Reply to the response to Entry 322

"Your response was well thought out and presented, but I would like to make a few more comments.

As to the idea of ex nihilo, I concur-nothing can come from nothing. This also means, at least to me, that ultimately there has to be something with no causal origin, something that always is. If there was originally void, and nothing can come from nothing, we shouldn't be here, or the universe either. But I take the universe to be here, or at least our perception of it, and therefore either it, or our perception, or whatever made it, has to always have existed, in some form. Call me a rank philosopher, but I can't see how otherwise there cannot be some kind of 'God'- whatever this might mean, that had no beginning. Whether or not we are in some way a part of this 'eternal non-void' - 'being'?, and/or whether or not we are 'being', of some kind, is another matter.

I also agree, in your response, that if there is no 'who we are', the proposition in one sense cannot be overcome, because there is nothing to know. But it also depends on what you mean by 'know'. 'We can know who we are', if one takes this to mean that we can understand, to a limited and representational extent, our evolved and/or non-evolved natures. But the inexpressible committee is adamant that this is not what the proposition means. The proposition is stating that we cannot know, truly and in entirety, our being, and any 'partial knowledge' of it is also illusory. Whether we can ever know in a non-representational sense is the question of the proposition- to which it may be possible, but not possible to 'reasonably show'-in which case the proposition also won't be overcome. But 'reasonably show' is also dependent on the 'reasonableness' of the inexpressible committee, as pointed out elsewhere.

I'm still not certain that conscious knowledge can't exist without interaction. ‘Being is a necessity of reason’. Call me a rank philosopher, but can't a computer be made to 'reason', without a 'being'? I press X on the keyboard. The computer 'reasons' X on the screen, stimulus- response yes, but what if we are just stimulus-response-and that is all 'reason', and our 'being' is? Or am I simply ignorant of centuries of philosophical debate? But what if ‘X’ existed on the keyboard already, without input-a kind of law of the universe, or a universe of law- I guess you could call this ‘being’. Or what if it existed as soon as we thought it did?

There are other possibilities which could explain 'knowledge' as non-interactive, but which are 'non- reasonable'. One would have to assume some kind of non- causal element or property of the universe-i.e. something like the brain circumventing space-time in its manner of operation, or tapping into a kind of instantaneous process, which exists outside the brain, and outside of causality. No evidence, and not reasonable, but it isn't impossible. The problem here is there would be no way of showing it to be reasonable, unless one first resorts to a non-logical argument e.g. some of the more peculiar and non-logical aspects of quantum theory, such as non-local matter, multi- universes, etc., which I'm not surprised most philosophers don't like. Or if one resorts to e.g. ex nihilo. Or if one resorts to a kind of 'living force' -ala. Star Wars. A force which is in all things, and knows all things, instantaneously-a kind of god. Moreover when one can assume things that are without evidence, or that are unreasonable- the list could go on forever.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea 'we' 'cannot' 'truly' 'know' 'who we are', it is just that I probably come to this through other angles, and therefore derive different conclusions. I guess one closing remark about the proposition, at the end of the day, is that it may be wrong, but impossible to 'reasonably show' this."

Roger McEvilly February 25 2002

Response:

Just because from our perspective something cannot come from nothing, why does that mean there has to be something from nothing, or in your words, "[something] with no causal origin"? The concept of ex nihilo is saying that something can come from nothing viz., something out of nothing, but we are saying that due to our causal perspective, this position is contradictory. The way forward, as mentioned in Entry 312, is to acknowledge from our perspective that there is no origin to things, so that things are infinitely unfolding in an interactive relationship. In our view this position, "divisible infinity", is the most reasonable position regarding the origin/non-origin of things. (However, if there is a necessity that there has to be an origin to things, we want to know.)

We agree that we can know who we are in an epistemically limited, representational sense, and that this is the position we have maintained throughout the competition. What the proposition refers to is the question of whether or not we can more reasonably know who we are in part or in whole and with absolute truth-value. So yes you are correct that if it can be more reasonably shown that we can know who we are in a non-representational way, and that the non-representational way can more reasonably be equated to absolute truth-value, the proposition would be overcome.

In terms of the apparent arbitrariness of more reasonableness, this is an issue that has been discussed in Entry 315, in which we make clear that the combination of the commonality of reason to all human thought, and our inability to get outside of our minds, prevents us from avoiding the necessity of reason as the fundamental determinate of thought, without facing inconsistency in our own position. There is no way around this point than to act inconsistent to one’s own reason, or in a way that is less reasonable than antagonistic perspectives. Though we concede that our definition of more reasonableness could be challenged, and thereby possibly improved, but this concession does not change the thrust of our position on more reasonableness.

We agree that a computer can be invented to reason without having its own being, but in our view, due to "being as a necessity of reason", there must be a being connected to the computer at some stage and form viz., the being of the inventor(s) is the being which has allowed the computer to reason, and without the being of the inventor(s), there is no reasoning computer. However, even if a computer could reason without any connection to being, its knowledge would still be based on interaction at some level and form, which you described as a "stimulus-response" scenario.

To contend that we are just "stimulus-response" contradicts the "being as a necessity of reason" position because it does not follow how stimulus-response could occur unless we allow for some form of being. If we do not allow for being, our position succumbs to the inconsistent position of ex nihilo. If we do allow for being, then we are no longer just stimulus-response.

In final analysis, we agree that it is possible that there may be non-interactive knowledge just as it is possible there may be no universe. However, based on what we more reasonably know viz., the causal nature of our perspective and the apparent interactive nature of things, it is more reasonable that non-interactive knowledge does not exist.

Also, we do not say that the proposition is impossible to overcome. Rather because possibility precedes impossibility, we say that the proposition is possible to overcome. In other words, the proposition is more reasonable than antagonistic propositions, and yet at the same time, it is possible that the proposition may not be more reasonable than antagonistic proposition. This position is consistent with the proposition itself because the proposition is saying from our limited perspective that there is more reasonably no self-knowledge with absolute truth-value that we can know, while at the same time it is more reasonably possible that there is self-knowledge with absolute truth-value we can know.

326. Entry:

"In Entry 322, Roger McEvilly writes:

‘I would also say that 'knowledge' is not as you say. It is a combination of many things, which are always changing.’

The above, in my opinion, encapsulates the 'deficiency' McEvilly refers to as it applies to the Proposition, that the question presupposes a static state of being. We can accept by definition that ‘who we are’ is a function of our being, that it is the product of a contextual universal continuum within which we exist; but we cannot accept by definition our ‘knowledge’ as a priori, since this is the value of our being that is contextual to our existence and changes continually. If we were to consider our knowledge as being more than what we consciously identify as what we know, then there would be room to incorporate into this 'knowledge' what the mind knows through its 'being', which may not be available to our consciousness, to our reason, and is relegated into some dark shadow of what we think we know. But because we identify our 'knowledge' with our rational thoughts, then we are per force always deficient in a complete knowledge of ourselves. So, this leaves us only one avenue to reconcile our 'being' of who we are with our 'knowledge' of who we are, at the same time, that our minds do have that knowledge, but that we are at the same time forever barred from knowing it completely rationally, through our reason, because of the non-static nature of both our being and knowledge. In effect, the two fail to match up exactly at any moment of time, though this does not negate a 'feeling' of who we are as a self knowledge, which is our self consciousness, and which may be considered to be 'matched' correctly. So, what does this leave us? In effect, as I understand it, it means that our 'knowledge' incorporates all the variables of existence, of our interconnectedness of that existence, in the subatomic electromagnetic impulses that our existence registers in the brain, in all the impulses that are registered in us as being us; or, to put it another way, we are what we feel we are, even if we are deficient in our understanding of who we are. In conclusion, this means that unless we incorporate our feelings and subrational mental processes into our definition of 'knowledge', then the Proposition is unanswerable. Or, to be who we are and know who we are at the same time, we have to allow for our 'feeling' of our consciousness, of ‘who we are’, as being true.

So the question remains: Is 'knowledge' allowed, under your rules, to incorporate our 'self-consciousness feeling' as part of itself? If so, then we 'know' who we are. If not, then there is no match, and what we think of as a knowledge of who we are is merely a self delusive rational image of 'who we are'. Or, as McEvilly writes: ‘What is 'knowledge'? From the perspective of consciousness as an emergent property, knowledge can only ever be defined arbitrarily, as can 'who we are'.’

So... which do we choose? 'Knowledge' as a definition of itself, inclusive of our feelings and other non-rational mental processes; or is it merely as rational thought? There, I think, lies the crux of the matter. So, in the end, it is our choice.

Of course, I choose the prior, that I 'know' who I am. Your choice?"

Ivan Alexander March 1 2002

Response:

We disagree that the proposition is presupposing a static state of being. All the proposition is presupposing, within limits, is that we ourselves exist at some level and form, whether it be a static or dynamic state of being or neither of them, and that we cannot truly know who we are. However, the ‘question’ of who we are refers to a fixed entity viz., can we know ‘who we are’? So the deficiency is not with the proposition, but with antagonistic propositions, because by proposing to know who we are, antagonistic propositions are contradicted by the apparent "continual change" of existence.

To deal with the non-static nature of existence, you recognize the non-static nature of being and knowledge, and that in order to overcome the proposition, the non-static nature of being and knowledge must more reasonably be shown to be in sync. It is here you refer to "feeling" as a moment in which being and knowledge are in sync. You define feeling as our self-conscious and as an occurrence of true self-knowledge, whereby the variables of existence are registered in "us as being us", which leads you to conclude that "we are what we feel".

In our view, your position runs aground on a couple of key issues. To begin with, you refer to "all of existence" when defining interconnections, thereby you are referring to a "whole" of existence, which begs the question, what is behind the whole of existence? We come to Schopenhauer’s thing-in-itself, and the problem of how a being-in-itself can also be a being-known itself. If you side-step the "whole" issue, and refer to existence as infinity, then you face the problem of how you can truly know yourself through what you feel, because there is no "all of existence".

The other key issue is that feeling on a conscious level is based on both experience and conscious awareness of experience (two step process), so that there is a "block" between what you experience, and what you know about the experience. (Entries 308, 310) So you are left with assuming that you think you can truly know yourself through an experience of feeling from a position of complete ignorance viz., you can only know your experience of feeling after it has occurred through what you interpret it as, and without truly knowing the experience. If you turn to all infinite interconnections of existence, as pertains to your being, centering in your consciousness, how can you truly know yourself, because you can only truly know yourself by truly knowing all the interconnections which determine your existence, and since we have established they are infinite you have no way of truly knowing them. The only way around this point is to assume that your being is created ex nihilo, because then the interconnections would not define your existence. But since ex nihilo is contradicted by your causal perspectives, we think you have no where to turn than to believe that you can truly know yourself based on an assumption about something you cannot truly know viz., you believe through blindly assuming that your experience of feeling is true knowledge of who you are, and yet based on interconnectedness, your knowledge of your experience is in an indirect relationship to your experience.

We think that you have no more reasonable choice than to accept that self-conscious feeling, a conscious phenomenon, is part of our conscious mental process viz., there is no self-conscious feeling from our perspective unless we are consciously aware of it. So the choice you face at this stage of the competition, is to either accept that we cannot truly know who we are on more reasonable grounds, or to reject that we cannot truly know who we are on grounds of faith in an assumption about something we cannot truly know. To turn to the notion of interconnectedness centering on our consciousness and defining it as being is to overlook that knowledge of something based on interconnectedness does not center on one point viz., all the interconnections define the point, and therefore they all need to be known to truly know the point.

In summary, in either a whole existence or infinite existence, your position faces the problem of establishing knowledge with absolute truth-value, especially considering the interconnected relationship between things viz., the interactive nature of existence, thereby the interactive nature of knowledge as well which translates into representational knowledge. On another front, your position faces the problems of showing that self-conscious feeling, a conscious phenomenon, is non-conscious, and that you can more reasonably know that your knowledge of your experience of feeling is true self-knowledge, when what you know about any experience is based on interaction, and thereby representation.

327. Entry:

"I must set up my answer in agreed upon terms.

There are two ways to-know. One way is experientially (awareness and attention). The other way is analytically (to analyze and to think about). Let us call these two ways ‘experiential-knowing’ and ‘analytical-knowing’. Two different words express this in Hebrew.

At moments... we can understand some thing (intuition/in- teaching/experiential-knowing) without going out to analytically know it. Going out to analytically-know some object or thing does not always result in an experiential- understanding of that thing. If it did - we would understand everything we go out to analytically-know, and we experience that is not the case.

I expect that when you say ‘we cannot truly know who we are’ you are speaking about the experiential-understanding- knowing of what we call ‘I’ and ‘me’ or the 'real me', and when you say ‘and be who we are at the same time’ I expect you are talking about actions and acting in everyday life. Yes, don't we all long for that re-union, that restoration - to ourselves!

We experience that these two types of ‘knowing’ are like a see-saw. When one is thinking (analyzing) one is less aware and attentive to experiences - and when one is being attentive and aware one is less ‘thinking about’. So often during meditation we quiet our thoughts by becoming aware and attentive to some thing of the senses... and someone poking us in the side is distracting while we are thinking thoughts.

Let us approach Genesis as if it were a philosophical work. Let us leave behind any religious baggage - good or bad.

Genesis breaks down our essential 'makeup' in the same way it has come down to us in philosophy: Intellect, Will, and Memory. These three (knowing - willing - remembering) all must operate together and if one is missing the others cannot function. This is ‘me’ in the simplest terms.

We are a ....
1) knowing-ability (an essential intellect, the ‘I’ or ‘person’)
2) willing-ability (the power to select and choose between two or more 'things' that we know)
3) recall or memory (lasting impressions)

These faculties of operation exist as - actions only. They are not objects.

For our discussion: To-exist and 'created' and 'thing' are transposable. What is ‘created’ is anything of which we can have an experience of. If we cannot experience it with either the mind nor senses - it is not ‘created’ - it has no existence - in as much as the term 'exist' is based upon a human experience of something and is therefore bound to human experience.

For example: What if we came upon 'something' which had a size which we could compare to no other size - had a color which we could compare to no other color - had a shape which we could compare to no other shape - width, height, weight, etc.. which we could compare to no other width, height, weight, etc.. etc.. could we experience-know that 'something? No. We could not.

Existence has no meaning outside of a human experience. Exist - IS a human experience like sound, sight, light, time, space. Without a human experience of that something - that something has only a theoretical existence (meaning it would exist upon our experiencing it in some way). (I believe in Quantum physics this is called 'Schroeder's Cat' where a cat is placed into a box and after a few days we ask 'is the state of the cat alive or dead?' and the answer only exists - when we open the box and look. Outside of human experience the state-existence of the cat has no meaning.)

Therefore: what exists we call 'created' is assuming an 'unknowable-something' caused it to be our experience. The term 'created' also includes non-physical events and relationships between 'things'. These non- physical 'things' are experienced by the mind through evidence of the senses.

The following is the scheme of our nature...
1) Uncreated (the essential person)
2) Spiritual Creation (all experiences of mind that person has)
3) Sensate Creation (all experiences of sensate that person has)

These conceptual levels are theoretical (only a way to think about it). Only the sensate has associations of the experiences of time and space. The term ‘Spiritual Creation’ has baggage - let us dispose of its baggage. The 'spiritual creation’ is all faculties of mind and all experiences proper to mind. That is all. The ‘Sensate Creation’ is the senses and all experiences proper to the senses. That is it. Simple.

We are like men sitting in a movie theater - where all we can know is what takes place upon the screen of our senses (faculties of mind and body). We are like Nemo in The Matrix - inside his pod.

It is a mistake to think of intellect or mind in any other way except as experiences to our knowing-ability and which may or may not have some relationship to physical (sensate) time and space events of the 'physical' creation. While we often experience (intellect) that we have some thought (mind) in relationship with some time and place (sensate) we can also have that same thought (mind) irregardless of time and place (sensate).

While we can analyze experiences of the mind and analyze sensate experiences - we cannot go out in analytical- knowing to our essential ‘person’. The reason is simple. Person - is the origin of all faculties of knowing (spiritual and sensate). The eye cannot see itself. Taste cannot taste itself. Touch cannot touch itself. etc..

Obviously we can have knowledge (experiential/analytical) of our mind. We can know our thoughts. Mind it is 'exterior' to intellect or person. Obviously we can have knowledge (experiential/analytical) of our senses. We can know our sense experiences. Senses are 'exterior's to intellect or 'person'.

We can scheme that this way...
Intellect --> Mind --> Body

Mind can know Body, and since Intellect can know Mind it can also know the content of Mind knowing Body.

In this scheme, Intellect or Person (the essential ‘I’) cannot have analytical-knowledge of itself. In this way - it is always a mystery to itself in the way of analytical- knowledge.

Let us put forth an assumption: That which is lesser cannot produce a greater. Whatever is produced (generated from) some source or origin - the qualities existing in the produce must already exist (in some way) in the source or origin.

Therefore - in 'person' or intellect - there must exist some form of will and memory.
Let us look at this scheme again and assign a prominence of operation to either Intellect, Will, or Memory.

(Uncreated)
Intellect *
Will
Memory

(Spiritual)
Intellect
Will *
Memory

(Sensate)
Intellect
Will
Memory *

This indicates that there is an Intellect, Will, and Memory which work in associated with each theoretical level and at the same time there is within each level a prominence to one of the operations over the others (indicated by the asterisk). This actually forms quite an amazing and ‘organic’ array of interaction and inter- functioning.

Keep in mind that the higher generates the lower - knowing- ability generates knowledge and thought (mind and will) and the union of intellect and will (I think of something and decided to act on it) generate actions which take place in the sensate - making memories. In a way of saying it - what is in the mind is a reflection (evidence of) the intellect. What actions the body creates is evidence of mind in the sensate world.

Both the mind (thoughts and such) and the body (directed action or autonomous actions) have their own form of intellect, will, and memory - that function together. For example - the organic organization of the body (soma) has a goal of self-survival which operates by itself for the purpose of its goal. You can ‘know’ this - but it is not ‘you’ so you cannot know it experientially in the same way you can know yourself (‘I’) experientially. The rudimentary mind of the body - does its thing - without our direction (breathing, beating heart, body functions etc..) And so too our mind (thoughts etc..) has its own operations of intellect, will and memory - so it too ‘does its thing’ - both these ‘minds’ (the rudimentary ‘I’ of the mind and the rudimentary ‘I’ of the body) exist only in - action - so they must - act. In the wrong type of meditation we try to cease the murmur of our minds - but can only cease it for a short time - because to-have- thoughts is its nature!

What if - all the ‘I’s - acted in concert! But what we experience is that each ‘I’ is un-concerted with each other. We are internally fragmentized, divided, like the man of the Gadarenes we are inhabited by legions of conflicting beliefs.

So - Now - the answer to your question.

Once we realize that we cannot analytically-know ‘I’ or ‘me’ (person/intellect) directly - then we can begin to stop making the mistake of trying to know self by analytically knowing our mind or body. What evidence of 'self' we find in mind and body is evidence only - a lesser reflection. Our habit has become to stand in front of the mirror and look at our reflection and say ‘that is me!’ No - it is not - it is a reflection and evidence of 'me' in something else. What type of 'know' we need to know the ‘I’ with is *experientially* - existentially. Without analytics.

Now - how can I truly know me and be me at the same time?

Once we know that the ‘knowing’ can only be and must be an experiential-knowledge (existential if you will). We can begin to take the right steps. We must ‘break’ the habit of trying to know ‘me’ by way of analytical-knowing. This is most difficult because it has become subconscious habit.

Can it be done? Yes. Deep inside we know it can be done. How do we know that? First - because we cannot long for what does not exist. If the condition you speak about ‘I want to know myself and be (act) me at the same time’ could NOT be reached by you - you could not long for it. You can wish for something that does not exist - but you cannot long for it. Because longing is a function or result of - memory. Wishing is a function of imagination. Longing means to-will. A wish is something we have when there is no means to the goal. Willing or longing is something we have when the IS a means to the goal.

So now we have determined that this ‘state’ is some how - impressed in your memory. Well of course it is. First - it is a state that is at the foundation of your ‘being’. For a car to work wrongly - it must have first worked rightly. If it never worked rightly at all - then it has not yet worked wrongly. This is simple - so simple - we have trouble with it. Something cannot be wrong until it has first been right. If something has never and not yet been right - it simply has not been right yet! To be wrong - implies the existence - of right.

And from where and when do we ‘remember’ this state. From the first moment of birth - in which you came into the world as a bundle of knowing-ability - bare awareness and attention - and before you had the words and concepts and tools of mind with which to do any analytical thinking. And - of course - you acted while in that state and you acted from the true - you. You were in the ‘garden of Eden’ where you were in complete union with nature and nature's God. It is that original union - that you long to return to.

And what I have just described is the ‘state’ that your question seeks.

Yes - you can truly experientially-know yourself (‘I’) and act at the same time.... but the details of ‘how’ carry a lot of baggage - and that is for another paper."

Ray Kaliss March 6 2002

Response:

Your challenge centers around the distinction between experiential (sensory experience on an existential level) and analytical (conscious experience through thought process), in which experiential is a gateway to true knowledge because it is a form of direct "awareness and attention" viz., what we experientially sense is truly what is. Without this gateway, we would be epistemically limited to analytical knowledge whereby we know indirectly. Or as you say in blunt terms, "what type of 'know' we need to know the ‘I’ with is *experientially* - existentially. Without analytics." However, what you are overlooking is that we apparently cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are, so we can only know through what we know from within our minds. So anything we know, either through experientially or analytically, is known indirectly viz., through our minds and in relation to whatever our minds are interacting with. Though even barring this point, it does not follow how our knowledge through sensory receptors is direct knowledge, because sensory implies interaction, and thereby any information derived from sensory itself, is representational of interaction.

To get around the mind in a box and the indirect nature of sensory positions, you refer to "bare awareness and attention" of a newborn as an example of true self-knowledge via., experiential knowledge, and yet it does not follow how there can be any conscious knowing, whether true or not, at the moment of birth without words, concepts, and tools of the mind. What you appear to refer to is the "uncreated" whole person, and that true self-knowledge is derived from that person. If that is the case, how does the whole person attain true self-knowledge in light of the indirectness of experiential and analytical knowing? You appear to be implying that true self-knowledge is innate in the whole person, which begs the question of where the knowledge comes from within the whole person? If you contend that the person is whole onto him or herself viz., created ex nihilo, then your position is inconsistent with your causal perspective, in which something from something else is more reasonable than something from nothing. If you contend that the whole person has a creator, then what is the basis for the creator, and where does its knowledge come from, and what is the nature of its knowledge in light of the indirectness of experiential and analytical knowledge?

In summary, your challenge falls short because experiential knowledge is not a direct form of knowing, and you have failed to establish the existence of true innate self-knowledge in ourselves. Merely saying that we ourselves are "uncreated" and at birth experiential knowledge is bare awareness and attention is not enough. You need to more reasonably show the origin of both our existence and true innate self-knowledge, and how they are related to our existence at birth. Because of the causal nature of our perspective, we do not see where ontologically you can turn, other than to an ex nihilo position which is contradicted by your causal perspective, or to a concession that existence is defined by the infinity of interaction, and thereby we cannot truly know ourselves.

Other comments:

Your argument that we are "longing" to truly know who we are, and therefore we have already truly known who we are, is incorrect because we are not longing to truly know who we are. Rather, we are respecting the apparent limit on what we can truly know and the diversity of human thought, by giving anyone an opportunity to more reasonably show that true self-knowledge can be known.

We think that your "essential makeup", defined by "intellect, will, and memory", ignores the biological aspect of our existence, and our interconnection with the external world, and our interdependence on it.

Entries 322-324,  Entries 328-330