Reply to the response to Entry 425

"You have not addressed the fundamental issues raised in the entry. You have re-posted your assumptions, as follows:

(1) we (i.e. humanity) and human knowledge exist at some level, and

(2) we cannot completely know who we are.

You don't seem to realize that these statements are false and circular. They have embedded assumptions.

What is it that exists? ‘We... exist at some level’. (1). The whole point is what this ‘we’ is. If it is transient and changeable, there is nothing to ‘know’. In (2) you state ‘we cannot know who we are’ but this assumes there is something to know, and that this knowledge is form. If it is not form, the proposition collapses, because non-form knowledge can be anything, including non-form ‘we’, or for that matter, non-knowledge. It should rather say ‘there is nothing to know’ and/or ‘‘knowledge’ and ‘we’ are not separable’.

The terms (1) and (2) are false, as in ‘we cannot red black’, or ‘we cannot red red’, or for that matter ‘black black black black’, or ‘red red red red’. The statements, as set out in my previous entry, are meaningless artificial constructs, drawing connections which do not exist, therefore the proposition is meaningless.

To re-iterate, knowledge and we are non-inter-relational. Physicists would say they are ‘non-local’. They cannot be used in a meaningful form in the same sentence. Proposition collapses."

eif May 14 2003

Response:

Your challenge that the main premise and conclusion of the proposition are "false and circular" is problematic, because the use of "false" implies the existence of truth which you have not established, and the circularity of the proposition, which we have conceded, is cancelled out by the circularity any other proposition unless you can more reasonably demonstrate otherwise. 1

A further and significant [self-defeating] problem with your challenge is that by presupposing "we" are "transient and changeable", and therefore based on the presumption, "there is nothing [of who we are] to know", you are using knowledge of who we are (i.e. "transient and changeable") to conclude that there is nothing of who we are to know. Even if you could more reasonably demonstrate the transience and changeability of who we are, you would still be left with knowledge of who we are at some level. In short, you cannot use knowledge [of who we are] to deny the existence of knowledge [of who we are] without facing [internal] contradiction.

1. The main premise of the proposition is 'we (i.e. humanity) and human knowledge exist at some level', and the main conclusion of the proposition is 'we cannot completely know who we are'.

427. Entry:

"Firstly there are three things that need to be understood... these things are the three absolutes of God.

1= Awareness (from the beginning it was with god and it was god)
2= Infinity (An aspect of God that enables the possibility of all things)
3= Eternity (is the blending of awareness and "Here&Now" There is No Time, Just "now". Can u ever think of a time when it wasn't now?)

To answer or overcome the proposition is in turn "the truth" that is... that which is observed is unobserved and that which is unobserved is observed.
The truth is ‘We’: (all Homo sapiens who are existing, regardless of level of functionality) are all Flames of awareness at different levels of awareness blessed with the potential for infinitude(infinite awareness) infinite awareness is that which is aware of nothing and that which is aware of everything (Note, to get things straight: I know saying, thinking I am aware is actually contradictory to being aware.)
So really in part we are Nothing and in whole we are Everything or in whole we are nothing and in part we are everything. This is our basic nature Alpha and Omega that which is first is that which is last ,that which is Vast is also that which is Empty. Being one with all there is and being all there is with one.

So we come to the understanding that we are truly beings of infinite awareness at one with all there is and all there is contained in one, Experiencing the "Now" or "Eternal now" or "Ever-changing Now" since there is no such thing as Time, just "NOW"....not even a same time.

In short, we are (more reasonably) souls in human bodies evolving our souls, and casual infinity is in our soul existence."

Jon Keeley May 17 2003

Response:

Since the notion of "infinity" implies the possibility of all things, and the notion of "eternity" implies the never ending of things, we want to know how we can more reasonably completely know who we are in a state of incompletion (i.e. never ending possibilities)? If you refer to a thing-in-itself like the notion of "God" to establish the oneness of existence, then we contend that from our comparative perspective itself, which is the primary basis of what we know, something from something else is more reasonable than something from nothing (i.e. thing-in-itself).

428. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 426

"I am not using knowledge of who we are to conclude there is nothing to know, as you claim. I am using knowledge by existence to know by existence.

The assumption in the proposition, nowhere explained by the inexpressible committee, is that knowledge is separate from who we are. This is Cartesian duality. Rather than Cartesian duality (separation of mind/body), most people familiar with experimental science would suggest that the mind is just another part of the body (like the liver, heart, lungs etc). There is no 'separation', many would contend, from 'who we are' (body) and knowledge (mind). This contention, I suggest, is wrapped up in our use of language/evolved language faculties, to separate that which isn't separable (as in our separation of the em spectrum into colours-an artificial/non-real effect).

I can 'more reasonably demonstrate otherwise', i.e. that Cartesian duality, which is the fundamental assumption of the proposition, is incorrect, as has been shown to be for at least several hundred years. There is no internal contradiction, if Cartesian duality, (which you assume is self-evident, above and beyond dispute), does not exist. Most modern researchers, in a fact which confounds the Inexpressible Committee, that Cartesian duality (the split between mind and body) is absurd.

There is no 'who we are at some 'level'' either (another outmoded assumption), because 'level' implies stasis. There are no 'levels', as far as I know, in the electromagnetic spectrum, except where evolved/ artificial filters are applied (e.g. colour separation). Similarly, there are no ‘levels’ in who we are either, except where evolved language faculties/concepts are applied (as in the proposition). There is only seamless/flux (?) existence. These concepts are testable outside of pre-evolved mental constructs/levels etc by experimental method, and it is where there is a lack of experimental method to temper such constructs that culture reverts back to pre-evolved, usually power-based expressions/ideologies which inevitably fail in the search for a closeness to reality. The proposition should say ‘we exist’, but not at any level, and knowledge is a constructed/expression of this existence (with some pre-evolved construction/expression, since we exist on a tree of life/knowledge). Furthermore, this construction is entirely able to conceive/think outside of language, and also outside of homo sapiens (other outmoded assumptions). These are demonstrable by the tree of life association of our existence. There is no 'know' of existence, because essentially knowledge is existence, but this does not necessarily mean that existence is knowledge. Existence has simply constructed/formed/expressed awareness, and such awareness is both representational and thing-in- itself, because the mind is a part of the body.

If there is no Cartesian duality, you cannot say ‘we cannot know who we are’, because this would mean that ‘we cannot who we are who we are’, which I suggest, rather, is internally contradictory.

Concepts which, although entirely demonstrable by the senses, have somehow failed to alter the pre-adapted assumptions within some philosophical circles, probably because it would undermine some of the very foundations for their journey into the mind, i.e. that it be conducted outside and above the 'dirty' senses, and/or the messy underclass of sense-reason persons. Unfortunately, sense- reason (science) is not free from its political associations/foundations either, but it does seem to be a better method to get closer to reality, because it uses both evolved reason AND the evolved senses, rather than one alone- albeit, still, it seems within a political framework.

The committee must address the findings of experimental science (and most other fields) that that mind is not separable from the body, and the absurdity of Cartesian duality in general. It also must address the nature of 'level' in both knowledge and existence. If existence and knowledge is like the em spectrum, as I suggest, there are no 'levels', and the use of the term is inappropriate."

eif May 17 2003

Response:

The fundamental assumption of the proposition is not the Cartesian duality of the separation of mind and body as you contend. You apparently read more into the proposition than there is. The fundamental assumption (and reason) of the proposition from our limited (i.e. incomplete) perspective is that we (i.e. humanity), whoever or whatever we may be, exist at some level whether for example as the essence of existence, a sub-sub-atomic particle, or the nucleus of a primary neuron, or something beyond our comprehension. The point being that from our limited, more reasonable perspective, we must exist. (Note, the use of the phrase "at some level" does not necessarily mean there are actual levels to existence; the phrase means that from our limited perspective, which is defined by comparison in the form of so-called levels (or distinctions), we cannot avoid distinction between things. So we say "at some level" we exist. Viz., something identified as us exists whatever that may be.)

For you to argue that the statement "we cannot know who we are" is contradictory because due to the "seamless/flux (?) [of] existence", everything is in oneness including who we are and human knowledge, is self-contradictory because your assertion ("seamless/flux (?) [of] existence") is based on, for instance, comparison (or separation) between who we are (i.e. you as thinker) and projected existence, and projected existence and non-existence. Viz., to claim oneness or thing-in-itself from a non-oneness perspective, and through that perspective claim any other antagonistic statement is "internally contradictory" is inconsistent and self-defeating because your claim is also based on a necessary separation of things no matter how limited. We do not see a way forward for you unless you can overcome the comparative nature of human perspective.

To reiterate, though we acknowledge limited separation between who we are and human knowledge, we only do so from within the limits of what we can perceive. We are not saying who we are and human knowledge are completely separate as illustrated by our claim that who we are is the primary origin of human knowledge. In other words, from our limited, comparative perspective, we have a necessary ground to assert (limited) separation between things whether the human liver and human lung, photon and atom, woman and man, or who we are and human knowledge. To challenge that necessary (limited) separation by claiming oneness as you have done through your comparative perspective, is self-defeating. In essence, the nature of human perspective trumps what we know of other things than the nature of human perspective. Since we apparently cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are, our perspective itself is the primary origin of what we know.

429. Entry:

"The proposition is constrained by a metaphysical dualism between ‘being’ and ‘knowing’, between world and self. Within the terms of this dualism there is no possible resolution. However, if one accepts that all ‘knowing’, whether of our ‘selves’ or any other apparent object, is of something that apparently exists within our constructed universe, and that all ‘being’ also only takes place apparently and within a field of knowing, then it becomes possible to reconcile knowledge and existence. Thus we can ‘know’, to an extent, who we ‘are’ to an extent. Presumably the inclusion of ‘truly’ in the proposition is intended to preserve the metaphysical dualism and prevent any answers along these lines from being acceptable; in which case the competition is disingenuous, as any possible suggested solution can be automatically rejected as falling short of the absolute standards required by ‘truly’."

Robert Ellis May 21 2003

Response:

We disagree in terms of the dualism "being" and "knowing" and the insertion of "truly" (i.e. completely) into the proposition that "there is no possible resolution to the proposition." As we have established in the Response to Entry 168, from our limited perspective possibility precedes impossibility, because in order for there to be impossibility there must be the possibility of it, and yet the existence of possibility is not contingent on the impossibility of it. Therefore, regardless of the dualism of "being" and "knowing" and the insertion of "truly", it is possible to overcome the proposition.

Your proposed resolution to the proposition by more reasonably establishing the existence of "knowing" and the necessity of "knowing" for "being" merely reiterates a position of the proposition in which being is contingent on knowing who we are:
Premise (1) Being contingent on some form of knowing
Premise (2) We exist (; being exist)
Conclusion (1) Knowing exist
Conclusion (2) Knowing and being simultaneous

Hence, the notion of completeness in the context of simultaneity of being and knowing appears to be the main obstacle to overcoming the proposition. Though as mentioned we disagree with you for the reason stated (i.e. "possibility precedes impossibility") that complete knowledge [of who we are] is impossible to more reasonably prove.

430. Entry:

Dispute of the response to Entry 429

"What you describe as ‘the notion of completeness’ as being the obstacle to a solution is precisely what I intended by ‘metaphysical dualism’. As long as it is assumed that such completeness (or absoluteness) is required in both being or knowing, no solution is possible.

The claim that a solution is possible because ‘from our limited perspective possibility precedes impossibility, because in order for there to be impossibility there must be the possibility of it’ is irrelevant. The fact that impossibility is possible has no bearing at all on the question of whether reconciling knowing and being is possible or impossible, since it is this we are discussing rather than the notion of impossibility. That the notion of impossibility is logically dependent on that of possibility does not establish that any other particular claim is not impossible. This can be seen clearly by considering the absurd implications if it did, for if the possibility of impossibility also entailed that this proposition is possible to resolve, it would also entail that any other proposition was possible and nothing impossible. The terms ‘possible’ and ‘impossible’ would be entirely robbed of the meaning they gain by being distinguishable from one another.

It thus seems that in ‘the notion of completeness in the context of simultaneity of being and knowing appears to be the main obstacle to overcoming the proposition’ my point about the impossibility of overcoming the proposition in the absolute terms in which it is stated is in fact conceded on any reasonable interpretation of the term ‘impossibility’."

Robert Ellis May 22 2003

Response:

We agree that though impossibility is logically dependent on possibility, this dependency does not establish that any other particular claim is possible. Viz., there is a possibility of impossibility. So we are left, for example, with the possibility of a proposition including the possibility of its impossibility. However, to take that position and say as you appear to do that we must allow for outright impossibility of some propositions is inconsistent with the incomplete nature of human perspective which results in possibility preceding impossibility.

Also, by limiting impossibility by its possibility would not "rob", as you contend, the meaning gained by the distinction between possibility and impossibility. Rather, the meaning of the distinction would simply be limited to possibility and the (more reasonable) reasons for the possibility or (near) impossibility of a proposition. For you to argue that impossibility should be disconnected from its possibility is to view impossibility with completeness (or absoluteness) which as mentioned is inconsistent with human perspective itself. Hence, it appears to us that the so-called reasonable interpretation of impossibility ought to be limited by impossibility's possibility, which in the context of the Challenge Proposition would likely be translated into the Proposition being more reasonably nearly impossible to overcome due to a slight opening (or possibility) stemming from the incomplete nature of human perspective.

In short, for your argument to overcome the proposition you need to more reasonably establish the complete impossibility of overcoming the proposition. Though you have conceded this completeness is not more reasonably attainable; so you are left with at best establishing the near impossibility of overcoming the proposition, which falls short of invalidating the Competition, because there is an opening no matter how miniscule to overcome the proposition. To argue as mentioned that possibility and impossibility would loose their relational and reasonable meaning by limiting impossibility to its possibility is correct and incorrect: the relational meaning would simply account for possibility preceding impossibility, and the notion of impossibility disconnected from possibility would be more reasonably connected to it.

In the context of overcoming the proposition, near impossibility is more reasonable than impossibility.

Entries 421-425 Entries 431-434