Reply to the response to Entry 447

"On the benefits of all encompassing ignorance:

Being has end to it. Non-being is the result of this. Abdul Khaliq We can see the end because that is our path. When one emerges from the cosmic storehouse of energy...
They begin to walk away from the source. Walking on borrowed time towards their origin.

Your mind is limited. Yet you assert that you can attain the unlimited with it. (This may be better defined with a excerpt from a previous post of mine along with additional writing to more clearly define my meaning)

‘If the self looks in a (metaphorical) mirror, and sees itself there is an addition of information to the original self, and thus the old self is in part destroyed or added to, and a new self is therefore created. Nonetheless, since the majority of the self remains intact the addition of new information, and the expulsion of old information helps foster the creation of the new self which is still the self, but not the self we knew before. Drawing from this idea it is generally impossible to be the original self after the addition of knowledge of the self because one is changed by such knowledge, so one would have to look again in the metaphorical mirror, and discover the new self, which would begin again the cycle that seems to start/end here. Nonetheless it could be said that one's entire self would not be discarded in this process and thus with the gaining of knowledge of the old self the new self is able to know part of its own being (the parts of the old self which were not changed or destroyed)’, although it would not know which parts it knew unless it looked in the mirror again.

This is the best case scenario. NO ONE has the mind capacity, power, and speed to succeed, even in the best case scenario. Living in the world presents an impossible additional challenge to the mind, such as being both aware of and able to understand the entire situation surrounding every moment aka omnipotence and omnipresence. This is obviously required to see clearly a situation so one can react in a true way, and only from this true reaction can one begin to retrace the steps of action back to mind without the hindrance of the false.

There has to be another way! only the Christian 'god' can use the world as a metaphorical thermometer to determine what god is, and the Christian 'god' does not exist. (not to say there is not orderliness and/or unity in the universe also not to say what Jesus said was not bang on, because it was, I just think its been misinterpreted, mistranslated and misused). In the words of ODB; ‘Jesus I’m rollin' with you.’

It is not memory you are looking for if you want to see (know may be substituted because you may know from seeing (will address further if needed) yourself. If this is what you desire than I urge you to merge yourself (limited) with the unlimited. This can not be fathomed, as I said previous, by the mind. The mind is limited. The unlimited however can be expressed by the mind, but the expression is not the unlimited, it is only an expression. This can be done through the stilling of the mind. Thus the unlimited can flow freely through the limited. This shows that the unlimited is a plank (a political term in reference to a platform) of the unified god. This is because the unlimited is able to encompass the limited. Space is able to hold the earth.

That is only expression though, seeing is a different thing, but the same process. Seeing requires one's mind to be still so that the truth is not distorted by perceptions of the past, which may be false or not. To go into greater depth: for the mind, to know, for a moment, itself, requires transcendence of that moment. (This transcendence has already been written about, so clarification will not extend further). This is bypassed through the stilling of the mind, so that perception of all things can take place without hindrance, and unity with the unlimited (time) can be achieved. You seem to be afraid that if you give up your perceptions something bad will happen to you, this is not false. Bad things can and will happen to you, but to be afraid of this is to loose the way. QUASI OFF TOPIC SIDE NOTE: In fact that very knowledge is provocation for both loss and maintenance of the way. Do you see how your perceptions propagate themselves (I can also clarify further if needed)? they have no merit compared with the unlimited.

These are just words; words may provoke understanding. Understanding may supplement experiencing. That is important.

RANDOM TANGENTS:

When needed, look to the center, look to that which encompasses its enemies. This is what you need. Its hard to get your daily bread out of the center though. Although if you don’t care about the repercussions of not eating then don’t.

This truth is still not complete, there is far too much of my mind left. I would estimate extremely roughly that it might take another 5 years to have something that is not a thing, but don’t let that discourage you from declaring me winner, I am still eligible. You never know, I might be more correct than anyone ever thought, except for the completely self-centered portion of my consciousness. I mean when is that guy not right. Basically I might of been able to express all the pieces, but I cannot completely express them together for you; I am still rather confused myself. But being confused is interesting.

I’ve just about given up... again; but I’ll tell you the same as I tell my girlfriend when she wants more: 'give me a minute'. However I am slowly coming to the conclusion that this (the quest for truth, which comes from the source, thus it is really the quest for the source) is going to be going on long after I am dead. Little do people know they can just kill themselves, or sincerely want to die, this will point to it."

Samuel Claude Sutton November 12 2003 Abdul Khaliq (Abdul Khaliq)

Response:

We agree that the so-called "unlimited" can be expressed (in a limited sense) by the human mind, but that is not saying much because we can express anything we imagine (as long as we are consciously aware of it and have the means to express it). To take your position further, you contend that the "unlimited", which according to you we can only express in a limited sense, can "encompass" our expression. (Viz., a "unity" between the unlimited and limited can be attained by stilling one’s mind.) Yet, how can the unity of the unlimited and limited through the expression of the human mind be reconciled with the limited nature of expression through the human mind? What is it about the act of stilling one’s mind that the apparent limited (or incomplete) nature of human consciousness is "bypassed"?

How can you more reasonably know the "unlimited" and limited are unified in a moment of stilling one’s mind, when (1) the unlimited itself (or infinity) is (more reasonably) beyond your comprehension, (2) stilling the mind implies no conscious awareness, and (3) there is (more reasonably) separation or a block between experience (of the moment of stilling one’s mind) and knowledge or interpretation of the experience?

449. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 448

"Imagination is a collage. Imagination comes from the eyes combined with the mind. If you seek that which stands on it own turn away from it. Constantly the limitless is being expressed. This is without end, without beginning. The limitless is limitless because it contains within it limits(its opposite). The same is true of all other qualities associated with the supreme. This supreme is great because it contains all that contains all. If man were to look upon the ocean, and in his ignorance perceive that it seems to have no end many people of great understanding can prove him to be incorrect. the ocean is bordered by itself yet it is still bordered. It stretches far, yet it returns. This is as the nature of the supreme, it is with limit. The way is that without limit. From it springs the supreme. From the supreme springs the way. For even the supreme must follow the rules which it dictates. It may dictate rules, but it may not break them. Thus the dictating of rules leads to the great chaos. It is not yet complete. In reaching completion it begins again. From knowing this one may understand that the unlimited is never expressed with the limited. The unlimited engulfs the limited. Silence is equating oneself with chaos in completion. From this arises the supreme; from the supreme arose the way. In the human unity with the supreme is achieved after unity with what is called emptiness. Through this the mind gives way to the supreme, which is housed within all things. Thereafter the expression of one who has done this is equated with the way. Even the mind arising with thoughts and perceptions is in accordance with the way. But it is not the way(in a complete sense). I cannot know the unlimited is beyond my comprehension. Because I cannot know this, I know the unlimited. The relation of consciousness to this is: the unconscious and conscious merge together as one; the conscious mind is able to encompass both. In the mind both silence and noise arise from the mind. From this unity the supreme will arise. A cool mountain springs bubbles up slowly. It slides down the hillside to the animals below, who all partake of its bounty. A powerful geyser is able to expel great amounts of water for a short time, yet this water is both too hot and poisonous for a man to drink. The ocean holds a great amount of water, yet if one drinks of this the salt will pull the water through one quickly, and only salt will remain; the body hungry for more water. Of these three expressions of water which is more beneficial to the deer or the man. Thus the beneficial is often small and weak, coming slowly, yet it remains the most beneficial of the three. The moment it takes for the mind to grasp what the eyes have seen is the block. The mind and the body, the body and what is natural."

Samuel Claude Sutton November 17 2003

Response:

Your challenge comes down to your claim that there is a oneness or thing-in-itself behind existence (which you call the "supreme"), so that in knowing from our limited perspective, we simultaneously know the oneness or supreme. (Viz., everything limited according to your position is dimensionally part of the near limitless or supreme.) This position is similar to the one taken by Suvas Lakshmikutty in Entries 313, 317, 320 in which he argues with reference to Arthur Schopenhauer that the parts of existence (like the individual will) are dimensionally within the oneness of existence (i.e. the will as "whole of nature" or thing-in-itself.) However, both positions are anchored by the assumption that there is a thing-in-itself or oneness behind existence. Yet from our comparative perspective and in consideration of the apparent interactive nature of things, it is more reasonable that something comes from something else ad infinitum (viz., existence as a state of infinity) than something comes from nothing (or ex nihlo) (viz., existence as a state of finity or oneness).

Further and less important, both your position and Lakshmikutty's position are inconsistently applied because if everything limited is dimensionally part of the near limitless (or oneness or supreme or will itself), then there should not be specific conditions like "stilling one’s mind", uniting with so-called "emptiness", or attaining "pure objective knowledge of the will" to consciously unite the limited with the near limitless.

450. Entry:

"My argument will be that, as presented, and counter to the claims made on the challenge page, this proposition cannot simultaneously be true and relevant.

Depending on its interpretation, either
1) the proposition cannot be reasonably construed to be true, or
2) the proposition has no significant implications
(or both) ...it seems that the intended interpretation satisfies 2) lack of relevance, and I will explain why.

There exist interpretations of this proposition which are almost tautologically true, for instance stating that a finite human mind cannot consciously entertain all of the infinite possible true propositions about the human body (including such absurdities as ‘my finger is connected to my hand’, ‘either my finger is connected to my hand or it is connected to my hand’, ‘either my finger is connected to my hand or it is connected to my hand or it is connected to my hand’ and so on). That is an entailment of one possible interpretation of ‘truly know who we are’. There are other less pathological interpretations which are also literally true.

In everyday language, the sentence ‘we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time’ would usually be interpreted in a different way: that we cannot have a reasonably justified and correct understanding of ourselves which is sufficient for a given purpose (and cannot be reasonably improved on). By this interpretation, ‘truly know’ has to be understood within the context of the given purpose: in relation to being able to turn invisible at will, we truly know who we are (i.e. visible organisms).

It is the everyday interpretation which is relevant to statements such as

‘The proposition profoundly weakens the basis for morality, ethics, justice, and society/civilization, because they are contingent on individual identity which the proposition shows is not truly knowable. In other words, without a true claim to individual identity, moral, ethical, legal, and social claims lose their ground. We are left with no ground to assert morality, ethics, legality, or society, except from a position of power.’

because the lack of *appropriate and sufficient* knowledge and *reasonable justification* is what undermines the power of an argument, not the lack of comprehensive knowledge or absolute a priori proof.

In other words, it is not reasonable to argue from ‘we cannot have total and unassailable knowledge of something’ to ‘we cannot make justifiable claims about it’. Most of human life involves making best-guess calls and subjective value judgments; it is only in exceptional cases, if ever, that we can be guided by unassailable knowledge.

From reading the site, it seems that the actual position being argued is the literally true, but irrelevant one - that complete, absolute knowledge of ourselves is impossible. Unfortunately, the challenge page suggests that it is being conflated with the relevant, but untrue one - that sufficient, reasonably justified knowledge of ourselves is impossible.

If you wish, I can explain further why I believe that to make the proposition true, it must be interpreted to mean something from which no significant conclusions may be drawn."

Simon McGregor November 26 2003

Response:

Your challenge as we understand is that,

1. truth (i.e. complete knowledge) equals significance

2. (if) Challenge Proposition 1 is true equals non-truth equals insignificance

Hence, according to your challenge, Challenge Proposition 1 is insignificant if it is either true or non-true, and therefore, Proposition 1 is insignificant (or "lacks relevance").

However, it is unclear to us what the significance (or insignificance) of Challenge Proposition 1 has to do with more reasonably overcoming the Proposition. (Viz., what does significance have to do with more reasonable refutation?)

Also, if Challenge Proposition 1 is true (i.e. complete), it would be self-contradictory, and therefore, the equation to insignificance from Proposition 1 being true is not necessary. Though you nor anyone else, so far, have not more reasonably established complete knowledge.

Further, Challenge Proposition 1 is asserted and defined from our limited (or incomplete) perspective. So there is no claim on our part that the Proposition is true. Rather, we claim (from our limited perspective) that the Proposition is more reasonable than antagonistic propositions.

In order to facilitate your challenge, we ask you to more reasonably demonstrate truth (i.e. complete knowledge), or cease to use the term as though it exists.

Supplementary comment:

We agree that Challenge Proposition 1 is open to interpretation. Though within the context of the Competition, the Proposition has been defined to mean that we cannot more reasonably (i.e. more soundly and consistently than antagonistic positions) completely know who we are, (in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time). The Proposition is not contending that we cannot have "reasonably justified and correct understanding of ourselves". Rather, the Proposition is contending explicitly through the Proposition itself and our limited (or incomplete) perspective that we can have more reasonable (i.e. more sound and consistent) understanding of ourselves.

The stated implication of the Proposition, in which the basis for morality, ethics, justice, and society/civilization are weakened, is from the standpoint that since we cannot more reasonably completely know who we are, morality, ethics, justice, and society/civilization, which are rooted in individual identity, succumb to subjectivity (or those with the power to enforce and impose their beliefs). We are not claiming that we cannot say anything about who we are. Of course we can as Challenge Proposition 1 illustrates.

451. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 450

"'Your challenge as we understand is that, 1. truth (i.e. complete knowledge) equals significance' (Excerpt from the response to Entry 450)

This is absolutely not my challenge. My challenge is that the literal idea of complete knowledge is so impractical as to be irrelevant (i.e. no useful or interesting conclusions can be drawn from either its existence or its nonexistence).
Truth and significance are two mutually independent measures. Neither implies, or negates, the other. For instance, the proposition ‘my head is either made entirely of sugar, or it is not made entirely of sugar’ is tautologically true by virtue of the axiom of the excluded middle, but it is a statement of no earthly interest to anyone.

'However, it is unclear to us what the significance (or insignificance) of Challenge Proposition 1 has to do with more reasonably overcoming the Proposition. (Viz., what does significance have to do with more reasonable refutation?)' (Excerpt from the response to Entry 450)

Your use of the phrase ‘more reasonable’ is misleading if you intend that significance has nothing to do with whether a position is reasonable! I will spell out my position: unless it can be shown that the proposition is relevant to further arguments, I do not care whether it is believed or disbelieved and I think nobody else should either. You are correct in identifying that I am not challenging the logical coherence of the proposition. I am saying that it is like the sugar-head proposition, i.e. it wasn't worth stating in the first place.

'In order to facilitate your challenge, we ask you to more reasonably demonstrate truth (i.e. complete knowledge), or cease to use the term as though it exists.' (Excerpt from the response to Entry 450)

Again, if your sense of ‘more reasonable’ does not include notions of relevance or usefulness, then I reject it as a criterion for establishing the validity of a position. I will most certainly not cease using the term ‘truth’ unless you have some convincing argument showing that it isn't a *useful* notion.

The stated implication of the Proposition, in which the basis for morality, ethics, justice, and society/civilization are weakened, is from the standpoint that since we cannot more reasonably completely know who we are, morality, ethics, justice, and society/civilization, which are rooted in individual identity, succumb to subjectivity (or those with the power to enforce and impose their beliefs).’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 450)

And I claim this is a complete non-sequitur. Being unable to ‘completely know’ who we are, in the sense in which you seem to mean it, has no relevance to arguments about morality, ethics, justice and society/civilization. It does not weaken them, let alone ‘severely weaken’ them as claimed on the challenge page. This is because, as I have already pointed out, the grounds for a powerful argument are *appropriate and sufficient* knowledge and *reasonable justification*. The onus is now on you to show why anyone should think complete knowledge - in the rather literal and all-encompassing sense you seem to mean it - is important.

I happen to agree that social values are essentially subjective. But
a) your argument about complete knowledge is not useful in establishing this point, and
b) it is naive to believe that a subjective basis for social values is weak

I am not claiming that one should believe the *opposite* of the statements ‘thoughts are not the same as societies’ or ‘my head is either made entirely of sugar, or not made entirely of sugar’ or ‘we cannot have complete knowledge of ourselves’ (in the sense in which you mean it). What I am saying is that such statements are uninteresting - no significant conclusions can be drawn from them."

Simon McGregor November 30 2003

Response:

Your position as we understand now is that Challenge Proposition 1, "we cannot more reasonably truly (i.e. completely) know who we are..." is no different from a proposition like "my head is either made entirely of sugar, or it is not made entirely of sugar" in the sense that within the limits of what we know, both propositions are practically obvious to the point of irrelevance. Viz., though tautologically it is possible we may more reasonably completely know who we are, practically and theoretically it is less reasonable, just as tautologically it is possible one’s head is either entirely made of sugar or it is not made entirely of sugar, practically and theoretically it is less reasonable that one’s head is either entirely made of sugar or it is not entirely made of sugar. Your argument goes further by contending that the validity (or soundness) of a proposition should include the notion of relevance or usefulness. So ultimately what you are arguing is that because according to you relevance is part of determining validity, and Challenge Proposition 1 is irrelevant, Challenge Proposition 1 is invalid, and therefore you have overcome the Proposition.
However, your position overlooks that Challenge Proposition 1 is not proposing more reasonably that we cannot completely know who we are, it is proposing that we cannot more reasonably completely know who we are in part or in whole, and we cannot more reasonably completely know who we are and be who we are at the same time. So the Proposition is claiming twofold that we cannot more reasonably completely know any aspect of ourselves, and that the lack of complete self-knowledge stems partly from a simultaneity problem of being and knowing. Is it practically obvious to the point of irrelevance that we cannot more reasonably completely know any aspect of ourselves or that there is a simultaneity problem preventing us from more reasonably completely knowing who we are? In your opinion, it is. Though based on a number entries like Suvas Lakshmikutty’s Entries 313, 317, 320, and Dale Clifford’s Entries 292, 334, it is not practically obvious to everyone else.

Also, it is not practically obvious that no one will be able to more reasonably demonstrate complete knowledge of who we are, because it is possible. Viz., you or anyone else do not know exactly what the future will hold. (Though we acknowledge that based on the arguments presented to date, it is unlikely that someone will be able to more reasonably demonstrate complete self-knowledge.)

Further, your correlation of Challenge Proposition 1 to the Sugar-head proposition is not entirely accurate, because in the latter proposition we are partly dealing with complete knowledge which is an empirically unknown entity, and in the former proposition we are dealing with sugar and the human head which are empirically known entities.

Furthermore, your argument itself is self-defeating, because if Challenge Proposition 1, which is the focal point of Competition 1, is so "irrelevant", "useless", and "uninteresting", it does not follow why you would demonstrate interest in it by attempting to overcome it. For your position to maintain consistency, you would not even comment on the Proposition!

Though even if we were to accept your irrelevance argument, according to the conditions for Competition 1, the more reasonable demonstration of irrelevance does not invalidate Proposition 1. What does invalidate Proposition 1 is more reasonable demonstration of an antagonistic proposition. Yet you contend that irrelevance should be part of the determination of validity, (otherwise your irrelevance argument, in the context of Competition 1, does not have relevance). But what is it about irrelevance that it should be included in the determination of validity (or whether or not a proposition is theoretically sound)? What does irrelevance have to do with the soundness of a proposition? It appears to us that there is a disconnection between irrelevance and (theoretical) validity. And mistake not, Competition 1 operates in the theoretically realm (from a comparative standpoint) rather than the practically realm.

In summary, we would like to know why irrelevance should more reasonably be included in the determination of (theoretical) validity, and if that question is more reasonably answered, how is Challenge Proposition 1 irrelevant considering that the Proposition proposes that we cannot more reasonably know any aspect of ourselves, identifies a simultaneity problem of being and knowing, partly refers to an empirically unknown entity and thereby is different from the Sugar-head proposition, and not everyone agrees with you that Proposition 1 is irrelevant, and lastly your position is self-defeating because if Proposition 1, which is the focal point of Competition 1, is so uninteresting, you would not even bother to comment on it.

Supplementary comment:

We acknowledge that by more reasonably establishing our inability to completely know any aspect of ourselves, morality, ethics, justice, society/civilization may not be weakened if one believes as you do that morality, ethics, justice, society/civilization are subjectively determined. However, if one does not hold this belief (and instead believe in the objectivity of values), then Challenge Proposition 1 severely weakens the ground for morality, ethics, justice, society/civilization which are centered on human identity.

452. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 451

"‘Your position as we understand now is that Challenge Proposition 1, "we cannot more reasonably truly (i.e. completely) know who we are..." is no different from a proposition like "my head is either made entirely of sugar, or it is not made entirely of sugar" in the sense that within the limits of what we know, both propositions are practically obvious to the point of irrelevance.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 451)

This is close to my position. But the way in which I am claiming the two propositions to be similar is not that they are both ‘practically obvious’. A proposition can be practically obvious and still relevant (e.g. "I cannot fly just by jumping off tall buildings").

My claim is that like the sugar-head proposition, ‘no useful or interesting conclusions can be drawn’ from Challenge Proposition 1, if its wording is interpreted in the sense you seem to intend it. This is a rather different question than whether it is obvious. In fact my claim is even stronger - that there is no reasonable sense in which you could interpret its wording which would make it both true (i.e. compelling) and relevant.

The reason for this is that it makes a statement about complete knowledge of empirical entities. No human being ever needs complete knowledge of an empirical entity, for any practical purpose whatsoever. When you weaken the proposition so that it refers to attainable *useful* rather than *perfect* knowledge, it becomes demonstrably false.

‘Furthermore, your argument itself is self-defeating, because if Challenge Proposition 1, which is the focal point of Competition 1, is so "irrelevant", "useless", and "uninteresting", it does not follow why you would demonstrate interest in it by attempting to overcome it. For your position to maintain consistency, you would not even comment on the Proposition!’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 451)

I would agree with you here, except for two points
a) the Proposition is part of a Competition, and competitions are interesting
b) interesting conclusions are being falsely drawn from the Proposition on the Challenge page

‘What does irrelevance have to do with the soundness of a proposition? It appears to us that there is a disconnection between irrelevance and (theoretical) validity.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 451)

There is indeed. The sugar-head proposition is valid but irrelevant. I have already stated that I am not disputing the coherence of the Challenge proposition (i.e. I accept that there are possible interpretations of its wording which make it true, and that you seem to intend one such interpretation).

‘And mistake not, Competition 1 operates in the theoretically realm (from a comparative standpoint) rather than the practically realm.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 451)

If that is true, then I do not have a disagreement with the Challenge proposition.

BUT... as I observed in my first entry, *on the challenge page itself* there is a statement linking the Challenge proposition to the practical realm (in this case, the realm of social values), which suggests that you are mixing up two different interpretations of the proposition's wording. Do you really intend that the challenge page should not be understood as part of the context in which the Challenge proposition is to be interpreted?

If you removed the Challenge page's claim that the proposition had interesting implications, I would be unable to fault your reasoning. But I suspect this would defeat your purpose! Note that if I am correct about the proposition's irrelevance, you can't just tone down your claim about its implications. You have to remove the claim that it has any significant implications at all.

‘However, if one does not hold this belief (and instead believe in the objectivity of values), then Challenge Proposition 1 severely weakens the ground for morality, ethics, justice, society/civilization which are centered on human identity.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 451)

I do not accept this. In order for Challenge Proposition 1 to ‘severely weaken’ the grounds for social values centered on human identity, you have to believe *two* things:
a) values are objectively based on features of ourselves
b) we can only justify conclusions which are based on *complete* (in the literal sense of Challenge Proposition 1) knowledge I ask: how does Challenge Proposition 1, without additional contentious premises, imply anything about what we can justifiably conclude about any practical question? How *can it possibly* do so, given that it refers to *certain*, *complete* knowledge and that powerful arguments (which rely on *reasonable and sufficient* knowledge) have need of neither completeness nor certainty?

Not only can Challenge Proposition 1 not be used to weaken any grounds for social values, it can't be used for any practical purpose at all, because the literal notion of complete knowledge is of no practical significance."

Simon McGregor December 1 2003

Response:

Your criticism of Challenge Proposition 1 appears to be directed at, in your words, "a statement [by it] about complete knowledge of empirical entities". You go on to say that "no human being ever needs complete knowledge of an empirical entity, for any practical purpose whatsoever." Yet Challenge Proposition 1 says nothing about complete knowledge of empirical entities except we cannot more reasonably empirically completely know anything. (See Entry 296 by Laon Shelley for further discussion.) Though Challenge Proposition 1 does not just say that about empiricism; it says that about all other forms of knowledge like intuitive, analytical, or statistical. So we disagree with you that Proposition 1 is giving relevance to complete empirical knowledge, when it is basically saying complete empirical knowledge is more reasonably a non-entity. (As a side note, we should add that your claim that "no human being ever needs complete knowledge of an empirical entity, for any practical purpose whatsoever", ignores all relevant situations (and human needs!) like a patient dying of cancer who needs (or could use!) complete empirical knowledge of a cure to cancer, in order to prolong his life, or Country A facing imminent military threat from Country B, needs (or could use) complete empirical knowledge of whether or not Country B is seriously planning to pre-empt a nuclear strike on Country A, in order to prevent a mistaken pre-emptive strike of its own.)

Regarding your claim that Challenge Proposition 1 is "useless or uninteresting", all we can say is that you are entitled to your opinion (your claim is an opinion, is it not?!), while point out that Challenge Proposition 1 claims that we cannot more reasonably completely know any aspect of ourselves, and supports this position with (an apparently original) simultaneity problem of being and knowing. Moreover, you appear to overlook that Challenge Proposition 1 could help lead to (other) interesting conclusions.

Further, your main criticism of Challenge Proposition 1 is that it says something you already know and believe (i.e. there is more reasonably no complete knowledge). So it is inconsistent of you to argue that Challenge Proposition 1 is not compelling or irrelevant, when fundamentally the Proposition is a compelling and relevant part of your own belief system!

Similarly, your claim that you are interested in competitions and not Proposition 1, overlooks that Proposition 1 is the center of Competition 1, and all competitions are surely not interesting. So it is unclear to us how you can maintain Proposition 1 is uninteresting, while demonstrating an interest in it, and regardless if that interest was sparked by a stated implication of the Proposition.

Finally, regarding your criticism of our stated implication of Proposition 1, you appear to overlook that it is not that "values are objectively based on features of ourselves", but that objective values necessarily entail our identity in their meaning, and that Yes there are people, such as particular religious oriented people, who believe in complete values. Though we acknowledge that the stated implication can be misinterpreted, so we have changed the statement to the following:

Since we apparently cannot more reasonably completely know any aspect of ourselves, and human consciousness is apparently centered on human identity, Challenge Proposition 1 further supports and clarifies the more reasonable subjectivity and uncertainty of (all) human knowledge.

Supplementary comment:

In our view, your notion of "sufficient knowledge" is ambiguous because it begs the question, what is the ground(s) for sufficient knowledge?

Also, it is unclear to us, when you accuse us of mixing up two interpretations of Challenge Proposition 1 (i.e. theoretical and practical), why the theoretical cannot extend into the practical. (Note, as mentioned, Challenge Proposition 1 is not claiming complete or certain knowledge. It is claiming more reasonable knowledge.)

Entries 443-447 Entries 453-456