Reply to the response to Entry 371

"‘Man cannot truly know who he is, in part or in whole, and be who he is at the same time.’

Now, man's rationale is indubitably linked with his perspective, and that perspective must coincide with -at least-his physical surroundings or else he dies. But you may say ‘how can one more-reasonably demonstrate that he will die.’ But this unanswerable question is not the proper one to be asking, for man's knowledge -at least in part-of himself and his existence is demonstrated ‘more reasonably’ by his decisions regarding physical action. For despite the epistemological idealism one may claim, no man can act contrary to ‘common sense’ without consciously deciding to do so. And that conscious decision will bring about an awareness of one's being like nothing else. If you live, you are acting in accordance with your perspective of reality, and that perspective must be at least partially inline with Truth, otherwise you would be dead (barring those whose unconscious existence--if you could call it existence at all--is being perpetuated solely by artificial means).
A restricted existence is what man has. This is recognized if man is alive. Again, one can claim whatever variation of skepticism they like, but chances are common sense will keep them from pouring gas over themselves and lighting a match. Your existence is the proof of knowing in part who you are. You live now, because you know that if you do such and such, or fail to do such and such, chances are you will not live.
It is an extremely base level of understanding, but I am pretty sure that is how we objectively and more reasonably demonstrate our awareness of who we are. Animals have the same base awareness. The types of defenses they have against predators, the reaction even our pet dog has when we scold him for crapping on the kitchen floor demonstrates some degree of awareness of self existence. If the dog did not know he existed, would he be likely to cower with his tail between his legs? I think that fear necessarily exists because of some understanding of existence and the limitations of that existence.

Man's life is contingent on the necessary requirements of life (Oxygen, nutrients, etc.). Man's life is contingent on the necessary acquisition of those requirements of life.
Man's acquisition of the necessary requirements of life involves awareness on some level of their necessity for his existence. This is self knowledge. If man lacks the awareness to acquire those necessities, he will die. Man's existence demonstrates his self knowledge because of the awareness that is required to sustain his existence."

Doug Blanchard September 9 2002

Response:

We acknowledge that it is necessary for humanity to have self-knowledge in some form in order to survive. However, it is unclear to us why it is necessary for humanity to have part self-knowledge with absolute truth-value in order to survive. You claim that humanity will cease to exist without true part self-knowledge. But what grounds do you have for making this claim? Why isn’t self-knowledge with limited truth-value, which is indirectly connected to the external world, sufficient for humanity to survive? Why is self-knowledge with absolute truth-value needed for an individual to know not to pour gas over oneself and light a match? How does an individual in the act of pouring gas over oneself and lighting a match or starving oneself indefinitely, or in any other extreme situation, truly know oneself? What does the pain of burns or hunger have to do with true self-knowledge? What is the connection between pain and true self-knowledge? It appears to us that pain is based on our experience of it, and thereby our interpretation of the experience, which would put us in an indirect relation to the experience no matter how severe it is.

Further, what does "common sense" have to do with knowledge with absolute truth-value? Why does "common sense" necessarily correlate to knowledge with absolute truth-value?

373. Entry:

"I am going to try to overcome this proposition. But first I'm going to seemingly prove a much stronger proposition: ‘we cannot truly know anything in its entirety.’

Suppose you set out to know a brick in its entirety (a much less ambitious goal than knowing the self). How would you go about it? You might start with the axioms of quantum mechanics and the properties of quarks and electrons. You could, in principal, build up from those starting points to all the manifest properties of a brick, including its mass, volume, hardness, color, and so on. And you might think when you're done that you have complete knowledge of the brick.

But then, every scientist from Aristotle to Newton to the 19th century might also have thought *they* had complete knowledge of what the brick is. We now believe they were all wrong. Why assume that our own knowledge will not some day be equally obsolete? *Even if it won't* there is no way to prove it.

Logic starts with axioms: premises that are, themselves, not logically provable. It then deduces all manner of things which we can assume to be true *if* the premises were true, *and if* the method of logical deduction is true. But neither of these two things can themselves be proven, which leaves all our deductions open to serious doubts...nothing can be truly proven or entirely known. Not even a brick. Certainly not the self.

So, if that's my argument, how do I overcome it? There is a key assumption in all that argument: an assumption which is *not* made in your original proposition. The assumption is a definition of ‘we’ as a sort of supercomputer, a machine capable of logical deduction and perhaps induction but that's really all. If that is all we were, we would never have gotten as far as we have. For instance, the rules of logic themselves cannot be logically proven: so, how do we know that A=A? To take another example, we can say that ‘I think, therefore I am’- -but how do I know that I think? These sorts of statements (‘A=A’ or ‘I think’) do not come from logic, but they do come from us. They come from a part that is anterior to, or superior to, the logical reasoning brain.

This points the way toward the ‘higher self’ that is promised in all religions of both the East and the West as the *true* self, underlying the logical brain. When we talk about ‘who we are’ we are talking about these anterior, or higher, faculties.

So the game switches entirely. We are no longer asking ‘Is the logical thinking machine capable of truly knowing itself while being itself?’ The answer to that is no. But it is the wrong question. ’Can the higher part of ourselves--the part that correctly supplies us with such knowledge as 'I have thoughts' or 'A=A' with no logical basis at all--can this part truly know what it is, while being itself?’ To this, we can only answer: maybe. We cannot prove that the answer is yes, but we certainly cannot prove that the answer is no. We must take the path of the mystic and try to switch our identification from the body/brain to this higher self, and then we will know. But there is certainly no logical reason for assuming that we will be disappointed."

Kenny Felder September 10 2002

Response:

We agree with you that since the rules of logic cannot be proven, our thoughts must more reasonably be based on us, defined as a higher self, which is outside of the rules of logic. In other words, since the rules of logic are incomplete from our perspective, there must be some other aspect(s) of ourselves behind our thoughts than the rules of logic. However, it is unclear how we can truly know who we are through the so-called higher self. You appear to imply that we can by switching our identification from the body/brain to the higher self. Yet, though your higher self is defined as outside of the rules of logic, the higher self itself as a conscious phenomenon is defined by the rules of logic, and since we apparently cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are, we do not see how by merely switching our identification that we can truly know who we are. Bear in mind, you began your entry with the premise that "we cannot know anything in entirety".

In short, the challenge you face is to show how we can get outside of the rules of logic through the higher self or anything else. Merely, projecting the higher self as outside of the rules of logic and as basis of our thoughts, is to project from within the rules of logic, and it does not get us away from having to know within the rules of logic. We are left with the dilemma that we can only know within the rules of logic, in which we cannot know anything in entirety. How can we through the higher self know outside of the rules of logic? How can we through the higher self truly know who we are from within the rules of logic?

374. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 372

"‘We acknowledge that it is necessary for humanity to have self-knowledge in some form in order to survive’
If you acknowledge this (which is what my last argument demonstrates) then the ‘problem’ should be solved. As I stated, existence presupposes self-knowledge because of the necessity for some base form of awareness of our being's limitations in order to perpetuate the ‘life’ of our being. Being meaning man's being, and man, a species within the genus of animal of which there exists a specific difference of mortality, a necessary characteristic of the man-animal's essence. You can not refer to man, the implied subject of ‘we’, without inferring his mortal existence. Man is mortal. That is, in part, who he is. My argument states that man must recognize this mortality on some base level if he lives because of the necessary voluntary actions required to sustain his existence.

The specific difference of the man-animal as mortal answers ‘what grounds do you have for making the claim that humanity (universal term that includes all men) will cease to exist without true part self-knowledge.’ The ‘grounds’ are that he will die without recognizing (at least in part) his mortality.

Further, I am regretful for having placed the abstract concept of ‘common sense’ and reference to voluntary self-burning in the last argument because they were not essential to the point I was making. Please excuse me for doing so, and please DO NOT refer to them as if they provide foundational support to the main point.

Please CLEARLY define ‘absolute truth-value’ for me. That term has an uncanny ability to apparently ‘unravel’ every argument presented to the Committee.

Comment on your statement : ‘Truly knowing only one part of who we are is nonsensical, because in order to truly know one part of ourselves, we need to know who we are in entirety, otherwise we would have no true way of knowing that the part is truly part of who we are. Therefore, to overcome the proposition, you need to show how we can more reasonably know who we are in entirety, whether it be by a single individual or in a millisecond of our entire lifetime. (Note, there are other ways to overcome the proposition like more reasonably showing that there is no who we are.)’
If overcoming this ontological prerequisite is a requirement for ‘winning’ this contest, then this contest is a farce, for not only is this statement dependent on an untrue premise, (‘Truly knowing only one part of who we are is nonsensical, because in order to truly know one part of ourselves, we need to know who we are in entirety, otherwise we would have no true way of knowing that the part is truly part of who we are.’) but it is fully loaded."

Doug Blanchard September 11 2002

Response:

Our acknowledgement that it is necessary for humanity to have self-knowledge in some form in order to survive is different from the acknowledgement that it is necessary for humanity to have self-knowledge with absolute truth-value in order to survive. The former acknowledgment does not necessitate self-knowledge with absolute truth-value; whereas the latter does.

Your argument that we must have self-knowledge with absolute truth-value because of "the necessary voluntary actions required to sustain our existence", begins with the premise that we truly know who we are as mortal beings. Therefore, your argument is invalid because you are using the premise that we truly know who we are in part to show that we truly know who we are in part.

The challenge you face is to more reasonably show how the premise, humanity is mortal, has absolute truth-value. Viz., who is this humanity [or "all men"] you are referring to, and how can you more reasonably know it with absolute truth-value?

Other issues:

Our claim that we cannot more reasonably truly know something in part without truly knowing the something in entirety, does not rule out knowledge with limited truth-value. If you disagree with this claim, please explain to us why instead of simply saying the claim is "untrue".

The competition is not asking participants to show self-knowledge with absolute truth-value, but to more reasonably show self-knowledge with absolute truth-value.

Absolute truth-value refers to more reasonably knowing something in entirety or with 100% completeness.

More reasonable refers to the soundness and consistency of an idea over antagonistic ideas.

Entries 367-371,  Entries 375-378