"Always enjoyable to read your inscrutable responses. But there is something you said, in your response to Entry 326, which I think needs a deeper examination:

‘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.’

The operative sentence here is: ‘because you can only truly know yourself by truly knowing all the interconnections which determine your existence,’ as you say above. Then you go on to say that this is impossible, which necessitates 'being' as being created 'ex nihilo', which contradicts these interconnections as determining 'existence'. However, this ignores the point I wish to make, that a totality of interconnections, or interrelationships as they exist around us (to infinity, wherever that is), in fact 'are' our identity, which is then registered both in our body and mind, which in total become a definition of 'who' we are. The access to this knowledge, imperfect that it may be, is then available to us in a holistic sense, as expressed by our reasonable consciousness, and our 'feelings', as a self knowing expressing of our being. Is this a good enough 'knowledge' to qualify for overcoming your proposition? That I cannot answer, since the choice (of your answer) is not mine to make. Then you go on to say: ‘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.’ Well, call me silly, but that is exactly the point, one on which we disagree, since in my way of seeing things, it is exactly this point on which converge all the interconnect relationships of existence that the whole is defined, because it is how the 'pressure of everything' has allowed it to be. In terms of a total interrelationship, that point is its identity, the 'who' (as a self conscious life force) of who it is in terms of all existence. Then, though we cannot know all the interconnections to some infinite totality, they nevertheless are, of necessity, what defines that point.

Further, this also begs the question: What do you mean by 'who'? Is your sense of 'whoness' defined by some absolute-truth value, or some relative value of who we are, or by some mechanism of mind that renders us a definition of ourselves, something each human being feels in his or her breast? I think that 'identity', human or otherwise, is defined by how the interrelated totality has defined it within itself; and that same 'identity' is then felt, consciously or not, by the being who occupies it.

I realize this will not fit within your framework of how you define conscious 'knowledge' and existential 'being' of our 'whoness', but it is a fun exercise in how we separately see our being in reality, and then how we are aware of this. I do not entirely disagree with your point of view, merely that I find it less rich than mine. But then again, that too is a matter of choice."

Ivan Alexander March 8 2002

Response:

We agree that we can attain knowledge of ourselves through our interaction with the external world which together are defined as a totality or infinity of interconnections viz., we can identify our place in the totality or infinity of interconnections through our interaction with the external world. However, we disagree with your assertion that this self-knowledge "may not be perfect". We contend that this self-knowledge, based on interaction with the external world within the totality or infinity of interconnections, is more reasonably imperfect, because it is contingent on interconnections, in the form of interaction with ourselves, being registered in our body and mind, and therefore what we know is representational of our interaction with the external world. The totality or infinity interconnections does not overcome this representational aspect of our knowledge.

To argue that all interconnections converge on our being, does not answer how our knowledge of those interconnections can be anything but representational. Also, it appears that you are overlooking that there has to be something behind interconnections, in order for there to be interconnections viz., they cannot simply exist out of nothing, which means that the whole of interconnections is prior to the interconnections rather than after as you contend. Moreover, how can all the interconnections converge on a point which exists outside of the interconnections? Where does the point come from? If the point is part of the interconnections, then we are no closer to true self-knowledge, because the self-knowledge is based on interaction. Though you would add that the interactional based self-knowledge is within an "interrelated totality". Does interrelated totality make a difference? We come to the problem of what is behind the interrelated totality, and the question of how interaction with the totality from within it can lead to true self-knowledge?

If the interrelated totality defines everything, and there must be something behind the interrelated totality to be consistent with our causal perspective, then what defines everything is something like Schopenhauer’s thing-in-itself. We then face the problem of how something can be a thing-in-itself while being-known itself, and the inconsistency of the concept of thing-in-itself with our causal perspective. (Something from something else ad infinitum is more reasonable than something from nothing.)

If you contend that there is simply an interrelated totality, in which interrelations themselves define the totality or point, then as mentioned it does not follow that anything from our causal perspective, including interrelated totality, can exist from nothing. Also, interrelation alone does not lead to a point. Rather, interrelation leads to interrelation which leads to interrelation which leads to interrelation ad infinitum.

We are left wondering how you go from interrelated [infinity] to true self-knowledge from within the infinity? Just because our knowledge appears interconnected to the infinity of existence, does not mean that what we know has absolute truth-value. What it means is that we have representational knowledge of our interaction with external and internal interconnections. To claim that the infinity of interconnections is who we are, and that they are registered in our mind and body, and therefore we can truly know who we are by accessing the registered information, ignores that the interconnections themselves are not registered in our body and mind. The information derived from our interaction with the interconnections is registered. Although there is a connection between what is registered in our mind and body, and the infinity of interconnections, the connection is indirect.

To say that our knowledge is a product of the infinity of interconnections, does not establish knowledge with absolute truth-value. All it establishes is a connection between our knowledge and the infinity of interconnections.

Other issue:

We agree that one’s belief is a "matter of choice". But in our view the more reasonableness of two antagonistic positions is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of determination.

329. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 327

"I have not made myself clear and we all need to further define terms and to accept some set otherwise we founder in semantics. After I present this - I shall concentrate on your terms so I may put it into 'your language'.

The greater portion of Philosophy is working out the language.

---quote---

Your challenge centers around the distinction between experiential (sensory experience on an existential level) and analytical (conscious experience through thought process),

---end quote---

When I speak of 'experience' and 'experiential' I should be speaking of something the "I" is involved with. Without the "I" involved there is no 'experience'. A chemical reaction or a 'mechanical' movement of soma has no 'experience' in itself. If we speak isolated to any level (for example soma only) then these senses do not 'experience' nor do they know each other - they act and react in a mechanical biochemical way, but in as much as no individual sense can be said to be the "I" then no individual sense may have an 'experience'.

Definition: The term 'experience' presumes the "I" having it.

Let us return to the relations of the diagram of what it is like.

Person/I à Mind/Psyche à Body/Senses

We know the body and its senses, and we know the mind (although senses proper to mind are generally not well defined on paper). We do not need to talk of the senses of the body because that is so obvious (commonly spoken of as 5). The senses of the mind we need to talk of, just a bit, in order to know that the mind has its own un-physical senses that are appropriate to (receive) the physical sensory input from the body so that the mind can also work with the soma sensory input. I do not call the sensorial input 'experiences' here anymore in order to be clearer).

All these senses (of mind and body) have their origin in the - person. The "I". The "I" is the first initiator and the final receiver. Just as the sensorial inputs of the body have their 'gateway' into the mind (since there is no 'physical' connection between mind and body, let us say that the sense of sight, that the mind has, is somehow appropriate or proper to the sense of sight the body has in order to receive the input of somatic sight). Let us show that - through a sense perception being received. Let us use the sense of sight. The object seen is on the right (so we follow from right to left).

Person/Intellect ß Mind/Psyche sense ß Body sense ß object seen

Exactly how or what the "transducer" is between each level (represented by arrows) I can not say beyond the fact that on the body level it is that light waves reflected off the object seen - hit the physical eye - are 'transduced' to electrical energy and sent to the brain. Whatever the other 'transducers' are like further in (between mind and "I") must be 'like' something like that in principle.

The physical brain is the site and center of action and interaction between senses of the soma but in no way can we assign it (or not assign it) as the location of the experiences of the "I" (the "I" has no physical location). If the "I" had a location it would be physical and we could put it on the table and put it on the shelf. The best we may say is that the "I" has a special relationship with the brain (different than any other relationship with any other physical object).

The "I" is the ultimate receiver of all sense experiences of mind - just as mind is the receiver of all senses of the body. I call it sense experiences now - because the "I" is involved. The senses do not 'experience' but because it is by means of the senses that the "I" experiences - we often say "sense experience" in virtue of the "I" involved.

In the case of mind - "I think therefore I am" presupposes his act of experiencing himself in analytical thinking. (which logical thinking we experience as mental words - our own 'voice' - in our native language. It is intersecting that a sign that someone has really learned another language is when they find themselves thinking in that language and no longer transposing by thinking in their native tongue and then transposing to the learned tongue to speak.)

In as much as senses on each level cannot sense itself or any of its partner senses on the same level (for example: the body sense of sight can not directly see touch and the body sense of touch cannot feel sight, and neither can the body sense of taste sense hearing), we can say that these limitation also belongs to the mind and its senses (which are the higher pattern of lower body senses).

As you say - each sense cannot go out from itself to know itself.

In as much as no individual body sense can experience another body sense (boy! Wouldn't THAT be crossed wires making things impossible and non-functional!) and in as much as we can surmise this to be true of the senses of mind also - then we can surmise something else - higher - within which - or by which - all senses are ultimately received and joined into one experience. At all times the word 'experience' is related to "I" and any interaction between senses on the same level is not an 'experience' but more like and action of reaction within mind or soma according to its nature. Even if some sense perception does trigger some response in other senses on the same level (as in the sleep walker functioning but having no experience of that functioning) this action/reaction is not an 'experience' without the "I".

Therefore there must be a third (now we should call it a 'first nature', and mind second, and body third) and this first 'nature' is the foundation for the senses of mind and body - in the same way that the senses of the mind are foundation for senses of the body. This - I say - is the "I" or person. Neither is it mind/psyche nor is it physical body (the two levels which are called spirit (mind) and soma (body). The "I" is that which is the ultimate receiver of all senses. In as much as this "I" can not be the object of the sense experience of either mind nor body - this "I" is said to be un-created (because 'created' belongs to experiences had via senses of mind and body).

Since all individual experiences of the senses are 'joined' in the "I" into "one experience" (the whole table, the whole car, everything about the table at once, etc..) then this "I" can also experience its own experiences!. and it does so, obviously, not by going out from itself. Therefore it alone has the ability of self-knowledge.

As regards 'ex nihilo' if we postulate a positive "thing" as the 'nothing' we miss the boat. The meaning is "no-thing" and "thing" is defined as either psyche or soma - so this term when uses bends the word "thing" to say a no-thing which is not psyche-thing nor soma-thing. The hole in the donut has no "thing" or positive existence and is defined by the limits of the donut (the dough). It is not defined in itself - but by the limits of the other thing. So ex nihilo does the same. Rather than a "thing" ex nihilo indicates the limits of 'things' (psyche and soma) and gives no positive properties to itself. A mystery.. The undefined and inexpressible.

Conclusion.

Only the "I" may experience itself (have self-knowledge) and that is not by going-out from itself in any way (so it is not analytical). In as much as "experiential" is appropriate to the "I" (it is defined by experience in the "I") it can only be an experiential knowledge not accomplished by either mind/psyche nor soma/body senses.

If you disagree with any of my terms - please define them for me - we shall have to work through that communication.

Thank you for this stimulating discussion that forces me to think and define terms."

Ray Kaliss March 12 2002

Response:

We agree with your equation of experience with the involvement "I" viz., if we are not consciously aware of our experience, whether through ourselves or others, there is no experience from our perspective. However, just because experiences of sensory or of any other experiential interaction are "joined" in the "I" into one experience, it does not necessarily follow that what the "I" knows, for instance, of the experiences of sensory is true self-knowledge. If we examine the situation with our focus on a sensory receptor, we identify interaction between a sensory receptor and what is being sensed viz., external stimuli, whereby the source of sensory information is from the interaction of the sensory receptor and external stimuli, rather than directly from either the receptor or stimuli. From here, the sensory information is passed through various transmitters and connectors, to the human mind, where upon entering the mind it is converted into conscious knowledge viz., individual experience. Clearly from this simplified example and as pointed out by you, the "I" has the ability to know experience of itself, without having to get outside of itself. However, the crucial question in terms of the competition, is whether or not the "I"’s knowledge of its experience is true self-knowledge? The fact that the information derived from the sensory receptor level is not in conscious form, means that there must be an interaction at the conscious or mental level in which as mentioned the sensory information is converted into conscious information viz., the interaction of sensory information with consciousness whereby a conversion occurs means that the conscious knowledge which has been converted is based on an indirect relationship, and therefore the knowledge the "I" knows of its sensory experience cannot be true self-knowledge. For you to get around this position, you need to establish a direct continuum between sensory information and the conscious "I", and yet by doing so, you succumb to the problem of how the "I" can know itself as itself viz., a direct continuum could only be based on consciousness, thereby the "I", existing at both the sensory and mental levels.

Another problem with your challenge is that you assume that the "I" or who we are is a fixed, concrete entity, which then acts as a "foundation" for you to establish true self-knowledge. Yet based on our causal perspective and the apparent interactive nature of existence, it does not follow that "I" or who we are is a fixed entity. Therefore, even if you could more reasonably show a direct continuum between sensory and the conscious "I", you would have to then show that the actual knowledge is true knowledge of who we are, instead of assuming that it is. To define the "I" or "person" as the "undefined and inexpressible" is not a way out for you, because if who we are is undefined and inexpressible, it then follows that we cannot truly know who we are.

Other issue:

To say that the "I" or "first nature" is the foundation for the senses of mind and body in terms of individual experience, ignores that these three things, conscious "I", mind, and body are interdependent on each other in this context, so that by subtracting one of them, you eliminate the other two.

330. Entry:

Regarding your response to Entry 328, you write: "Also, interrelation alone does not lead to a point. Rather, interrelation leads to interrelation which leads to interrelation which leads to interrelation ad infinitum."

I think it is exactly the 'point' of our disagreement, that we see differently how a total interrelationship affects its internal parts...."

Ivan Alexander 17 2002

Further elaboration of position:

"... it is exactly this point on which converge all the interconnect relationships of existence that the whole is defined, because it is how the 'pressure of everything' has allowed it to be. In terms of a total interrelationship, that point is its identity, the 'who' (as a self conscious life force) of who it is in terms of all existence. Then, though we cannot know all the interconnections to some infinite totality, they nevertheless are, of necessity, what defines that point." (From Entry 328)

"The mind defines our identity, and the soul is entirely locked within this new, aware, sophisticated modern mind. It creates; it controls; it is progressive and thus it is confident in its position in reality. It is itself, an autonomous, cognizant and organized entity in a disorderly, probabilistic universe. The mind is a closed system, a sealed bubble within a chaotic and pententially hostile universe. It observes, it controls, but it is nevertheless autonomous." ("Habeas Mentem", Is there a natural order (ch. 1), p. 3)

"... each point has only the definition of itself in terms of itself: a point... because of interrelationship, each point also has a definition that is relative to its position in terms of the other [] points, in terms of their interrelationship." ("Habeas Mentem", Let us create an idea (ch. 2), p. 2)

"... From the vast infinity of universal interrelationships now flows a new definition of an idea, that can think itself: It is defining for us a single point in space." ("Habeas Mentem", What is the form of interrelationship? (ch. 3), p. 3)

"... Until our mind became conscious, our history was still simply the effect of a universe forming itself; when we gained thought, we joined in with its development and it became a universe forming itself with us." ("Habeas Mentem", Each one of us (ch. 4), p. 3)

"... Depending upon how each thought and deed is received at infinity will result [in] how reality will materialize in our environment in response to the self. Thus, the mind materializes its own reality, from birth, and the environment of its existence is always a reflection of itself... As we create the universe creates us in its image. Untouched, each one of us is an image that is being created by the universe, our there. In that image is the consciousness of our new identity. In our being, in our mind, from the dawn of our creation to now, at each moment of time, are the mechanisms that are compatible with our identity out there." ("Habeas Mentem", Each one of us (ch. 4), p. 4-5)

Response:

In an interconnected existence, how can something like our minds be completely autonomous? How can we through our minds detach from the existence outside of ourselves? Just because we can think ourselves, does not mean that the causes for our thinking, and our thinking itself, are independent of the existence outside of ourselves. In fact, because our thoughts are dependent on some level and form of interaction with the existence outside of ourselves, it follows that through our minds we are not autonomous of external existence.

Though we agree that we as individual life-forces are a product of the infinity of interrelations, it does not follow that what we know can be equated with the infinity of interrelationships viz., though what we know may be known through knowledge of the infinity of interrelationships, it does not follow what we know is the infinity of interrelationships. Also, if what we know is the infinity of interrelationships, then we cannot be a product of the infinity of interrelationships viz., we cannot be the creation of product, and the product at the same time without succumbing to nonsensicality, just as we cannot be the product of creation and the creation of product at the same time...

You go on to claim that there are mechanisms in our minds that are "compatible with our identity of the infinity of existence", which means that there are mechanisms in our minds which are not compatible as well. How can the notion of compatibility and non-compatibility be the case, when everything about ourselves is a product of interrelationships?! It appears that we cannot help from being what we are, whatever it may be.

In summary, we agree that what we are is representative of the infinity of interrelationships on ourselves, so that through ourselves there is a connection to everything else. However, we do not understand what grounds you have to assert that through our minds ("self conscious life-force"), or the act of thinking ourselves, that we can detach ourselves from interrelationships that produce ourselves. Also, if we examine how we think, we see that it is based on interaction, and therefore, what we know is representational through interaction, thus knowledge without absolute truth-value. To turn to the connection between ourselves as point and the infinity of interrelationships, and our ability to think ourselves, as a gateway to absolute truth-value, does not explain how what we know at our point is true knowledge of ourselves, thereby true knowledge of the infinity of interrelationships viz., just because there is connection between ourselves as point and the infinity of interrelations, does not mean what we know at our point is true knowledge of the infinity of interrelations, nor does thinking ourselves necessarily translate into true self-knowledge. The only way forward for you is to establish ourselves through our minds as a completely autonomous entity, but that would contradict our causal perspective and the apparent interconnected nature of existence, and lead to the Schopenhauer problem of how a being-in-itself can also be being-known-itself.

Entries 325-327 Entries 331-335