

3. we are not our thoughts themselves because we need intrinsic separation from what we know in order to know, otherwise we would be in the oneness of what we know. Also, apparently we are the creators of reasoned knowledge, thereby our thoughts themselves cannot be who we are, because we cannot create who we are through who we are.

For further arguments on intrinsic separation see the Proof

The validity of the proposition is not contingent on an "unchanging self", because even with a changing self, what we know would be a step behind who we are. (i.e. as soon as we know who we are, we cease to know who we are, so that we never end up knowing who we are. If you respond that our thoughts could be same as who we are, thereby avoid the time problem, you then face the problem of knowing in intrinsic oneness, and showing a more reasonable theory of knowledge than the theory that human beings create knowledge through their sensory and thought process.)

Further, we disagree that the validity of the proposition is contingent on direct knowledge of the ‘beyond’, because we cannot get outside of our minds, which means that the only way to know anything outside of our minds is to infer it (indirect knowledge). Similarly, we cannot know the inside of our minds, because we cannot know something solely through itself, and therefore the only way to know anything inside our minds is to infer it as well. We are left with reasoning our existence, and or not consciously knowing anything.

164. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 157 (original entry 147)

1a) "We agree that the aspects of the physical body and soul are necessary for the human mind to work, though it does not follow that it is necessary for the physical body or soul to be present in the human mind for it to work."

Answer:

"We recognize ourselves as an individual due to the physical body we possess which separates us from another physical bodies. Mind is a subtle part of the physical body. Thus when we say mind, it is understood that we are referring to that subtle part of physical body which has capacity to think. For the question of soul being present, the body physical or subtle cannot work if soul is not present.

For "the soul being part of thought" as stated in your response and in the problems listed there, the soul resides in the entire body which has physical and subtle parts. Physical organs one can see but unfortunately subtle can be only experienced and known by the results of its actions."

1b) "Also, just because human beings have the capacity to focus their attention or be "deeply engrossed" in something like a book, does not necessarily mean that soul is behind that focusing as in the "soul traveling with thoughts". For instance, it is equally reasonable that when an individual is deeply engrossed in something, his physical body and soul are simply behind his engrossment or mind, without actually being part of it.

Answer:

"When we are deeply engrossed in any act, for example in the case of reading or painting, our mind is active in that act. For mind to be active, some process is going on in the mind. As in the case of reading, mind is busy creating the atmosphere or situation similar to one in the book in the mental world. That is how the books influence our mind. If one is reading the horror book at the night, and then tries to sleep, the fear which was created by reading that book creates a panic even if we see little movement of the doors or window by breeze. In case of painting, our mind takes up the imagination as well as comparison with data in our mind. Thus whenever we say mind is active, soul is present there. The word equivalent of "deep engrossment" is "total involvement". We are familiar with the term like, "the artist has poured is soul in it".

2) "However, if we examine further, the position that soul is part of thoughts, runs into problems: ---"

Answer:

"As stated above soul is not the part of thoughts. Thinking is a process and thoughts are the product. When we say thoughts travel, thoughts cannot travel by themselves. Each thought produced becomes the data material for the next thinking process and so on. This is how a train of thoughts moves. As the process goes on continuously, soul continuously present in our mind. Thus thoughts keep oscillating between the mind and the object. Ultimately, the thoughts become force of motivation for actions performed by the physical body. We are familiar with the term called "powerful thoughts". This is how the power of thought can be understood."

Problem no.2

"How can individual know without intrinsic separation from what he knows and who he is? (i.e. his thought and who he is would be in oneness.) If an individual can know without intrinsic separation from what he knows then what he knows appears illusory, which would contradict the assertion that an individual can know without intrinsic separation, by making the assertion illusory as well."

Answer:

"As stated in my earlier reply, when "I", in meditation constantly thinking about the unknown "self", the thoughts slowly are reduced for the lack of data and what remains is the soul in the subtle body of mind. The awareness of physical body is already reduced to nil in the process and now the mind is also reduced and what remains ultimately, if one is successful in achieving this state is experience of "self". At this stage, self merges with what is called as universal soul. This is "self realization". When one experiencing something it is experience. The next moment it becomes the knowledge when one comes back to the state of body awareness.

This is very similar to one's effort to see the self in the mirror. One can see own image till there is little distance. If one tries to go very close it is difficult to see the image properly. Hence one has to go back and look at the image in the mirror again keeping some distance. Similarly person can experience self and come back to physical world with the knowledge of self."

Problem no. 3

"If who we are is part of thoughts as form, there is no separation in terms of who we are between thoughts and who we are. Yet there is separation when we are not thinking and we are thinking, which leads to the problem of how who we are could be part of thoughts".

Answer:

"Let me state again and again, "who we are " is not the part of thoughts. Thoughts are the product of thinking process. The mind exists till the process exists. The thoughts get converted in to the data, and stored in our memory parts of brain. Just the way computer data are stored as memory in the chips of computer. (that is how when there is damage to the certain parts of brain, there is loss of memory.) The thoughts are also used as the material for thinking in the continuous process of thinking, if not given up by mind. The process goes on till "who we are "- the soul is present in the body.

The self is first experienced and as stated above, there is no bodily awareness and no mental awareness. Still, when slowly we come back to awareness, mental as well as physical we try to think of the series of events which culminated in that experience. The thought process starts and the mind reasons. One closes the eyes to recollect the moments of experience. Once the path is known, it is easy to go back and experience again and again."

Problem no 4.

1) The idea of soul as part of thoughts contradicts the apparent reality that human beings create thoughts, or knowledge, through their sensory and thought process. (i.e. an individual cannot create who he is through who he is.)

Answer:

"As given above, "soul is not the part of thoughts."

2) If when "thoughts are projected inwardly with concentration, our life-force too gets concentrated at one point", how can individual know he is concentrated on his life-force, while at the same time being his life-force? (It appears that in order to know one's life-force, an individual needs to get outside of his life-force, and yet by doing so, he ceases to be.)

Answer:

"The consciousness is the expression of life force one can experience in day to day life. When I say "thoughts are projected inwardly with concentration, our life-force too gets concentrated at one point.' I mean that we are aware or conscious of only one thought "self - Knowledge", which is yet to be gained. Here our intellectual faculty fails to provide any data for further processing of the thought. Just the way when power fails the capacitor helps to provide the electricity, the inner self unfolds by itself through the consciousness. This is the experience and when one slowly comes down to body consciousness, tries to recollect the experience which becomes the self-knowledge."

Mrs. Bharathi Shanker February 9 2001

Response:

It does not follow how you know that the soul resides in the entire body, when as you assert that "unfortunately subtle, [or soul] can only be experienced and known by the results of its actions." Though even your assertion does not make sense, because by the soul being subtle, we can only assume we experience it and know the results of its actions. In other words, we cannot know that we experience and know the actions of something that we cannot perceive; we can only assume we do through what we reason. On that note, what reasons do you have that soul resides in the mind, other than that the mind is subtle and we can use the mind to evoke emotions?

Your challenge, or claim, appears to be that soul is present with thoughts like in a state of superposition ((s)oul with (k)nowledge). In other words, there are no thoughts without soul present with them. A few problems with this position are as follows:

1. we (i.e human beings) apparently create knowledge through our sensory and thought process, so it does not follow how we can create who we are through who we are, thereby it does not follow how soul can be present with thoughts. You may respond that thoughts are separate from soul, and yet that is inconsistent with your claim that soul is present with thoughts, and it leads to the problem of knowing when soul is actually present with thoughts.

2. we need intrinsic separation from what we know in order to know, otherwise we would be in oneness with what we know. (i.e. it does not follow how we can know who we are without getting outside of ourselves, and yet by doing so, we cease to be.)

3. a) we know through what we know (i.e. we know through the knowledge we already know).
b) since all we can know is what we know, we cannot know knowledge solely through itself.
c) so it follows that what we know is not what we know as form. (i.e. not s with k) What we know is an empty form which we ourselves exist from. Hence, it appears that soul, or who we are, is present with thoughts in an indirect sense. (i.e. we need who we are to have thoughts, which is not the same as asserting that who we are is actually present with thoughts, whereby to think a thought, we are thinking who we are as well. No we do not agree. Who we are appears to be outside of thoughts, and yet connected to them in a necessary but limited sense.)

The notion of isolating who we are in a realization of universal soul leads to the three problems listed above, and the additional problem of how we can know who we are if what we know is in oneness with who we are or the same as who we are?

The Inexpressible Committee has ruled that you have not overcome the challenge proposition. Unless you can more reasonably address the problems mentioned above than not doing so, we consider your entry, now fourth reply, at a close.

165. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 160

"Rather that responding to each question or comment, point by point, I would rather provide some general observations. Your questions are important, and while I may not be able to provide answers to all of your concerns, the following points may help all of us "connect the dots".

(1) One should not underestimate the importance of non-local interactions. Bell's Theorem is a hallmark theorem in quantum mechanics, and it asserts that reality cannot exist without these non-local interactions that are required in addition to other local interactions we observe in nature (non-local interactions make connections faster than the speed of light in the case of our universe, for example). So I can speculate that both local and non-local interactions are needed in the various realities we perceive: e.g., the universe; the biosphere; the mind. Darwin's theory of evolution as a product of survival of the fittest is incomplete, therefore, without feedback from the biosphere. Moreover, non-local interactions from the universe will connect to the biosphere, and therefore, we cannot exclude other types of forces that have guided evolution beyond reproductive advantage. Bell's theorem has contradicted the reductionist view that whole can be explained merely by it's parts.

(2) The mind must be the same way, that is, it must be connected with both local and non-local interactions, like a circuit. I suspect it is true that we cannot know ourselves, because entropy, or disorder, has put us on a constant search for ourselves with local interactions that don't provide a perfect picture of ourselves. My belief is that we search for ourselves by making observations, and therefore, my essay has everything to do with this philosophical colloquium. This is also the same process seen in evolution, and in the universe, where we see mutual observance (both local and non-local).

(3) I am not suggesting that reductionism is without merit. What I am saying is the process of observer created reality is better explained as a holistic process. And, therefore, a way for us to seek immortality is provided, given what we have already seen in nature (the second part of our colloquium). If our work products please an observer then they will survive long after we die. If there is a non-local observance beyond reproductive advantage, then we may also survive after our body has expired. But in every case we must seek to please an observer, including our mind's eye, the eyes of our family and friends, the eyes of philosophers, and the eyes that Bell's theorem tells us that must exist, the eyes of the universe and biosphere. Physical complexification and biological evolution have taught us that to seek these favorable perceptions we find synergies with other component parts of our universe. We have a shared existence, and that it is sharing where our salvation is found.

(4) Lower organization cannot seek favorable observance. These find salvation because an observer finds favor in their existence, so they are selected. This is the way of rocks, trees, and other organizations that have not developed a consciousness. But we humans can also seek communion with an observer, so we are different. We have free will, and are probably not alone."

Stephen P. Smith February 10 2001

Response:

1. We agree with your point about the interaction between local and non-local things. However, it does not necessarily follow that local and non-local interactions result in, or stem from, intrinsic connection between the things behind the interactions.

2. How can we (i.e. human beings) avoid reductionism at some level in our thinking? Is not your holistic perspective reductionist, when it assumes that there is a fundamental essence or law behind the universe or existence? It appears that the challenge premise about the existence of a fundamental level of being may be no more reductionist than your holistic outlook, except we are looking at things from a single individual, while you are looking at things from the universe as a whole.

3. We agree with your point about the necessity of humanity to have a holistic outlook, which culminates in the view that our salvation lies in "sharing". Though this outlook only pertains to humanity because of our enormous power over most other life-forms on the planet. In other words, if we do not hold our power from mind in check, we will likely change the biosphere to our own demise.

4. We disagree that lower organization cannot seek favourable observance. Surely, a rock for instance that resists erosion more than other rocks is seeking, in its own way, favourable observance, just as a tree through the production of more seeds and more effective dispersion of them than other trees is seeking a more favourable observance.

Also, we disagree that salvation is always found in an observer finding favour in a thing or life-form; and actually it appears that salvation from finding favour in something is quite the contrary like an individual finding favour in the existence of an apple, among other apples, and eating the apple! Where is the salvation for the apple, especially in consideration that the uneaten apples have the possibility of starting the growth of new apple trees?! Or a mainstream publisher finding favour in a young, gifted author, and pressuring the author to spend his life producing mainstream work with no lasting value, and in contrast to an author ignored by the publishing industry and undiscovered by the public, producing his life potential in his works?! Could it be that salvation, if there is such a thing, lies in an observer not finding favour in someone's existence? Could it be that it is a weakness to seek favour than not doing so?

5. We disagree that there is free will because an individual has no control over the origin of his/her existence. (i.e. an individual comes from parents and other things beyond the individual’s control.) So if anything, there is only limited free will.

166. Entry:

"I disagree that the proposition can be truthfully negated. For any person, to know a thing is to be separate from it. All sensa are separate from the sensing organism. This is given in the fact that sensation is a relationship. It relates different things; sensation cannot be an unitary and undifferentiable occurrence. Unless change occurs sensing organisms simply stop sensing. This is empirically proven in many ways, but a simple one is the tendency to ignore constant droning sounds after a period of time.

In any meaningful sense of knowing who "we" are at some point in time, we are in fact reflecting upon some thought or experience we had previously. To assume the contradictory of this is to reach an infinite regress. If we assume I can know myself at the same time I am knowing myself, the regress is clear. The contradictory of the above assumption results in the possibility of an infinite number of "me"s reflecting upon themselves reflecting, ad infinitum. I take this proof to be the semantic equivalent of producing a "truth tree" and discovering one branch repeats without termination. This means the proposition is true."

Kevin Wagner February 11 2001

Response:

We agree with both of your points, showing the validity of the challenge proposition:

1. implied separation between sensa, or thought, and sensing organism.

2. time lag between knowing and knowing being.

However, it is possible that sensa may be different from the sensing organism, and yet intrinsically the same as the sensing organism, thus overcome the problem of implied separation.

Also, thoughts as form may be intrinsically the same as who "we" are, thereby negate the effect of time lag in terms of knowing who we are.

Though more important than these points, the apparent self-referent nature of knowledge leaves an opening for uncertainty in our knowledge, no matter how certain we view what we know; and the notion of infinite regress is not fully relevant to the competition because the competition is confined to the bounds of reason or determining which thoughts, or perspectives, are comparatively more reasonable. Therefore, we disagree with your claim that the challenge proposition cannot be truthfully negated.

Although we acknowledge that we cannot determine with 100% certainty whether the challenge proposition is more or less reasonable than another perspective, because of the neither certain nor uncertain nature of knowledge. We can only do so within the bounds of what we know and the time constraints of the competition. That is why we ask the participants to please inform other people about the competition, whom they think may be interested in it.

Entries 157-160,  Entries 167-173