Reply to the response to Entry 366

"‘Is there a more reasonable necessity for a thing-in-itself in order for us to exist?’

No, but there is also no need for the concept of the infinity of things in order for us to exist. For instance, in societies in which the concept of the infinity does not exist, one can easily observe that their lives are unimpeded!

Whether one believes one or the other, we exist. There seems to be no need for either concept for us to exist. Our existence depends on other things, it appears. No matter how ludicrous my beliefs, as long as I'm alive, there is no denying my existence.
In the end , this to be determined reason and a to be determined form of esthetics may not be discernible from each other. Reason and beauty.
You refuse to accept the implications of this fact. They are substantial, however.

‘How the theory of more reasonableness is practically applied is a concern of ours, but in our view that is not sufficient grounds for the theory's non-application, because the issue of misuse and misapplication applies to any theory’.

It may very well be sufficient reason if reasonableness proves to have no grounds. As long as more reasonableness remains to be defined, it can't be called the basis of a theory at all. A basis needs to be defined, it can never consist of a single word (‘reasonableness’).

-You create the notion of more reasonableness
-You cannot provide us with a practical form of this more reasonableness.
-Nevertheless, there is no other way, according to you.

If there is no thing in itself, then who or what am I talking to?
Who or what is claiming that ‘more reasonableness’ is the way?
Continuity in itself seems to be a thing in itself, for one. You try to rid the universe of its motion, I say. Yes, you can accuse me of the same.
Let's speak some reason, in stead of attempting to define its grammar.
To define is to end. This is not ending.
I agree that there is SOMETHING that may be called reason. THAT however, is not language. If we wish to proceed and discuss the topic at hand, I feel we must let go of the notion that we can dissect this reason. For reason must coincide with truth for it to have the meaning we contribute to it. I do not think that we can unveil truth solely with the use of a sequence of symbols. Why do you insist that defining this reason will help us to live accordingly?
A musician is better off being able to play his instrument, in stead of being able to define it.
In terms of definition, we have arrived at a stalemate position. However, definition in my view should be the last thing we should be interested in. It is suspended animation, the one thing that we are certain to achieve.

‘Can so-called civilization function with individuals taking whatever positions they want?’

It should, I feel, yes. If not, it does not deserve to be called a civilization.
Can the present (let's say western-) world be safely called a civilization?
Only one criterion may remain in the end: No one's will may be truly violated.
This shows us where the final hurdle will lie: As long as there are people who truly attempt to violate other people's wills, we face the paradox of having to force people to look elsewhere for their pleasure. That is all. Any killer who can find a victim who truly wishes to die at his or her hands, operates within the bounds of the law. Any person who selflessly sacrifices him or herself for the life of a person who does not wish him or her to do so, is a criminal.
This, in my opinion, clearly illustrates the problem we face.

I do agree with your notion in the sense that this reasonableness is out there. All the Christian, Muslim and Hindu agree as well. Now what? Proving this reasonableness to be factual, yields us nothing. We will have to formulate it accurately. Before this is done, the word ‘reasonably’ is incapable of discerning itself from words like ‘Jehovah’, ‘Allah’, ‘Nam myo ho renge kyo’, ‘Hail Hitler’. I feel that ‘most reasonable’ in itself means nothing, if the actual words are not there to be experienced as BEING ‘most reasonable’. Without them, it is an unfathomably empty statement. And after it is formed, we may find that we choose to call it something besides ‘most reasonable’. To paraphrase, what you are suggesting is that the most true is truer than the lesser true. Well, no argument here or anywhere else. But: what is it? What is THAT which is truer? REASON, ZEN, JHVH, $%(%^#$..?"

Raoul Starren September 26 2002

Response:

More reasonableness refers to the more soundness and consistency of a thought or idea over antagonistic thoughts or ideas. Since we apparently can only know from our perspective (i.e. within our thoughts), we contend that the more reasonable position is closer to reality than the less reasonable position. Further, basing our existence arbitrarily on the less or more reasonable positions or ‘anything goes’ approach would leave us in a state of anarchy with no direction except our instinctual impulses. Indirectly according to neuroscientist, Steve Burwen, an anarchist or strictly instinctual approach is not a good thing, because,

".... [the area known as the limbic system] is the primitive area of the brain inherited from our evolutionary ancestors where emotions and violent behaviour get controlled and mediated. Above it is the cerebral cortex, where more advanced thinking processes--language, memory, analytical thought, spatial reasoning, and so on, reside.

The sobering thing is that the limbic system is actually much larger both in absolute terms and also proportionally to the rest of our brain than in any other mammalian or primate species. In other words, although we did evolve the more advanced cerebral cortex, we didn't de-emphasize or shrink the more primitive and violent limbic system as a result; in fact, we expanded on it and even grew an even bigger, more complex, and more powerful one. This was completely unexpected, from a comparative neuronatomy standpoint. This is not a good thing, because although we think with our cerebral cortices, our behaviour is mostly moulded and controlled and motivated by the more primitive limbic system areas.

This recent functional neurological finding shows why our history is the way it is. Although we can attain to more peaceable and advanced thought and culture sometimes, it's normally too difficult for us because the more primitive, violent area of the brain really still controls almost everything we do. This neurological finding explains what history has always told us, that we're really just violent uber-apes with a thin veneer of civilization grafted on top, and not a very sturdy or secure one at that, since it gets peeled off all too often in the violent annals of history."

Note, you agree that "there is something that may be called reason", but what is significant is that reason cannot be avoided in the determination of our existence, unless we give up determinations and human thought all together, which we do not think can ever be logically justified. Viz., we must allow for error. It is from the premises that reason in some form is a necessary basis for human thought, and human thought is defined by limited truth-value that we contend as thinking beings there is a necessity of reason to determine what thought is more reasonable. To avoid or deny this necessity takes us back fully or partly to the anarchist/instinctual state in which anything goes, the neurological implications of an anarchist/instinctual state, and the contradiction of having thoughts but not existing true to them (i.e. their conscious meanings).

Other issues:

The question of whether or not there is a necessity that we need a thing-in-itself in order to exist refers to looking at our existence overall. Viz., in analyzing our existence are there necessities that we need oxygen, water, sunlight, and a thing-in-itself?

Why is a thing-in-itself necessary for you or us to exist? Why is the concept of "continuity" a thing-in-itself? How can continuity be a thing-in-itself because the concept stems from our minds?

We disagree that a musician is better off being able to play his instrument than being able to define his instrument, because we contend that the musician cannot play his instrument without some form of reasoning of it, and therefore definition of it.

Sure, one’s actions may extend beyond the conscious realm, but that extension is not consistent with your distinction between reason and beauty. Beauty a conscious phenomenon is an expression of reason. Also, an inexpressible state, beyond ‘reason in the form of beauty’ takes us back to the issue of the reasoned existence versus the anarchist/instinctual existence, which as we have argued favours the reasoned existence from the standpoint of determining our existence. Obviously, within a determination instinctual impulses can naturally play out.

376. Entry:

"The proposition cannot be overcome because:
We cannot truly know who we are, not even in part, before being who we are.
We can only know who we were after observing who we are in a situation.

Knowledge is memory of the past.
Being and observing take place in the present.
Observing can change the part observed.
Every situation is unique."

Gudmund Rapp September 30 2002

Response:

The proposition could be more reasonably overcome using intuitive knowledge which is not dependent on observing who we are in a situation.

Also, if it can more reasonably be established within the time-frame of the competition (September 2004) and after a two week public forum including evaluation of the forum that, for example, the proposition is impossible to overcome, the competition would shift to the new proposition for the remainder of the competition or until another proposition more reasonably refutes the new proposition.

If your contention is that the proposition is more reasonably impossible to overcome, we respond as mentioned that it could be overcome using intuitive knowledge, and that based on the response to Entry 186, possibility precedes impossibility (i.e. from our perspective, impossibility is contingent on the possibility of it, whereas possibility is not contingent on the impossibility of it) which rules out the more reasonableness of showing the impossibility of overcoming the proposition. If your contention is that the proposition cannot more reasonably be overcome, the same position as the proposition, then there is the possibility that the proposition could be overcome.

377. Entry:

"If we are not who we are, we are nothing, and if we are nothing, we know nothing. This is obvious and renders the proposition as meaningless as it first appears."

James Spencer October 6 2002

Response:

We agree that if we are not who we are, whatever that may be, we are nothing (i.e. non-existent), and therefore, if we are non-existent, we cannot know anything. However, the proposition is not proposing that we are not who we are. Viz., the proposition is partly premised on that we exist, and that in order to know we need to exist. What the proposition is proposing is that we cannot more reasonably truly know who we are whether in part or in whole. Viz., we cannot more reasonably truly know any aspect of who we are. Note, denying our ability to truly know who we are, does not deny our existence. In other words, there does not appear to be any necessity that we need to truly know who we are in order to exist.

378. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 375

"I will refrain from entering into a discussion where physiological substrates for presumed criteria for reason are identified and used as some form of evidence. For it clarifies nothing, it merely diffuses the issue.
I don't mean to argue that instincts should rule us. Even if we wanted to, hardly any of us would be capable of it. We have become far too cerebral to turn back the clock. This is not what I mean to say.

In fact, I'm somewhat troubled by this limbic angle. The growth of the limbic brain being considered to be ‘bad’, as well as the belief that our prefrontal cortex will save the day, like Robin Hood against the sheriff of Nottingham. Are you trying to perform some form of limbic amputation on the human race?

I suppose not. What I mean to say when I say that a true civilization is in concordance with the will of every individual constituting it, I'm merely showing how difficult the attainment of civilization is. I'm implying that we still don't know what civilization looks like. I agree wholeheartedly that we are mere uber-apes, but doesn't this clearly show that we can hardly be considered qualified when it comes to identify the ways of reason?

People will keep on dying at the hands of others for some time. Peoples lives will remain to be ruined by other peoples ignorance or petty pleasures for some time.
History seems to indicate that each new ‘final solution’ did nothing more than place the victim role into the laps of different kinds of people.
Christians, Jews, Intellectuals, Communists, the weak, the strong, the black, the white, the red, the yellow, women, men. Even in our discussion: Am I, who's opposing you, not a liability to your version of reason?

Other issues:

Neither the concept of a thing in itself, nor the renouncement of a thing in itself are evidently essential to existence. We may think either, but the beating of our hearts is not influenced in the least. Both are figments of our minds and can stay what they are, or change back and forth. It is of no significant consequence. Like I stated before, a people that doesn't know the concept of infinity, nor the concept of a thing in itself, finds its existence unimpeded! It is people who wake up every day, go to sleep every night and if fortune permits, they live long and prosper. Our musings have precious little bearing on the force of life itself: That is my point. Experience teaches us and if REASON deigns world peace to be a profitable energetic state, humanity will see it. Otherwise, it simply will not. I do not pretend to know any reason apart from my own and am at the mercy of the rest of the world when it comes to getting my little record at the top of the hit-parade. And so are you. So what use is it to argue reason in abstract terms?

‘More reasonableness refers to the more soundness and consistency of a thought or idea over antagonistic thoughts or ideas.’

Yes, I know what a sound and consistent thought appears like.
Do you suppose that I didn't have a sense for the sound and consistent? Everybody has a sense for the sound and consistent. I like black better than blue too. And boy, do I have sound ideas to back that up! Please don't suppose that there is a single person out here who doesn't know what ‘soundness’ and ‘consistency’ mean.

The point to this is, that your excerpt from the dictionary doesn't elucidate a single iota of the issue at hand. It doesn't show us in any way what this ‘soundness’ and ‘consistency’ appear like (the law that governs their behavior).

‘Further, basing our existence arbitrarily on the less or more reasonable positions or 'anything goes' approach would leave us in a state of anarchy.’ Aren't you mistaking the mechanical world for the world of consciousness?
I know that if particles didn't know nor care what charge or mass or spin they had, the universe wouldn't exist.
Where the world of consciousness is concerned (the plane in which this discussion takes place), I may proclaim myself your opposite, but when we collide we do not disappear in a flash of energy. The metaphor is somehow flawed.

‘.... with no direction except our instinctual impulses.’

And of course our rational ones. They can be of the worst kind. Eichmann didn't strike me as too instinctual. Anything but ‘Anything goes’ with him: ‘Befehl ist Befehl!’. However, you seek direction in reason. Why not, I guess, one can seek it in anything, including instinctual impulses. Jimi Hendrix, Lord Byron, Mozart were fairly instinctual, and so were Jenghis Kahn and Jack the ripper. Now what? I have heard and read delightful reasoning, showing me exactly why, and the next person I tried to show it to dismissed it with a yawn. And now, developing my reason as you do, I understand this to my own satisfaction (of course never to the satisfaction of the next person). Now what? I refute the proposition on these grounds, human grounds. Not a win, but a perpetual stalemate, where the proposition claims a win. It's in the very fabric of it's formulation: We can't.
I say that we sometimes can."

Raoul Starren November 24 2002

Response:

You suggest that since human beings are no more than "uber-apes", human beings are unqualified to identify the "ways of reason". 1 However, your suggestion is contradictory because if we are not qualified to identify the ways of reasons from being "uber-apes", then it follows we should not be qualified to identify ourselves as "uber-apes" as well.

We disagree that an individual’s belief in the concept of "thing-in-itself" or non-belief in the concept of "thing-in-itself" is not essential to his or her existence, because for example an individual’s belief in the concept of "thing-in-itself" may have essential influence on his or her existence. The point being that humanity not only exists from ideas, but also centers its existence around ideas, and therefore ideas are essential to human existence. Viz., what an individual believes will have influence on his or her existence, and possibly significant influence, and may even be essential like an individual who does not believe in pre-meditated, unprovoked murder, thus avoids that action and the possible consequences. Hence, your contention that ideas are not essential to human existence does not stand, nor does it necessarily stand that the more reasonable idea is not essential to an individual’s existence. To separate thoughts from our biological functioning ("the beating[s] of our hearts [are] not influenced in the least") is to ignore that our thoughts are an essential and influential part of our existence.

The notions of soundness and consistency are governed by the Law of Comparison. Viz., all human thought (i.e. conscious meaning) is defined by comparison. So soundness and consistency are identified through the comparison of conscious meaning within the limits of what we know.

We agree with you that an "anything goes" approach may not necessarily result in a state of anarchy, because whoever or whatever we are would be behind the "anything goes". Yet it does not follow how members of a society can maintain a cohesive order without an agreed upon structure. According to Thomas Hobbes, society without structure would revert to a "state of nature" in which individuals would act from their perceived self-interests, resulting in a bloodbath. Moreover, the "anything goes" approach is inconsistent with our reasoning, because instead of acting true to our reasons themselves, we would simply decide whatever we felt. The only way the approach would be consistent is if we were capable of only a single thought, but we are capable of many thoughts. To retort by challenging the notion of consistency, takes us back to the "anything goes" approach and the resulting "state of nature", and it means that our thoughts are not inherently part of who we are, and that they are insignificant. Also, the "anything goes" approach is self-defeating because it is contingent on using reason to deny the meaning of reason itself. (It appears that you are implying we can act purely from outside of our minds, but you have yet to show how. What you may be confusing is that we are not advocating exclusive action from our minds, but that most actions from our minds be guided by the exclusive evaluation of reason’s themselves.)

Finally, to argue that the Challenge results in a perpetual "stalemate" because there is no knowledge with absolute truth-value we can know that we know is to rely on the mere possibility that the proposition can be overcome. Yet the Challenge is asking participants to overcome the proposition not by establishing the possibility of doing so, but by more reasonably refuting the proposition based exclusively on reasons themselves. Therefore, we disagree that the Challenge results in a perpetual stalemate. Viz., the more reasonable (antagonistic) reasons, if they exist, will overcome the proposition. 2 Though we acknowledge as in the response to Entry 270 that the Challenge will more possibly not result in a so-called "win" with absolute truth-value. Yet the non-absolute "win" is consistent with the proposition itself which says within the limits of what we know that there is no knowledge with absolute truth-value that we can know that we know. You may ask what is the point of debating the issue of self-knowledge if more possibly no final, absolute answer can be achieved? We contend that since thinking and the resulting ideas are necessary for human existence, the Challenge which encourages thinking on a fundamental issue has significance even though more possibly no final, absolute answer can be attained. Viz., we must make the most reasonable decisions we can within the limits of what we know. To do otherwise, as mentioned, is to take us back to the "anything goes" approach, and the resulting anarchy (and "state of nature"), while act inconsistent with our thoughts and ultimately whoever or whatever we are. Also, the Challenge establishes a forum for the actualization of the possibility of overcoming the proposition to be expressed.

____________________________

1. Uber-apes is Steve Burwen’s term for Nietzsche’s ubermenshen or overman philosophy in light of the Nazi’s, and others, distortion of Nietzsche’s ideas.

2. "The real solution [to the proposition] is not so much a solution as a constant criticism of the proposition proposed here which is then spurred to presenting itself in other ways to incorporate the criticisms." Sam Nico from Entry 270. In response to Nico’s perspective, the Committee writes, "... Though at some point, the criticism from a particular position will either exhaust itself, or overcome the proposition by creating a situation in which the proposition cannot incorporate the criticism without contradicting itself. Even then and outside the bounds of the competition, there would be no final solution or absolute endpoint, due to the apparent non-absolute truth-value of human perspective [and unless an antagonistic position to the proposition more reasonably establishes knowledge with absolute truth-value]."

Entries 372-374 Entries 379-384