Reply to the response to Entry 331

"----quote---
So what this point amounts to is that ‘I’ technically cannot go outside of itself, though the ‘I’ can imagine it has through its analytics. --- end quote----

OK. I can agree with this expression.

---- quote---
You also say that the actor ‘I’ is the ‘un-created creator, and yet in terms of the interconnectedness (causal relationship between things), the actor ‘I’ is the product of other things. --- end quote----

I am not sure I said exactly that - but I would say the ‘I’ is not a product of any ‘thing’ - but what I think we are getting at here is the ‘I’ is formed (not produced) by its experiences of things and events (mind and body). This forming the development of personality. So the ‘I’ is not produced - but is somehow formed.

---quote---
You are incorrectly assuming that true self-knowledge exists, and that experiential knowledge is the closest thing to true self-knowledge, and therefore experiential knowledge is true self-knowledge. what is it about the built-in function of experiential self-knowledge that necessitates it is a source of true self-knowledge? ----end quote---

Yes, I am assuming that experiential knowledge of self is true knowledge of self.
Analytical knowledge can be wrong (for example I may analyze that the light circuit is not live because the light bulb is off - yet the light bulb may be burnt out - and I would get a shock to touch the wires)- while experiential knowledge can never be wrong. Let me demonstrate. I shall use 'experiential knowledge' had in association (by way of) the soma senses for a demonstration.

Let us assume that we hear a sound - and we think it is a bird - yet we find out later that it was really a squeaky wheel. What had taken place is that the sound waves impact our ear drums and were then transduced to electrical currents sent to the brain for body determination of any automatic responses necessary for the well-being of the organic colony. No matter the condition of our body and senses - what we receive is always true and never wrong. We must make a distinction between the 'mechanical' or organic activity and our psyche analysis and interpretation of it. Even if, for instance, our body senses were handicapped or not properly developed into what we call normal - their operation is always - true. Even if - we are drunk and stoned - their operation is always true. The results of our *analysis* of the 'mechanical' activity (the sound waves, the ear drum, the electrical pulses of the neurons, etc..) may be wrong (it was a squeak from a wheel and not a bird) but the 'mechanical' activity (analogous to our experiential experience) can never be 'wrong'. How so?

Again - if we have a copper pipe and there is a water flow out of it - even if the pipe is mostly clogged - the water flowing out of it is always ’true’. it is always reality. The water pipe has no capability to fool us or to be, or present itself, as what it is not. It must always be what it is - at all times. The pipe and water flow must be true to itself at all moments. We might say ‘It is wrong, it should be a much fuller flow’ but that would be according to our expectation - which the pipe, conditions of the pipe, and the water - know nothing about.
The operation of the senses is always as it is. it can be no other - so it is always 'true' (even if it is not what we want it to be).

The existential is always true, never false, and never more nor less than what it is. It is reality. Period. And it is always direct (although we may use it in analysis and infer some indirect condition not directly experienced by us).

Therefore, experiential knowledge of self, as opposed to analytical knowledge of self, is always true knowledge of self and no truer (as opposed to false) may be had - because false belongs to analytical thought and judgment (expectations and desires).

---quote---
What do you ‘remember’ about having true self-knowledge? How can you ‘long’ for something you cannot truly know? How can the practical aspects of negation allow us to eventually experience ‘I’? viz., how can we negate things from what we truly do not know? ---quote---

Let me deal with these first and simply.

We are currently in a major aspect of negation now, as we discuss this. I have said the ‘I’ is unknowable by analytical thoughts and only knowable by an experiential knowledge - I cannot give you that experiential knowledge and we are currently negating from you that which you believe is the ‘I’ and is not the ‘I’. A Socratic method, if you will. I remove from you - what 'it ' is not.

In our personal experience of human development - we come into this world - when we are born. We (the person, the ‘I’) are a knowing-ability. We have not yet the human and social words by which to do analytical thinking. We have not yet any backlog of stored memories by which to make comparisons between what-is-happening-now to what-we-had-experienced-before. Our mental 'programming' (as it were) has not yet been laid within us. We can say, that in this condition, the analytical powers of psyche mind - are mostly dormant because we have not yet the tools by which analytics are accomplished. The first 'ground' laid in us as a foundation is overwhelmingly experiential knowledge.

To continue with child development - as experiences are recorded to memory - and in conjunction with understanding - the tools of analytics are developing. In these formative years - the first and most basic ‘programs’ of the mind are in-tended (placed within us) by nature. In philosophy this is called in-tension-ality. The natural experiences we have form in us an inner-tension. a potential. For example, being burned by fire places within us all the same 'tension' regardless of any accidentals.

Each sense (sight, sound, touch, etc.) has a union (via sameness of media) with its appropriate objects. The eye is appropriate to the object of light and not appropriate to the object of sound, etc.. There is a 'sameness' between the receptor and the object received that allows for a union of the two. We need not get into the physics. This 'sameness' also means that no senses can sense itself. in as much as there is also an 'otherness' involved by way of accidents. (Cold water is quickly heated by pouring hot water into it - this sameness of media is the grounds for its capability of union. While the cold and the hot of the water are accidental to the sameness of the waters.

Any experience man has - includes an experience of self with it. That is, any moment I experience something - I am also experiencing that it is ‘I’ who is experiencing it. Therefore, when we say we are seeking true-self-knowledge what we are saying is we are seeking self-knowledge uncluttered by analytical knowledge (the knowledge that can be false) = we are seeking experiential knowledge of self (true). Which WE HAVE - but it is cluttered with analytical knowledge.. Are our attention is upon the analytical - because in our union with our senses we believe we are - our senses (wrong!).

This experiential knowledge of self (‘I’) is most uncluttered and unmixed by analytics - at the moment of birth (even perhaps in the womb! But in a practical way we should say at birth and not fiddle with the pre-birth state).

In early cosmogony this is natural union with nature the child has is often symbolized by a garden of paradise. Our state is one of complete union with nature (and nature's God if we care to think of it that way). No one teaches the baby to cry when hungry, to sleep when tired, to breath, to open the eyes to see, etc. this is instinctual and intuitional (in-teaching) in the child's union with nature.

This 'knowing-ability', as the essential ‘I’ and is also the awareness and full attention of the new born child is what is called 'intellect' in philosophy, or person, or conscious, of we now call ‘I’. It is, in concept, a potential. The act of the potential is consciousness (often called intellection) and the act pre-supposes some experience (thing or event) to know. Properly, any act - exists. and an act presupposes some media acted within or upon. If I act and move my arms - I must have arms to move.

Properly speaking, by the limits of words, a potential has no existence (it is not an act). When we say the ‘I’ is active - we mean to say the ‘I’ acts. but the ‘I’ is not its act or actions. But due to the limits of words - we do say the ‘I’ exists in order to be able to talk about it.

Experience - is the basis of all knowledge man may have. Analytical knowledge is based upon what we experience (we interpret our experiences and presume some condition based upon a comparison with past experiences - which we draw from memories and play ‘what-if’ with in our imagination).

Analytical knowledge (proper to the psyche mind) is as absent as it every will be - at the moment of birth and within the few years of early child development. Again, we have no words and we have as little experience as we shall every have, yet we are fully aware and attentive to a world of existential experiences.

We do have (at the moment of birth) experiential knowledge of ourselves (not received via psyche or soma) and we have experiential knowledge via psyche and soma (called experiential due to the virtue of being received by the ‘I’ without analytical filtering and clutter. Any experience we have is also experience of ‘I am having this experience’.

Experiential knowledge is the proper knowledge of - understanding. In as much as the origin of any sense cannot be used upon itself (fire cannot burn itself nor ice chill itself but these actions are by upon another 'thing' or we would have a perpetual action). then any understanding we may receive (the understanding itself and where it 'takes place') - is not within the function (act) nor within any of the senses - but understanding is a ’higher’ function or better said a separate and higher capacity in interaction with the lower. In other words the senses of touch has no understanding of fire. And understanding is also an ‘I’ experience. And so we have also demonstrated that the ‘I’ does not exist in senses and soma per se.

Any creature which exists as organic-vegative functions alone (soma) which functions are like sense (but are not sense) exists without knowledge of self. We call it a creature of chemical reactions (like senses) an ameba for example, or plant life. Since any sense cannot be used upon itself (the eye cannot see itself, the touch cannot touch itself) then any knowing of self had to any creature must take place in a higher ‘sense’ on a higher level than soma. I have defined the human levels as Person, Psyche, Soma (‘I’, Mind, Sensate) in classical Western fashion of psychology and philosophy. and we need not bother with this further definition but (here it comes anyway) classic philosophy defines the ‘binding’ (what we have been calling the transducer) between these levels as - soul. It is the function of soul (that special relationship between levels of the living being) that is the 'transducer' between the senses on a psyche level and soma level. The term ‘soul’ has baggage - I prefer not to use it.

Understanding - takes place 'within' the ‘I’ (intellect) and not within the intellection (the act of functionings of sense of psyche/soma. And understanding is not a function of analytics (otherwise we would understand everything we went out to analyze). Understanding - cannot be said to take place within the act but is with the actor. Therefore - conscious may understand - but in as much as consciousness is the act of conscious ‘going-out’ and presupposes something to be conscious of - then understanding cannot be said to take place within consciousness (the act using the senses).

Properly: a potential is unlimited, while an act is limited. A potential has no existence - while an act exists. As an aside here - one problem we are all fighting in this discussion is a Newtonian concept of these things. We are habituated to a Newtonian/Darwin way of thinking as if things were like machines and nature was mechanical. (Now back to the show - wrapping up this portion) - due to the demonstrations above - our memory of once being in a state of true self-knowledge - is the grounds for that we long to return to is in two ways. First - memory of that existential knowledge (uncluttered or unmixed with analytics) which we had at birth - and secondly the *even now* existence of that same knowledge even now in working as the current foundational programs involved in all our recognition and analysis of current experiences.

Let me explain ‘even now’ further.

Just as understanding (proper to experiential knowledge with the ‘I’) is a higher capability than words and memories of the psyche and soma (no one can teach us words if we do not understand what is being taught) and 'understanding' is not necessarily the direct and immediate result of any sense experience received (as we may not immediately understand something we experience but we may understand later) - then it is clear that understanding is higher than soma senses or psyche mind and any understanding we have through use of senses is accidental (not a necessity) of the sense act and not dependent on time or space which attributes are proper to body senses and their objects. Understanding may 'dawn' on us at any moment of things not associated with the current moments - and that understanding may be recalled independent of time or space of sense experience.

----quote---
It must follow logically from our causal perspective that the mind and ‘I’ occupy time and space, even though we cannot specifically identify the time and space they occupy. (To argue that through mind and ‘I’ we can transcend time and space, overlooks that our thoughts are causally defined by some form of time and space.) -----end quote---

If we can not identify I and mind as occupying time and space - then we cannot say that ‘I’ occupies time and space. This is simple. If we cannot say that ‘I’ occupies time and space then ‘I’ does not occupy time and space. This is simple. Since all other demonstrations confirm that ‘I’ cannot occupy time and space (it is a potential, it can not be its act, it can not be senses, it can not be in soma of organic-vegative media, etc..) it is as foolish to look for the ‘I’ in time and space as it is to try to prove the world is flat when all evidence is otherwise. (Our tendency is thanks to Newtonian/Darwinian views).

As an example of our habitual subconscious tendency to put ‘things’ into Newtonian concepts of time, space, and mechanics...

Scientists often argue about and look for the beginning of time, and speculate a possible end to time.
The problem here - is time - is given an independence to the experience of man. That is, we tend to treat it as if time would exist even if no man was there to experience it.

The correction is two-fold.

First - to define any point in time, is a function of defining three things. 1) a time before 2) a time after 3)a moment between before and after.

For example - is it 12 noon on the dot? (rounded to the minute for piratical reasons). To know if it is 12 noon we must know if it is not any time before or anytime after. We do not think of it this way because this is an automatic process within us - but this is the way it is done. If it is not one minute before and it is not one minute after - then it is 12 noon.

A triangulation - is needed to define the existence of 'thing' in time or space - including any point in time or space. That is, to define the existence of any one point, three points are needed.

How far away from the earth - is that space ship? In order to answer this we need a triangulation of the earth, the space ship, and some point further out (let us use the moon). If there are only to points (the earth and the ship and absolutely nothing else but endless space) an existence and physical location (the spaceship) cannot exist. Someone might say ‘Yes.. But just because we do not know the location does not mean it has no location.’ but in this case that is exactly what it means. It cannot have a physical location. It cannot exist.

Now - back to ‘time’. If we speak of the beginning of time - we are trying to define a point. And to do that we need a point after and a point before - but if there is no point before - the point we are trying to define can not be defined and therefore has no existence. ‘When was the beginning of time?’ is a question that simply can not be asked and has no answer.

Secondly: time is a human experience. Just like sound. If sound waves travel through the air - they remain sound waves - it is only once they impact a human ear - that the human experience transduces them to the human experience we call sound. Therefore - sound does not exist outside of a human to experience it.

(Optional: Look up ‘Schroeder's Cat’ regarding the definitions of reality according to quantum physics)
If there is no human to experience time (for it is a measurement made within us based upon our experiences of senses) - then without a human around to have the experience - there is no - time.

Does the future exist? No it does not. Does the past exist? No it does not. By what do we use to measure time? We use memory (for the past) and memory manipulated by imagination to expect the future.

So what DOES exist? Only this moment now. This experience. This existential experience (had by association with the senses - forgetting the ‘I’).

Newtonian physics postulates movement. The apple moves through the air to fall to the ground. Quantum physics proves there is no such thing as movement - except - as a human experience (the time and space thing). This reality - is called, casually, ‘God plays dice’ so you may look it up that way. Is there proof? Yes, there is. I shall paraphrase it because I read it years ago.

Science wished to monitor the movement of an atom. To do that, it used an electron microscope and monitored neutrons or protons (the smallest thing they could monitor). What they discovered is that the protons (let us say it was protons) when over here - just appeared over there - with no physical movement in between. Amazing! So was it true? To see if it was true the places an impenetrable barrier (some dense material) between a single atom and a location where they would move that atom. The atom would not be able to go through the barrier. so they expected that the atom would not go to the location they would try to move it to. Once the experiment was begun - what they found was they could ‘move’ the atom! What took place was - at one moment the atom was on this side of the barrier - and at the next moment it was on the other side of the barrier. It had not ‘moved’ from here to there - it was simply here - and then it was there.

The best the physicists doing the experiment could say - is that of probability. There is no ‘movement’ only a probability of something being here - and then there. God plays dice. If there is no Newtonian ‘movement’ (defined by monitoring the essential constituent of objects) then movement - time - and space - are an ‘illusion’ just like watching a film composed of still frames.

Rather than an ‘illusion’ (something not real) - movement - time - and space - are dependent on experience impressed upon human memory (like light being persistent regarding the human eye). Movement - time - space - these are human experiences due to the persistence of impression upon our memory. As such - they do not exist ‘out there’ but ‘in here’.

Existence - is also - a human experience. We can postulate that something ‘exists’ when it is outside of our experience (I expect my wife still exists when she is away from me and at work) but postulating or expecting is not necessarily the same as existing (my wife may have been killed in a car accident but I do not yet know it). To-exist - is concrete - it is an human experience. If something can not be experienced - it has no existence because existence is defined by having a human experience of it. (See Schroeder's Cat).

Simply stated. If you take Schroeder's cat and place that cat in a solid box (our senses cannot penetrate this box) - and we ask the question ‘is the cat alive? Does it exist inside the box?’. The answer is: it is neither alive nor is it dead. In fact the cat does not exist at all - until the box is opened and we can have a human experience of its state. If this is true - what have we misunderstood? The Answer is: Because ‘alive’ and ‘exist’ are defined as human experiences and these states cannot be separated from the human experience of them.

Once inside the box and we cannot use our senses to experience the cat directly - the cat may be dead or may not be there at all. We can speculate via probability - we can speculate via some indirect methods - but we do not know - until the human act of knowing (our experience) is involved and manifests to our experience the cat's condition as - true (dead or alive, present or missing).

This is why I said in my first post that we are like Nimo in the Matrix. We are like someone sitting in a darkened movie theater and all we ‘know’ of the ‘outside’ is by way of experiencing what is projected and taking place upon the 'screen' of our senses. What is projected onto the screen of our senses is two-fold (mixed) at the same time. One source is ‘reality’ and the other source is a projection from the inside of us - from within our imagination - also onto the screen of the senses. And this is why the wise man may doubt the data of sense perception, not because the sense perception is not true, but because by experience we find we may also project our own expectations (subconscious) into the ‘stream’.

If a man enter sensory deprivation (no outside stimulus to the senses or monotonous stimulus that is eventually ignored) after a time he will hallucinate. Eventually - his imagination with reverse the ‘flow’ and he will experience - from the inside - stimulation upon the screen of his senses.

Does this ‘reverse flow’ only take place when there is no ‘outside flow’? No. In fact - both take place at the same time. There is an ‘outside’ source (other than me) and an inside source (me) and both sources are stimulating the senses together.

This is good! It allows us to 'pre-treat' reality. It allows us to cognate our experiences rapidly. because there is a rapid comparison going on (on an automatic and euphonious level) which compares ‘what is being experienced’ to ‘what has already been experienced’ - and the ‘match’ is then projected onto the senses along with the ‘other’ source.

This has the result of, for instance, seeing a sign far away - but by the limits of the capability of the eyes - it can not quite distinguish the letters. A quick comparison is made with all experience ‘like’ and when the closest match is found - what is projected onto and over the ‘other source’ projection is the probably projection - which to our eyes - sharpens the definition of what the subconscious believes the sign to say - so we see it more clearly and cognate it more quickly in order to use that information in subtonics and automatic response.

This function - is most important in hearing - and in hearing language and words. It ‘pre-sorts’ what is heard to past experiences and then presents the results - simultaneously - back to our senses on top of the other-source stimulus. The results are we hear sentences as if they were separate words. Our subconscious - breaks them up for us. After all - a sentence spoken in normal ways is a string of continue sounds ‘maryhadalittlelambwhosfleecewaswhiteassnow.’ This function makes the comparison of ‘what is now’ with ‘what was before’ and then sorts the words - makes the breaks - and presents the sound to us in chunks ‘Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow’ - so that we need spend no conscious effort on doing that.
Can I experience this? Yes. Bring up the Wave recorder on your computer. Record the sentence (in a normal way) ‘Mary had a little lamb’ and save it. Now create a web page and embade it.

Now find time to sit for at least one hour undisturbed. Play the wave and listen, pay attention, to the words. Let it play over and over and over. After a time (half hour to one hour or maybe more depending on the person and physche) - what will happen is his mind will grow tired of the monotonous stimulus and wander. Bring your mind's attention back to listening - each time it wanders. Refocus. Pay attention to the sound only. No fidgeting, no TV watching - do not split your attention.

Before too long - the subconscious will begin to look for other ’matches’ and the listener (if you have been patient and attentive) will hear something else. The reason being that the rudimentary mind is expecting the stimulus to change (which is the usually of what it has to work with). So the subconscious will ‘break it up’ differently. For example you may hear ‘Mary's ham was on a stand’ or other words. This experience may immediately (upon the shock) go away and the original words come back (refocus your attention) or this may continue and even mutate more. But in any event - what is done from the work of the memory (in the work room of the imagination) is being projected onto the screen of the hearing - and the person will hear it. Not imagine it - actually hear it (although he may not believe it was in his ears but prefer to believe he imagined it).

Or again, we know there is a hole in our vision. It is about the size of a pencil eraser. It is in the peripheral of our vision. If we slowly move a pencil about the area while looking straight ahead - we can find it (the pencil tip will disappear). Yet we do not see that hole there in our everyday vision? We do not see a black spot (absence of light) nor any spot. Why not? Because the subconscious fills it in with what it expects to be there. The subconscious projects it onto the screen of the senses - just as it projects onto the entire screen of our sight - feeding back to us a pre-digested picture which automatically defines shapes, size, movement, color, objects, etc.. to pre-experienced stuff. Making what we ‘see’ a combination of what is ‘out-there’ and what our subconscious expects to see."

Ray Kaliss May 14 2002

Response:

You claim that experiential knowledge, as opposed to analytical knowledge, is knowledge with absolute truth-value because it occurs directly through our senses. You claim further that the self or "I" is necessarily part of experiential knowledge, because the knowledge is an expression of our existence, which leads you to conclude that through experiential knowledge we can truly know who we are. However, there are two main problems with your position that need to be addressed:

The first problem is that just because experiential knowledge comes directly from our senses, and there is no other fundamental way to derive knowledge except indirectly through our analytical minds, does not necessarily mean that experiential knowledge has absolute truth-value. In fact, since an indirect relation exists between our sensory receptors and the external world, we must conclude from our perspective that experiential knowledge is representational of interaction between receptors and stimuli, thereby the knowledge has limited truth-value. Also, if we consider the interactional nature of things, whether at sensorial, biochemical, or neurological levels, we come to the same conclusion that experiential knowledge, or any other knowledge, is inherently representational. (For you to argue that we can have direct experiential experience, and as part of that experience have knowledge with absolute truth-value, overlooks that there is separation between experience itself and our conscious awareness of experience, which creates a "block" on direct knowing, so that our knowledge of experience becomes representation of something we do not truly know. (Entries 308, 310))

The second problem is that just because the self, at least our conception of it, is necessarily part of our conscious experience, does not mean that as part of our existential experience we can truly know who we are. If we consider your argument that "‘I’ cannot occupy space and time", and we can only know from within space and time, then it follows that we cannot truly know who we are, or the "I" we know is not truly who we are. If we consider further the representational nature of experiential knowledge and our indirect relation with experience itself, it does not make sense how we can truly know who we are.

What we need is a more reasonable means of showing how we can truly know who we are.

To claim that true self-knowledge is innately part of us, at an existential level, does not answer where the knowledge comes from or how we can know it from our causal perspective. In Entry 289, Michael De with reference to Sartre claims that the existential self is "created ex nihilo", and yet we come to the problem that from our causal perspective, something from something else ad infinitum (infinity) is more reasonable than something from nothing (ex nihilo).

If we were to accept the notion of self-knowledge created ex nihilo, where could the knowledge come from, and how could it capture ourselves in totality at every moment?

We come to Schopenhauer’s notion of a thing-in-itself being mirrored through its dimensions, so that through "pure objectivity of observation" we can truly know who we are viz., the thing-in-itself. (Entries 313, 317, 320). Yet we face Schopenhauer’s problem that ‘being-in-itself’ is contradicted by ‘being-known-itself’, and the additional problem that something from something else ad infinitum is more reasonable than something from nothing.

Without the ground of a thing-in-itself viz., state of ex nihilo, we do not see any hope of more reasonably showing self-knowledge with absolute truth-value.

Is there another way to more reasonably show self-knowledge, or any other knowledge, with absolute truth-value?

Ken Bell in Dispute 9 (1-37), explores quantum mechanics and superposition, but his attempts at showing true self-knowledge succumb to limited self-knowledge from the interactional, and thereby representational, nature of what we know, and the interactional, and thereby interconnected, nature of things.

Dale Clifford in Entry 334, contends that there are unconnected absolutes we cannot avoid, but that is only the case within systems of thought. Also, Clifford contends that the subconscious has "more directionality" than the scientific and philosophic, and therefore the subconscious should have precedence over them, but the scientific and philosophic are partly comprised of the subconscious, just as the subconscious is partly comprised of the scientific and philosophic, and the subconscious itself is not necessarily a ground for knowledge with absolute truth-value.

What other ground is there for knowledge with absolute truth-value than completeness itself (or thing-in-itself)?

If something is not complete then we do not see how it can be a ground for absolute truth-value. Hence, it appears more reasonably that the thing-in-itself as the epitome of completeness is the only ground for absolute truth-value, and yet the ground does not more reasonably hold up. We are left either accepting the proposition that we cannot truly know who we are, or relying on the possibility that there may be another ground for absolute truth-value which more reasonably holds up.

339. Entry:

"This is very obviously a small section of the grand philosophical question of what can we actually know at all. Many would argue as I have read posted in this website the logical proof of how we can know that we exist, which I know was proposed by Descartes in his first meditation, and in short has been summed up in the adage ‘I think, therefore I am.’ This is all fine and dandy, but beyond that I believe we are hard pressed if not defeated in trying to prove that we know, I’m speaking in the strictest sense of the term, anything else for certain (though Descartes claimed in his later meditations that we could know most everything from our knowledge of God and his goodness which I don’t truly believe holds up so I will say that is neither here nor there).

In my exploration of the subject, I have found a certain other adage to hold true beyond possible knowledge of our own existence: ‘Faith is intrinsic to knowledge.’ To know anything in the world around us, we must trust that our senses do not deceive us; in short, we must have faith in our senses. To know anything found on upon logical grounds, we must believe one that the world around us is logical and two that our logic is not flawed by our inability to comprehend certain concepts (such as our inability to think outside of time and space as presented in Kant’s theory of categories); in short, we must have faith in logic. To have knowledge of the supposed spiritual realm that many believe exists for many and various reasons, we must believe often in what we are told by another person or by a ‘holy book’ of some sort; in short, we must have faith in knowledge passed down to us. I have yet to find any detail of our existence or of the nature of truth that does not hinge upon some human faculty for us to have true strict knowledge of it.

This I think is a problem for all who seek to scoff at the ‘faith’ of the religious or anyone else for that matter who holds faith in something, because if one does away with faith, he does away with knowledge. As I see it, a life without knowledge is a life without hope, and what a sad state this would be. For if someone truly wants to deny faith in order to make sure he doesn’t ever believe anything in error, he must admit knowing nothing but that he exists. This seems like such a sad state to live in that I myself choose to live a life of faith because I would rather run the chance of being wrong in the end, but live a life with hope instead of living a life that is hopeless which to my thinking is no life at all.

This being said I would beg to argue that the proposition you have set forth is true and as I have attempted to show, irrefutable without the acknowledgement of faith which to most people’s understanding goes against the definition of knowledge."

Paul Dawkins May 17 2002

Response:

We agree with you that from our limited perspective, whereby we cannot know with absolute truth-value and know that we do, faith is intrinsic to knowledge, thereby all systems of thought. (Uncertainty is the ground for faith.) Also, we agree with you that as thinking beings we must have faith in our senses, logic, and knowledge passed down to us. However, the critical question is to what extent do we have to have faith in our senses, logic, and knowledge passed down to us? You appear to be implying that the application of faith has to be absolute viz., complete faith or none at all. Whereas, we contend that based on the uncertainty of what we can truly know, which is the basis for faith itself, there is necessarily a gradation of applied faith with no absolute endpoints.

Turning to the proposition, you argue that one can only believe that the proposition is true and even irrefutable without having faith in one’s belief, and since faith is intrinsic to knowledge, it follows that one’s faithless belief in the proposition cannot be considered knowledge. However, how can you or anyone else believe that the proposition is true, without having faith in your belief that the proposition is true? We contend that you cannot for the reason that faith appears intrinsic to knowledge (and belief). Though your argument may be that although you believe the proposition is true, you cannot have faith in the proposition itself. Yet this position does not show how the proposition is devoid of faith; rather, it shows that you have a mixture of faith/non-faith in the proposition.

Is there reason to think that the proposition is devoid of faith? What is there to stop someone from having faith in the proposition itself?

To have faith in the epistemic limit of human knowledge, thereby in our inability to truly know who we are, would not negate our ability to have limited faith in our existence, our senses, logic, or knowledge passed down to us.

We think the problem with your position stems from viewing faith in absolute terms, when as mentioned the ground for faith is the uncertainty of what we can truly know, so that the application of faith to be consistent with its ground, must be limited viz., there is no absolute faith. Therefore, the proposition based on your faith in its truth and irrefutability can be a faith, thereby consistent with your definition of knowledge.

Other issue

How does Descartes’ statement, "I think, therefore I am", more reasonably show that we exist with certainty? Who is the "I" that thinks? How can one know the "I" with complete certainty? In consideration of the response to Entry 338, what is the ground, other than the thing-in-itself (ex nihilo), for complete certainty?

340. Entry:

"What if the ‘process’ of ‘truly knowing who we are, in part or in whole’ IS who we are, truly, and thus BEING who we are and KNOWING who we are are one in the same?"

Satisfaction May 20 2002

Response:

What is the process of truly knowing who we are? In the consideration of the response to Entry 338, what is the process of truly knowing anything? viz., what is the ground for truly knowing?

If the process of truly knowing who we are is who we are, are you implying that the process of knowing, in general, is who we are?

It does not necessarily follow that if being and knowing are "one in the same" that what we know itself is who we are. To establish true self-knowledge through this argument, you need to establish true knowledge of being and knowing as one in the same (viz., if we truly know being and knowing are one in the same, we would have true part knowledge of ourselves), which takes us back to the initial question of what is the process of truly knowing?

341. Entry:

"A supremely knowledgeable, non-human being of some sort - maybe a God, or maybe an alien - could have powers of rationality and enquiry far in advance of ours. It could fully know who we are, even if we don’t.

This being could then come and explain to us who we are."

James May 22 2002

Response:

We agree that it is possible we could truly know who we are through a "supremely knowledgeable, non-human being". But the critical question in the context of the competition, is it more reasonable that we could truly know who we are through a "supremely knowledgeable non-human being"? (Note, if the competition were founded on establishing mere possibility of truly knowing who we are, the competition would have long been over, because all thought is apparently defined by possibility. So any assertion on truly knowing who we are, no matter how insignificant or unbelievable, would have overcome the proposition. However, as mentioned, we are dealing with more reasonableness, not possibility.)

In evaluating your position, there is no evidence of a supremely knowledgeable, non-human being which can truly know who we are, and even if there is, it is unclear how a non-human being could truly know who we are, and how we could comprehend a true explanation of who we are from a non-human being?

342. Entry:

"Being ‘who we are’ will somewhat always be part of ‘knowing who we are in part or in whole’. ‘The being’ is always part of ‘the knowing’. ‘The being’ never exists as an isolated entity that rebounds against ‘the knowing’. However, why they seem to rebound is because, although in mutual interaction and superposition, ‘the being’ and ‘the knowing’ will never be the same thing.
Even in the above statement it seems as if we could only know who we are partially because ‘being’ always overcomes the ‘knowing’ or vice versa. However, ‘the will’ can always overcome the ruses of logic by the very approval of logic to give us the freedom to take by storm the fair right to truly know who we are at the expense of anything."

Ulysses Alvarez May 23 2002

Response:

We agree that being is necessary for knowing, and in the context of modern/post-modern humanity, knowing appears necessary for being. Also, we agree that being and knowing appear to be two different things, just as being itself and knowledge appear to be different. However, it is unclear to us why "the will" has a "fair right" to truly know who we are at the expense of anything. Just because "the will" has the freedom to choose within limits, what does "fair right" have to do with the act of choosing? We contend that because all thought itself is defined by possibility, there is a necessity of reason to determine what is more possible. (Garvey, "The Critique of Reasonableness") To merely believe in whatever one feels like believing in, would contradict the very nature of one’s thoughts. So we contend further that "the will" can only overcome the ruses of logic by contradicting the nature of one’s thoughts. In our view, it is to avoid the demands of logic, while opt for anarchy. Through such an approach, we are no closer to more reasonably determining whether or not we can truly know who we are. In fact, other than for our unsupported beliefs, we have forsakened the process all together.

343. Entry:

"It cannot be solved, given the following condition (from the Definition of Principal terms):
‘We’: all Homo sapiens who are existing, regardless of level of functionality.

If you allow a change of definition from the 'regardless of level of functionality’ to ‘a level of functionality that includes a self assembled root cognitive neural mapping ability’, then the proposition can be overcome."

Padraig Sinkec May 24 2002

Response:

Why should your change in definition more reasonably be accepted? What is this "self" you are referring to? What more reasonable grounds do you have for viewing it as an end-in-itself? If you do not view the self as an end-in-itself and in consideration of the response to Entry 338, what grounds do you have for true self-knowledge?

Other issue:

Why can't the proposition be solved with "we" defined as "all Homo sapiens who are existing, regardless of level of functionality"? Are you certain that the proposition cannot be solved with this definition of "we"? What are the grounds for your certainty? How do you deal with the contention from the response to Entry 168 that philosophically, possibility precedes impossibility?

344. Entry:

"I believe that we can absolutely know who we are and be who we are at exactly the same time. In fact, I don’t think there is a way around it.

Seems to me that you suggest there is some kind of other knowledge that might be known by a person about herself. I mean, other than; my name is Jennifer, I am 5’2 inches tall, I am sitting at my desk, and I like the color red.

Everything that can be known is absolute. Whether knowledge may change or evolve, you may only know what is known absolutely at that time. Any of the rest of it is just guessing. The absolute of knowing is inextricably linked to the absolute of being, because without being, there is no way of knowing.

If there is no knowing without being and the way of knowing is absolute then being must also be absolute. There is no way of knowing what is not absolute, and at any given moment, I cannot be anymore than what I absolutely know.

And so, I cannot be but what I absolutely know."

Jennifer May 25 2002

Response:

We are not suggesting that there is some kind of other knowledge that might be known by a person about him or herself. Rather, we are contending at a fundamental level that there is more reasonably only one kind of knowledge that can be known about oneself, namely knowledge with limited truth-value. So for example, we contend that your knowledge about yourself whether your height of 5’2 or your like of the color red, is defined from our limited and more reasonable perspective by limited truth-value. viz., your knowledge of yourself is devoid of absolute truth-value that you can know that you know. (For arguments supporting this position, see arguments)

In contrast, you contend that everything that is known in the moment has absolute truth-value. The defense of your argument appears to take two directions by you arguing that because of the necessary connection between being and knowing, the absoluteness of knowing means the absoluteness of being, or the absoluteness of being means the absoluteness of knowing. Though what ground(s) do you have for asserting that either knowing or being has absolute truth-value? Also, what does "any given moment" have to do with absolute truth-value? How can we know anything purely in the moment since all that we know is based on interpretation of experience and past knowledge, so that there is no pure moment of knowing?

Despite our questioning of your position, we agree with you on the important point that by establishing knowledge with absolute truth-value in one aspect of a process, like knowing, then it follows logically to maintain the absolute truth-value, that all other aspects of the process, like being, must have absolute truth-value as well. The critical question, as mentioned, is how can knowledge with absolute truth-value be more reasonably established in the first place? Merely asserting that knowing or being has absolute truth-value is not enough.

Entries 336-337 Entries 345-350