Reply to the response to Entry 468

“‘We do not expect to change your beliefs or the beliefs of any other participant. Though we do require that in order to overcome Challenge Proposition 1 that your beliefs, or any other participant’s beliefs, be more reasonable (i.e. more sound and consistent) than antagonistic positions. Further to this (competition) requirement, and your entries to date (Entries 468, 465, 460, 459, 458, 457, 455, 453), we ask you the following questions to help determine the more reasonableness of your position:

1. Where do these basic, absolute principles (of Reality), embedded in the external world, come from?’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 468)

Answer: They come from Here, Now, the Present, where they have always been. Everything is. Our being-ness is always engaged in the present, and we each have an obligation to understand our relationship to what is.

The present is the only point of contact we can ever have with Reality. All matter, all energy, all space, all time, all knowledge, all meaning is in the eternal domain of Reality.

This question is also relevant to your supplementary comment. Would you have it that all systems of thought are separate, and different, and that the principles implicit within them are separate, and different? From where then do all these separate, and different systems of thought eventuate? It is certain that they all have the same medium of expression – us. Would it then be more reasonable to assume that they all come from the same source?

‘2. How do the basic principles of Reality directly enter our minds?’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 468)

Answer: As I have said previously I have reservations about concepts of mind or thought, but will use them for ease of reference. To some degree or another, each of us is directly connected to Reality (we do not have any choice in the matter), and we can potentially evaluate ‘what is’ through the utilization, and examination of factual reality.

We are the microcosmic part of that Universal Macrocosm, and because we already have that innate information it is a matching process when we have a Eureka moment, an epiphany, an understanding beyond question. Nothing enters our minds - we already know! Everyone has innate knowledge of the principle of leverage. It requires correct examination of ‘what is’ for realization to occur. It is then relief to have ‘mutual agreement’ on the things we would wish to make transparent to others.

‘3. How is the apparent separation between the basic principles and our experience of them (including Eureka moments) avoided? (Note, if there were no separation, then there would be no need to experience the principles. The notion of experience necessarily implies separation with something else. If you disagree, then we require a more reasonable answer to Question 2.)’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 468)

Answer: You have a notion of what experience is. Principles never exist in isolation. Please refer to the ice cream analogy: The collection of ingredients is indeed what they are. This time let us confer being ness to the completed mixture – ice cream. The ice cream now has simultaneous knowledge, and experience of itself – it is a complete entity! Separation and fragmentation do not allow for realization. As it is with the ice cream, so it is with humans, but the ingredients always exist. When the principles (ingredients) are in unison – Eureka – we can truly know who we are.

‘4. Since there are apparently no two identical perspectives, how does crude ‘en masse’ mutual agreement equate with complete knowledge?’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 468)

Answer: Return to the traffic analogy.

Two cars, two drivers, sitting directly alongside each other at traffic lights, discuss their understanding of their Road Code in this particular position, and what they should do.

When the light turns green there is a myriad of principles that apply when they drive off simultaneously. They have both demonstrated their ‘complete knowledge’ of the significance of the green light from this particular perspective.

There is also Mutual Agreement

There is also Predictable Conformity

There is also Common Ground

Each one complements the other

They are both right

Impose an external listener to their conversation, and when the action takes place he or she would agree that ‘mutual agreement’ in this particular context had been enacted, and there was ‘complete knowledge’ between the two drivers (given their conversation, and subsequent action) about the purpose of the green light. We could reasonably infer from this that millions of other drivers who obey traffic lights through ‘mutual agreement’ have also ‘complete knowledge’ of the purpose of the green light!

One more remove:

From an outsider’s point of view – they both know! The green light could be categorized as a mechanical Eureka moment, it sets in play all of the above principles. From the perspective of two outside objective observers who know the traffic rules, if asked, did the two drivers at the lights obey the rules – the answer would be yes, there would be mutual agreement. They have complete knowledge of this particular circumstance concerning drivers, and green lights.

Could it be that certain schools of thought are curtailed by a questionable refusal to recognize what is, and have a preference for creating a difficulty when none exists! No one can examine what isn’t! There is no such thing as ‘nothing’. Something is – what is it?

‘We request that you respond specifically to these four questions in a reply.

Supplementary comment:
It appears to us that Archimedes’ Eureka moment (“I found it!”) stems from experimentally applying a system of thought, so that the “I found it!” moment is merely a finding within a system of thought. (In Archimedes’ case, the system of thought refers to a pure gold crown, impure old crown, water etc.) There is no apparent equation between so-called absolute Reality and Archimedes’ system of thought, or any other system of thought, unless it is assumed in the system of thought, and even then in the context of Competition 1, it would have to be more reasonably defended.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 468)

Schools of thought I suspect were brought about by attempts at elitism.

A Scottish engineer functions on the same principles as an Italian Pope. Because Archimedes was prominent as a mathematician, his realization of the principle of leverage, and his understanding of the difference in water displacement between silver and gold was widely reported. This does not mean that realization of ‘what is’ is an exclusive experience. As I have said previously Archimedes did not realize something new – it has always existed, and all forms of life would have utilized the leverage principle to some degree or another (watch a bird build a nest). At that time there were probably many thousands of people who had some understanding of the principle, but Archimedes was the one who made statements about it. Philosophy it seems to me has the propensity to ask ‘why it is’, not ‘what it is’, and would prefer to approach a problem from the standpoint ‘that nothing is as it seems’. To ask ‘why it is’ it appears to me is a constant removal from ‘what it is’, and its inherent part of Reality. It could be viewed as an attempt at nothingness. Proper examination of ‘what is’, and its principles, will offer us an understanding of our relationship to Reality, and the ‘why’ of it will be self -evident e.g., the principle of leverage.

As in any Eureka moment, we can experience who we are. It is mutual agreement (an understanding) between the part, and the whole. It is when the principles are in unison – Eureka. Reality is there to be examined, and experienced, it is not separate from us, nor should we try to make it so.”

Bridie March 2 2004

Response:

Your position as we understand it is that there is an “eternal Reality” (or thing-in-itself) which dimensionally contains “all matter, all energy, all space, all time, all knowledge, all meaning”, and which is defined by absolute principles. These principles are innately contained in every individual. In order to access the principles, individuals need to apply a “matching process” based on Eureka moments (i.e. examination of what is whereby principles are found in unison) and confirmed by mutual agreement. So according to you, there is only one Reality with set principles pertaining to it.

From the standpoint of the competition and more reasonableness (the criteria for evaluation) there are several problems with your position that need to be addressed:

1. Based on the apparent comparative, incomplete nature of human consciousness (or human perspective), it follows that something from something else ad infinitum is more reasonable than something from nothing (e.g. thing-in-itself or eternal Reality). This position is built around the premise that we cannot (more reasonably) get outside of our minds and know that we are (viz., mind in box); so all we can know is what we know. If you disagree with this position on the apparent nature of human consciousness, then we would like you to give us more reasonable evidence of the non-comparative, eternally complete nature of human consciousness. (Note, your position on two drivers having “complete knowledge of the significance of the green light” ignores the subtlety of your claim like when the green light or two drivers are scrutinized in terms of their meaning one faces infinite regress. If you turn back to your eternal Reality and its absolute principles as an explanation for complete knowledge, then you face again the issue of more reasonably proving eternal Reality from our apparently comparative, incomplete perspective.)

2. Your position overall is similar to Schopenhauer (referenced in Entry 317) who contends that there is a thing-in-itself called Will, and everything else including individual wills are dimensionally part of it. The significant problem with his position, which Schopenhauer acknowledges, and with your own position, is that “being-known of itself contradicts being-in-itself". His answer similar to your own is pure objective knowledge or in your case, absolute principles. Yet everything is in dimensional oneness; so there is no distinction between pure and impure, absolute and non-absolute. (You acknowledge this point in your Entry 455, in which you say “there are no dichotomies”.)

3. Our discovery of innate (absolute) principles through examination of sensory information of the external world does not make sense because the principles are not in the external world (or as you say, “nothing enters our minds—we already know!”) Also, it is unclear to us how examination based on sensory information, thereby an indirect relation with the external world, can be equated to complete knowledge (or principles). Your answer is likely that there is an eternal Reality comprised of everything. Yet your answer takes us again to the main issue with your position: more reasonably proving so-called eternal Reality in consideration of the apparent comparative, incomplete nature of human consciousness, dealing with Schopenhauer’s acknowledgement that the “being-known of itself contradicts being-in-itself”, and the inconsistency from dichotomies like absolute principles and non-absolute principles. (Note, if your notion of eternal Reality is less reasonable, then the rest of your position succumbs to less reasonableness as well. Viz., eternal Reality similar to the Will as a thing-in-itself, is your ground for complete knowledge.)

Supplementary comments:

Another issue you face is (more reasonably) determining where our so-called innate, absolute principles come from in the first human being. We raise this issue in the context of you saying “nothing enters our minds—we already know!” Though this question is likely irrelevant to you because according to your position there is no first human being(s); there is simply the eternal, all-encompassing oneness of Reality.

Please note, we are not questioning the possibility of your position, but looking at it strictly in terms of its more or less reasonableness in relation to Challenge Proposition 1 which partly entails nine main supporting arguments (arguments).

470. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 464

“In your response, you mention ‘all we can know is reflective consciousness’. I argue that we cannot know everything that lies within consciousness, because reflective consciousness is already beyond knowledge. Reflective consciousness is already a step beyond knowledge, where all knowledge is united into ‘being’. Knowledge is concerned with dualizing being into what it is supposed to be and what it is supposed not to be, in a dualistic logic. Reflective consciousness does not work by partitioning its reality between what is real and what is not real; it is pure ‘being’ without any added judgment on top of it. Knowledge on the other hand is about limiting things as they are by attributing to them truth values, labels, levels of reality,...that actually have no reason to exist except for the mind that divides everything according to the logic it relies upon.

What I wanted to point at in entry 464 is that knowledge is a particularization of being, in that reflective consciousness might merge with the mind that limits consciousness to a particular reality that can be expressed according to the expressive power of the logic relied upon by the mind. Take for example someone, let us call him X, who looks at some object. At the time X is looking at the object without thinking about anything (what people call contemplation), X might be conscious he's looking at the object. This self-consciousness is without knowledge, in that X does not think at the object as being different from him, nor at himself being an distinct entity from the object. X at this time has no knowledge of any sort, but is pure being and self-conscious. There is no knowledge at this point, because the consciousness of X has not differentiated between some subject X and some object looked at.

Now X, as most humans beings do, begins to wonder about the object he sees. X's consciousness has now become what we usually call the mind, this supposed ‘entity’ that is the thinker. X is not self-conscious of the scene of himself looking at the object, since his consciousness has taken the form of the mind that works on knowledge. The mind is nothing else than the limiting of consciousness on particular mental constructs. It is a particularization of ‘being’ that happens on what is often called the "mental plane".

In that sense, self-consciousness is a form of knowledge, but not limited to the axioms of the mental plane. When knowledge is taken as ‘conscious meaning in the form of symbols’, claim 1 is a truism since symbols call for a formalism that will limit knowledge to refer to particularization of consciousness, hence not who we really are.

If on the other hand, knowledge is not restricted to have any form (symbolic or other), then claim 1 can be overcome by realizing that self-consciousness is just a more general form of what we see as knowledge, but it is ‘undivided knowledge’, where the absence of form of this knowledge allows for both subject and object to coexist without requiring for differences to be made between them (as in the symbolic form of knowledge).

In Entry 464, I did not state that space and time have existence outside consciousness, in the sense that space and time are part of the flow of consciousness. In interpretation 2 of Entry 464, I should have expressed things in the following way ‘a space and time frame has reality within consciousness’. It's our viewpoint imposing the existence of some space and time flow outside our consciousness that fools us and makes us believe that we are entities disconnected from the external world and who have a life that spans an objective time period. Every time any human being stops thinking and contemplates with his consciousness, time and space do not exist anymore. When you wake up after having a dream, you do not know how much time has elapsed in your dream or how much space you traveled in this dream, while you were conscious when dreaming your dream (unless you state that you may recall a dream you did not consciously dream). The question of the flow of our consciousness cannot be tackled by logical arguments because arguments do not take place on the same level of reality as consciousness. It is as utterly non-sense as trying to prove a theorem about the truth-value of the axioms used to derive the theorem. Consciousness is an axiom for the human being, assessing its objective truth (or reality) is impossible because consciousness is the very support of our existence. At best, the only thing you may obtain from trying to prove a claim about consciousness is a contradiction due to inconsistency of the formalism used or a truism if the logic used does not contradict the existence of consciousness. All proofs and propositions about consciousness are devoid of meaning. Consciousness is self-sufficient, but this is the realm of mysticism, not philosophy. Philosophy will ever be bound to logic and knowledge expressed in formalisms, hence will never have access to the reality of consciousness.

In summary, claim 1 can be overcome when the definition of knowledge is not limited to some form, but cannot otherwise.”

Steve Uhlig March 13 2004

Response:

We are not opposed to accepting your notion of “undivided”, “general form”[?] knowledge. However, we require further explanation by you to establish its more or less reasonableness.

To facilitate that explanation, consider the following comments and questions:

Since we apparently cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are, so all we know is what we know, how do you know we can know without symbols or forms? (We assume that undivided knowledge or the coexistence of subject and object are theoretically devoid of symbols or forms.)

Your example of knowledge without symbols or forms (i.e. “At the time X is looking at the object without thinking about anything (what people call contemplation), X might be conscious he's looking at the object.”) is an explanation with symbols or forms like “X” and “object”; so through this example you are assuming knowledge without symbols or forms through knowledge with symbols or forms. Also, if X is conscious he's looking at the object, it is unclear how he can know he is conscious he's looking at the object without knowledge with symbols and forms. And if he is not conscious, then he has no knowledge of himself looking at the object.

What grounds do you have to make the claim of knowledge without symbols or forms?

How can we more reasonably have knowledge without symbols or forms, and know that we have?

If you claim that self-consciousness is comprised of a “general form”, then how is that knowledge fundamentally different from knowledge with symbols or forms?

If you think general form knowledge is fundamentally different from knowledge with symbols or forms, then how can you more reasonably know general form knowledge without assuming what you do not know?

How does “mysticism” bridge the gap between your claim and assumption, and between your assumption and what you do not know?

471. Entry:

Reply to the response to Comment 20

“One arrives at where they are by correctly defining ‘what is’, by using Universal basic principles (the definition of principles has already been referred to, and examples provided) e.g., Communication.

Pure basic principles have no dichotomous divisions, they are what they are, and they are eternal, indisputable. All human disciplines are necessarily based on same principles.

Lost Shadows is my commentary on the comparative nature of human consciousness, its belief systems, and the inevitable outcomes.

To escape (to use your term) from that circumstance implies that there is somewhere else to go, somewhere else to be, and to be someone else. Until it is realized, and established that we have already arrived, and that this is all there is, then any speculation concerning the existence of Reality, or ‘who we are’, is useless.

We cannot understand Reality, or ourselves, by attempting to escape from it, or ourselves. That there is a consciousness at all to ‘escape’ from I have already put that in question, indeed if there were individual consciousness that was ‘different’, there never could be understanding, or agreement.

For arguments sake the phrase ‘comparative human consciousness’ is an imaginary state of being, in which we think we deal with dichotomies as though they had substance. In truth the more strength we impose on that kind of thought, the more imaginary reality it gains, and to our detriment. The direct consequence of that is that we have a very distorted view of Reality, and who we are. The unhappy schizophrenic, through whatever circumstance, is sadly far removed from reality.

The nature of Pure Reality encapsulates Pure Knowledge, and direct experience of that provides the realization of ‘who we are’.

Dichotomies only exist in an imaginary field, and our focus of attention must be to establish what is real, which when established dispels the amorphous imagery that unfortunately holds more power over us than we are willing to admit. That which is real, that which supports, and sustains us, can only be based on principles that are fundamentally true.

The very presumption that there is something to escape from is a common underlying condition that confuses what Reality is, and therefore never able to address ‘what is’.

Consider any educational system based on a wrong premise, and its eventual outcome. Paradoxically in spite of ourselves, we have come a long way, despite going the wrong way, because the principles that are constantly there were not recognized.”

Bridie March 27 2004

Response:

It is one thing to merely assert that you have overcome “dichotomous divisions” (or the apparently comparative nature of human consciousness), and it is another thing to more reasonably demonstrate that you have. Competition 1 applies strictly to the latter task. To facilitate your more reasonable demonstration, we have the following requests:

1. Would you provide us with a more reasonable explanation of a pure, fundamentally true, complete (basic) principle, thereby a more reasonable explanation of a principle that is devoid of any division. (For your explanation to meet the standard of more reasonableness, it must be more sound and consistent than antagonistic positions.)

2. Would you provide us with a more reasonable explanation of a completely direct experience, which is devoid of any interactional element no matter how miniscule.

Note, if you cannot provide these more reasonable explanations, then your assertion of the existence of pure, fundamentally true, complete principles is less reasonable, and therefore falls short of overcoming Challenge Proposition 1.

472. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 467

“Competition spurs gathering of knowledge through the gaining of power. Competition as a form of ‘natural selection’ can create stagnation interdependent on an increasingly complex hierarchical structure. You begin with a simple life, like prokaryotic cells. These evolve thanks to the process of cell division and the limitedness of their time constraints. The basic prokaryotes cells then change/mutate in structure in function to be more competitive in their environment. Cells will eventually (helped/encouraged by their way of propagation) evolve into colonies. I would expect that the most simple to form initially, i.e. algae. Cells having DNA will help them to evolve while cooperating. Something must induce death for this to happen. Generally it is outside factors (in relation to both all levels from cell on up) but things like cancer and aging (mutations/deterioration/programmed cell death) are examples of more internal factors. Cells will eventually, through a long period of time, evolve into humans and the various other existing and possible outcomes of natural selection. The cells themselves will evolve in two ways, the first being in more complex forms of cooperation and the second being in their ability to function well as individuals in the individual environment. Evolution stems from the cell (its DNA). None of this takes into account the astral bodies and the nature of the universe very much. Much is known about stars. A white dwarf is a small star, extremely dense, composed almost entirely of hydrogen. Our sun slightly bigger than a white dwarf star, made up of more helium (6%) and about .13 other larger elements (mostly oxygen carbon and nitrogen in ours). A red giant is a much larger star which has lost a great enough portion of its hydrogen that its core becomes composed greatly of helium; this continues with the formation of carbon and other more complex molecules (only the most stable can survive in great enough quantities to get away from the sun). These reactions provide a lot of energy for the star, so the star starts expanding outwardly. Until a supernova explosion occurs. This is where the outer layers of a star are expelled outward but a core of super-hot material remains after the explosion (presumably due to the inward force exhibited by the explosion). A star (white dwarf is extreme case of this) is sort of like ‘super’ metal; the atoms have become crushed down until there is virtually no space between them, electrons are almost held in commune due to their closeness, and the lack of available ‘energy levels’. There is a lot of energy that is exerted due to the compression of protons and electrons. However there is a limit to how much density a white dwarf can have, expressed in relative mathematics it is 1.4 times the mass of our sun (_). Another strange thing about a white dwarf is the structure in comparison to that of our sun: a white dwarf has a layer of hydrogen and helium on the outside of a crystalline crust of oxygen and carbon. A white dwarf also exhibits the strange tendency of becoming smaller as it becomes more massive; until the atoms come to the point where they can no longer maintain their atomic structure. Than a black hole occurs. The cycle created: stable solar system to red giant, to supernova, to white dwarf, to nebula is broken off as the solar system creates too much; however this is just one way that the cycle which propagates our solar system, and at present our existence, can be disrupted on a cosmic level. This would be quasi-unimportant except for the scientific and metaphysical connection (both stemming from 'evolutionary knowledge'). At present I don’t have the degree or the knowledge of physics to prove these theories in the realm of physics (i.e. the realm of applied mathematics). However I can discuss the metaphysical connection. The world is composed of a balance between the extremes of infinite void ness and infinite expression (outward). This stability is the foundation for the quantum mechanics of our world. The dual infinite is not the only infinite however. The triple infinite is the next infinite to occur in both the evolutionary knowledge of man and the progression of time. Time shows the inherent positivity of our universe, time may be known as the creator expression of the ultimate reality. In math, two exists so must one, and two and one exist so must three. Void ness may be considered 0, time corresponds to 1, balance to 2, three is produced from the interaction of the two elements, and this may be observed through the basic spectrums of color. The human being has a connection to ultimate in his origin from the ultimate reality. This origin is reached through maintaining infinite void ness, and eventually reaching unity with the foundation of reality. The question might be asked: will maintaining infinite void ness create imbalance? I would say no, at least as long as one remains fully aware (connected) to their reality and does not try to progress too fast. Anyway, the abyss provides for our existence just as much as time does, and is not opposed to be opposed. There are other pitfalls along this path in disconnection with the current reality. Generally these are the tendency to get ‘tunnel vision’; self-interest in the form of false belief is the most dangerous of the pitfalls in the human condition. But what does all of this mean? I would say it means I know myself (maybe not fully without exempting the progression of time). We can argue about how I might not be able to be completely sure that I know a part of myself by not knowing the whole of myself, but I say that I know that I (in the present sense) don’t know that I don’t know; in fact I cant know that I don’t know unless I move from the true (in regards to the nature of time). Thus not knowing provides for knowing. How can one go wrong in a universe without expressed duality (thanks to the nature of the supreme)?”

Samuel Claude Sutton April 10 2004

Supplementary comment:

“I discourse on the nature of the ultimate reality and than you act like it is not connected to my conclusion. This is false; one cannot prove scientifically that religion is false. Let me tell you a story about math. The first number is 0; the second is 1. Today if you draw a line between one and zero you get ½ in the middle. This is false; this is the beginning of irrational numbers. However cynicism (use of 1 and 2 to figure out 1 and 0) does have value in identifying 1, which is linked to 0 for as far as a dualistic entity can see. However for religion to be religion, and the supreme to be supreme cynicism must be like a flower, and like a flower without pollination cynicism should not produce seed, lest it become a weed and need to be plucked. Flowers however don’t contain any irrational numbers per say (unless you are addicted to addition), so no sorry is needed for them (meaning objective evil does not exist). Maybe the darkness is trying to lure us in, maybe the same man’s own paranoid is the darkness trying to do it?”

Response:

In terms of Competition 1 and the requirement of more reasonably demonstrating complete knowledge (of who we are), it is unclear to us how you can more reasonably defend the notions of “infinite void ness” and “infinite expression”, when the conception of infinity (i.e. a state of no beginning or end) is more reasonably beyond our complete comprehension. Moreover, to more reasonably establish complete comprehension of infinity contradicts the notion of infinity itself in which no state of completion is attainable including the state of no completion. Hence, we see no way forward for your position as long as you are using the conception of infinity (or similar conception).

Note, we agree with your contention that due to its metaphysicality, religion is not completely disprovable, but by the same argument, religion is not completely provable either. However, in terms of Competition 1, the mere possibility of something does not more reasonably demonstrate its completeness.

473. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 471

‘1. Would you provide us with a more reasonable explanation of a pure, fundamentally true, complete (basic) principle, thereby a more reasonable explanation of a principle that is devoid of any division. (For your explanation to meet the standard of more reasonableness, it must be more sound and consistent than antagonistic positions.)’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 471)

“Answer to question 1:

All principles are pure, and fundamentally true; it is the human condition that holds erroneous beliefs that there are dichotomies, and that principles can be divided into something they are not. The Truth is the truth is the truth – indivisible.
The consistent liar is exhibiting his measure of ability to distort the truth, but always initially he must deal with Truth to distort it, and in this case that is the measure of Truth that we have. Lies do not persist –Truth is the only constant.
All principles exist intact, without their pervading influence we could not exist, nor do we have the ability to negate, or delete them.
Sustenance is a principle that ensures that we have enough food, water, and air to survive, despite our best efforts to destroy this planets ability to sustain us.
Starvation is a measure of how well we provide sustenance for others; it is our obligation to ensure that the principle is evenly shared. The man, woman, or child who is starving to death is sustained to some degree, and the remaining hope we have to ensure that we provide the right measure of sustenance to rehabilitate them. Starvation, and death from it, is the result of the human condition, and our collective inability to recognize that the principle of sustenance is there, and must be for all.

Throughout each human life, no matter what level you find us, we are endowed with innate principles that make up the human condition, and it is the human obligation to realize their potential.
Every newborn child (ad infinitum) is born with Strength, Health, and Intelligence to some degree, and in the right conditions these principles exist, and grow, but always they exist, whatever interventions may take place.
Stupidity is a measure of Intelligence, not a Reality in its own right.
Weakness is a measure of Strength, not a Reality in its own right.
Sickness is a measure of Health, not a Reality in its own right.
If a doctor could deal only with sickness, no ones health would ever improve. Stupidity, weakness, and sickness are given credence through (and I repeat), that we think we deal with dichotomies as though they had substance. The more strength we impose on that kind of thought, the more imaginary reality it gains. We experience the reality of principles at every moment in time; it is our present inability to recognize them because of the distortion brought about by dichotomous thought processes.
Archimedes moment of recognition of the mathematics involved in the displacement of water in his bath was recognition of a principle that has existed forever. It is only seeing the Truth for what it is. We cannot eliminate, or delete these principles no matter how much imaginary thought we impose on them. We suffer to a large degree from ‘presumed knowledge’ on almost any issue, and it can have very serious outcomes. Knowing that principles exist is a prerequisite to human development.

‘2. Would you provide us with a more reasonable explanation of a completely direct experience, which is devoid of any interactional element no matter how miniscule.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 471)

Answer to question 2:

Presuming that I have understood question 2, the answer to it is an emphatic no!
There is no such thing as a completely direct experience devoid of any interactional material. It is only in interaction with a principle that we can have direct experience with anything (e.g., an Archimedes).
Do you presume that realizing the principle of leverage, or the mathematics involved in water displacement could be formulated without interactional material?
Anything else is delusional, or based on ‘presumed knowledge’.
In posing this question it appears as though you have construed basic principles as singular separate entities, when their very function, and availability, is based on pure interaction, and can only become the available reality they are through reciprocal recognition. We are endowed from birth with the innate knowledge of their reality, and when that knowledge surfaces to meet its equivalent, we are indeed fortunate.
A beautiful sunset horizon can only be ‘beautiful’ because of this circumstance. Without the possibility, and availability of pure interaction, we are the living dead.
We are interdependent. We are dependent on everything there is, and everything there is, is dependent on us. Pure fundamentally true principles are Universal, they do not exist in, and of themselves, but only through interaction with us, and everything that is – they are as dependent on us, as we are dependent on them. Through direct relationship with them we can bring them to life, which in turn immeasurably leads to our growth.
Human development can only be attained when we realize our dependence on ‘what is’.

The inevitable difficulty you face within the question of ‘who we are’, is that the mythical ‘I am’ is first addressed, making the question just as superficial.”

Bridie April 12 2004

Response:

What you appear to be saying is that there are absolute principles (or what you call “pure, fundamentally true principles”) which are interconnectedly and innately part of everything else, and that if we empirically observe the manifestation of these principles, we will uncover what we innately know by making an exact connection between the empirical observation(s) and our now surfaced innate knowledge.

If this basic summary of your position is correct, you are then you are saying there is a supreme oneness or being (i.e. thing-in-itself) behind all things, so that everything is dimensionally part of it. This position is similar to Arthur Schopenhauer (German philosopher), in which he says there is a supreme “Will”, and all other things including individual wills and pure, objective principles are dimensionally part of it. (Entry 317) The problem with Schopenhauer’s position and your own is that it is inconsistent for a being-in-itself to also be a being known of itself. Also, from our apparently comparative and incomplete human perspectives, and in terms of ontology, something from something else ad infinitum is more reasonable than something from nothing (i.e. thing-in-itself). Viz., a position of comparison (our human perspective) is inconsistent with no comparison (thing-in-itself). Note, this position stems from the premise that we cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are (i.e. mind in box).

If you agree that there is no thing-in-itself behind or as existence, then we would like to know what is the more reasonable ground(s) for your claim of “pure, fundamentally true principles”? (Note, empiricism itself, which is based on a relationship between the observer and observed, is not a ground for completion (or purity or truth). Further, your contention that “I am” is “mythical” means that “we are” is mythical as well, and that everything we know including your own position on pure principles necessarily has conscious identity part of its meaning, and therefore everything we know is mythical. (Apparently, we cannot know anything without our perspective and thereby our identity being intertwined in the meaning of what we know.)

The challenge you face is take your position ontologically and epistemologically further, and perhaps acknowledge that it does not satisfy the criteria of more reasonableness.

474. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 372

“A black hole is a state of undifferentiation. Void is a state of undifferentiation which can be said to be infinite by virtue of one's inability to catch it. Positivity may be considered to be infinite by its mutual support of voidness. From your limited perspective, what makes you think infinity is beyond my comprehension, or yours? What makes you think you do not know infinity? In a state of not knowing, if one transcends (encompasses) time (positivity) one may experience ‘not knowing’ infinitely. This will alternate to its opposite, and eventually back to itself. If you blend the two completely infinite harmony (having both characteristics of positivity and negativity simultaneously it is both void and full) is created and things will flourish. This is the condition of our universe.”

Samuel Claude Sutton April 17 2004

Response:

The issue of your entry in terms of Competition 1, is not whether or not infinity can more reasonably be comprehended from our limited perspective. Rather, the issue is whether or not infinity can be more reasonably completely comprehended from our limited perspective. The onus is on you to address this issue since it is you who is making the claim that infinity (i.e. “infinite harmony”) is a “condition” of the universe and who we are.

Entries 465-468 Entries 475-478