Dispute of the response to Entry 353

"RQ - shall = RESPONSE QUOTE

RQ - "The key points from our response are that the requirement of the competition is to more reasonably disprove we cannot truly know who we are or more reasonably prove we can truly know who we are, and the more reasonableness of assumption does not necessarily mean what is being assumed is more reasonable. Hence, the challenge you face is to take your position further by more reasonably proving the existence of absolute Being as defined by you."

The 'more reasonableness' of the proposition is the fact that we do not know that Absolute Being Exists

i.e. y = k + b

... where y = the Non-existence of Absolute Being

I have simply Assumed the opposite:

i.e. ... that Absolute Being DOES Exist

Viz: - x = k+ b

where x = The existence of Absolute Being

Thus I have shown that that the proposition IS REFUTED when x is the "Absolute Truth Factor"

in the same way that you have simply shown the impossibility of:

y = k+b where y is the Absolute Truth-Factor

The proposition was deduced without having to PROVE the Non-existence of Absolute Being & therefore it may be refuted without having to PROVE the Existence of Absolute Being, but merely by showing it as the Absolute-Truth Factor that NEEDS to exist.

RQ - "The requirement of the competition is to more reasonably disprove that we cannot truly know who we are (or more reasonably prove we can truly know who we are). More reasonably disprove is not the same thing as showing the non-impossibility of antagonistic propositions to the proposition. If that were the case, the competition would have long been over, because considering that there is no knowledge with absolute truth-value we can know that we know, any participant merely has to assert an antagonistic proposition to establish non-impossibility, and thereby overcome the proposition. "

I have already 'more reasonably' PROVED the existence of Absolute Being as having Absolute-Truth Value.
We can KNOW with "our limited perception" & 'more reasonableness' that:
1 - Absolute Being either does exist, or
2 - Absolute Being does not exist.
This IS the Absolute-Truth Factor.

By asserting that it is INDEED not impossible that the proposition CAN be OVERCOME by 'more reasonableness' you ADMIT that you yourselves have NOT PROVED it's Absolute-Truth Value.

I have OVERCOME the proposition by providing the ONLY 'more reasonable' reason from "our limited perception" whereby it CAN be overcome.

I.E. - I have diagnosed the Absolute-Truth Value & -Non Truth Value of the proposition.

You are expecting me to PROVE the method by which I overcame the proposition.

I humbly "contest" that this IS UNREASONABLE because you yourselves have admitted you are unable to PROVE the proposition & have rendered it as the basis for the Competition precisely because you were unable to do so.

With 'more reasonableness I hereby declare that it IS "Unreasonable" to expect anybody to DISPROVE something which has NOT BEEN PROVED.

I have matched you in that you were able to DEVISE the proposition in the first instance, merely by overcoming the proposition. You need to remember it is a "PROPOSITION" & NOT a "PROOF".

How are you now able to claim with 'more reasonableness' that I must DISPROVE it in it's entirety without defaulting on the terms & conditions of the Competition ?

I was NEVER required to PROVE the means by which I overcame the proposition, only to overcome it...In the same manner that you were never required to PROVE it before rendering it as an assertion & issuing it as a 'Challenge'.

I insist that you are being "unreasonable" & thereby defaulting on your own terms & conditions, because I have merely CLARIFIED in the first instance the REASON why you were unable to PROVE the proposition. This is the reason you rendered it as a "Challenge" - Right.

Therefore to PROVE that I have not overcome it you must show that "Absolute Being does not exist". But you do not have to do this, in the same way that I do NOT have to PROVE that it does exist.

The ONLY way out is for you yourselves to devise a NEW COMPETITION which requires the PROOF of the existence of the Absolute Being, for it is too late for you to now assert that you have proved your proposition, as you have already admitted yourselves that you have not. All I did was Clarify why you were unable to do so, and thereby rendered an alternative 'proposition', which overcomes yours. You say the proposition would have been long ago overcome if ALL that was required was an alternative 'proposition'. I say nonsense, because the ONLY way the proposition can be overcome IS BY A PROPOSITION, and there is only ONE OTHER proposition by which it can indeed be overcome. I say I have shown it !

If it were in fact, so easy to overcome by another proposition, it would not have stood for nearly 2 years(?) or whatever. I contend that you have been baffled by the "Profound Simplicity" with which the proposition has been able to be overcome.

You are asking me to PROVE a NON-PROOF.I.E. .something which has NOT been PROVED.VIZ. ..YOUR PROPOSITION. Or is there some way other than by default you can reasonably insist that the PROPOSITION rendered as an assertion is a PROVEN fact?

To Conclude:

I have FULLY OVERCOME the PROPOSITION (your IDEA) by conclusively demonstrating by My IDEA in Entry #351, and I am no more required by "our limited perception" by 'more reasonableness to PROVE the ACTUAL assertion made in my IDEA than you were required to PROVE your PROPOSITION before rendering it as a Challenge.

I believe, my first Entry #351 therefore stands."

protomutant July 2 2002

Response:

If we maintain that the challenge proposition has absolute truth-value without proving it, then you are correct that in order to maintain consistency, you would not be required to prove the existence of absolute Being, and therefore, you would overcome the proposition by establishing the mere non-impossibility of absolute Being, thereby the uncertainty of the proposition. However, we have never maintained the proposition has absolute truth-value. (Though it could, as any proposition could, without us knowing that it does.) Rather, we have always maintained that the proposition from our limited perspective is more reasonable than antagonistic propositions, including the proposition that we can truly know who we are. To illustrate, in the introduction to the competition, we contend that "the proposition... is impossible to overcome within the limit of more reasonableness. Though [we are] not fully certain." Or in Entry 249, as example, Michael De argues that the proposition comes down to

"that we cannot know anything, including the fact that we know that we cannot know anything, which is contradictory - and the reason for the demise of skeptics who asserted that "I do not know anything", or "We do not/cannot know anything".

"you are correct that if we perceive the statement, "we cannot truly know anything", as an absolute, then we would be contradicting ourselves. However, we perceive the statement as a non-absolute or a more reasonable statement than antagonistic statements within the apparent limits of what we know, and by doing so, we avoid the demise of so-called skeptics."

Also, even if we were to maintain the absolute truth-value of the proposition, it would not make sense, because in truly knowing that we cannot truly know who we are, we need to truly know who we are in order to know that we cannot. Viz., our conscious identity is apparently central to our thoughts, so any true knowledge must entail true knowledge of ourselves.

In terms of proving from our limited perspective the more reasonableness of the proposition, we have already done so, as illustrated by the nine points defending the proposition (See Defense of proposition). So there is a more reasonable need on your part to more reasonably prove from your limited perspective the existence of absolute Being.

Other issue:

In the context of an unproved assertion of absolute truth-value, we disagree that your proposition would be the only one that overcomes the proposition. The competition would merely come down to establishing the non-impossibility of an antagonistic proposition, and since we cannot know anything with absolute truth-value, any antagonistic proposition would suffice. However, as mentioned, the focus of the competition is on more reasonably proving from our limited perspective [or unlimited perspective if it is possible] antagonistic propositions to the proposition.

355. Entry:

Dispute of the response to Entry 354

"Forgive me, but I beg to differ. YOU ARE claiming that the proposition has Absolute Truth-Value from 'our limited perception' according to YOUR OWN MORE REASONABLENESS. You state it is IMPOSSIBLE to overcome - I.E. - it HAS Absolute Truth-Value!
You state - 'Though WE are not fully certain' - I.E. - No Absolute Truth-Value!
Therefore you are PRECISELY stating within the limits of perception and more reasonableness that it MAY BE POSSIBLE to overcome the proposition...
BECAUSE YOU HAVE CONTRADICTED YOUR MORE REASONABLENESS FROM THE BEGINNING.
You have declared that the proposition has Absolute Truth- Value, but that there is a POSSIBILITY that it may be overcome.
I HAVE SHOWN THAT POSSIBILITY.
Therefore I am also NOT required to answer the 9 Premises in Defense of the Competition Individually - but WILL do so later, when it becomes necessary to redefine most of the assumptions and definitions you have made, according to your own 'limited perception' and 'more reasonableness'. Entry 249 is entirely different to mine as it merely HIGHLIGHTS the contradictory nature of the proposition in relation to the terms & conditions of the Challenge, as do many other entries. But none of them has followed through successfully with their more reasonableness, without drowning at the deep end of Philosophic Rhetoric. I.E. - other than by merely dancing around in circles with you yourselves. None of them was able to show that you had already succumbed to your own 'more reasonableness' whereas I merely took this for granted when I submitted my 1st Entry #351, and covered myself in the process. Unfortunately LIFE ITSELF will not permit us to remain within the 'Hypnotic Bounds' of 'our limited perception'. As pointed out here - YOU HAVE ALREADY SUCCUMBED TO THE CONTRADICTION OF YOUR MORE REASONABLENESS Precisely because of this you have ensured a circulatory argument by MAKING it appear the proposition is IMPOSSIBLE to overcome, due to the contradiction of your more reasonableness. I will grant you that this is a pretty clever little idea, but it is typical of Philosophy and precisely why it has remained empirical & has not become Absolute, and precisely why 'our limited perception' has remained to be exactly what it is - I.E. - LIMITED to 'indirect conscious knowledge' or to put it more precisely, as I define it - Relative Consciousness. Your proposition is simply the equivalent of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
As E = mc2 is to science, 'we cannot... same time' is to Philosophy.
I.E.
E = mc2 = The Scientific THEORY of Relativity
Proposition = The Philosophic THEORY of Relativity
Both may be overcome from 'our limited perception' with 'more reasonableness', but THAT IS NOT required here, in the same way I am NOT required to point out the limitations of YOUR more reasonableness and the precise incongruencies of MANY of your definitions. By succumbing to the contradiction of your more reasonableness you have APPARENTLY made the proposition irreducible. Lesser beings could have long ago declared the Competition entirely invalid.
Fortunately, my own more reasonableness is NOT contradictory.
Your more reasonableness IS contradictory precisely because many of your definitions are wrong. But there is again, NO requirement for me to go into that here.
Therefore I shall REPEAT myself again from a different point of view so that you may be entirely clear as to exactly what it is 'our limited perception' IS ABLE to know with more reasonableness.
I have simply clarified the 'Ultimate Ends' of 'our limited perception' with 'more reasonableness' in my Entry #351. Trouble is you keep missing the point.
The 'Ultimate End of our Knowledge & Being', I.E. the quantification and qualification of the proposition boils down to the Existence or Non-Existence of Absolute Being. You are merely enhancing your predicament with your responses.
As my previous dispute pointed out you yourselves must PROVE the Non-Existence of Absolute Being or submit that YOUR 'more reasonableness' succumbed to it's own contradiction from the start.
So, now - DUE TO YOUR RESPONSE to that dispute, you are now required to PROVE that you have NOT SUCCUMBED to the contradiction of your own more reasonableness, & if you are unable to - my dispute in support of my Original Entry #351 STANDS.
I say again, if you are unable to PROVE these 2 things with 'more reasonableness' you have to admit that I have overcome the proposition within the terms & the conditions of the Competition by matching you every step of the way, otherwise you yourselves are being representationally UNREASONABLE.
Meanwhile, I have accepted & understood that you are being unreasonable only because you were unable to realize that you had succumbed to the contradiction of your own 'more reasonableness' right from the start. I think I have been fair.... do you?
Now I will explain WHY there is indeed ONLY ONE WAY TO OVERCOME THE PROPOSITION.
Simply because WE CAN KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE TRUTH-VALUE that Absolute Being either exists or that it does not. That IS the 'limit of our perception' and the limit of Philosophic Relativity. Again, I have proved you wrong, because there IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE TRUTH-VALUE, And NOT as you take great pains on numerous occasions to point out, NOTHING that we can know with Absolute Truth- Value. Every single Scientific & Philosophic endeavour today is bound by this precise fact.
There is unfortunately as much pleasure derived from the circulatory nature of Philosophic Relativity as is derived from a 'soap opera'.
To clarify & conclude:
1 - The ONLY thing we can know with Absolute Truth-Value from 'our limited perception' with 'more reasonableness' is the Existence or Non-Existence of Absolute Being - this is THE ULTIMATE END of Knowledge & Being from "our limited perception" & we KNOW IT & have done so for a long time - your call?
2 - YOU yourselves have wittingly or unwittingly succumbed to the contradiction of you own 'more reasonableness' (as I pointed out above), right from the start of the Competition Challenge. Again - your call?
I emphatically stand by my opening statement as it is given in Entry #351.
'I refute THE PROPOSITION in 'it's' ENTIRETY precisely because I have overcome it', and again repeat that I have done so WITHIN the 'Limits of our perception' and by the use of entirely REPRESENTATIONAL 'MORE REASONABLENESS' The only way for you yourselves to DENY it yet again is to DISPROVE the 2 points I have made in my concluding statement herewith - YOUR CALL.
I agree that you may well have avoided the demise of so- called skeptics, but do humbly proclaim that the demise of 'believers', so-called, will not be so easily avoided. The "knowledge" they may inherit, will be shown to be intact."

protomutant July 3 2002

Response:

We disagree that we have contradicted our more reasonableness in the formulation of the proposition and our view of it, and we will explain clearly why we disagree with you.

First, the proposition is asserted from our limited, more reasonable perspective. Hence, the proposition is not an assertion of absolute truth-value. Viz., it is possible to overcome the proposition. (Though we concede that it is possible that the proposition is an assertion of absolute truth-value without us knowing that it is.)

Second, we do not think it is possible to overcome the proposition within the limited bounds of more reasonableness. Though we acknowledge that the possibility exists. The important point, in the context of your criticism, is that just because we do not think the proposition can be overcome within the limited bounds of more reasonableness, does not mean that we are asserting knowledge with absolute truth-value. No that is not the case, as you contend it is, because our initial statement that the proposition is asserted from our limited perspective precedes what we assert within the bounds of more reasonableness. Viz., any assertion of more reasonableness will be limited by our limited perspective, thus not be an assertion of absolute truth-value. To more reasonably show contradiction in our position, you need to more reasonably overcome the proposition. Merely establishing the possibility of overcoming the proposition, does not refute our assertion that the proposition within the bounds of more reasonableness cannot be overcome. (Also, we should point out that even if the proposition is never more reasonably overcome, our inability to overcome it does not establish absolute truth-value, because the proposition is asserted from our limited perspective.)

In regard to your notion of "ultimate end", we have the following questions:

How can we know from our limited, more reasonable perspective that the knowledge, the ultimate end of knowledge and being is the existence or non-existence of absolute Being has absolute truth-value? What is the ground for this absolute truth-value?

How can we more reasonably know anything with absolute truth-value?

If you argue that the onus is on us to more reasonably refute your notion of ultimate end, then we will now, on grounds that from our causal perspective, all conscious knowledge is based on interaction, thereby representation, and therefore, the existence of knowledge with absolute truth-value (i.e. complete, whole knowledge) is less reasonable than the non-existence of knowledge with absolute truth-value. (Entries 322 and 325 deal with interaction as a basis for conscious knowledge.) Or we could argue that there is no more reasonable ground for knowledge with absolute truth-value, and therefore your claim of knowledge with absolute truth-value is less reasonable than the non-existence of knowledge with absolute truth-value. (Entry 338)

356. Entry:

"The deafening proposition the ‘we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time,’ can be overcome. This, however, depends on the contingency that one must be the same person at the instant of self-knowledge that he was the instant before.

The notion that knowledge is only knowledge if one is able to express it, or write it, or speak it must be overcome in order to allow the proposition to be surmounted. Self-knowledge is in its essence, inherent in it, is solely personal. Even though individuals may have greater aptitude for the expression of self, even those at the pinnacle of thoughtful expression, are unable to describe their being to anyone else. The expression of self is much like that of explaining a color without using color names to describe it. Describe ‘red’ to someone naïve to colors. ‘Hot’ may help some. But look at a flame. How many colors are visible? Yet describe those colors without name. Such is the explanation of self.

Knowledge of self is the contrary of the widely held notion of the word. This knowledge is untestable and untrainable. This is one of the few unattainable forms of knowledge. This knowledge is prescribed from the beginning. This knowledge is a sense. The knowledge of self is a built-in working of the person. The person is born with self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is essential to living. It may be lost behind the layers and muddle of life and the accompanying struggle. That is when the struggle compounds itself. The more of the excess debris that is able to be avoided by the individual, the more self-knowledge, and ultimately more satisfying life, he will live. Self-knowledge is in the same bank as intuition and instinct. These innate senses are undoubtedly preordained. Yet, we often loose sight of them throughout life. Such is self-knowledge. Now that self-knowledge is had. The second clause of the proposition falls into place. Self-knowledge being an instinct, a sense, it does not require time to formulate a knowledge of self. Therefore, one knows who he is now. What is impossible is to know who you truly were and who you are going to be. But knowing who you are now is impossible to avoid."

Chris Chaten July 3 2002

Response:

We have a few questions that need to be addressed in order to evaluate your entry:

If the notion that the "knowledge one is able to express, or write, or speak" must be overcome in order to surmount the proposition, and even if we overcome this type of knowledge, what kind of knowledge will we be left with? Inexpressible, unwritable, unspeakable knowledge? Yet you claim that we can "know" this type of knowledge which you associate with intuition and sense. If we can know it, doesn’t it follow that we can express it at least in our individual thoughts?

Also, in consideration of the notion of interconnectedness, how is true self-knowledge a "built-in function"? What is the ground for its absolute truth-value? How can built-in self-knowledge be exactly who we are in every passing moment? (Note, by claiming the innateness of true self-knowledge, you are basically claiming that true self-knowledge is a thing-in-itself. Yet from our causal perspective, a thing-in-itself (ex nihilo) is less reasonable than something from something else ad infinitum. (Response to Entry 265))

Further, how can an individual truly know who he is "now", because as soon as he knows who he is, he ceases to know who he is? (Entry 296, "recursive reflexivity") It appears that even in the moment the individual is knowing based on the "instant before". Viz., to know is based on "time to formulate knowledge". Yet you claim that true self-knowledge is devoid of time, which leads us to conclude that it cannot truly be known. (To argue that true self-knowledge, like intuition and sense, is devoid of time, is to overlook that intuition and sense, being conscious phenomenon, involve some form of time, otherwise we would not be conscious of them. The same reasoning applies to your notion of true self-knowledge.)

If we examine further, we see that in the act of knowing who we are "now", there is a separation between what we know (i.e. what we think we experience) and the experience itself, so that all we end up knowing is representation of the experience. Therefore, there appears to exist a "block" preventing us from truly knowing who we are, if it is even possible, in the experience now. (Responses to Entries 308, 310)

357. Entry:

Dispute of the response to Entry 355

"Yes, I fully understand that you would disagree that you have contradicted your own 'more reasonableness', so I will yet again have to explain from a different point of view, exactly why & how you HAVE.

Firstly here is the proposition itself:
"we CANNOT TRULY know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time"

Now whichever way you try & cut it - CANNOT TRULY asserts Absolute Truth-Value.

Secondly here is a quote from your previous response to my former dispute:

RQ - "the proposition... is impossible to overcome within the limit of more reasonableness. Though [we are] not fully certain."

Again - "IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERCOME" is an Absolute Truth- Value.

Now I will indeed grant you that you HAVE limited the proposition, & that "our limited perception" precedes 'more reasonableness', but this only provides the reason WHY you limited the proposition in the first instance.

The problem lies, quite simply, with the METHOD OF LIMITATION.

In order to limit the proposition, you had to SPLIT it right down the middle. Thus creating the scenario whereby:
1)The proposition is impossible to overcome.... Absolute Truth-Value
2)Though [we are} not fully certain that it can be.... Non Truth-Value

In so doing, I am afraid you cannot deny that you were required to contradict your own 'more reasonableness', though I will submit that you may not have realized it at the time. As I have now pointed it out yet again, to keep on denying that you HAVE indeed "contradicted" your own 'more reasonableness' would be UNREASONABLE.

Here is what you have done: - You have "limited your own limited perception", (not ours), and thereby contradicted your own 'more reasonableness'. That is quite fair enough & acceptable, but you also have to accept, that in doing so you were unable to limit the perception of all contestants nor get them to contradict their own 'more reasonableness', for to do so, is only possible by default, as I have shown.

Regarding the Absolute Truth-Value of knowledge:

ALL Knowledge is a RESULT of thinking, therefore "thinking" IS the Absolute Truth-Value of Knowledge, AND we can know this from "our limited perception", therefore you may save yourselves the trouble of arguing at all.

The "interaction" is merely "one thought upon another".

Unless of course, you have a 'more reasonable' way, of explaining how we could know anything, even if only from "our limited perception" and have 'more reasonableness' in the first place, if we were not able to think.

By the way - if you are worried about the sensory bit, think of it this way:
"Thinking Makes sense"

I contend my Original Entry #351 stands as a precise and entire refutation of the Challenge proposition."

protomutant July 4 2002

Response:

How does the propositional usage of the words "cannot" and "impossible" necessarily equate with absolute truth-values?

Doesn’t it depend on how the words are used, and further establishing that there is such a thing as absolute truth-value?

It appears that you are taking our usage of the words "cannot" and "impossible" out of context, by attaching meaning (i.e. absolute truth-value) to them which we have not.

Also, since you concede that "our limited perspective" precedes "more reasonableness", it follows logically that our usage of "cannot" and "impossible" is not with absolute truth-value. Viz., the words are fundamentally defined by epistemic limitedness. There is no issue. There is no absolute truth-value attached to our usage.

To summarize, your mistake is from assuming that we are using the words "cannot" and "impossible" with absolute truth-value when we are not, and ignoring that we have fundamentally limited our perspective, thereby ruling out any absolute truth-value attached to our perspective. (Though as mentioned previously, our perspective may have absolute truth-value without us knowing that it does.)

If you are unconvinced by our explanation, tell us why the statement, "we cannot truly know who we are", necessarily entails absolute truth-value?

Other issue:

How do you know that your statement, "all knowledge is the result of thinking" has absolute truth-value and you know that it does? What is the ground for your knowledge with absolute truth-value? How do you avoid infinite regress?

Note, the more reasonableness of your statement with limited truth-value is significantly different from the more reasonableness of your statement with absolute truth-value.

358. Entry:

Dispute of the response to Entry 357

"RQ - ‘If you are unconvinced by our explanation, tell us why the statement, ‘we cannot truly know who we are’, necessarily entails absolute truth-value? ‘
---------------------------------------------------------
*I have already told you, but I will endeavour yet again, from a different point of view. I agreed that ‘our limited perception’ precedes our 'more reasonableness' But you used your limited perception to attach the word TRULY to the word 'cannot' thereby giving the proposition Absolute Truth-Value yourselves. As you yourselves say, you then employed your more reasonableness to limit the Absolute Truth-Value you yourselves had attached to your limited perception.
So you have contradicted your 'more reasonableness', because it is 'unreasonable' to limit the Absolute Truth-Value YOU had already attached to the word ‘cannot’.
---------------------------------------------------------
RQ - ‘How do you know that your statement, ‘all knowledge is the result of thinking’ has absolute truth-value and you know that it does? What is the ground for your knowledge with absolute truth-value? How do you avoid infinite regress? ‘
---------------------------------------------------------
*OK - instead of asking the question I'll simply make the statement:
From ‘our limited perception’ and ‘more reasonableness’ we know that all knowledge is a result of thinking, because it is entirely reasonable, that if we were unable to think, we would not know anything. It follows therefore that ‘thinking’ is the grounds (Absolute Truth-Value) for all knowledge whether that knowledge be 'indirect conscious knowledge' or 'direct conscious knowledge'.
The statement stands either way, irrespective of whether our perception is limited or not, the unavoidable requirement for perception is ‘Thinking’. Thus infinite regress is avoided."

protomutant July 4 2002

Response:

Again you are assuming that we have established the challenge proposition as a statement of absolute truth-value, when we have made it clear that we as the authors of the proposition have always perceived and defined the proposition with limited truth-value. Of course you are resisting our position, because your own position collapses without the insertion of absolute truth-value into the proposition.

In defense of your position, you claim that the word ‘truly’ when combined with the word, ‘cannot’ somehow magically gives the proposition absolute truth-value. No, your reasoning is incorrect. It depends on how the words truly and cannot are defined, and as we have mentioned, we have defined the proposition and all of its terms with limited truth-value.

You can continue to imagine whatever you want about the proposition, but it does not change that in terms of the competition, the proposition is defined with limited truth-value.

In short, the mistake with your position is that you overlook that the terms truly and cannot, or any other terms for that matter, do not necessarily imply absolute truth-value.

After giving you seven entries to express your position, we consider your entry at a close, unless you can submit any new arguments of significance.

Other issue:

Your argument that the statement, "all knowledge is a result of thinking" is a statement of absolute truth-value because it is "entirely reasonable", is highly flawed. For instance, despite your denial that your position does not succumb to infinite regress, when pressed your position amounts to the following sequence: What is the ground for your statement’s absolute truth-value? The statement is "entirely reasonable". How you know the statement is entirely reasonable? Because the statement is entirely reasonable. How do you know the statement is entirely reasonable? Because the statement is entirely reasonable. ad infinitum. (Typical infinite regress stemming from your ground, "entirely reasonable".)

Entries 351-353 Entries 359-362