"Query: How to;
Overcome the proposition, we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time.

The proposition is dynamic in answering. We can truly know who we are in part and then in whole while being who we are. It is true that after knowing this we will have changed (for the better) but we will still be, at that moment who we are. However in this day and age we have totally relinquished all knowledge of how this is done. Indeed, we of western society fear more than anything, how this is or was done.

Why do we fear it? The last person to do it on their own was Jesus Christ and look what happened to him. Those who would control us have succeeded with their desires and escaped their fears to find they are destroying themselves (and all else) with the power they have coerced from humanity making necessary now, the query, and this response.

Here is the answer:

You will find in research of the human unconscious there is in essence a discovery of a third human mental modality called somnambulism. It is an unconscious waking state. I have searched inexpressible.com and the word is not in the site as far as I know.
Somnambulism is used in the two following ways to answer the query.

1. As Christ did it:

Ancient spiritual people placed the child Jesus Christ in a somnambulistic state and presented a conditional test to Jesus in the form of a question:

‘Will you give us your life out of love to use it to protect and empower the lives of your people?’

Jesus understood this might mean death but hoped it might simply mean that every random option and choice that he would know throughout his life would actually be options selected by others and his choices actually be decisions guiding the route through a labyrinth that would prove to him that life, indeed, is about love. To prove that point was the purpose of the entire event. Prior to the removal of this knowledge from human society the event was called ‘The Christing’. It was a method that came with us as we evolved to a group of animals that provided a leader who was pure in their intent.

A study of somnambulism will show the mental mechanisms of memory defining how this is possible. The rest is a complex application of an understanding of phylogenetic instinct, how it (love) could be exploited in accordance with the determinations of Abraham Maslows research into the humans valuation of love. The Christing bridges successfully the paradox presented by the query with the refined use of somnambulism. Paradox: What is unconscious cannot be known to the conscious. Enabling exception: What WAS unconscious can be consciously known. If you are much as you were then the true you can be known. Since the unconscious is in control (it is 86% of human mental capacity) it is convinced over time, as the sacrifice of what naturally would be random opportunity of life is given up to essentially what should be called ‘post hypnotic performance’ and with the daily sacrifice of option comes the ever accumulating motive to stop the process by completing the process with a bringing the past unconscious into the present conscious state. The ancients had determined that a catharsis was required and it was described to the child making the agreement as a set of conditions that the child would later recognize the imposition of thus signaling the final release of barriers and the unconscious past coming to awareness.

This catharsis is best applied, it turns out, as a series of abuses by peers of the Christ. The peers had an opportunity at childhood to make the agreement that he Christ made but they did not. They did not because they did not possess a deep enough acceptance of love as the purpose of life and were therefore unable to sacrifice their life experience for love. Their inability to understand love is/was taken, compulsively as a minor affront to the knowledge of the ancient spiritual masters conducting the Christing and so their roles effect a type of superficial punishment upon them when they realize how they were used post hypnotically to damage the Christ in the application of the catharsis. Typically their fears and desires are exploited post hypnotically in this creation of conditions that damage the Christ and compel the destruction of memory barriers natural to somnambulism reinforced with phylogenetic fears inversely supportive in finality to the fact that love is the purpose of life. In the end they have a dim realization that they have been used by the ancient spiritual faction and therefore increase the belief in the spiritual power or knowledge of the faction which is very much a compulsion of the factions very human existence and role. This is given great force into them spiritually as the Christ forgives them for what they have newly realized they have done. The shame and guilt they contend with compels them to support the Christ doubly in the message the Christ tries to share bringing much weight to the entire impact upon the people.

2. As others have done it for a person:

This description of a process is completely different from the Christing process but it does however facilitate in part or in whole, knowing who we are and still allows use to be who we are. This process only occurs in a society that understands and accepts the role of the spiritual leader as a bridge to the unconscious realm. Since the society this occurs in already knows of the unconscious and has respect for it, the severity of the Christing is unneeded. The Christing is a harsh method depriving a person of what is in many ways a greater aspect of our individual gift of life and is only employed when a people are so deeply confused and misled by their animal instincts that they will revert to animalistic society without the deeper understanding the Christing brings of the unconscious and its commitment to love.

The Shaman, the Truthsayer, the Seer, are terms used to describe those who could aid in such an effort. The success of the effort depends almost entirely on the individual after the fundamental knowledge of the spiritual faction embraces love and then a sufficiently accurate hierarchy of human values. The time that it takes can vary greatly from perhaps five years to fifty years. The process is described here. Through trance inductions to a depth of somnambulism a reading of the individual persons unconscious states with regard to the hierarchy of sacredness is completed. At points in the evolution of the individuals awareness of past unconscious knowledge that is facilitated by the spiritual master who works to ‘explain back’ to the individual what was learned from them about themselves while they were somnambulistic until the natural consciously appreciated unconscious sensory apparatus is so tuned that the individual actually knows what the master will speak just before the master speaks it. When the master sees this from the pupil, the master knows the pupil has come to know who they truly are and yet are still them self."

Chris Brown December 17 2002

Response:

Your challenge is contingent on the assumption that the "unconscious realm" contains knowledge with absolute truth-value. You appear to imply that the (unconscious) knowledge with absolute truth-value comes from God. Viz., God as a thing-in-itself and creator of humanity has planted knowledge with absolute truth-value in our unconsciousness, which can only accessed by the truly faithful. The problem with this position is that from our causal perspective and the apparent interactive nature of things, something from something else ad infinitium (i.e. infinite causality) is more reasonable than something from nothing (i.e. thing-in-itself or God).

Also, your contention that we can only truly know the unconscious based on past unconscious and provided that we are as much as we were in the past, is contingent on us being static beings. Yet the static nature of ourselves does not make sense from our causal perspective and based on the apparent interactive nature of things.

Further, according to the state of somnambulism, there is a transfer (and conversion) of knowledge with absolute truth-value from the unconscious realm to the conscious realm. So it is unclear how the conscious realm could exactly contain knowledge from the unconscious realm. Viz., based on the separation between the unconscious and conscious realms and the conversion of unconscious knowledge into conscious knowledge, the best the conscious realm can do is represent the unconscious realm. You could retort that the unconscious knowledge is only unconscious in the sense we are not conscious of it. Viz., the knowledge is not inherently unconscious. However, you would then face the two other problems mentioned above dealing with a thing-in-itself and static beings.

403. Entry:

Dispute of the response to Entry 402

"Partially disputed:
‘Your challenge is contingent on the assumption that the ‘unconscious realm’ contains knowledge with absolute truth-value.’

Comment to disputed portion of above:
All of our knowledge is of the unconscious mind as individuals, and there is specific as well as general knowledge of the shared ‘realm’ that will influence what our unconscious memory system holds within us.

Accepted portion of partially disputed at top:
‘truth-value.’

Explanation for acceptance:
Truth is the meaning or value of facts or other information, perceptions, beliefs, emotions and opinions to us.

Portion of response disputed entirely:
‘You appear to imply that the (unconscious) knowledge with absolute truth-value comes from God. Viz., God as a thing-in-itself and creator of humanity has planted knowledge with absolute truth-value in our unconsciousness, which can only accessed by the truly faithful.’

Reason for above disputed:
No mention of God has been made.

Accepted entirely:
‘The problem with this position is that from our causal perspective and the apparent interactive nature of things, something from something else ad infinitium (i.e. infinite causality) is more reasonable than something from nothing (i.e. thing-in-itself or God).’

Accepted with moderation:
‘Also, your contention that we can only truly know the unconscious based on past unconscious and provided that we are as much as we were in the past, is contingent on us being static beings.’

Moderation of accepted above:
Being that this is an exploratory discussion, and the challenger acts as the explorer and the committee responding as perhaps analogous to navigators, the explorer in this (rare) case has benefit of having his past unconscious made conscious and therefore knows that time for the unconscious is indeed static and so we are static beings within our unconscious existence as it is known unconsciously. That then is the reason only the past unconscious can be consciously known. The unconscious can keep time but knows not what to do with it besides autonomic functions, i.e. the circadian rhythm.

Accepted with explanation of clarity for sake of making sense:
‘Yet the static nature of ourselves does not make sense from our causal perspective and based on the apparent interactive nature of things.’

Reasoned explanation of acceptance to above:
Events of the unconscious do not necessarily make sense and the unconscious cannot make sense, reason, rationalize anything whatsoever. This is solely the duty of the conscious mind. It being completely dependent upon the information the unconscious provides or allows to be conscious.

Entirely disputed:
‘Further, according to the state of somnambulism, there is a transfer (and conversion) of knowledge with absolute truth-value from the unconscious realm to the conscious realm.’

Reason for the above disputed:
The transfer of knowledge from the unconscious to the conscious is not established ‘according to the state of somnambulism’. This is proven by research showing that actions taken from knowledge learned while somnambulistic will be done without any conscious awareness of origin. The conscious will be unable to derive reason other than the obvious, if that exists, and it easily may not, for the action taken.

The below will be treated as a query:
‘So it is unclear how the conscious realm could exactly contain knowledge from the unconscious realm.’

Answer:
The use of the word ‘realm’ should be limited to describe knowledge from the ‘ether’. Perhaps with an alternative description of, mitogenetic radiation, or morphogenetic field, or telepathy. Knowledge from the area of the physical mind, in order to cross from the unconscious to the conscious need only cross the corpus callosum also called the 'commissure'. With appropriate instructions and conditions administered during somnambulism, made effective over time for conscious appreciation, the hemispheres of the mind can share information across this barrier

The below is accepted with moderation:
‘Viz., based on the separation between the unconscious and conscious realms and the conversion of unconscious knowledge into conscious knowledge, the best the conscious realm can do is represent the unconscious realm. You could retort that the unconscious knowledge is only unconscious in the sense we are not conscious of it. Viz., the knowledge is not inherently unconscious. However, you would then face the two other problems mentioned above dealing with a thing-in-itself and static beings.’

Moderation of the above:
Being that the capacity of the unconscious is vast in comparison to that of the non existent capacity of the conscious, it is dependent upon the unconscious for storage, the conscious can ‘represent’ or appreciate only a tiny portion of the unconscious at any given time, provided that unconscious knowledge is from the past unconscious. To retort that the unconscious only exists because it is not a part of conscious awareness assumes that a person for some reason, who became conscious of their unconscious would not instantly become catatonic. The quantity of instinctually organized actions represented by the autonomic activities of the unconscious would permanently render the conscious mind a helpless bystander. Rationally, reasonably, cognitively treated information actually manifests or proves out what may be knowledge, making factual that ‘knowledge is not inherently unconscious’."

Chris Brown December 19 2002

Response:

Since you concede that the unconscious is "static", and it only through the staticness of the unconscious (and also through somnambulism) that we can truly know and be who we are, it does not make sense how we can truly know who we are through the unconsciousness, unless we are static in the so-called present as well. Yet from our causal perspective and based on the apparent interactive nature of things, as mentioned in the response to Entry 402, the staticness of our being simply does not stand. To retort as you do that the unconscious does not necessarily make sense, and the unconscious cannot make sense or reason anything, does not cancel out your premise that we must be static in order to truly know who we are based on the past unconscious.

Also, since you do not admit from your perspective that knowledge with absolute truth-value comes from God (i.e. thing-in-itself), where does knowledge with absolute truth-value in the unconscious come from? What is the ground(s) for your belief, besides somnambulism and the unconscious, in the existence of knowledge with absolute truth-value? Note, your definition of truth as "the meaning or value of facts or other information, perceptions, beliefs, emotions and opinions to us", does not relate to the proposition because its definition of truth refers specifically to knowledge known completely or in entirety.

404. Entry:

Dispute of the response to Entry 403

"Accepted:
‘Since you concede that the unconscious is ‘static’,’

Disputed for clarification:
‘and it only through the staticness of the unconscious (and also through somnambulism) that we can truly know and be who we are,’

Clarification:
Knowing in the sense of the word as it has been used I assume means conscious knowledge. Somnambulism is used along with post hypnotic instruction that exploits phylogenetic instinct to create a motive to dissolve the barrier between the conscious and the unconscious and make a part of the past unconscious consciously available. Since consciously we are not static and the conscious through cognition alters the meaning of information the subconscious gains through the perceptions, the resulting ‘knowing’ is imperfect. However it has sufficient accuracy to state that we truly know who we are because the unconscious is still 99% as it was.

Refer to above clarification:
‘it does not make sense how we can truly know who we are through the unconsciousness, unless we are static in the so-called present as well. Yet from our causal perspective and based on the apparent interactive nature of things, as mentioned in the response to Entry 402, the staticness of our being simply does not stand.’

Comment on the above:
Recall that I have indicated that our conscious changes quite a bit over time.

Disputed for clarification:
‘To retort as you do that the unconscious does not necessarily make sense,’

Clarification:
Two different things have been stated in the response and they are inconsistent with each other. Above the response states ‘that the unconscious does not necessarily make sense’. What is said below correctly quotes my statements of 403. Entry, my first disputed points of the first response.

Accepted with clarification:
‘and the unconscious cannot make sense or reason anything, does not cancel out your premise that we must be static in order to truly know who we are based on the past unconscious.’

Clarification:
The use of the word ‘we’ above, has combined both the conscious and the unconscious whereas I have stated that the static unconscious relinquishes a portion of its past static existence to the conscious with proper uses of somnambulism from childhood.

Accepted:
‘Also, since you do not admit from your perspective that knowledge with absolute truth-value comes from God (i.e. thing-in-itself),’

Query of the response:
‘where does knowledge with absolute truth-value in the unconscious come from?’

Answer to query:
Our genetic code contains the true valuation of nearly all things. There is most likely an influence which could be called God but doing so is not necessary in concise words to answer the challenge. For our purposes it is more suitable to state that whatever God is, it is mixed into the morphogenetic information of our dream state communications as a group relating our unconsciously carried genetic valuation in efforts to survive and evolve.

Disputed, (see first clarification above):
‘What is the ground(s) for your belief, besides somnambulism and the unconscious, in the existence of knowledge with absolute truth-value?’

Disputed with explanation:
‘Note, your definition of truth as ‘the meaning or value of facts or other information, perceptions, beliefs, emotions and opinions to us’, does not relate to the proposition because its definition of truth refers specifically to knowledge known completely or in entirety.’

Explanation: (Please excuse the lack of concise explanation here. The deprival of information from our society following years of burning books and people have created a void and explaining the above disputed portion of the response would be very lengthy and perhaps inadequate without filling some of the void.) The unconscious only knows truth, it has no other name for what it knows. There was at one time on this earth a societal role known as the Truthsayer. The Truthsayer was capable of telepathic inductions to the depth of somnambulism almost without fail. This was due to the fact that the community of Truthsayers taught all of the children, before the age of reason, how to transition their minds to the deepest levels of trance. This was done for reasons enabling healing, teaching, marriage, ritual and other ceremony. The best Truthsayer of a community worked in the Medieval Kings court or the Emperors court. If a crime was committed and the accused brought before the court and the accused was guilty, he or she exhibited extreme agitation or torment. Upon the induction of an adequate trance depth the courts inquiry probed the truth of the accused actions and the accused peacefully admitted his or her crime. At this point the accused freed of the agitation or torment, hence the saying; ‘The truth will set you free’."

Chris Brown December 20 2002

Response:

You claim that our knowledge with absolute truth-value from the past unconscious stems from our genetic code which contains "true valuation of nearly all things". Further, you claim that our genetic code, and its absolute truth-value, stems from some entity ("[it] could be called God"), which directs our unconscious genetic valuation in efforts to survive and evolve. In essence, you are claiming that there is a thing-in-itself behind the absolute truth-value of the past unconscious. This claim takes us to the problem that from our causal perspective and based on the apparent interactive nature of things, something from something else ad infinitium (i.e. infinite causality) is more reasonable than something from nothing (i.e. thing-in-itself). If you reply that the entity may not be a thing-in-itself, then you are still caught because if the entity is not a thing-in-itself, then it does not follow where the absolute truth-value of the past unconscious comes from; and if the entity is a thing-in-itself, it is less reasonable on grounds of infinite causality being more reasonable than a thing-in-itself.

Also, since you concede that only "99%" of who we are can be truly known through the past unconscious, your concession supports the proposition which says we cannot know who we are in entirety. If you claim that the 99% knowledge is known in entirety, then you face the problem of how you can know part knowledge of who we are in entirety without knowing the whole of who we are in entirety. Viz., it does not make sense how you, or anyone else, can truly know something in part, without truly knowing the something in whole.

405. Entry:

Dispute of the response to Entry 404

"Accepted:
You claim that our knowledge with absolute truth-value from the past unconscious stems from our genetic code which contains ‘true valuation of nearly all things’.

Inaccurate interpretation of statement made in dispute:
Further, you claim that our genetic code, and its absolute truth-value, stems from some entity (‘[it] could be called God’), which directs our unconscious genetic valuation in efforts to survive and evolve. In essence, you are claiming that there is a thing-in-itself behind the absolute truth-value of the past unconscious. This claim takes us to the problem that from our causal perspective and based on the apparent interactive nature of things, something from something else ad infinitium (i.e. infinite causality) is more reasonable than something from nothing (i.e. thing-in-itself). If you reply that the entity may not be a thing-in-itself, then you are still caught because if the entity is not a thing-in-itself, then it does not follow where the absolute truth-value of the past unconscious comes from; and if the entity is a thing-in-itself, it is less reasonable on grounds of infinite causality being more reasonable than a thing-in-itself.

Actual statement made in dispute 404. Entry:
There is most likely an influence which could be called God but doing so is not necessary in concise words to answer the challenge.

Accepted with moderation:
Also, since you concede that only ‘99%’ of who we are can be truly known through the past unconscious, your concession supports the proposition which says we cannot know who we are in entirety.

Moderation:
And the challenge states ‘that we cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part....’

Accepted with moderation:
If you claim that the 99% knowledge is known in entirety, then you face the problem of how you can know part knowledge of who we are in entirety without knowing the whole of who we are in entirety. Viz., it does not make sense how you, or anyone else, can truly know something in part, without truly knowing the something in whole.

Moderation:
The conscious bears witness to events of the unconscious through the unconscious minds assertion back to the conscious that indeed a thing is known of. Viz., the conscious knows ‘of’ the entirety of who we are. Viz., indirect knowledge."

Chris Brown December 20 2002

Response:

How does our genetic code contain a "true valuation of nearly all things"? What is your ground(s) for claiming that our genetic code contains knowledge with absolute truth-value? Where does the knowledge with absolute truth-value in our genetic code come from?

Since the conscious knows "of" (or "indirectly") the entirety of who we are, without more reasonably knowing the entirety of who we are, it follows that your somnambulist position supports the proposition which says we cannot more reasonably know who we are in entirety.

Entries 397-401,  Entries 406-410