Dispute of the response to Entry 442

"While I understand and agree that "Competition 1 is centered around the challenge of more reasonably demonstrating complete knowledge of who we are", it leaves the question of "what is knowledge?" wide open. It thus has no epistemological "ground" to refer to - and hence either has an implicit epistemology, or is malformed (i.e. is based on an inconsistent or undefined epistemology).

I inferred, from your definitions, that you are relying on a scientific epistemology (in which knowledge is both reified and demonstrable): within that modality of thinking, it is (as I indicated) consistent for the Self[1] to demonstrably [transitively know] and [transitively be with] the (reified) Self[2], and hence your proposition is overcome.

However, your response indicates that you are in fact hoping that an answer given will (somehow) transcend your proposition's implicit scientific epistemology, thus providing a normative or sociological answer in terms of *intransitive knowledge*.

Unfortunately, scientific problems are only resolved by/into scientific predictions, sociological problems are only resolved by/into sociological explanations, and normative (evaluative) problems are only resolved by/into decisions & actions. [*] There is therefore a category error (arising from epistemic inconsistency) implicit in your question & definitions, which I assert cannot be overcome.

You challenge me to demonstrate how the Self[1] can know (and be) the Self[1] at the same time. In turn, I challenge you to define knowledge in a way such that it can stand in for both transitive (reified) and intransitive ("idealist" or direct) knowledge *at the same time*.

[*] This forms the central argument of the dissertation (on knowledge) I'm about to submit."

Nick Pelling October 23 2003

Response:

Your assertion that the Competition "has no epistemological ground" (i.e. "... leaves the question of ‘what is knowledge?’ wide open") overlooks that the Challenge Proposition refers explicitly to limited knowledge of who we are (e.g. from the response to Entry 249, "... non-absolute... from the apparent limits of what we know"), and through the nine main supporting arguments further refines limited knowledge to an invention of the human mind (or in your words, "a [limited] construct of the human mind"].1 However, we are left with the notion of true (or complete, unlimited) knowledge as a part of the Challenge Proposition which according to your position is inconsistent with the limited knowledge of the Proposition. According to you, this dual use of incomplete (or intransitive) and complete (or intransitive) knowledge is not only inconsistent, but cannot be overcome due to a "category error". Viz., the scientific epistemology of the Challenge Proposition itself cannot be transcended without creating an inconsistency in epistemology; or in your words, a scientific problem requires a scientific answer, just as a sociological problem requires a sociological answer.

We concede your fundamental point that the Challenge Proposition is asserted from a scientific epistemology, and yet internally refers to an unknown epistemology (i.e. complete or intransitive knowledge). However, it is unclear to us why more reasonably the epistemology of the Challenge Proposition itself has to be the same as any more reasonable antagonistic proposition? If that was the case and the epistemology of the Challenge Proposition took precedence, the Challenge Proposition could not within limits be overcome. Also, it should be pointed out that though the Challenge Proposition refers partly to complete (or intransitive) knowledge, it does so antagonistically from an incomplete, limited perspective. Therefore, the Challenge Proposition is not saying that intransitive knowledge exists; rather, it is saying that it is possible intransitive knowledge exists, and proposing that more reasonably intransitive knowledge does not exist. Hence, the Challenge Proposition does not contain an inconsistency in epistemology.

Another problem with your position is that it does not follow, in the context of the Competition, that scientific problems necessarily require a scientific answer, because the underlying determinate of the more reasonable position is the more sound and consistent reasons, irrespective of what branch of knowledge the reasons come from. In other words, no academic field is given more value than another, and all fields as mentioned have their basis in reason.

So in response to your challenge to us to define knowledge both transitively and intransitively and at the same time, we say pass, because the Challenge Proposition is proposed strictly from within the transitive framework (rather than a dual framework of transitive and intransitive as you suggest). (Note, if the Proposition was proposed from within a dual framework, we would concede your position that the Proposition is inherently inconsistent.)

Though, the Competition’s challenge to you or any other participant does not ask for a dual use of transitive and intransitive knowledge, but a (more reasonable) transitive explanation of complete knowledge of who we are. You say this explanation is impossible, but you will need to more reasonably prove the explanation is impossible in light of the apparent incompleteness of what we know and precedence of possibility over impossibility (See the response to Entry 168).

In summary, what your challenge comes down to is whether or not the Competition’s challenge to use transitive knowledge to more reasonably demonstrate intransitive knowledge invalidates the Challenge Proposition. In our view, the (more reasonable) possibility of using transitive knowledge to more reasonably demonstrate intransitive knowledge negates any extension of invalidation to the Challenge Proposition. Also, the Challenge Proposition cannot be invalidated for the very reason behind it: our (apparent) more reasonable inability to intransitively know.

One way forward for your position is to attempt to refute the possibility of using transitive knowledge to more reasonably demonstrate intransitive knowledge. In our view, that refutation is a near impossible task considering the apparently comparative and thereby incomplete nature of human thought (viz., incompleteness in the context of human consciousness equates to possibility). Another way forward for your position is to argue that the Competition is inconsistent because it is asking for something (i.e. a transitive (more reasonable) demonstration of intransitive) that is more reasonably contradictory, and yet the Competition is grounded on the notion of more reasonableness. Though the problem with this argument is that the Competition is not centered around more reasonableness itself (or the Competition in relation to antagonistic competitions), but the more reasonableness of the Challenge Proposition in relation to antagonistic propositions.

So we challenge you to more reasonably (and transitively) answer how you or anyone else can more reasonably completely (or intransitively) know who you are?

___________________
1. The ten main supporting arguments (of the Challenge Proposition) can be viewed at: arguments.

444. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 443

"My thesis argues that, before we try to build an inclusive epistemological framework, we must take a position on the nature of time. McTaggart influentially described two types of time series: * A-series (‘tensed time’) - Past, Present, Future
* B-series (‘linear time’) - Earlier, (Simultaneously), Later
Practically, one can think of the A-series as St Augustine's ‘triple present’, and the B-series as ‘space-time’.

I assert that, while we *exist* in linear time, we *think* in terms of tensed time. That is, our *actual needs, actions and reactions* exist in (B-series) linear time, but our *knowledge* is constructed upon (A-series) tensed time, which consists of multiple (possible) pasts, a single present, and multiple (possible) futures.

These correspond to past needs, present action(s), and future reactions, each of which has a categorically different kinds of uncertainty (and hence knowability):-
(1) uncertainty of past needs (sociology)
(2) uncertainty of present action (politics / free will)
(3) uncertainty of future reactions (science)

These correspond to three kinds of temporal problem (AKA ‘irritants, stimulating knowledge production’):-
(1) Sociological (past-tense) problems (AKA Chomsky's ‘mystery’)
--> *symptoms* requiring *explanations* (i.e., what needs [probably] preceded an action)
(2) Political (present-tense) problems [AKA ‘normative’/‘(e)valuative’]
--> *issues* requiring *decisions* (which action should [probably] best balance predictions, needs, & explanations)
(3) Scientific (future-tense) problems
--> *scenarios* requiring *predictions* (what reactions would [probably] follow action)
Here, scenarios, predictions, explanations, and symptoms are all different kinds of knowledge. For symmetry, *models* (i.e., of behaviour) and *principles* (i.e., of theory) should also be added (these claim to reduce uncertainty by sidestepping the normative/judgmental stage). Issues, needs, decisions and actions are the means by which the (A-series) domain of knowledge and the (B-series) domain of existence interact.

Problem-solving is quite different for each of the three problem categories:- (1) Sociological problem-solving processes are *behavioural* (transitive) - these use (refer to) symptoms and principles, and abduct explanations (diagnoses)
(2) Political problem-solving processes are *symbolic* (intransitive)
- to resolve needs, these generatively produce scenarios and symptoms
- these use (compare) explanations and predictions, and produce decisions/actions
(3) Scientific problem-solving processes are *reified* (transitive)
- these use (refer to) models and scenarios, and deduct predictions

Finally: its should be noted that my thesis asserts not so much a theory of time, but rather a *foundational framework for time* (in the same way that an epistemological framework is a foundational framework for knowledge). Within this, beliefs about the Self can usefully be ‘framed’, or placed - so it also functions as a foundational framework for metaphysics.

Whether you see the Self as being a ghost in the (A-series) machine, as a set of (B-series) physical needs, as an agent of free will in a negotiated social world, or as an interactive process by which Divine Will and Human Reason collide (etc), this framework (for time) can hold it. However, its strong implication is that defining the locus of the Self defines epistemology's relationship with the world, not the other way round.

* * * * * *

What, then, is Competition 1's Proposition - that ‘we cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time’ - all about?

Categorically, this appears to be a *scenario* - that is, a generative attempt to convert a problem of (normative) evaluation into a problem of (scientific) causation - yet, like Descartes' ‘cogito ergo sum’, couched in defiantly present-tense language.

Superficially, this points to a hybrid scientific-idealist mindset, and (more specifically) to a linguistically-expressed desire to apply scientific (future-tense) thinking to a normative (present-tense) context, while bracketing both sociological thinking AND normative thinking. There is a strong argument that this juxtaposition of tenses indicates that this is in fact a ‘specious present’ (and hence, like counterfactuals, arguably not really knowledge). Discourse-wise, what's missing is the insight that ‘knowledge is uncertain (and so life is a risk)... but that's OK’.

Yet Competition 1 aspires to touch something greater, something deeper - in fact, I believe that it aspires to explore the relationship between (B-series) existence and (A-series) knowledge. Where in this framework, it wants to ask, is the Self, and (how) can we know it? Can we (reasonably) *prove or disprove* this? Though the details of the discourse are scientific, its aspiration is undoubtedly metaphysical.

You challenge me to answer how you or ‘anyone ... can more reasonably completely (or intransitively) know who [they] are?’ My response - only once you have decided what you believe is the locus of the Self can I tell you whether (and how) you can know it. Metaphysics defines epistemology, not the reverse - so the direction of the causal link you're seeking (however expressed) is incorrect."

Nick Pelling October 27 2003

Response:

Though it may appear that the metaphysics of who we are precedes the epistemology of human knowledge (on grounds that the locus of individuals is the defining element of human knowledge), it is (paradoxically) not the case. Based on the premise that we cannot (more reasonably) get outside of our minds and know that we are (i.e. mind in box), and the conclusion that we can only know what we know, it follows within the limits of what we know that the nature of human consciousness itself precedes (or defines) what we know. Hence, any metaphysical knowledge of who we are will be preceded by the apparent nature of human consciousness. Consequently, the fundamental challenge of the Competition is over the nature of human consciousness, which in the context of the Challenge Proposition we have defined as comparative and incomplete.

To put the precedence of human consciousness in perspective, you could for example metaphysically define who we are as an end-in-itself, and thereby establish a ground for complete knowledge, but you would have to (more reasonably) defend that definition through what you know, and ultimately the nature of your consciousness. Unless you can (more reasonably) overcome the apparent comparative and incomplete nature of human consciousness, any defense by you will fall short. (Viz., a complete conception of who we are will be contradicted by the primacy of your incomplete perspective.)

So we disagree with your claim that the direction of the Competition, which has laid an emphasis on epistemology including the nature of human consciousness, is "incorrect".

Supplementary comment:

Your assertion that the Competition is focused on scientific evaluation/investigation, ignores that it entails philosophic evaluation/investigation as well. Though as mentioned in the response to Entry 443, there are no restrictions on what field of knowledge is drawn upon, because the basis for evaluation is reason itself, which all fields are apparently defined by.

445. Entry:

"look into yourself with the mind silent and tranquil

For when the mind does not judge there are no distortions of reality. The real and unreal flow freely and neither should touch you. They emerge from the same source, they flow in and out of the source constantly, their only substance lies in the source. We all know the mind only holds impressions. These are false, the past has fallen away and so should impressions. The future is not yet here and impressions should follow its example. Time is the infinite, it cannot be fathomed, then again because it cannot be fathomed it might be fathomed, in whole or in part.

Words are merely expressions of impressions of the real, they are far from the source. How can you expect words to bring you to the source? The mind holds impressions, it is far from the source; how can the mind bring you to the source? Living in the moment, living in the center of time is the only way to understanding.

The supreme is that which stands on its own. that which stands on its own is that which is able to encompass its opposite. The natural is able to sustain the unnatural. The real is able to sustain the unreal. The infinite (time) is able to sustain the finite (e.g. your life, your knowledge, you). How is this possible? One cannot know; one can only experience. Knowing is inferior; it is limitless, true experience; true living is also limitless. However it comes to my attention that using the word experience does not come close enough to the idea to induce understanding even in the most open, subtle and brilliant minds. To attain true experience one must enjoy the fullness of the moment, that is to gain oneness with time. To gain oneness with time is to gain oneness with that which stands on its own. To attain the one is to be able to attain the children. Thus if you seek, look to the one. If you do not seek, you have found the one. Experience this for one moment and tell ! me I have led you astray from your true nature."

Samuel Claude Sutton November 3 2003

Response:

To overcome the limitation of human knowledge (i.e. "impression" based) and be "one" with who we are (i.e. "oneness with that which stands on its own" or your so-called "true nature"), you turn to "true experience" of looking (or non-looking) into one’s mind in a moment of silence and tranquility, whereby one’s ["true"] experience captures the "fullness of the moment", and "oneness with time" and "the one". However, based on the responses to (Buster Price's) Entry 308 and 310, it is unclear how an individual can (more reasonably) completely know who he is through experience alone, because in order to know experience or even have experience (from our perspective), we need to be consciously aware of experience, so that there is a separation (or "block") between experience itself and our interpretation or knowledge of it. Hence, your position is claiming that "true experience" is the means to who we are, and yet you are relying contradictorily on the limitation of knowledge (i.e. "impression" based) to realize that means, otherwise there would be no experience (we can know).

446. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 445

"You insist I rely on the knowledge contained within my mind to find the limitless. Yet you have no understanding of how this may come about. In looking into one's mind there can be found a center. This center however does not exist. It can be spoken of only because the mind/body/world are/were presumed to exist; thus by knowing of existence, which came about through nothingness, one can return to nothingness, which when spoken of it something since all things which come from the mind are something (even though something... anything but nothing and everything(this is possible because everything encompasses nothing, something and itself to an infinite degree) is nothing).

If we are able to exist; we are able to perceive; if we are able to perceive; we are able to know; if we are able to know we are able to comprehend dualities; from this comprehension comes the one.

All things which are alive have great self interest. Therefore the mind, in the desire to preserve itself, prevents the complete energy of a man to come to harmony. It points to the world, to the past, to possibilities of the future. You seek to find your center through compiling of the distractions of the mind. Even now you might say, well this is only one point of view, this is this, that is that, this is that... it continues forever. Will you die in this state, knowing nothing of substance, but insisting on knowing. Do not be afraid of knowing nothing of substance. Nothing has substance (this statement has two meanings, both readily apparent). Use knowledge to know knowledge, use perception to perceive perception. This may seem like chasing ones tail, but would you prefer to waste your time not wasting your time or would you like to just waste your time? I have no answer for you, no man has an answer for you. I have an answer for myself. To live one must look without, to grow one must look within. But maybe you, or another can find an answer in me not having an answer for them.

But for my answer, an individual (the mind of an individual) cannot know itself. For in doing so it is destroyed. For from nothing all things come and back into nothing we will go. Thus to find ones center is to find nothing. From my experience knowing is flawed and tricky. Not knowing is superior. I only ask you to try and experience this. As I said before, although less clearly, knowing comes from experience. So to know yourself you must experience yourself. That’s it, I should not need to say more, in fact I have said far, far, far more than should be needed. It serves only to show that your knowledge is great, far too great."

Samuel Claude Sutton November 6 2003

Response:

It is unclear how you can find (and realize) the center or oneness of your existence by merely stilling your mind (i.e. "silent and tranquil"). You claim that "nothingness" is the basis for existence, and therefore according to you everything begins from non-existence. So unless there is a meta-existence outside of existence, your claim from our comparative perspective is less reasonable. (Viz., it is nonsensical from our comparative perspective how something can begin entirely from nothing.) Moreover, by contending that through knowing nothing (i.e. stilling one’s mind) we can know the center of existence, you face the problem that there is nothing we can know in that moment of nothingness, and as soon as we know in relation to the moment like your claim, we face contradiction (i.e. knowing something!). Further, you ask us to try to experience nothing, because according to you "... knowing comes from experience. So to know yourself you must experience yourself." Yet, as mentioned in the response to Entry 445, there is a (more reasonable) separation or "block" between experience itself and knowledge (or interpretation) of experience, so that we cannot completely know who we are through knowledge derived from experiencing oneself.

In short, though your position on knowing nothing as a means to knowing who we are may have validity in a limited sense, quite clearly it is contradictory when applied in a complete (unlimited) sense for the simple reason that if knowing nothing is the means to complete knowledge of who we are, then as soon as we think we know who we are we do not, and if we do not think we know who we are or not think we know at all, then from our perspective we do not know who we are. We think you consciously or unconsciously realize this inherent problem, and that is why at the end of your entry you try to make the connection between experience (of knowing nothing [or your so-called who we are]) and knowing (nothing [or your so-called who we are]), but as mentioned your position succumbs to the (more reasonable) separation or "block" between experience itself and knowledge.

447. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 446

"In regards to something coming from nothing, a simple mind would see: in the perspective that matter exists forever and will exist forever something comes from no where, basically a place of negation. (This helps to show the skewed nature of our perception, for we see that which is original as negative and that which is a negation of the original as the original. Also, from my perspective something is the negation of nothing, thus, when nothing reached its extreme something arose, now something is climbing towards a peak.)

True knowledge is not knowledgeable. This is made clear through understanding that by constantly discarding knowledge one is actually able to comprehend the fullness of the moment to the greatest degree, if it is still knowledge you look for (for by now I should think you have noticed that experience is superior).

I must ask you a question here, for I am confused. If you do not know yourself how do you manage to perform the daily functions required for life? How do you lift your hand, or use your legs to walk, or speak, or think, or breathe? You must have control to do this, and control comes from awareness, and awareness and understanding are that from which knowledge arises.

To overcome the block of which you speak you must understand that by the elimination of knowledge (different from the stilling of the mind, for stillness is temporary, oftentimes a prerequisite to true emptiness and tranquility) ones mind is able to fully encompass the moment (as far as the mind can encompass, which might very well be further than any of us expect). That is what I call knowing one's self. That is the only way to overcome the distractions and shadows of a mind which still controls the vital essences. That is knowing without knowing; this is three steps from the way."

Samuel Claude Sutton November 8 2003

Response:

To overcome the block or separation between experience itself and knowledge of experience, you contend that one needs to "eliminate knowledge", and thereby "fully encompass the moment" or "overcome the distractions and shadows of [the] mind" or "know [one’s self] without knowing [one’s self]". However, it does not follow that you have overcome the separation between experience itself and knowledge, because the knowledge you are referring to (i.e. knowledge of the moment) is based on an assumption about something you do not know (i.e. a moment of eliminating (conscious) knowledge). So it is unclear how you know the moment of not knowing is a moment of knowing who we are without knowing who we are, unless you extrapolate based on the experience (of the moment), which takes you back to the separation or block between experience itself and knowledge of experience. If you disagree, then how else do you know that the moment of eliminating knowledge is a moment of knowing who we are without knowing who we are?

Related to this point, you contend that experience itself is "superior" to knowledge, and yet you or anyone else cannot more reasonably know or have experience, from our perspective, without being consciously aware of experience. Therefore, based on the necessary relation between experience and knowledge, your contention that experience is superior does not stand.

Supplementary comment:

Your assertion that because matter apparently exists "forever", and therefore matter comes from "no where", is based on an incorrect equation that infinity (i.e. forever) equates to no where equates to nothing. Viz., infinity, a state of neither beginning or end, refers to incompletion. So it does not necessarily follow that infinity equates to no where or nothing.

Entries 439-442 Entries 448-452