"The challenge proposition would be so, if it were not so. It is not so when the opposite is true.

This entry therefore proffers a simple twofold approach in order to overcome the proposition.

It will claim the opposite of the proposition, and follow with the proof of its claim.

CLAIM:

‘We can [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time.’

We know that we exist as conscious beings, and/or that we are beings conscious of our existence.

The condition of our existence therefore, indicates our consciousness, of our 'being itself'. Namely, it is simply that same consciousness, being 'itself' as 'ourselves'.

As consciousness is singular, it is the whole of that 'Self', which exists as 'Itself', and is thus being that, which represents, that which it is.

In other words 'existence is consciousness', and that consciousness 'is', who we are. It is therefore the point at which we are being what we are, whilst knowing who we are.

Thus we ourselves, exist as the identifiable parts, by means of which, that whole Self, informs 'Itself', of its own identity.

Similarly, consciousness is essentially the manifestation of 'Itself', truly knowing 'Itself', within 'Itself', and therefore that, which truly knows, who and what we are.

Furthermore, it is that part of 'Itself' which is 'Ourselves' truly knowing who we are, whilst simultaneously being that which it is.

Therefore we truly know who we are, in part 'and' in whole, at the same time as we are being, that which is 'Being Itself'.

Likewise, we may say, that consciousness, being existence, is the 'essence', or 'point', of/at which we are ourselves being.

We may more reasonably, from our limited perception, also clarify this true knowledge of who we are (i.e. - consciousness), in a manner consistent with the 'time-space' terminology, with which we are familiar.

For when 'time-space' is the frame of reference used to describe a point of being, and that point of being is consciousness existing as 'Itself'. We may pinpoint it by location, and define it in accordance with that which it is, as follows:

‘Consciousness is the intersection of time and space.’

As there is neither a point in time, nor a point in space, where time and space do not intercept, we may deduce that consciousness is all that exists and therefore the only existence there can be.

When we know that what we are, exists where we are, and is who we are; we are that existence, knowing itself as the consciousness, which 'Itself' exists as 'Ourselves'.

In other words -

‘We are consciousness knowing 'Itself' as consciousness.’

So consciousness, being all that exists, is that 'Being', the allness of which, is the only thing it can be. It is also, all the 'Knowledge of Being' that can be known, and thus the only means by which that knowledge can know itself as that which it is.

Revealing 'Itself' as the point of being, it is, 'Itself', that point behind which, lies that same something which is, 'Being' itself.

"The meaning of 'Being' is therefore Absolute".

The opposite claim therefore stands as that which is so.

And So It Is."

protomutant October 5 2003

Response:

It is unclear how you more reasonably completely know that "we are consciousness knowing ‘Itself’ as consciousness". You provide no evidence which supports the more reasonable completeness of your premises and conclusion. Instead you implicitly assume that they are more reasonably complete based on their (presumed) logical soundness. Logical soundness does not necessarily equate to completeness. Therefore, unless you can more reasonably establish the completeness of your premises and conclusion, your claim of overcoming the proposition through the presumed completeness (or truth) of the opposite proposition, falls short. Note, there is significant difference between more reasonably incompletely knowing and more reasonably completely knowing.

440. Entry:

Dispute of the response to Entry 439

"As consciousness is all that exists, it is the only 'knower', as well as all that can be known.

Similarly, consciousness is the only thinker, and when it thinks, its thoughts become objective to it, and are identical to it. Those thoughts in turn constitute the 'Instance of Its Revelation', of 'Its Being'. Consequently, 'we are those thoughts'.

The premise and its conclusion are supported by evidence given, of the point at which 'time-space' intersect. It is incontrovertible, irrespective of how much we philosophize it or think about it.

Contrary to what we may presume(from our limited perception), it is the explicit completeness of the premise we are compelled to assume, that sustains the logical soundness of its conclusion."

protomutant October 8 2003

Response:

Since we apparently cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are, all we can know is what we know. (Viz., consciousness is all that fundamentally exists from our perspective.) However, it is unclear how this premise compels us to assume its explicit completion, when it is conceded in the premise that we apparently cannot get outside our minds, and further for example our knowledge, including our knowledge of consciousness, is subject to infinite regress and defined by comparison.

What is the source of the compellability, and what is explicitly complete about the premise? (Note, by using the word "all" does not necessarily and more reasonably mean the premise is complete. The word "all" and the rest of the premise needs to be more reasonably shown to be complete.)

What more reasonable grounds do you have to assert that the Committee and all participants in the Competition are compelled to assume that "consciousness is all that exists" is explicitly complete?

441. Entry:

Dispute of the response to Entry 440

"The premise indicates precisely the opposite of 'infinite regress' to be true.

From our 'limited perception', it is the recognition, demonstration, and 'conscious application' of this 'knowledge of ourselves' which shows our 'potential to be', as being unlimited.

'Infinite progress' as defined by comparison in relation to the premise, with respect to any part of the whole, is determined merely by the freedom, which 'conscious choice' presents.

Evolution of the part within the whole of 'Itself' is in other words, only dependent upon the 'conscious application' of that knowledge of ourselves, of that which is so.

The premise concurs that the 'part' is neither required to, nor can it know, outside of 'Itself', or the whole in which it exists.

Given that the condition of our existence is conscious, the station of our 'conscious being', is the point of that existence 'Itself'.

As the natural evidence of our existence is conscious of itself, its totality is naturally described by what we term consciousness.

That 'we are consciousness' is the simultaneous equivalent of the 'existence that we are'. The source of the compulsion is the presentation of the constitutional predisposition of mind, as that consciousness which is 'being itself'.

Diversification is neither intended nor implied by the use of the word "all" in the premise. It simply refers to the singularity of consciousness, as being the totality of existence.

Whereas no conscious being anywhere(including the Committee and all participants in the Competition), can ever deny the omni-presence, of the intersection of time-space - the philosophical conclusion of the premise is explicitly complete, and the proposition is more reasonably overcome."

protomutant October 11 2003

Response:

Your position that we (i.e. humanity) is fundamentally defined by consciousness, which you equate to "being itself" or "the existence that we are". Therefore, according to your position, you can more reasonably truly (i.e. completely) know who we are because everything we know, a part of (human) consciousness and thereby being itself, is who we are. You defend this position by claiming that consciousness is "omni-present" (viz., "an intersection of time-space") and the apparent the infinite nature of consciousness, and thereby conscious choice.

As stated in the response to Entry 440, we agree within the limit of what we know, that we cannot get outside of human consciousness nor can we exist without some form of consciousness. So in a limited (or incomplete) sense, consciousness may be viewed as "omni-present" in terms of our existence. Moreover, we agree that from our limited perspective, there is no conceivable end to human thought; so we agree with your equation of infinity with human consciousness.

However, the problem with your position is that you define human beings as ends themselves (or beings themselves), when based on the apparent interconnected/interactive nature of existence, we are more reasonably not beings themselves, except in a limited, crude, but necessary sense.1 Also, you present no epistemological defense of your position, and instead you rely solely on an assumed (universal) intuitive correctness (or more reasonableness) of your position. Again as mentioned in the response to Entry 440, it is unclear to us why every (functioning) human being would be compelled to believe the explicit completeness of your position, which links to the problem with being itself. Further, it is unclear to us what "compellability" has to do with more reasonableness. The Competition is not a question of being compelled, but a task of presenting the more reasonable reasons for or against the proposition. So we ask, what epistemological support do you have for your position, and how do you more reasonably overcome our criticism of your notion of "being itself"?

______________________
1. It is more reasonably inconceivable in our view, how our consciousness could make sense to ourselves without crudely distinguishing ourselves from each other and all other things.

442. Entry:

"In my opinion, the red herrings in this challenge are the definitions of:-
(1) ‘truly’ - as defined, this contains no notion of correspondence, only of *demonstration*
(2) ‘know’ - as defined, this relies on a transitive conception of knowledge (‘know-what’)
(3) ‘be’ - as defined, this relies on ‘living or existing with who we are’, so externalizes Self

Also, (by my interpretation of the challenge) if I can disprove the proposition for a single person, I can disprove it for all people: therefore, I can simplify the language to relate to a single person without loss of generality.

Simplifying, then, I restate the proposition as:

‘One cannot demonstrably [transitively know] one's self and [transitively be with] one's self simultaneously.’

However, the definition of knowledge being relied on here is a scientific one, so we need not concern ourselves with the latter categories - given that the epistemology being relied on is specifically scientific, only a scientific answer will be consistent.

For the proposition, then, Self is a reified construct of the mind, alienated from the mind itself. It is precisely this concept of *alienation* that is being relied on to attempt to construct a (scientific) paradox - the proposition can therefore be shown to be saying:

‘If one can reify one's Self into a putatively external construct (alien from... the Self?), one cannot demonstrably [transitively know] one's (reified) Self and [transitively be with] one's (reified) Self simultaneously.’

Therefore, I contend that (by the definitions given in the challenge):

‘one's Self[1] *can* truly [transitively know] one's Self[2] and [transitively be with] one's Self[2] at the same time’

‘one *can* truly know one's Self and be one's Self at the same time’

‘we *can* truly know who we are, and be who we at the same time’

Nick Pelling October 21 2003

Response:

Competition 1 is centered around the challenge of more reasonably demonstrating complete knowledge of who we are.

Your interpretation of the Competition is incorrect on a number of accounts:

1. Your assertion that "truly" is defined only as demonstration is incorrect. The notion of "truly" refers (or corresponds) to knowledge known in entirety, and as mentioned the Competition is about more reasonably demonstrating that knowledge in the context of who we are.

2. Our definition of "know" does not "rely" on a "transitive conception of knowledge" as you contend, but from our incomplete, comparative perspective "know" is necessarily transitive in nature. However, the Competition is centered around more reasonably showing intransitive (or complete) knowledge of who we are.

3. Our definition of "be" refers not to "living and existing with who we are", but to living or existing who we are (or your so-called real Self).

4. One fundamental definition to the proposition you do not mention is who we are. It refers to who we are at a fundamental level (or the so-called real Self), and not to a "reified construct of the mind" as you suggest.

So even though your proposition itself, "one's Self[1] *can* truly [transitively know] one's Self[2] and [transitively be with] one's Self[2] at the same time", appears more reasonably correct according to your definitions, the proposition and its terms are not consistent with the Competition. (Note, the Challenge Proposition itself, if more reasonably correct, implicitly proves limited (or transitive) knowledge of who we are, otherwise we would not be able to know we cannot more reasonably know who we are.)

So we ask you based on your entry and proposed proposition, how can you more reasonably completely [and intransitively] know the "real Self" and be the "real Self" at the same time?

Entries 435-438,  Entries 443-447