Reply to the response to Entry 376

"In my Entry 376 I declared why the proposition in my opinion cannot be overcome. Stephen [Garvey] refused my entry. In short words: ‘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.’

I have a problem with Stephen’s expression ‘intuitive knowledge’.
Living in Sweden, Europe, I use the Concise Oxford Dictionary as reference: ’Intuition means immediate apprehension by the mind without reasoning; knowledge means familiarity gained by experience’.
Hence intuition is of the present like being and observing and knowledge is of the past; thus, knowledge may be gained by intuition.

Initiated by intuition, being who we are in a situation follows the sequence: observation - action in one step omitting the element of choice which normally enters in between. This condition is referred to by elite athletes as being in the zone or flow. The mind is silent and ‘the player is not playing, he is being played’ at the top of his ability. Other examples are: ‘the book is being written’, ‘the picture is being painted’.
The memory of how we were, in the situation in question, is commonly regarded as a sense of being without thoughts, a sense of clarity and elation. Who or what is the ‘I’ when the mind is silent? I will revert to that question in a new entry.

Stephen remarked about the relation between possibility and impossibility: ‘...(i.e. from our perspective, impossibility is contingent on the possibility of it, whereas possibility is not contingent on the impossibility of it)...’

An enlightened person, who is firmly anchored in the present and not bothered by conditioning (preconceived ideas) is said to be one with the ‘Father’ or Brahman or the Source or the Ground or the like. Of course, he always knows who he is. For him the proposition has no meaning at all but in this context it could be said that it is possible for him to overcome the proposition.

So, it is possible for an extremely small group of human beings but impossible for the individuals who make up humankind (= we according to Stephen’s definition). Stephen’s remark ‘impossibility is contingent on the possibility of it’ is correct.

Thus, it is my contention that my entry 376 is reasonable!"

Gudmund Rapp December 4 2002

Response:

By agreeing that "impossibility is contingent on the possibility of it", [and possibility is not contingent on the impossibility of it], you refute your contention that the proposition is more reasonably impossible to overcome. Viz., possibility more reasonably precedes impossibility, and therefore it is more reasonable that the proposition is possibly impossible to overcome than the proposition is impossible to overcome.

For example, to argue that it is more reasonably impossible that knowledge is of the present, is to ignore that it is more reasonably possible that knowledge is of the present. Moreover, to argue that it is more reasonably possible that enlightened people, an extremely small group of people, can overcome the proposition, while it is impossible for the individuals who make up humankind, is to ignore that it is more reasonably possible for the individuals who make up humankind to overcome the proposition.

Note, "we" is defined as "all Homo sapiens who are existing, regardless of level of functionality", so as Steve Burwen from Entry 198 says, ".... if during a typical lifetime of 70 years or so (a period comprised of approximately 2.2 billion seconds) we are able to know who we are for even a second, or even a millisecond during that period, we shall know who we are and be who we are simultaneously, and the proposition is overcome." To distinguish the individual from a group of individuals is inconsistent with the proposition as presented, and unnecessary because as Steve Burwen says overcoming the proposition only requires more reasonably demonstrating that an individual, any individual of humankind, can know him or herself with absolute truth-value for a millisecond or even less.

Further, your contention that your Entry 376 is "reasonable" is more reasonably correct, because possibility more reasonably precedes impossibility. 1 However, establishing the reasonableness of your contention does not say much because all contentions, as long as we are conscious of them in some form, are reasonable on grounds that they are more reasonably possible.

_________________________

1. Reasonable refers to the possibility of conscious meaning(s) (or thought(s)) being what really is.

386. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 384

"Truth exists, therefore absolute truth-value exists because absolute truth is known from knowing the truth..."

covelli December 5 2002

Supplementary explanations as requested by the Inexpressible Committee (IC).

(IC) What is the ground(s) for your assertion that "truth exists"?

(covelli) "Truth exists because what we perceive we can only assess to be true..."

(IC) Why can we only assess what we perceive to be true?

(covelli) "Before my answer, could you tell me why I have to provide grounds for the existence of truth...isn't it more reasonable that it does exist?"

(IC) The Competition is centered around whether or not it is more reasonable that truth exists than truth does not exist.

Truth refers to knowledge with absolute truth-value. Viz., something known completely or in entirety.

(covelli) "Sorry...by ‘we can only assess to be true’ I meant if we are to perceive our surroundings with any validity, then we must assess what we perceive to be true...rephrased

Truth exists because what we perceive we must (for validity) assess to be true..."

Response:

It does not necessarily follow that perception of our surroundings with limited truth-value is invalid. 1 If we consider that more reasonably we can only know what we know, and what we know is based on limited, indirect perception, then it follows that our limited perception is necessarily valid, unless you claim that we ourselves are invalid, but that would self-defeat your argument by making it invalid. 2

Also, your position that our perception of our surroundings is true (in order to be valid) leads to contradictory perceptions being valid. For example, even though one critic perceives a painting to be original, and another critic perceives the same painting to be unoriginal, both perceptions according to your position would be true!! 3

_________________________

1. Valid refers to sound, defensible positions/arguments.

2. Our "limited, indirect perception" is supported by the apparent indirect connection between our sensory receptors and external stimuli, and the less reasonableness of direct realism versus indirect realism (See the response to Entry 152). Or as stated in the section, Defense of Proposition:

"Conscious knowledge is apparently based on interaction at sensorial, biochemical, and neurological levels, or any other levels, and therefore we can only know via representation. (i.e. we [more reasonably] do not know directly from the external world in a Aristotelian fashion, whereby external knowledge somehow enters directly into our minds. We [more reasonably] know through representation based on interaction, whether it be the interaction of neuron cells or the interaction of sensory receptors with external stimulus. One way around this position is to assert that some conscious knowledge is created ex nihilo ("out of nothing"). However, the concept of ex nihilo is less reasonable than something coming from something else ad infinitium (infinite causality), because we can only know by imputing infinite causality onto things.

The representative nature of conscious knowledge is important, in the context of the competition, because it refutes the notion of true knowledge viz., representative knowledge cannot truly be what it represents, because then it would not be representational."

3. True refers to something known completely or in entirety.

387. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 386

"Yes, what we perceive with limited truth value is somewhat valid... I never claimed it was not...
Truth exists because what we perceive we must assess to be true...

The painting example does not disprove this point... perceiving a painting is not the same as perceiving our surroundings... for instance, if two people see a tree, both of them will recognize its existence... according to your position, one person's perception of the tree could be true, and the other could be false!!"

covelli December 6 2002

Supplementary explanations as requested by the Inexpressible Committee (IC).

(IC) You claim that what we perceive [for validity] we must assess to be true, and yet you concede that perception with limited truth-value is somewhat valid. So we want to know what is your ground for your contention that it is necessary that we assess our perception as true since the necessity cannot be validity? Unless you are claiming it is necessary for absolute validity we assess our perception as true? But if that is the case, why is it necessary to view our perception with absolute validity?

(covelli) "It is necessary to view what we perceive with absolute validity because what we perceive is true...

I guess I could have originally said...
Truth exists because what we perceive is true..."

(IC) How do you more reasonably know that what we perceive is true (or false)? Why is it necessary that what we perceive is true (or false)? Viz., why can't what we perceive be a gradation of limited truth-value?

(covelli) "We can more reasonably know that what we perceive is true (or false) because what we perceive is what we become aware of, what we know, what we observe...are you suggesting what we perceive is not true?

It is necessary that what we perceive is true (or false) so we can function sanely within our environment...

What we perceive can be a gradation of limited truth-value."

Response:

Just because what we perceive "is what we become aware of, what we know, and what we observe", it does not follow that what we become aware, what we know, and what we observe necessarily equates with knowledge with absolute truth-value.

To establish this necessity, you argue that what we perceive is knowledge with absolute truth-value in order for us (humanity) to function sanely within our environment. Yet it does not make sense why we cannot function sanely in our environment with knowledge with limited truth-value based on using reason to compare, and thereby distinguish, what we know. 1 In other words, it does not follow why a sensible, rational individual requires knowledge with absolute truth-value, when he or she has access to the faculty of reason. 2

_________________________

1. Sane refers to a sensible, rational human mind.

2. At this point, it appears to us that generally insanity has to do with malfunction of the faculty of reason, (and the brain’s mechanism(s) behind it), which may manifest itself in an individual believing his or her perception (including illusions) is knowledge with absolute truth-value.

388. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 387

"This necessarily equates to knowledge with truth because what we perceive is true... Whether it is limited, or absolute, what we perceive is still true...

Because even knowledge with limited truth-value does perceive what is true or false...(as you have pointed out)."

covelli December 6 2002

Response:

We agree that knowledge with limited truth-value has a comparative aspect which manifests itself in perception defined, for instance, by true and false, good and evil, and more and less reasonable. However, the manifestation of the comparative aspect does not necessarily mean that our perception itself has absolute truth-value. Viz., we apparently do not need knowledge with absolute truth-value to compare, nor does the form of comparison, like true and false, necessarily mean that we have knowledge with absolute truth-value.

389. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 388

"Whether it is limited, or absolute, what we perceive is still true... It may not be absolute, but it is still true..."

covelli December 6 2002

Supplementary explanations as requested by the Inexpressible Committee.

We request that you expand on "it is still true..."

"Meaning that what we perceive may not have absolute truth-value, but that does not mean what we perceive is not true..."

Response:

Since we apparently cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are, we can only perceive (in terms of intellect) the conscious meaning of what we think we perceive.

The conscious meaning as you concede may not have absolute truth-value, and we contend based, for instance, on the apparent indirect nature of conscious knowledge, conscious meaning more reasonably does not have absolute truth-value. 1

If you disagree, how do you more reasonably know what we perceive (in terms of intellect) is true? What is it that we actually perceive (in terms of intellect), other than the conscious meaning in our minds?

_________________________

1. You say in Entry 386 that "Truth exists, therefore absolute truth-value exists because absolute truth-value is known from knowing the truth..." So it follows if what we know or perceive (in terms of intellect and meaning) has limited truth-value, what we know or perceive is not true.

Entries 379-384 Entries 390-396