Dispute to the response to Entry 410

"Disputed entirely:
The Competition is not a question of value or more or less value, but a question of more reasonableness based on the issue of completely knowing who we are versus incompletely knowing who we are.

Dispute:
It appears that the issue of priorities is central here. Is it more important to the competition that the knowledge be more reasonable or more complete? Think of it, we can always reason, but completion is somewhat rare if at all. Perhaps this is then the essence for one and all of a party of perceivers who might be in turn be perceived?

Completion

of perception occurs every instant. That is as good as it gets and entirely it. It is when one stops perceiving then commits to evaluating the product of the perceptions that one suddenly faces with the paradox of knowing everything it ever knew throughout its time, in one instant and still be conscious. With somnambulism perhaps, but I would not recommend trying, you might get what you asked for. You'll become a vegetable, catatonic instantly, once that kind of completion is attained.

Completion. Only the unconscious can fully fathom it and that is where we know it when we do. Completion is too big. Completion means, all of the knowledge now! It begins to become inexpressible and quite separate from the discussion productive to empowering ourselves to better know ourselves reasonably more entirely and still be, ourselves. In the quest for completion processes of functional, reasonable action based in history and psychology are overlooked. Dissociatiative compulsion?

Uses of somnambulism skilled and dedicated to our deepest most functional purposes respecting unconditional love as it protects and enables life can enable us to more completely know ourselves in fashions only dreamed by the infinite oneness of hidden visionaries of usable knowledge.

Is it reasonable to accept completion over reason as a criteria for describing what who we might be while we are unaffected by the description, remaining as we are?

As is reasoned in the following logic.
It is not reasonable to assert that complete although useless knowledge of ourselves is reasonable due to the simple fact that it can be articulated within a set of language rules. Similarly stated it is fully reasonable that complete knowledge must also be useful in some way or the basis for knowing it relates to nothing reasonably knowable. It must be usable to be reasonable. It is also reasonable that incomplete knowledge that is useful to knowing more completely who we are even though that extent may not be entirely complete, is more reasonable knowledge than complete but useless knowledge that is known for any purpose whatsoever.

Disputed with explanation:
It does not follow that your proposed equity of value of the unconscious and conscious' expression and perception more reasonably establishes complete knowledge.

Explanation:
In Entry 409. I stated that the use of the word ‘different does not dictate equity of value for the perceiver and perceived. We confront a circularity here in that the priorities of the competition may have to place reasonableness over completeness or the reverse in order to position the relative usefulness of the word ‘value’.

Disputed entirely:
Viz., it does not follow how a commonality of indirect knowledge with the unconscious and conscious can ‘facilitate understanding’ based on complete knowledge.

Dispute:
Knowledge of the unconscious by the conscious is only ‘common’ through very special uses of somnambulism and I have only used the word ‘facilitate’ in describing how this enables us to know who we are while still being who we are.

Accepted with moderation:
Nor does it follow how you can completely know the perceiver and perceived cannot completely know the proposed potential oneness of the unconscious.

Moderation:
The moderation here relates inclusively to the first dispute above. It is assumed that the oneness of the unconscious relates to external aspects the unconscious can only know inseparably as itself. From that it can be said that each, the perceiver and the perceived have their separate unconscious minds that do perceive the shared oneness.

Disputed entirely:
We do not see a way out for you except by proposing the oneness of the unconscious and conscious, but that would take you to the apparent less reasonableness of ex nihilo (i.e. thing-in-itself) than causal infinity (i.e. something from something ad infinitum). (Note, Suvas Lukshmikutty in Entries 313, 317, 320 with reference of Schopenhauer attempts this oneness [of will] approach, but his position succumbs, among other things, to the contradiction (conceded by Schopenhauer) between ‘being-known of itself’ and ‘being-in-itself’.)

Dispute:
Our left brains and right brains are quite separate, similar differences to conscious and unconscious operation."

Chris Brown December 28 2002

Response:

It does not follow how you can say one thing is more complete than another thing, without using reason. Viz., to establish more or less completion, one needs to establish the reasons, no matter how insignificant, for the position. To take one’s reasons further, and thereby partly out of relativity, one needs to establish the more or less reasonableness, or the equivalent, of one’s position. However, the inverse reasoning does not apply to more reasonableness because more reasonableness is only contingent on completion through establishing the degree of more or less soundness of one’s position.

To counter that the "value" of the Competition is less reasonable, because more reasonably establishing complete knowledge is less reasonable than more reasonably establishing more complete knowledge, undermines the Competition which is focused on more reasonably determining the completion of self-knowledge. Viz., there is nothing stated in the Competition which says its focus is more reasonable than the focus of other competitions. Also, the more complete knowledge is not necessarily the more valid and usable knowledge, and therefore more complete knowledge’s usability and value is questionable. Furthermore, the value of the Competition depends on one’s perspective. I.e. one could argue that the Competition has a lot of value because it deals with a wide spectrum of human thought, encourages discussion, and has the potential to attain more reasonable complete knowledge or barring that to strengthen the grounds for why complete knowledge is not more reasonably attainable. Yet someone else could argue, as you do, that the Competition would be more useful if it focused on attaining the more complete self-knowledge from our limited perspective rather than on evaluating the more reasonableness of complete self-knowledge. You have a valid point, but it is contingent on the assumption that the more reasonableness of complete self-knowledge is not worth investigating because complete self-knowledge is not more reasonably attainable. Perhaps once this Competition has run its course (September 2004), assuming complete self-knowledge is not more reasonably established in the process, it may be worth continuing the Competition based on the question, more reasonably who are we?

Other issue:

You say "completion of perception occurs every instant", and yet how do you more reasonably know that the perception in the instant is complete, and in what sense is it complete?

412. Entry:

Dispute of the response to Entry 411

"Accepted:
It does not follow how you can say one thing is more complete than another thing, without using reason.

Augmented:
In order to establish potential completion the process of quantification must be reasoned.

Accepted:
Viz., to establish more or less completion, one needs to establish the reasons, no matter how insignificant, for the position. To take one's reasons further, and thereby partly out of relativity, one needs to establish the more or less reasonableness, or the equivalent, of one's position.

Disputed:
However, the inverse reasoning does not apply to more reasonableness because more reasonableness is only contingent on completion through establishing the degree of more or less soundness of one's position.

Dispute:
The combination of words ‘More reasonable’ is almost apples and oranges in. Reasonableness, attempts, without adding more reasons, (other issues) to make an existing reason greater. In addition the soundness of one’s position can be established by usage without regard to completion making the quantification of knowledge insignificant. In our day to day lives the quantity of knowledge can easily not be what it was the day before but still be more than sufficient for robust usefulness today. The concept of time and the inconsistencies of mental events must be applied to the word ‘complete’ in order to be reasonable.

The challenge:
In concise words, tell us how the idea that we cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time can be overcome.

The challenge requests definition of methodology for the ideation process by where we might not be able to know who we are, in part or in whole, as we are being of the same time. The challenge does indicate that the portion and total do not occur simultaneously. The knowing of who we are more reasonably does not indicate that completion is an element, which is wholly reasonable. The method that the conscious knows with proper uses of somnambulism is indirectly known or phrased, knowing ‘of’, who we are for a period of our lives. The usefulness of the knowledge determines after the use, during the time of evaluation, the factor of quantification. It is personal and complex to the many essential areas of our spiritual and emotional existence. The completion is only knowable by the one who is knowing who they are while living what they know by following the process in time for the right reasons. The knowing ‘of’, over time, is comprised of a complex set of feelings that are primarily indirectly known then directly, not simultaneous unless a form of expression is engaged whereupon the feelings guide autonomic complexity or the emotional flavor of expression while the conscious knowledge manifests the precise wordings. Music has this quality. Shall I play you a song to answer the challenge?

The role of the perceiver benefits from this duality and more rapidly and completely perceives the expression.

Disputed:
To counter that the ‘value’ of the Competition is less reasonable, because more reasonably establishing complete knowledge is less reasonable than more reasonably establishing more complete knowledge, undermines the Competition which is focused on more reasonably determining the completion of self-knowledge.

The challenge:
In concise words, tell us how the idea that we cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time can be overcome.

The effort to establish ‘more complete’ exceeds the stated criteria of the competition. The word ‘or’ in whole provides ‘partial’ as an alternative, which is more reasonable considering the totality of the self is patently unknowable in one moment.

Accepted:
Viz., there is nothing stated in the Competition which says it is more reasonable than other competitions.(The omitted disclaimer shrewdly inversed.)

Accepted:
Also, the more complete knowledge is not necessarily the more valid and usable knowledge, and therefore more complete knowledge's usability and value is questionable.

Accepted:
Furthermore, the value of the Competition depends on one's perspective. I.e. one could argue that the Competition has a lot of value because it deals with a wide spectrum of human thought, encourages discussion,

Disputed:
and has the potential to attain more reasonable complete knowledge

When usable knowledge profoundly filling a void is overlooked, then forgotten in a quest for completion, the folly is apparent.

Accepted with moderation:
or barring that to strengthen the grounds for why complete knowledge is not more reasonably attainable.

Moderation:
The attainment of such a quantity of knowledge based on the use of a mental modality not generally recognized (somnambulism) is the actuality of completion but is contained in areas of indirect knowledge sensed as relating to the meanings of being who we are while knowing who we are.

Accepted with explanation:
Yet someone else could argue, as you do, that the Competition would be more useful if it focused on attaining the more complete self-knowledge from our limited perspective rather than on evaluating the more reasonableness of complete self-knowledge.

Explanation:
The limits of the conscious mind are exceeded well before an adequate quantity of knowledge concerning the self is assimilated to a degree that could be termed ‘complete’. The usage of reasonable knowledge from our limited perspective, to increase the indirectly known aspects of ourselves, contributes usefully to something that is more complete.

Disputed:
You have a valid point, but it is contingent on the assumption that the more reasonableness of complete self-knowledge is not worth investigating because complete self-knowledge is not more reasonably attainable.

Dispute:
The alternations of direct and knowledge gained from the unconscious as indirect, constantly pushing the limits of our conscious knowing with indirect knowledge ‘of’ who we are increases dynamics to consciousness and therefore more product of reasonable investigation as the knowable quantity increases. At this juncture it should be noted that other knowledge, not of the self, may fall off the edge of conscious access and substantially decrease the quantity of truly useful knowledge to the self thus impeding the self in its fundamental purposes. To be certain, ignorance is bliss but that is not all we need to know."

Chris Brown January 1 2003

Response:

Since you acknowledge that "the totality of the self is patently unknowable in one moment", you implicitly acknowledge that we cannot more reasonably truly know and be who we are at the same time. To get around this acknowledgement, you contend that the proposition refers to both partial knowledge and whole knowledge of who we are, so that by merely establishing more reasonable partial knowledge of who we are, the proposition can be overcome or in your words, "... The challenge does indicate that the portion and total do not occur simultaneously. The knowing of who we are more reasonably does not indicate that completion is an element, which is wholly reasonable." However, you are overlooking that the proposition refers to both true part knowledge and true whole knowledge, and since true part knowledge in order to be considered complete requires true whole knowledge as well, true part knowledge and true whole knowledge are simultaneous. You may wonder why we even make the distinction between part and whole, and the answer is we have done so for the sake of clarity, especially in regard to empiricists who may think that though they do not truly know all of themselves, and they truly know part of themselves.

To get around your acknowledgement in another way, you contend that the Competition is "folly" in its quest for completion. Viz., if you are correct that complete knowledge is "patently unknowable", then any quest for complete knowledge without entailing the quest for usable knowledge is nonsensical. What you overlook is that it is possible to completely know, and therefore the Competition, if the proposition is overcome, could result in usable knowledge, and even if the proposition is not overcome, it will result in usable knowledge. I.e. the knowledge that our identity is defined more reasonably by our inability to truly know our identity, which in turn may be used to shape our outlook. We do not see how you can refute this position, because knowledge of our more reasonable inability to truly know who we are is both knowledge of who we are and usable knowledge of who we are.

The argument you could make is that the Competition is inconsistent, because it requires internally that the concept of more reasonableness be the criteria of things, but the Competition itself does not face the same requirement. Viz., it does not necessarily follow that the focus of the Competition itself is more reasonable, and nor is it required that it is. This argument appears to be a problem, but as mentioned in the response to Entry 411, the Competition does not claim its focus is more reasonable, nor does it necessarily follow that the internal requirement of a system has to be applied to the system itself in order to maintain consistency.

413. Entry:

"A frog feels itself but does not attribute a name to aspects of its existence (including form). Just because we classify emotions, thoughts and actions it does not mean that we have understood their role and effect on the intricate web of life events. Therefore, the knowledge we speak about here (knowing who we are) cannot be crystallize in adjectives but may only refer to the knowledge which arises from a deeper self, beyond the intellectual or rational thought processes. It is an instantaneous and intense understanding. 'Who we are', I suppose does not merely refer to words describing a person's traits: i.e. I'm a handsome man, I'm jealous, I'm a holy creature, - but deals with our source - why and where are we coming from. Also, if I know I am thinking can I continue thinking in this very minute? When I am 'knowing who I am' am I not involved in a thought process in which I actually AM? Lastly, words should not be overestimated. Describe the taste of honey in words and analyze each word. Can the real taste be ever truly described? then how would one even attempt to know (through reasoning processes) who one is?"

Raya January 2 2002

Response:

The first step in showing how one would truly know who one is through the reasoning processes is to clarify that all the Competition is after is more reasonably showing that one can truly know who one is. In other words, the Competition is not after an actual demonstration of true self-knowledge, but more reasonable reasons for true self-knowledge over non-true self-knowledge.

The second step is to establish that it is possible to more reasonably show true (or complete) self-knowledge. We have already done so in the response to Entry 168, by more reasonably showing that from our perspective possibility precedes impossibility.

From these two steps, in our view one would focus on the ontology of self-knowledge because it is from the origin of self-knowledge that the more reasonable reasons for true self-knowledge will have to be grounded, otherwise one’s reasons will not necessarily more reasonably show true self-knowledge. For example, even if one could more reasonably establish that self-knowledge is directly tapped externally into our consciousness along a continuum, one would still need to more reasonably establish the external origin of the self-knowledge in order to more reasonably show the knowledge is complete.

414. Entry:

"The problem is that we will always be the subject and if we truly want to know ourselves we can’t depend on objects for the information. Objects are for example: names, forms, thoughts etc... We must simply stop identifying ourselves with these objects or getting our information about who we are from them. So the question remains: how can the subject know the subject? By eliminating identification or knowledge with or from objects, what remains is the subject of subjects. And you are what you are and nothing disturbs the knowledge of it."

Mattias Svensson January 3 2002

Response:

How do you more reasonably truly know your knowledge of subjects is truly who you are? In other words, what is it about your knowledge of subjects that allows you to more reasonably say it is complete knowledge of who you are?

You appear to imply that there is a oneness connecting all subjects, and if so it takes you to the questions of what is origin of the oneness, and how does the oneness of subjects allow you to more reasonably truly know who you are?

415. Entry:

"It can be done if one is truly in harmony with oneself. Let me explain what I mean by this.

'Being oneself' Is based on being true to oneself subconsciously.

'Knowing oneself' is based on being true to oneself consciously.

When you are in harmony with yourself, you are in the moment and letting your subconscious and conscious flow forth into the world in harmony, dancing together. It is my belief that this is where true Art comes from."

Brock Meade January 4 2002

Response:

We assume that we cannot help from being who we are, because we are being who we are, no matter what the situation within reason, as long as we are alive.

So we ask regarding your "knowing oneself", how does one be true to oneself consciously?

Entries 406-410,  Entries 416-420