“First, by necessity, this ‘contest’ is flawed because the final arbiter of that which is ‘more reasonable’, is human and biased human at that. In addition, it is difficult to say one assertion is more reasonable than another. It would make considerably more sense to refer to something as simply being reasonable or not reasonable as opposed to adding unnecessary ambiguity with the modifier ‘more.’ That being said below I will offer an argument to combat the confused statement above. It is assumed that man exists (although this itself could be contested (see Unger or Russell)). Man exists in some environment, whether it be external or not is not of interest to this particular question. In this environment, man senses his environment through stimuli of various origins. This act of sensation is central to the argument at hand. Man knows himself through his interactions with his environment; through his works man can know himself. Sensation is the process by which man observes and enables himself to respond to his environment. Sensation is an interpretation of the ‘world’ around man and thus man uses his brain to define his environment before he reacts to it. Further, man uses inherent perceptual rules to define his environment; so in essence, man reacts to his own created environment. The rules by which this environment is created are inherently what man is, thus the process of sensation is reflexive: man is actually just perceiving himself manifested as the environment. Thus, man at every moment in time, knows himself through his created environment, which is really just the self manifested into a construct (the environment), and truly knows himself for there is no manner in which the rules by which the self is manifested as the environment could not be that same self. The temporal consideration is null because it is a constant manifestation of the self as much as consciousness is, so there is no lag in perception. The rules are not a conscious invention and thus are not subject to the problems of conscious knowledge. Further, it is not reasonable to think that to know ourselves we must get outside of ourselves. The whole concept is ridiculous in its very nature. It is also not reasonable to think that we do not know ourselves, especially since we are that same being. And to then assume that we cannot be and know ourselves at the same time is to completely abandon reason altogether. Thus, it is reasonable that man knows himself and is that same being simultaneously.”

Publius June 18 2004

Response:

The problem with your position on sensation is that you assert incorrectly that a holistic relationship exists between man himself and the environment he constructs. (Note, if there were a holistic relationship your position would stand.) However, clearly man does not construct the entire external environment, so that the connection between what he constructs, who he is, and what he knows about himself is not whole, and therefore it is less reasonable to assert that man truly (i.e. completely) knows himself through his external constructs.

Other issues:

Your criticism that the methodology of more reasonableness is “flawed” because the final arbiter is a (biased) human being, is cancelled out by the dependency of all other methodologies and systems on a human being as a final arbiter. Viz., apparently there is no perfect (or complete) methodology or system.

Moreover, your assertion that more or less reasonableness is “difficult” to establish is nothing more than an assertion. From our standpoint, the determination of more reasonableness is straight forward (i.e. an evaluation of opposing positions based on their comparative soundness and consistency), as illustrated (above) by the less reasonableness of a holistic relationship between man and his external constructs in comparison to an incomplete relationship between man and his external constructs.

Also, the problem with the conception of reasonableness and not reasonableness, as a basis for decision-making, is that from a theoretical standpoint which entails the apparent incompleteness of human thought, all human thought is reasonable (i.e. possible), and therefore it does not make sense to distinguish reasonable (i.e. practical) from not reasonable (i.e. impractical), except in a very general context. However, Competition 1 is not about a general, casual discussion, but a specific, theoretical discussion. So in our view, the conception of more reasonableness, which views all human thought on a universal plane of reasonableness (i.e. possibility) and entails an evaluation of reasons based on their comparative soundness and consistency, makes more sense than simply the conception of reasonableness.

490. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 486

“So it seems the initial statement is completely off the track: not only is one always oneself, although 'I' is dynamic/ influx, but according to your response one cannot know oneself. One can only interpret data through neurons, intellect etc. This position begs the question: If 'I' am not capable of knowing, is there a knowing separate from 'I'? The answer I suspect is that one cannot depend on theories based on hypothetical 'I's, and conclusions which issue from the meanderings of thought cannot be considered knowing.”

MacRae Smith Douglas June 21 2004

Response:

The notion of interpretation through interaction, whether at the sensory or conscious levels, does not mean we cannot know. It means that we cannot completely know, because completeness is inconsistent with interpretation, and thereby representation.

The contention that there is a (conscious or reflective) knowing separate from “I” or “we” or any other identity, does not make sense because conscious knowing necessarily entails conscious awareness, otherwise there is no knowing from our perspective, and to be consciously aware by definition entails knowledge of our identity.

491. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 488

“Reasonableness either more or less is reckoned by whom and how is it to be judged to be more or less? Such notions are only in the minds of the adults that too, only when they are in wakeful state. In a day of 24hrs, assuming one third going towards mundane activities and pursuit of pleasure and entertainment and one third spent in deep/dream sleep, oblivious of the world and its problems or in an unreal world of dream characters and events, leaves only one third (8hrs) for such reckoning as you propose. 8hrs out of 24 hrs is NOT more reasonable by any standard. On the other hand, the childhood state moves between the real and unreal domains as if separated only by a thin layer. Hence the fantasy, fables, etc. The underlying innocence and lovability of childhood is perhaps owing to this factor only when the awareness is close to the zero state though the child may be ignorant and this quality seems to get corroded in adulthood due to activities of mind either body-oriented or mind-oriented always causing pollution, chaos, noise, heat, etc. We see clearly the pairs of opposites all around us like beauty-ugly, good-bad, right-wrong, plus-minus, etc. and even matter-antimatter or parallel universe, etc. They are all possibilities. We may infer from the foregoing that everything is not real as presumed by you since even adults sleep or dream and remain in unreal domains and children remind us of movement between the two domains and any creation by the mind instantly creates the opposite also which is inherent and inevitable. Even by the rule of the majority, the contention that all is real may have to be reviewed in the light of above considerations. Constant awareness while getting up from a slumber or coming out of meditation does give glimpses of such a state when the chattering of the mind stops completely. Such fleeting moments of silence without the chattering of the mind exists even now for everyone, between thoughts, but only we do not register it owing to lack of awareness.”

R. Rangan June 24 2004

Response:

Your notions of childhood state, post slumber or meditation, and adult dream state all stem from our consciousness, and therefore, they are all fundamentally defined by the nature of your consciousness (or anyone else’s consciousness).

Consciousness is more reasonably defined from our perspective and in terms of the thoughts that appear on it as comparative and incomplete. In other words, human consciousness is defined by the possibility of the thoughts that appear on it.

Hence, your assertion for instance that the childhood state is real and the adult dream state is unreal, is less reasonable because both of these states are possible. What you could say, if more reasonably established, is that the childhood state is more real than the adult dream state. Viz., the dichotomy of real and unreal (or good and evil, true and false etc.) though possible is inconsistent with the apparent comparative and incomplete nature of human consciousness, in which everything we know, no matter how sound or absurd, is possible, and therefore, at a fundamental level is defined by real or what is.

492. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 489

“First, I'll speak to the section "Other issues" because this is the most glaring of the mistakes that I see. My comments as to the committee's inadequacy in regards to actually judging this competition are based in bias and perspective. As far as bias goes, there can be no argument that "the committee" can put forth to claim that they are unbiased. Human beings, especially in this situation, are inherently biased. Secondly, you cannot be the final arbiter of human reason because you do not represent all human beings and thus cannot accurately speak to the whole of human reason. This is the issue of perspective. It is a ridiculous claim to assume that you can judge without bias and judge the reason used in these arguments with any kind of authority. This of course differs from dialogue, where responsibility is spread to both parties. Thus the committee cannot attest to that which is reasonable as a final arbiter, because the committee has limited perspective. That being said, this is a minor point simply provided to demonstrate the ludicrous nature of this contest. However, I do find the discussion worthwhile, thus my participation.

As for the actual claim, the committee attacked my argument through stating that human beings do not construct the whole of the external environment. In order for that objection to hold, the committee must demonstrate, through example, an environmental factor that man does not construct. I would ask the committee which part or entity of this environment they would point out as not constructed by man. I anxiously await this example, for I can find none. The reason for this is that no part of the environment is not constructed by man, because it is necessarily made by man.”

Supplementary information as requested by the Inexpressible Committee

“Although I have a great deal of difficulty defining environment, for the interest of practicality, I will define environment as the framework within which human beings operate, without regard to whether it is a concrete or an abstract framework.”

Michael Jensen McDuffie June 25 2004

Response:

We agree that the Committee’s evaluations are (at least theoretically) biased, but the same can be said for the evaluations of any other organization or individual. So the criticism is cancelled out and even self-defeated because your view that the Committee is biased, is biased.

Moreover, we agree that the Committee is not the “final arbiter” for humanity of what is more reasonable. But there is no claim on our part that it is. As mentioned by Sam Nico in Entry 270, there is no final resolution to Competition 1; rather, “there is a constant criticism of Proposition 1 which is then spurred to presenting itself in other ways to incorporate the criticisms”. Hence, the notion of final arbiter is not even applicable to Competition 1.

Regarding your claim that humanity constructs in entirety its environment and therefore knows itself through that construction, it does not follow that the construction or “framework within which human beings operate” is absolute or all-inclusive, and therefore it follows that humanity cannot completely know itself through its constructions or operational framework. (If you claim that the construction or framework is complete, then we would like you to more reasonably explain how humanity itself constructs, for example, the Earth’s atmosphere or inner core, or simply a spruce tree, or how the construction or framework is a thing-in-itself.)

493. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 482

“Consider that the language structure, concepts and definitions now in use no longer always deliver, accurate, reasonable, and responsible information. Indeed at times they can be quite ambiguous.
The statement ‘mutual agreement’, and its physical manifestation in whatever form, is its own dialectic, and will carry within it all other principles necessary for the activity to proceed. Given the Socratic assertion that if something is true then it cannot lead to false consequences no matter how circular any argument may be. Then to extrapolate the statement into extended definitions must only lead to a better understanding of the inherent truths available. This can promote recognition of the underlying essence of all things, which can become more real than our conventional understanding of Reality. There is a contemporary need to find new definitions, new paradigms to explore the concepts that govern our existence.
Where a circular argument is based on an untruth, then it cannot lead to a truth. The reverse of that is that when truth is established, it cannot be denied.

Could any reasonable person deny that ‘mutual agreement’ exists?
Establishing ‘mutual agreement’ as a center from which we can reach out for extended knowledge in its ever-evolving radius, is not a limitation, or a stop, it is only a beginning!
When any concept is truly established the superficial exemplification ceases to dominate, and we can truly experience the apparent essence of ‘what is’.
Paradoxically to resource innate knowledge we must recognize our profound ignorance of Nature, and Reality.
Completeness does not lie in individuality. This is an extreme form of monistic expectation. There can be no individuality (or completeness) unless there is one other individual. This is the true foundation of completeness.
Whenever we are privileged to experience that instantaneous essence of one other, then we know in that moment that we experience ourselves. It is complete complementation with the knowledge paradoxically that it is an endless process. There are many paradoxes we live within that strain our conventional views of what is ‘more reasonable’. You argue that there can be no completeness in relationship. Any true relationship experience is not based on a causality premise, but on an experience that is necessarily complementation.
Individuality in terms of completeness is a fundamental circular argument back to one, which in its form of denial excludes any form of reasonable argument to the contrary. It is a non sequitur, which denies the pressure of facts that are in abundance, despite the evidence of their reality
. To observe ‘mutual agreement’ is looking at things as they are.
True observation of ‘mutual agreement’ in action is observing essence transparency – it is knowing ‘who we are’. That form of recognition is essence duplication.
The proposition that we can observe the Truth may well be the highest attainment of Realities properties, for Truth is knowledge.

Consider please the hypothesis of a human entity (an individual) being born in a black space with no other form of life in that environment. My questions are:
How could there be Agreement?
How could there be Intelligence?
How could there be Understanding?
How could there be Recognition?
How could there be Love?
How could there be Law?
How could there be Reason?
All of the above principles are the transparent manifestation of Nature and Realities properties that are constantly evolving. They are ethical imperatives, and we have developed the positive properties of language to establish them for our use.
We can only be defined through relationship principles for they offer us the best hope to recognize the factors that lead to complementation.
There is a fundamental need to grasp simple common-sense (a sense of what is common) essentials.

The Here and Now is not a temporary transitional time phase that we move in and out of. It is a constant certainty that is essential to recognize, so that our focus of attention has a foundation.
Centrism can imply a fixation, which also implies vulnerability, which can be perfectly true if it does not lead to extension.

To understand who we are, it is essential that we recognize and become aware of the very principles that we operate from. They encapsulate all the measure of any human societies ethics, morals, and laws, which is a continuous evolutionary educational process within which the realization of its total essence is always available.
To use the doctrine that reason is a reliable tool to discover Truth – therefore ‘mutual agreement’ in the context of the traffic analogy is ‘correct information’ which translates to the Truth, which translates in a circular way back to reason!

Evolution is a constant dynamic process.

The human phenomena ‘who we are’ is only understood in our union with each other, and ‘what is’. The paradox again is that there never is any separation. Separation is a mythical non-existent.
The principles that are our necessities have continuous expansion properties that as humans we are privileged to assist their propagation.
The human constellation in its evolutionary march must use these fundamental principles to ensure continuity.
To maintain coherence and consistency our source is centered in the principles and factors that we have interpreted from our association with Nature, and Reality.

Whatever I write that is of any consequence in this debate, or at any other time, is written with the hope that stronger interpreters than me overtake what I present. To ‘see’ Reality as I have seen, and be intoxicated by it, as I have been, will ensure its progression.”

Bridie June 28 2004

Response:

You ask, “Could any reasonable person deny that ‘mutual agreement’ exists?”

We say no.

However, the more accurate question in terms of your entry and Competition 1 is, ‘Could any reasonable person more reasonably deny that mutual agreement completely exists?’

We say yes.

Based on our apparent inability to get outside of our minds and from this premise the apparent comparative and incomplete nature of what we know, it follows that completion is more reasonably beyond our conscious grasp.

Moreover, the nature of your so-called principles of “Nature and Reality” like mutual agreement are defined by you as “relationship principles”, “common-sense essentials”, and “correct information”; so even though you refer to these principles as “Truth” based on “complete complementation”, you are not equating them with completion. (Viz., the notion of relationship is inconsistent with the notion of completion.)

Further, through your assertion that “correct information which translates to the Truth, which translates in a circular way back to reason”, you explicitly concede the circularity and thereby incompleteness of what we know including your position.

So your incomplete position is consistent with Proposition 1.

Other issue:

You claim that what we know is defined by relationship, and yet you then paradoxically say “there never is any separation” (viz., “separation is a mythical non-existent”). Since relationship defines what you know including your view on non-separation, we must conclude that your view on separation is in fact mythical (in the sense of being more reasonably beyond our conscious grasp).

Entries 484-488 Entries 494-497