"The important consideration, in terms of the competition, is that we assert that there is a non-label, unconscious basis behind or outside of our individual unconsciousness".

One cannot "reasonably show" that this 'unconscious basis' exists, or does not exist, with reference to the definitions given for the competition. The argument is what I would call self-circular--i.e. If we can't 'know it', we can't disprove it, and if we can know it, we can't 'prove' it.

The above statement cannot be discredited by reference to the assumptions presented by the definitions in the competition. i.e. one cannot prove/argue/convince "reasonably" or otherwise, that an unconscious, non- detectable, unknown, empirically non-verifiable entity does not exist. The contention is that we need to "reasonably show", but who determines what is reasonable? The assumption is that it is more reasonable to first assume this entity exists-that is, there is an a-priori assumption, which is determined as "reasonable" before the competition even begins. Any contention with this assumption is dismissed as "unreasonable" A PRIORI by the terms of the competition. Therefore I would argue, by the competitions own terms and definitions, (but not necessarily by logic or reality), the proposition cannot be overcome.

However, I contend that it is entirely possible that no such essence or "unconscious basis" exists in the first place, which to my way of thinking may well be a more "reasonable" assumption. Who is to decide which of these assumptions is more reasonable? Seeing as God (if he/she/it exists) has not been moved to provide input to this discussion thus far, we must assume that she/he/it will not in future do so, and therefore we are left with an unresolvable dilemma as to which of these non-provable and non-objective assumptions is more reasonable.

Furthermore, even if such an "essence" to our being exists, it does not at all follow that we diminute this essence by attributing meaning, unconsciously or otherwise, to our existing knowledge. It could be argued for example that many social animals attribute 'meaning' unconsciously or otherwise, to the knowledge of their environment, without diminuting the value of their existence. (However this argument is outside the terms of the competition).

I would also like to point out with reference to the general use of "reason", that many discoveries made by humanity in all fields of knowledge have in fact been anti- intuitive; - that is what we may consider "reasonable" is not necessarily the best or indeed the only way of determining what is likely to be true.

eif May 4 2001

Response:

1. We agree that the proposition is "self-circular", but so is any proposition, due to the self-referential nature of knowledge.

1.1 We disagree with your view that "if we cannot know [something], we cannot disprove it, and if we can know [something], we cannot prove it", because we can prove/disprove things from our limited perspective, whether or not we can know them or cannot know them. In other words, our thought process is contingent on the comparison of symbols, so that as long we have symbols for what we cannot prove or disprove, we can prove or disprove what we cannot prove or disprove, from our limited or comparative perspective.

2. The assertion that there exists a fundamental level of being behind our existence is not an a priori assertion. Rather, it is an analytical assertion derived from the contention that we ourselves cannot exist from nothing. So we posit a being or basis behind our existence. Or in the words of Kant, "being is a necessity of reason."

2.1 This contention of fundamental level of being is open to refutation by more reasonably showing that there is no necessity for being. (i.e. we can exist from nothing.)

2.2 We agree with your contention that it is entirely possible that there is no essence or "unconscious basis", but that is not saying much since possibility appears to be an inherent part of human thought.

2.3 In order for your contention of no essence to challenge the concept of who we are, you need to show, as mentioned, how human beings can exist from nothing. However, even if you do so, you would not refute the proposition, because you would show that we cannot know what does not exist [who we are] at the same time being what does not exist [who we are]. Yet, you would show the irrelevance of the proposition as well.

Other issues:

1. The determination of comparative reasonableness within the competition is determined by both the Inexpressible Committee and the participants. (i.e. the competition is transparent, and everyone involved has an opportunity to share their perspective, including a two week public forum to evaluate a possible winning entry.)

2. The notion of diminution is derived from us ourselves existing from what is empty of ourselves (i.e. thoughts as form and their material extensions), thereby canceling ourselves out the more we give existence to what is empty of ourselves. (Your example incorrectly equates "environment" with what is empty of ourselves.)

3. Yes, we agree that the determination of what is more reasonable may not be the best way or the only way to determine what is likely to be true. Though from our limited, reasoned perspective, in our view it is the best we can do in the moment. Also, any other way must entail some form of reasoned evaluation, so why not aim for what is most reasonable from our limited perspective?!

215. Entry:

"I have looked over many disputes on this issue prior to my entering this competition, and have found numerous fallacies. One particular area of dispute is that we cannot know who we are without first going outside our minds, however in doing so, we cannot know we are outside our minds. The very fact that we cannot go outside our minds is part of who we are. It is contradictory to the intrinsic function of human-beings to go outside our own mind.

You have said that the material extensions of our mind are empty of who we are, but in reality, the material extensions of our mind show exactly who we are. Our so-called "empty" inventions "devoid" of who we are the very things that make us human. Our ability to make thoughts a reality is esoteric. Our gift of invention is what separates us from every other living thing we know of. What makes a bug inferior to a human? What defines a bug as a bug? Its intrinsic inability to reason. It acts purely on instinct all the time. Humans are born with two instincts: to suck, and to grasp(which we quickly grow out of). Everything else is a manifestation of our own ambitions. Sure, there are obvious restrictions to what we are capable of, but we can know who we are by knowing our limitations, and we can be who we are by accepting them."

Kevin Brewer May 8 2001

Response:

1. The argument about not being able to get outside of our minds is as follows: in order to truly know who we are from an epistemological standpoint, we need to get outside of who we are, and yet by doing so, we cease to be who we are. (The argument is not stating we can get outside of who we are.)

1.1 The axiom that ‘we cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are’ applies to the indirect relation between our sensory information and the external world. (i.e. what we know is an extension of our sensory information.)

2. How do you know that material extensions are "exactly" who we are? Yes, material extensions are an extension of who we are, but it does not follow that they have to be exactly who we are.

2.1 How can inventions "make" us human, if we first need to exist for there to be inventions? It appears that the human side of us is prior to inventions. In other words, inventions do not make who we are; whereas we make inventions.

2.2 We disagree that our ability to invent separates us from other life-forms, because many life-forms like birds building nests show signs of invention. What separates us is conscious invention, though even this separation is becoming into question. (See Marc Bauer’s comments)

3. Your perspective of what defines an insect (i.e. "intrinsic inability to reason") and what defines us ourselves (temporary "suck and grasp" and ability to reason), does not answer what is the basis for the insect or us ourselves. (i.e. what allows us to reason; what is behind our reasoning?)

4. How does knowing our limitations allow us to know who we are? If the inability to know an absolute is one of our limitations, how can we know who we are? In what sense do we know who we are?

Also, because we cannot help from being who we are, our acceptance of perceived limitations cannot be a precondition for being who we are.

216. Entry:

"I believe that the statement is false because we are only whoever we perceive ourselves to be. We act in accordance of our views of ourselves. So therefore at the very moment we decide what we are, that is what we are at that moment. It may change in the next few seconds, but only because our perception has changed. So we are always what we know we are."

Louis Casinelli May 10 2001

Response:

1. If our perception is a product of our conscious invention, what is behind the invention of ourselves?

1.1 How can we decide who we are through who we are? What we decide becomes an invention of who we are.

2. Just because we may act in accordance with our views, does not mean that our views are who we are. They may be a limited extension of who we are.

217. Entry:

"I think this is the crux of the matter, and it is why the proposition as stated is unprovable. Based on Aristotelian logic, which may or may not be the best description of reality, (though it perfectly describes itself as a system of logic), A is A, and B is B, but never can A be B "at the same time". A may become B, in time, but not at the same time, at least not by this line of reasoning. So, if A is " our consciousness of who we are", and B is "our being who we are", then "at the same time" prevents it from being true, since A cannot be B at the same time. Where does that leave us? Either move beyond Aristotelian logic to allow for a mechanism where A and B can be as one; or abandon the idea of refuting what is structured through your logic to be irrefutable. Which will it be? The choice is in the hands of the Committee."

Ivan Alexander
Humancafe
May 11 2001

Response:

1. Your contention that "if A is ‘our consciousness of who we are’, and B is ‘our being who we are’, then ‘at the same time’ prevents the two of them from being true, since A cannot be B at the same time", is underlain by the assumption that A and B as defined are not the same. However, that may not be the case.

2. The competition allows for a mechanism in which A and B can be one, though it is contingent on the oneness of A and B being more reasonable than the non-oneness of A and B.

3. The proposition as structured and defined may not be irrefutable, due to the self-referential nature of knowledge, whereby possibility is an inherent reality of human thought.

Other issue:

1. The Aristotelian system of "A is A, and B is B, but never can A be B ‘at the same time’" is not perfect, because since A is A and B is B are not absolutes from our perspective, it cannot be said with certainty that A can never be B at the same time.

218. Entry:

A Word: AWARENESS

Knowledge of self comes from both without and within.

In structured environments, (work, home, school, society, family, friends, within conversations) people often know who they are, and are 'being' who they are at the same time.

Does awareness of self (self-knowledge) abruptly stop the process of "be"ing? While I am thinking about "Who Am I?", do I stop the "Who"ing process?

Much of knowledge of self consists in knowing one's roles. A role is part of the "who", and part of the "be".

If I am a parent, I both know my role as parent and -am- my role as parent. If I am a computer programmer, I know my role as computer programmer, and I -am- my role as computer programmer.

So, this proposition holds true in structured environments, within limits.

Does it hold true in greater circles? Can I know that I am a citizen, and also -be- a citizen? Definitely.

I think the key to the combination of knowledge and being at the same time, is AWARENESS.

When you are PRESENT, not trapped in the past or fiddling around with the future, and engaged in whatever you are engaged in at the present, and knowing what you are doing and who you are, and how others see you, then that is a case where we -can- know who we are, and be who we are at the same time."

Kenneth Udut May 17 2001

Response:

We agree that we can know and be who we are "within limits" as in being and knowing a conscious role from our perspective. What allows for this state of simultaneous being and knowing is that the role is a conscious phenomenon, so that the union of being and knowing in terms of role is contingent on comparison. For example, according to John the role of a writer is to write books (i.e. conscious definition), and John is writing books and aware of it (i.e. conscious observation); so John knows his role, and he is being his role. However, it does not follow that any of our roles actually correlate to who we are as in fundamental level of being. Therefore, though we can know and be who we are in a limited sense (i.e. conscious roles), it does not follow from this limited sense that we can actually know and be who we are.

In order to overcome this problem of being and knowing, you need to show how our consciousness actually correlates to who we are as in fundamental level of being.

219. Entry:

"If you think of self as a field in which an interrelational structure self organizes, you appear to identify self only through the relational structure. This kind of knowledge is always subject to perceptual delays in awareness as well as structuring delays. If you realize that ultimately self is the field of potential you reconcile your dilemma. This is the Self or Atman of the Hindu's, the Dharmakaya of the Vajrayana Buddhist it is immediately accessible there is no relationship or structure hence no delay only the soft hum of awareness."

Dana Gaynor
The PsychoSpiritual Research Institute
May 17 2001

Response:

We have several questions and concerns regarding your entry:

1. How can the self as non-label, unconscious entity be defined other than as a limited symbol, since the self appears beyond our comprehension?

1.1 It does not make sense how the conscious phenomenon, "interrelational entity" and "field of potential" can correlate to an unconscious phenomenon, except in a limited sense.

1.2 "Field of potential" refers to a beginning and an end. So what is the nature of this field or set basis, and if you cannot identify it, how can you label it a field?

2. How do you know that the self, or who we are, is our conscious awareness?

2.1 If conscious awareness is a product of our creation, how can we create who we are through who we are? (Note, we assert that being must be prior to knowing, because we first need sensory interaction for there to be knowing.)

220. Entry:

"Mapping the proposition to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and disproving the applicability of this principle to the argued premise, the overcoming solution will be worked out. This is an apparent contradiction but the argument will be laid out that it is consistent with for hypothesizing."

Alireza May 18 2001

Response:

Your argument is not consistently applied to both the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the proposition:

1. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is not an absolute. (i.e. from our self-referential perspective, the principle faces its own uncertainty.)

2. The proposition does not imply an absolute. (i.e. the proposition is proposed from our limited perspective.)

2.1 Validation of the proposition is not contingent on it being 100% certain. (Validation is contingent on internal consistency and soundness in relation to antagonistic propositions.)

2.2 Just as your "overcoming solution" is consistent for hypothesizing (i.e. certain within our limited perspective), so is the proposition for hypothesizing. Therefore, your argument which is contingent on the perceived absoluteness of the proposition, and thereby the proposition’s refutation by the Uncertainty Principle, is groundless.

221. Entry:

Dispute in reply to the response to Entry 218.

"Why is there an assumption that roles do not correlate to who we are in a fundamental level of being?

What evidence shows that roles can NOT equal one's fundamental level of being?

The assumption that seems to be made by you here is that there is
1) the fundamental level, and then, there are
2) masks, and
3) the masks are the roles.
Therefore,
4) roles do not correlate to fundamental level of being.

But why that assumption? If one takes all of the roles one plays, both with other people and with self, which is quite doable through introspection and maturity, does not one know themselves (by following the threads that appear in common through all roles) on a fundamental level, while also being?"

Kenneth Udut May 19 2001

Response:

What are roles? They are conscious phenomenon. Where do they come from? Through our sensory and thought process, we create conscious phenomenon, including roles.

Since we cannot create who we are through who we are, conscious phenomenon are not equal to our fundamental level of being or who we are.

If you want to challenge this line of reasoning, then you face the problem of more reasonably showing how conscious phenomenon can either come directly from the external world or be an innate part of our consciousness.

Also, since roles themselves are apparently not our fundamental level of being, but simply phenomenon we exist from, then any threads we ascertain through roles are also not our fundamental level of being. In other words, our fundamental level of being is separate from roles and the perceived threads pertaining to them, while at the same time using them to manifest itself. So as we stated in our Response to Entry 218, there is a limited connection between roles and their perceived threads, and our fundamental level of being, which pertains to the limited connection between what we know and what really is.

222. Entry:

"The first thing I must do in order to go about proving my philosophy is to prove that my method of proof is indeed correct. I choose as my method of proof logic or rationality because it is the only method that even truly exists. If one tries to prove that logic is a bad method using logic then they are conceding that logic is the only possible method of proof. If one tries to prove that logic is a bad method of proof using irrationality or emotions then they are using logic by saying logic must be disproved using a method other than logic. Considering that either way one concedes that logic exists, then it must indeed exist and since no other method can be proven to exist (i.e.: feelings, or irrationality) then logic must be the only existing method for proving my philosophy of perfect rationalism.

Therefore, using logic and logic alone, I will prove what exists in this world and what does not. In the Enlightenment the philosopher Decartes, came up with the famous saying I think therefore I exist. I will use this as the basis of the rest of my proof. This statement is extremely compatible with my method of logic since thinking is logical and exists as proven by my first proof. The rest of the proof can be proven in similar ways to the first one. One cannot disprove this statement because by attempting to disprove it one only confirms its truth. There is no other way to prove that anything else exists in this world so therefore since I am the only thing that truly exists. I am the "absolute truth" as some philosophers call it.

The statements that existence exists and that I exist as myself are proven by reflexive properties. This is logical because if existence and I can be used to prove existence then they must themselves exist. There is no way, however, to prove that you, anybody, or anything else exists in the same way I do and on account of that that anything else is reflexive. This means that everything I perceive and think doesn't have there own independent existence. Rather their existence depends on my existence, and so they are not absolute truths like me. (I.e.: I think, not you think) In fact existence is a bad word to describe thoughts in the first place, but because of lack of existing language to describe them I will refer to thoughts and the things they imply as having a dependent existence, while I will refer to myself as having an independent or true existence. That means that everything that I see, feel, taste, smell, hear, and think are all dependent on me. They do not truly exist, just as you who are reading this do not exist. You have just been created rationally by my mind. I call this view of the world egocentrism.

I have proven that existence exists already and so I can theorize then that existence cannot change in anyway. In other words, the world exists in a sort of static existence that never changes. What exists now already exists and will exist forever. The past and future only exist as dependent existence while the present exists as true existence. The past and future, however, flow rationally from the present in thoughts. A corollary of this theory says that I was neither be born nor will I die. I can not die because existence will always equal existence and cannot ever be equal to non-existence. To die is to end existence and would therefore be irrational. The same applies to birth, because since I am the only thing that exists in the world and existence is equivalent to existence, I must have always existed.

The only true knowledge that exists in the world is the truth found in my philosophy. Science, math etc. are semi rational in the respect that they do not adhere to my philosophy of existence. Instead, they are attempts by me to give order and a sort of rationality to a world that would otherwise not have one. Semi rationality, although not true rationality on account of it not being founded on my theory, is at the same level of existence as my thoughts. They are not a true existence, but instead a dependent or second level existence. Theoretically without me, this existence ceases to exist because of its dependence.

I cannot help but be myself for that is all that exists. There is nothing to overcome I am myself and that is all. I am being."

Robby May 22 2001

Response:

1. We agree that an individual cannot help from being who he/she is as long as he/she is alive. However, from this point, it does not follow that being (who we are) and knowing (thoughts as form) are identical.

1.1 If we were to contend that being and knowing are identical, then we would face the problem of how anything could be known from the oneness of being and knowing, and the problem of explaining the origin of knowledge from a position of who we are as non-creator of knowledge. Though based on your entry, in particular the proposition that ".... everything I see, feel, taste, smell, hear, and think.... has been created rationally by my mind," the problem of origin is a non-issue, because you imply that we create knowledge through our minds.

Also, by having indirectly made this concession about origin, you establish separation between what we know and who we are, because we cannot create who we are through who we are. Or as you state, thoughts like "[science and math] are not true existence, but instead a dependent or second level of existence."

However, the problem your theory faces is equating it with "perfect rationalism", without realizing that the self-referential nature of knowledge makes no thought perfect. For instance, the statement, "I think therefore I exist", can be disproven by showing that "I" is an illusion, so that no "I" as we perceive actually exists. To get around this point, you could restate the proposition as "I think therefore something exists". Yet it is possible that even through "I think" that nothing exists. (i.e. there may be something else other than existence--ad infinitum.)

223. Entry:

Dispute: in reply to the response to Entry 221

"I think the key to the competition lies in the fact that the "know who you are" means knowing who you are on the -unconscious- level.

Once something about self is made conscious, then it instantly falls outside of the criteria of your competition.

In other words, if you take the "be" out of your question, and state, "You cannot know who you are on a deep, unconscious, fundamental level" and ask others to refute that -- then I would have to agree that "Yes, because once you become conscious of something (whether the core of your being, or an ingrained bad habit), it is no longer at an unconscious level".

In any case, given the constraints that the knowledge must remain unconscious, then yes, you are right.

If I am misunderstanding your question, I welcome correction. But if I -am- understanding it properly, then you have my concession."

Kenneth Udut May 23 2001

Response:

Even though "know who we are" refers to the unconscious level, it is possible from a phenomenological standpoint that we could know who we are without knowing that we do, so that the self as conscious entity (i.e. form of knowledge) may be unconscious to the perceiver. (i.e. who we are is at the conscious level, though through our perception it is at the unconscious level.)

Also, the definition of "know who we are", like the rest of the proposition’s terms, is open to refutation. So overcoming the proposition may entail refuting the proposition as a whole or one of its terms. Therefore, if you can more reasonably show that we can know who we are (i.e. fundamental level of being), and know or not know that we do, than not knowing who we are, you would overcome the proposition.

Entries 207-213 Entries 224-231