Reply to the response to Entry 423

“'We cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time.' At the proposition’s core lies the statement, 'We cannot know who we are'. For reasons you have never been able to clarify to me, you have chosen to cloud this core with many other words, that on the surface may seem to specify, but in actuality merely distract from what’s really the statement the proposition makes: 'We cannot know who we are'. To be even more precise, the core actually is contained within the single word 'Who'. To know 'Who' (I am): Either presupposes exhaustive knowledge of everything, each particle, force, psychological-, emotional-, social-, political-, cultural-, historical contextual facet etcetera, that is theoretically and practically possible within the confines of this human universe and if you will, beyond. I cannot know all that, but that is a mere existential truism. Of course we cannot know all that, why even propose that as something to be challenged at all? Or, however, this 'Who' refers to how a human being defines him/herself in a more naïve-realistic way. 'Who' then refers to what he thinks he is, feels he is, knows he is, aspires to be... Now, if this is the 'Who' that’s being referred to, then there is only one conceivable judge to value the proposition: The reader of the proposition. All he has to do to overcome the proposition here, is to say: 'The proposition is overcome, I know who I am and I’m sure as hell 'being' at the same time!' Exit proposition. But, according to you, there is a third way of conceiving 'Who' in the proposition and that is 'The most reasonable way'. The way where all of us, as a community, define all the proposition’s constituent words as well as its whole, most reasonably of course, before deciding that, most reasonably, the proposition cannot be overcome. In my view, this would be a democratic resolution of a philosophical issue. In reality this is in fact what most often happens, and may even be understandable from a co-existential standpoint, but that doesn’t make it philosophically valid. But let’s be most reasonable: There happens to be a fourth way here. Your way. Your supreme reason. Your reasons. Which you cannot truly escape, in part or in whole and be awake at the same time. For that you would have to be either unconscious or dead. You have every right to this way, as I have to mine, but I don’t think its authority extends beyond the confines of our own beings. If you believe that a concept called 'more reasonableness' can bridge the gap in any way, you’re free to believe that. I however don’t. Every conceivable weakness within the formulation of the proposition can safely hide behind it, as in: 'Yes, but come on, be reasonable now…' Thus winning the discussion not on grounds of content, but on grounds of being a caste of high priests who get to wield the 'reasonable' word over all that is said. Objective reason is the very thing we don’t have access to. Precisely for that reason, I feel we are not in a position to use reason in ways that make it appear as if we were actually capable of using it as a tool for judgment. What I can believe in, is the mutual influence all people have on one another. Although there may be six billion ways of making this mutual influence more reasonable, I’m sure these ways are as unreasonable as they are reasonable. And in turn, so is your proposition, although the abovementioned fact of mutual influence may in fact lead to your point of view being declared 'the winner'. In the past I have claimed to overcome the proposition on the basis of a stalemate, which I now believe to be slightly inaccurate. It is better to say it is on the grounds of perpetual check. In the end you will have no grounds to refute my position, for just like mine, your position lacks a foundation in absolute reason. Both of us admit to this, which leaves you only one last option: Ignore me (put me in jail, get more votes), or accept my existence as a being who does not agree with your ideas (a being that thinks differently about a thing that has no final resolution).”

Raoul Starren June 10 2004

Response:

Your attack on Proposition 1 is problematic on two levels, and due to these problems, unless more reasonably shown otherwise, you do not overcome Proposition 1 as you contend.

The first problem with your position is that you incorrectly claim that Proposition 1 amounts to “we cannot know who we are” or simply “who” (i.e. “to know who”). Your oversimplification of the proposition ignores that it refers to specifically to complete knowledge, whether in part or in whole, and is proposed within the bounds of more reasonableness. Moreover, the proposition also refers specifically to the apparent simultaneity problem between completely knowing and being. So your condensation of Proposition 1 distorts how it is actually defined within Competition 1. (Though we concede that your intention may simply be to demonstrate that there are different ways of interpreting the proposition outside of Competition 1.)

The second problem with your position is that you correctly, and consistently with Proposition 1, claim that there is apparently no complete objective reason and no final resolution to Competition 1. However, from this position of incompleteness, you incorrectly think you can challenge Proposition 1 by staying in the realm of possibility, and through staying in that realm “perpetually”, you incorrectly think you overcome the proposition from a “perpetual check”. The problem with this stance is that all you have demonstrated is the possibility of all human thought, instead of more reasonably refuting Proposition 1. Viz., the mere existence of possibility, within the bounds of Competition 1, does not overcome the proposition. So we challenge you to come out from the realm of possibility by attempting to overcome Proposition 1 by using more sound and consistent reasons.

(Note, the apparent non-existence of (complete) objective reason is consistent with establishing more sound and consistent reasons in terms of Competition 1.

Also, within the realm of possibility, you or anyone else are entitled to think and believe what you want, and even that you overcome Proposition 1 from staying perpetually in the realm of possibility. But within the realm of Competition 1, you or anyone else are required to accept (with or without agreement) how Proposition 1 has been defined.

Further, we emphasize that there is no goal of attaining a final resolution to Competition 1. Rather, there is a goal of attaining the more sound and consistent position within the limited time-frame of September 1, 2004 (and with a possible five year extension). Sam Nico from Entry 270 captures this distinction between complete and incomplete resolution when he writes, “the real solution is not so much a solution as a constant criticism of the position proposed here which is then spurred to presenting itself in other ways to incorporate the criticisms.” The corollary of Nico's observation within the limited time-frame is that if Proposition 1 cannot more reasonably incorporate more sound and consistent criticism, it will be overcome by the more sound and consistent criticism it cannot incorporate.)

485. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 477

“The following may be considered as my response to all your propositions and responses so far. Logic being a tool of the so-called mind we tend to take it for granted that the elusive entity called MIND has to be real indeed. This probably arises out of a subjective factor justifying the existence of MIND on the grounds of tangibility, processing capability, existence etc. with no one being unable to let it go. Consequently all our propositions and logical conclusions rejecting the possibilities on the grounds of being less reasonable are inevitable. What if the MIND, which has always remained so elusive, with no one ever being to pinpoint as to where it exists - in the cell, electron or the brain in the physiology of the body-mind apparatus, proves to be only virtual and unreal? All prophets and sages and saints from different parts of the globe at different points have ascertained that the MIND is UNREAL in time. Though it may be a common statement of only a few, who have managed to come as if out of a dream state wherein virtual mind has built an empire of everything out of nothing! Therefore, it is probably wrong to say that subjective factor is absent in our notions, faiths, beliefs, concepts, theories, monuments, flags, ideals etc. as everything stems from the initial error of taking it for granted that MIND is REAL out of subjective assertion. On the contrary, the sages & saints affirm that there is, has been and always will be ‘Nothing but ONE’ rather than saying something out of nothing as you conclude. When one awakens to the truth that MIND is unreal, everything known collapse simultaneously along with the notion of the mind, once and for all, while others still dreaming and thinking that appearances, disappearances and happenings taking place in the panorama as displayed by the mind, swear otherwise. Rule of the majority or more reasonableness or for that matter, good/bad, right/wrong etc. are for the unawakened only and comparative assessments by the mind simultaneously creates the opposites and all problems contain their own solution. For example, if the fundamental mechanism of cancer is understood, that IS the solution for combating cancer. At least memories of one's own childhood state of purity and innocence is significant because, at least, one may recall what it was like. A sage is like a child devoid of any kind of notion or desire to achieve anything as he/she has ended the dream with awareness of NOTHING BUT ONE, forever! Any utterances made by such entities through a single body-mind apparatus does NOT mean they are limited by barriers imposed by the mind. Since if MIND turns out to be UNREAL as they proclaim, your logical conclusions must stay reversed and hence the validity of the existence of something called MIND may have to be thrashed out, first, by the academic pundits discussing such matters with the enlightened individuals like Stephen Jourdain and why not? We are lucky to have such a person living among us.”

R. Rangan June 13 2004

Response:

Your entry centers on the notion of “Truth” (i.e. complete knowledge). We would like a more reasonable explanation, without you repeating the arguments of your previous entries, of how you or anyone else (including sages and saints) can know it? (Note, we are not asking you to more reasonably establish the possibility of Truth, but to more reasonably establish Truth itself.)

486. Entry:

“If you find yourself indulging in such conceptual musings you are obviously going to tie yourself up in knots. Knowing yourself (and where you are) is not about theories and judgment, but about attention and acceptance.

As for being who you are, you are always who you are; you just might not be who you were or who you would like to be.”

Supplementary information as requested by the Inexpressible Committee:

“Attention and acceptance: Interest and observation uncluttered by 'knowledge' (knowledge: belief based on data from the past).”

MacRae Smith Douglas June 14 2004

Response:

Your notion of uncluttered observation (i.e. belief based on data from the present as opposed to the past) is problematic because based on our sensory interaction with the external (and internal) world, we more reasonably observe (or interpret) what has already occurred. Viz., based on our comparative perspective and the apparent interactive nature of existence, there is only observation based on past data.1 Or from another angle, there is apparently a temporal gap, no matter how minimal, between the object of observation and what is observed.2

__________________
1. Relevant argument from the supporting arguments of Proposition 1:

1. Representational knowledge
Conscious knowledge is apparently based on interaction at sensorial, biochemical, and neurological levels, or any other levels, and therefore we can only know via representation. (i.e. we do not know directly from the external world in a Aristotelian fashion, whereby external knowledge somehow enters directly into our minds. We know through representation based on interaction, whether it be the interaction of neuron cells or the interaction of sensory receptors with external stimulus. One way around this position is to assert that some conscious knowledge is created ex nihilo ("out of nothing"). However, the concept of ex nihilo is less reasonable from our comparative perspective than something coming from something else ad infinitum (infinite causality), because we can only know by imputing (infinite) causality onto things.

The representative nature of conscious knowledge is important, in the context of Competition 1, because it refutes the notion of true knowledge viz., representative knowledge cannot truly be what it represents, because then it would not be representational.

Also, Entry 325 (by Roger McEvilly) including the response deals with the apparent interactive nature of existence.

2. Relevant arguments from the supporting arguments of Proposition 1:

4. Temporal lag
Conscious knowledge is apparently defined by temporality, and therefore as soon as we think we know who we are, we cease to know who we are because what we know is past knowledge of who we are. (If we deny the notion of time, we also deny the notion of thought, which then self-defeats the denial of time.)

5. Comparative nature of reason (reliance on past knowledge)
Reason is apparently defined by comparison of conscious meaning, and therefore what we reason and thereby know is based on what we previously know, which means that we can only know in the context of past knowledge.

487. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 485

“All your propositions and logic stem from the single idea that mind has to be real and there can be no other way. How about questioning the validity of this starting point which seems to arise out of conviction due to a subjective factor for the majority of us? Though it appears to be more reasonable and tangible do we not reject the characters and events which happens in the dream, once we wake up? These are not questions which amount to being repetitive at all, as you claim. Rather these may be considered useful to draw our your attention to examine the starting point of your own notions, including your taking it for granted that something called MIND is a reality and not a dream. Can you not more reasonably prove that mind has to be real without any subjective element therein?”

R. Rangan June 15 2004

Response:

The necessary reality of the mind stems from the premise that we more reasonably cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are. (Viz., all we can know is what we know from within our minds.) For you to deny the reality of the mind (necessarily) through your own mind is self-contradictory/self-defeating.

Also, we should emphasize that our position on the mind is from the limits of what we know, and therefore there is a possibility we may be incorrect. (For example, it is possible that the mind is unreal as you propose.)

Further, we make no claim to objectivity of the mind except as mentioned within the limits of what we know via the methodology of more reasonableness.

If you still believe that the mind is more reasonably unreal, then in terms of Competition 1, the onus is on you to more reasonably explain how you know from your apparently unreal mind that the mind is unreal.

Also, we should add that if the mind is more reasonably unreal, it follows (since we more reasonably cannot get outside of our minds) that everything we know is unreal including our knowledge of who we are, and therefore Proposition 1 is not overcome. So based on this point, we see no way forward for your position.

488. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 487

“What you contend goes only to prove that the equations or conclusions will be the same if mind is Real as well as if it is Not Real. Does it not mean that one implies the other and the opposites always occur simultaneously in the domain of the mind which is always in the known? However, the same logic also implies that there ought to be a point of transition from the domain of the real to that of the unreal. Such a single point where all known dimensions cross from the real to the real, would be Neither Real Nor Unreal. And, such a single point where mind ceases to exist either as real or unreal is equivalent to a zero state or a stillness, where infinite possibilities exist as what 'is'. Such a state will always remain unknowable as all projections, conjectures, manipulations, extrapolations or assessment would be impossible from what is known. Consequently any attempt to describe it or hold it would be impossible. Nevertheless, one may only glimpse it firsthand, while consciously attempting to move from the real to the unreal as this single infinitesimal point lies between the two domains. Such a point (0,0,0,0….) at the origin is neither real nor unreal and can be in the domain of the unknown only.”

R. Rangan June 17 2004

Response:

Our contention that the so-called Real mind is more reasonable than the Unreal mind does not prove, as you contend, that “the equations or conclusions will be the same if the mind is Real as well as if it is Not Real.” Rather, our contention simply means that the Unreal cannot be more reasonably proven without self-contradiction/self-defeat.

Also, your proposed transition from the Real to the Unreal, does not make sense to us, because everything we know is more reasonably Real (within limits). So there is more reasonably no Unreal and thereby no transition to it.

If you retort that the Unreal does exist, then we respond that it only exists in the realm of possibility (and less reasonableness), and therefore, it is outside of the realm of more reasonableness.

Further, it should be noted that our position means that everything we know is Real (i.e. possible) including the Unreal (i.e. impossible), and yet in terms of more reasonableness, the Real is more reasonable than the Unreal. (The response to Entry 168 establishes from our limited perspective the precedence of possibility over impossibility. Viz., it makes sense that from our limited perspective that impossibility is possible, but it does not make sense that possibility is impossible.)

Entries 479-483 Entries 489-493