"If it is claimed that to both know and be who one is at the same time is impossible and that one necessarily is who one is, then it is claimed that one cannot know who one is. The basis for this latter claim is that knowledge is an empty form and static whereas being is rich in content and dynamic. If the formality of knowledge is not to be challenged, then in order to overcome the claim that knowledge of who one is is impossible, being itself must then be challenged or changed as to its dynamism. This challenge has been taken up in two very different traditions in Western philosophy. Analytical reductionism in the scientization of method and avowal of a universal physicalism have left us with a determinism which essentially denies dynamism, growth, emergence. This claims that there is movement without change. So, insofar as being is avowed to be static, knowledge is possible, as we are no more than what has always been, a taxonomy of things. There is the opposing tradition of historicism, the enculturation of being, which is but another sort of reduction, religious or political or economic. This claims that there is change, that being is dynamic, that static knowledge is impossible, but only as long as being is not static. This staticization occurs when all has been reduced to what will eventually be and has been emerging all along. So, insofar as being is to be static, knowledge will be possible, when being is itself formalized into rich emptiness, the emergent content. Thus, knowledge of who one is is possible; either when indefinite time passes for scientific progress to totalize, given that understanding of being as a physical process, or when there is a definite sort of time determined by Spiritual progress for the sciences to totalize as some final emergent system, given that understanding of being as an historical process. Within either understanding, one will know who one is: that knowledge will coincide with being (static by addition), or being will coincide with knowledge (static by a geometrical progression). So, there may be a time when knowledge of who one is is possible. At this time as all others, one will be who one is. Thus, one may know who one is and be who one is at the same time. And the proposition seems to be overcome."

Arik Issan February 11 2001

Response:

No, the claim that we cannot know who we are is not based on the claim that knowledge is an empty form. It is the reverse. We claim that we cannot know who we are, and then claim that what we know as form is empty of who we are.

Also, by claiming that what we know is an empty form, we are not claiming that what we know is static. Rather, we are claiming that what we know as form is simply empty of who we are. (Note, we make no claim as to the static or dynamic nature of who we are or thought as form.)

Yes, we agree that if things are inherently static, "movement without change", then it follows that knowledge in an absolute sense is possible, and that if things are inherently dynamic, then knowledge in an absolute sense is impossible, unless the dynamic of what we know as form is inherently the same as what we are knowing. In other words, it is possible that we could know who we are and be who we are, if knowledge is intrinsically the same as who we are. Though this outcome is possible whether things are inherently static or dynamic.

Yes, we agree that it is possible that scientific progress, whether alone or through spiritual progress, may be able to show that we can know and be who we are. (i.e. "static by addition" or "static by geometrical progression") However, just because it is possible we may eventually know how we can know and be who we are, it does not follow that we will be able to do so.

In short, though you have shown that it is possible to know and be who we are, you have not actually shown how we can know and be who we are. In other words, by showing the possibility of overcoming the proposition, you have not overcome the proposition. All you have done is shown the validity of the competition.

168. Entry:

In reply to the response to Entry 166

Disputing the Dispute

"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." (Excerpt from response)

It is possible? I don't see why you would claim this unless you also claimed that your eye was, in fact, red when you were seeing red. I haven't the slightest idea if this is logically possible, but it certainly stands contrary to fact.

"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." (Excerpt from response)

Well my point wasn't exactly about time lag, but more that since a relationship necessarily entails at least two differentiable things, even to the trivial example of a ruler having two ends for the relationship "length", and since knowing oneself is a sensation, whatever it is that knows simply cannot be that which is known, at the same time. It perhaps could be that nothing but one thing existed logically, but I will simply cite continued and varied experience as implicit disproof of this claim, as differing experience isn't going to erupt from a static and unitary entity.

"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." (Excerpt from response)

Within the bounds of reason, reductio ad absurdum is a fine demonstration of an internally incoherent (unreasonable) set of premises. One way to test a purportedly true premise is to assume its negation and see if it entails a contradiction with some set of premises. What an infinite regress lets one know, as regards a negated conclusion, is that some set of premises do not entail a contradiction. Since you are searching for a deductive proof or disproof of the challenge claim, this seems to work well.

Kevin Wagner February 12 2001

Response:

We agree with the arguments you have raised in support of the challenge proposition. As we see the arguments, they are:

1. difference between sensa and sensory organism.

2. relationship entails at least two different things.

2.1 continued and varied experience is not consistent with a unitary entity.

3. infinite regress with the proposition’s contradictory, we can know who we are. (Explanation of infinite regress)

However, we think that your arguments, coupled with our own like intrinsic separation and relation between sensa and external object, show only that the challenge proposition is more reasonable than the proposition’s contradictory, ‘we can know who we are’. In other words, we do not agree with your challenge that the contradictory of the challenge proposition is more reasonably impossible than it being possible. Why? All knowledge, or thought, is defined by possibility due to the self-referent nature of knowledge. (i.e. there are apparently no absolutes that we know we know.) Therefore, the notion of possibility is more reasonable than the notion of impossibility. (i.e. we need possibility in order to have impossibility, and yet we cannot derive possibility from impossibility.) So, in order for your challenge to work, you need an absolute to ground the notion of impossibility, but due to self-reference of knowledge, you do not have the ground. As a result, someone could claim that because who we are as non-label, unconscious entity is beyond our comprehension, it is possible that we could know who we are. You cannot more reasonablely claim it is impossible without an absolute, which you do not have, or referring to the possibility of impossibility, thereby contradicting your argument. Though obviously the person’s claim is less reasonable than the arguments you raised in support of the challenge proposition.

169. Entry:

"True knowledge cannot be doubted (assuming we are philosophers and not quibbles. I am using knowledge in the strict sense), everything except direct knowledge can be doubted. No matter how strong you believe an inference to be, an inference is always contingent on the premises from which you infer, and they themselves must be either direct, or they are contingent on their premises, ad infinitum. Thus, if you going to have any sort of knowledge here, if it is going to be knowledge in the strict sense, not just a strong belief, it is going to have to be direct, which means, first, you are right it will probably have to be via reason and not empirically. But then you have the problem of making the connection between reason and reality, which can be just as much fun.

What I was saying is, unless there is something of us that is unchanging, we are not strictly a being until we die. Whatever this is that is unchanging, it is beyond in that it is not perceivable. Although, it may be the case that reason can get there. But then you have the problem of showing that your argument is anything more than 'fun with logic'."

Trey February 13 2001

Response:

We do not agree with your implied distinction between direct and indirect conscious knowledge. In our view, there is only conscious knowledge through sensory and thought process, and which may pertain to whatever is outside of our minds, or whatever is inside of our minds.

Since we apparently cannot get outside of our minds, the problem of connecting reason to reality is overcome, within our conscious limit, by determining the most reasonable knowledge, as we are doing in the context of this competition.

Yes, it is possible that reason can access our fundamental level of being.

The question whether or not our fundamental level of being is static or dynamic is irrelevant, because we have no way of knowing something which is apparently inexpressible. The important consideration is that we contend that we exist, and that there is basis behind our existence. (Note, your equation of a being to something static, does not necessarily follow. It is possible that a being could be inherently dynamic.)

We are not concerned with showing that the challenge proposition and its claim are not semantics, because the notions of we exist and there is a basis behind our existence, are necessities of reason.

170. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 165 (original entry 160)

"I would like to address the five concerns, point by point:

1. I tend to agree that we don't know "that local and non-local interactions result in, or stem from, intrinsic connection between the things behind the interactions". But this is a reflection of our limited observation of non-local interactions that have, in fact, a quantum reality. Most of these interactions are hidden from us, and this leaves mostly only local interactions we can observe in space and time. The point remains that reality requires both local and non-local interactions, and therefore, I can infer that non-local interactions have a profound effect on reality. For example, we don't know if quantum uncertainty is only a property of elementary particles. Quantum uncertainties may very well influence higher organizations (when the signals are unscrambled as permitted by the organization), like the segregation of chromosomes during meiosis, or even the manifestation of conscious will. But my point is simpler than that; we seem to have an observer created reality given the processes we already see in our universe. The fact that we also have non-local interactions just means that there is a bigger range of possibilities for observer created reality than what we know about.

2. A very strict interpretation of reductionism is the view that whole can be explained merely by its parts. Regarding our universe, and the broader issue of reality, reductionism has now been contradicted by our modern understanding of quantum mechanics (I previously pointed to Bell's theorem, but you may also look at the books I sited by Nick Herbert and David Bohm). Reductionism is, therefore, a fallacy. The truism, that the whole cannot be explained by its parts, likely extends to many things in our perceived world. Likewise, determinism is also false because of quantum uncertainty, and because we also have limited predictability because chaos has made predicting the whole from its parts very difficult when there is feedback. Dynamic systems are controlled because of holistic feedback channels like we see in evolution, or in guided missiles. I know of no one that has succeeded in predicting an expression of a dynamic system from initial conditions, like the weather, without finding notable statistical errors as the system evolves. The point is that we don't avoid reductionism in our studies of the universe. It is that when we synthesize the expression of creativity (as it has been found in nature and in humans) we must adopt a mechanism that is removed from uncertainty and chaos, and therefore, we must necessary describe a holistic process that has a feedback channel, perhaps a non-local channel hinted to above.

3. I agree that we may likely change the biosphere to our own demise. And we may also destroy each other because of our lack of respect for those of our own kind. Our destruction is entirely possible, and in this event evolution (on earth) would need to start over again, like it did when the dinosaurs went extinct and mammals where given the rule of the land. If there is a planned direction to evolution (because of non-local feedback for example) we don't know for sure that humankind is the likeness of the creator, other than what we read about in scripture. Nevertheless, I suspect the appropriate action for us humans is to seek harmony at all levels of our existence, to make the best of a shared reality. That seems to be the best we can do, given what little we can know.

4. It matters not if rocks or apples seek or are given observance, favorable or otherwise. The fact remains that only those enduring forms remain stable because of mutual observance of molecules attracting one another (as in the rock), or because apples continue to please the human taste buds thus insuring that other apples will continue to exist long enough to meet the same fate. It is true that digestion is an observance, and that some forms will meet their demise. However, apple trees have a more certain existence because of the satisfaction people find in apples. Only those forms that can find a lasting communion will win salvation intact (like genes or apple trees), while other forms will fail. It is true that some people will spend their life pursuing a talent that will fail to find a lasting observance, but only from our perspective. Some people that seek observance will be disappointed. These are the hard circumstances of an observer created reality. But it is unwise for someone to seek isolation, claiming that a need for observance is a weakness. Self absorption can be like a celestial black hole, and there may be no salvation. But it is possible even for someone like Van Gogh to find appreciation of his life's work long after death.

5. I am only suggesting there is something like free will. It is entirely possible that there are gradations of free will, and free will is most certainly restricted because none of us determine our own birth. My only point is that humans (once we are born) can seek communion with a higher order, whereas rocks can't. That is, humans can use their will and take a quantum leap if such a stable communion can be found, not that one necessarily exists. This is what I mean by free will.

It is interesting that my original essay reads more like the book of Genesis than it does like the theory of evolution, despite our discussions. You recall, creation was seen to be good, that man was created in the likeness of a creator, an observer created reality in fact. It is that way down to the time when human kind ate from the tree of knowledge and acquired free will. Free will allowed humans to take a quantum leap, to predetermine part of our future (not all of it) by the exercise of our will. But free will came with a price, as man's consciousness became confused between the self and the rest of creation, and we gave witness to the sin of pride. Therefore, free will is like natural selection. And free will can also be viewed as a type of time travel if non-local quantum-type interactions give birth to free will, and we are permitted to will our future or change our past.

It is entirely possible that consciousness and free will are shared expressions in the highest organizations (not that they are aware of this), but this is speculation about a quantum reality we can't observe. We only see the unusual habits of people, and these are difficult to explain as a simple end product of reproductive advantage. Kant's moral imperative is difficult to explain simply as something that has emerged from the reproductive observance. And the fact that some human minds are already in flux, that we confuse our existence in time and experience dyslexia and autism, these too imply there may be a higher quantum-like feedback channel. If quantum mechanics is such that it is only just physically possible for information sharing across space and time with the right unscrambling devices, then evolution would eventually happen into this synergy, and human speciation would inevitably reach to a new level regardless of reproductive success, but only because it pleases an observer."

Stephen P. Smith February 14 2001

Response:

Our point mentioned in our first response, that human perspective is by necessity reductionist, stems from the claim that we cannot know the whole, so what we know is our perceived parts of the whole. In your case, your reductionist/holistic outlook is made up of five main reductionist points:

1. observer based existence.

2. communion with higher order.

3. concept of "share".

4. quantum reality.

5. local and non-local interactions.

Obviously, your emphasis is on the universe and humanity’s relation to it. In contrast, our [Garvey’s] reductionist theory focuses on the origin and nature of knowledge as form, and its relation to humanity, thereby everything we know through the relationship. Though our theory does not incorporate the universe with the emphasis that you have given it, the theory does incorporate, whether through acceptance or rejection, the concepts you have used.

In our view, neither approach is correct or incorrect, but since we apparently cannot get outside of our minds, and that reasoned knowledge is our only way of expressing, with reasonable complexity, our perspective of existence, an understanding of knowledge, and its origin, is paramount, otherwise the fundamental validity of our perspective will likely be more in question. It is in this area, epistemology, that we feel your outlook needs further elaboration, and perhaps union with the core epistemological ideas stemming from the challenge proposition. (Though we acknowledge that more work needs to be done to further uncover the relation between our sensory and the external world, and the relation between our sensory and our thoughts.)

Other issues:

1. The concept of quantum reality has not been empirically proven, or proven in any other way, because the concept pertains to something beyond our comprehension like two different things existing as one single thing, or two different things existing in identical space and time. Therefore, it is possible that quantum reality is really a fabricated reality.

2. If the observer existence is a "created" reality, what is the point of striving towards creating a whole reality, so that all we end up with is a created reality, rather than the real thing? In other words, since you previously asserted that we likely cannot know who we are, and if you are correct, it follows that what we know as form is not who we are (i.e. empty of who we are), so that our consciously created reality, and any attempt on expanding on it, through non-local channels, may only be taking us further from reality. How can you reconcile a goal of expanding our outlook towards a higher order, while at the same time acknowledge that what we know as form is not who we are?

171. Entry:

"To be or not to be, that is the question". Or is it the answer? Living is a "paradox" and a "mystery". Why must we have the answers to all. This is the ego, always having to be in control. I think therefore I am, I feel therefore I am. One must go deeper and let go of thinking and feeling and become transformed into being, the true living self. This letting go and detaching of the "ego" and transcending to another state is where freedom and truth come together as one entity. This is living in the presence of God. At this moment, this peak experience, one becomes "whole" one becomes one with all life."

Jackie St. Hilaire February 15 2001

Response:

Since we cannot help being who we are as long as we are alive, it does not follow that "letting go of thinking and feeling" will allow us to "be" anymore than we already are.

By advocating "letting go and detaching from ego", and the thoughts which necessarily accompany ego, you appear to be implying that ego and thoughts are not true self, or in the context of the competition, they are not who we are.

How practical is detachment from ego and thought, when most of humanity is dependent on them as a means to exist? Where is the "freedom" without ego, when almost no individual could survive without some direct or indirect form of ego?

How can you know that detachment from ego leads to wholeness, when the concept of whole is beyond our comprehension?

How can you advocate detachment from ego, or any other action, as an imperative, when what we know is partly defined by uncertainty?

172. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 170.

"I agree with all of your comments.

Regarding your questions:

(1) I agree the quantum reality could be a false reality, and no one knows for sure. I will say that no one has been able to disprove quantum mechanism, as it is known today.

(2) We strive to a harmony with the whole reality because this is the way the game is played (assuming we am right), and because we don't know for sure there is not a higher observer."

Stephen P. Smith February 15 2001

Response:

Yes, no one has disproved quantum mechanism because it is neither provable nor disprovable--almost like a non-entity.

Is there anything to strive for, when we ourselves may be the whole reality? Also, could the harmony we strive for be disconnecting us further from the whole reality, as alluded to in our response to Entry 170 about the apparent intrinsic separation between what we know and who we are?

173. Entry:

"The proposition can be overcome by viewing knowing as a state of being. I'm convinced that the main difference between western and eastern philosophy is that western philosophers refuse to accept the notion of a direct perception of reality; a 'flash' of intuition which changes ones being. The following paragraph is an objection I made to the concept of knowing that is used in the proposition. After reading my objection I realized it could be used to overcome the proposition.

Ok here's another problem. You are using the word 'know' in a very familiar way. As if knowing what it means to know. But I've always found the concept of 'knowing' as being very mysterious. How do we really know anything. Do you remember the scene in 2001 A Space Odyssey where the ape suddenly realizes that the bone can be used as a weapon? Actually I think much more happened in that moment. In a flash (the word flash is important) the ape became self-conscious. He saw himself, those who were his friends, those who were his enemies (he had an instinctual awareness of friends and enemies before but now it became conscious) and the power that the bone gave him and his friends. He went mad with joy at this discovery. For the first time he 'knew' something. I can feel the joy that killing an enemy in battle must give under such circumstances. This would have been are real advance in human development. And all because in a moment of time an individual received a flash of insight that caused him to know something. Isn't that the way it always is when you come to know something you didn't know before? You are trying to understand something, whether it's how to deal with a domestic situation or a philosophical concept. You've been struggling with it and can't seem to make the connection until suddenly you say 'Oh'. 'Oh' is the way we express the flash of knowing that 'happens' to us. And this knowing comes to us from OUTSIDE! It comes to us from that which is inexpressible. So I'm convinced that knowing is not something achieved by reason. Reason is just a way of arranging what we already know. It looks to me as if in this way of defining 'knowing' knowing is a state of being. And that makes sense since everything we know changes who we are. I also do not believe it is possible to know non-love since non-love is not real and we can only really know (in my sense of the word) what is real. I believe reason can be used for bad ends. It can take what we know and arrange it in a way that is false and therefore against love."

Martin Bebow February 16 2001

Response:

The following problems with your challenge need addressing:

1. By viewing knowing as a state of being, does not necessarily mean that the knowledge behind knowing is the same as being itself.

2. How can there be "direct perception of reality", when the word, "perception" implies separation between subject and object?

2.1 Also, how is a "flash of intuition" direct perception, when we apparently perceive through our sensory and thought process, and we know through what we know (i.e. we use our existing knowledge to come up with new knowledge) whether the process of knowing is unconscious or conscious?

3. Just because part of our knowing appears to stem from outside of our consciousness, (i.e. from our sensory in relation to external objects, and our unconscious thought process), it does not follow that our knowledge as form is inexpressible, or the same as our fundamental level of being.

3.1 If intuition, or even instinct, is a form of knowing as in inexpressible knowing, then how can we know intuitive or instinctual knowledge at some unconscious level (i.e. react to it) and still be who we are? It appears that inexpressible knowing faces the same intrinsic separation problem as expressible knowing.

4. It does not necessarily follow that everything we come to know changes who we are as in fundamental level of being.

Other issues:

We disagree that all knowing requires a "flash of insight". For instance, a mathematician may think about a calculus problem, and through his/her thoughts about the problem, the mathematician comes up with a solution, so that he/she knows through what he/she knows. In this example, the mathematician's knowing requires a continuum of thought rather than an unconnected flash of insight.

We agree that expressible knowing cannot be achieved by reason alone, and yet there cannot be expressible knowing without the use of reason in some form, no matter how minuscule.

Entries 161-166 Entries 174-180