“Invalidating the Proposition

Without knowing who you are whilst being who you are, you cannot more reasonably know what it is you are proposing, because whatever you are proposing must be actuality of what you know, whether it is from the definition of limited perspective, or absolute truth. What you are proposing derives from you and your experiences, which is what consists of what is known to you of ‘who you are.’ The fact that you do not truly know who you are whilst being who you are, makes your proposition more reasonably an inaccurate combination of ideas, which makes it no more reasonable than any other proposition. This level of actuality must be more reasonably who you are whilst being who you are, than not, in order for you to present a more reasonable actuality. The fact that your argument leaves open the unknown leaves open the fact that the unknown is greater than the known, thereby making you more unknown than known. This makes your proposition a combination of ideas more reasonably untrue than true, unless who you are whilst being who you are does not include the unknown. If the unknown is not greater than the known, then the unknown is knowable and therefore we can truly know who we are and be who we are at the same time. Your proposition, with you not truly knowing who you are whilst being who you are, would be farther away from actuality than it would be if you truly did know who you are whilst being who you are. Based on the fact that the farther away from knowing and being whom it is you are, the farther you are away from any actuality of who you are, including any expression of actuality, making it more reasonable that your proposition is false. Of course, truly knowing something necessarily entails being that something because being is ‘living or existing with who we are’; which must be a part of ‘who we are.’ If being is not a part of ‘who we are’ then we are denying our own existence. Opposing the Argument of the Proposition (It is requested that discoveries of seeming inconsistencies in the following text yield to the overall value of the argument. The language used in any given section may not be able to capture the essence of the whole better than the whole itself. Also, time constraints prevent further clarification of some points, but the overall is sufficiently represented. The argument below is not meant to define anything other than to prove a counterargument to the proposition in its application.) Bridging the Gap Universal Equation: (As described this 1st day of September, 2004 by Dennis Stawicki, through use of relative English language, in opposition to the argument ‘we cannot (more reasonably) truly know ourselves, in part or in whole, and be ourselves at the same time.’) Opposing Forces We exist. We are aware of our thoughts therefore we are aware of our existence and the existence of consciousness. As the overall consciousness exists as one whole in itself, so do its individual parts. As each human represents its own thoughts, so must it its own consciousness. The separate consciousnesses represent opposing thought and opposing consciousness as part of a greater consciousness. These opposing thoughts are responsible for conflicts that cause real observable change. It matters not whether one idea is true and real and the other untrue and unreal. The fact remains that the arguments interact and cause a friction that creates energy that in turn initiates change. The aforementioned description represents the overall truth.

Contradiction

Contradiction is ‘the spice of life.’ It springs forth all life. Friction. Energy. In order for life and death to continue, it must follow the cycle of life and death. It must survive. In order for the life of the universe to survive, it must follow the cycle of survival. In order for humans to survive, it must contradict itself. It must both live and die at the same time. In order for consciousness to survive, it must contradict itself. It must both live and die at the same time. In order for universes to survive, it must contradict itself. It must both live and die at the same time. How do universes contradict? If opposing forces exist, then they must occupy the same space at the same time, otherwise there is no opposing forces, just one or the other. The issue is that the opposing forces cannot occupy the same space at the same time, but strive to do so. The constant necessity to occupy the same space yields a constant attempt and therefore creates a friction between the two sides and, in its persistence, emits a pulse. This is the phenomenon that all else stems from. This is the birth of the universe (as we describe it) and all its further manifestations. It is no more complicated than this. The more complicated is the explanation of specific phenomena of the source. These phenomena carry an element of randomness that can be explained uniquely when applied to a specific span of the pulse, but lose adherence to those rules at it changes. Thus, one particular span of the pulse can be described with equation ‘A’ (of which will never be true unless it adheres to the rules of The Universal Law), but as the properties change, the equation needs to adapt along with the change until the equation finally loses all resemblance to its original form (aside from its adherence to The Universal Law). All naturally occurring entities can be explained through this law. Dispute of this law only yields further proof of its own necessity. Survival Life exists. Something is alive only as long as it is not dead. A human life exists as part of the overall cycle of survival. A human’s physical makeup comes into being, lives its lifespan and then breaks down again into its basic elements, the living constitution becoming dead, of which still remains as part of the greater life of the universe. In order for anything to have consciousness, the elements that constitute that consciousness must survive. Without survival, consciousness would not exist. Survival is necessary by The Universal Law. Consciousness is a part of survival the same as the universe is part of survival, survival being an effect of The Universal Law. Both life and death are equally integral parts of survival, the universe, and consciousness. It is necessary that survival is a constant, unchanging entity, which exists as contradiction: The Universal Law. Consciousness must survive through the cycle of life and death. Consciousness must include the opposition for it to be what it is. In order for something to be aware of itself, it must step outside of itself. Consciousness provides this, as it is both alive and dead at the same time, both within and without. Consciousness is the makeup of its individual parts, as each human is its own consciousness, each human consciousness contributes to a greater consciousness of which survives through multiplicity, where if several ‘brain cell’ human consciousnesses die, it still has enough human consciousness alive to know both sides of survival; life and death, as each human contributes to a greater conscience experiencing both life and death simultaneously. Just as each human is its own consciousness, and those separate consciousness make up a greater consciousness as a whole, it is not unreasonable for it to be possible that such consciousness is an individual brain cell in an even greater universal consciousness, with each human consciousness being the greater consciousness of consciousnesses that constitute each individual human conscience. These aspects, as all within the Universal Equation, are interconnected, whether each individual human conscience is aware enough yet to know each side simultaneously or not. The lifespan of each cycle of survival overlap. One new cell is conceived before another dies. This makes it possible for more than one universe to exist at the same time, but only one survival. Consciousness is part of the universe, the universe part of survival, survival the effect of contradiction. If one thought presents significant enough opposition to an opposing thought, then both with linger long enough together to create greater friction and energy until both thoughts meld enough to procreate an argument made through the intercourse of each. Such is the nature of survival. This argument will die but the new thought will live on as its own entity as a product of its parents.

Consciousness

Willful contradiction attempts to counteract the direction of a cycle. A conscious argument is proposed, which claims itself to be true, starting a cycle in one direction as being true, and then a conscious counterargument is proposed which strives to prove the original argument false. Willful contradiction creates chaos by using the counterparts of the whole within itself to begin reversals of cycles, interactions creating reactions of universal truth. Humans are susceptible to this. We call this phenomenon ‘evolution.’ Evolution is the product of actions and their ensuing reactions by existing entities in effort to continue survival. An example of evolution is: The more that is known, the less that is understood, to a point, when more is understood and less is known, because with understanding is the reduction of what is left to be known. One can enter the wood half way before one is exiting that wood. That brings us to the logic of ‘the only unchanging thing is change.’ Contradiction of the proposed argument ‘we cannot (more reasonably) truly know ourselves in part or in whole and be ourselves at the same time’ changes what that argument actually was, though the words that describe that argument remain the same. In order for humans to contradict themselves, they must act in a manner that contradicts itself, whether it is humans own conscious will or the universes conscious will. Both wills exists in the same human at the same time, the constitution of an overall will. Humans act consciously to both live and die; the universes act consciously to both live and die, at the necessary behest of survival. In order for the presented argument ‘we cannot (more reasonably) truly know ourselves in part or in whole and be ourselves at the same time’ to be valid, it must survive the counterarguments. An argument only becomes real when opposed. In order to oppose an argument, humans must act consciously to oppose it. These two arguments interact and spring forth the birth of a greater understanding, a greater consciousness. This fact displays consciousness as growing. Living things grow to their present limit and die as individuals, though the greater whole continues on. The greater whole grows to its current limit and dies as an individual, and the hierarchy continues to the full limit of The Universal Law. In order to contradict something, an act must exist that contradicts it. In order for an act to contradict the whole it must reach its whole to do so, which is stepping outside itself and being within itself at the same time which displays the whole self as a combination of the two states of being within and without at the same point, as humans are parts of a greater whole of consciousness, of which is part of the greater whole of survival, of which is part of the greater whole of contradiction, of which is part of the greater whole of The Universal Law. Consciousness must reach its whole in order to be what it is and step outside of itself and in effect contradict itself. Consciousness must reach Total Consciousness in order to step fully outside of itself whilst being itself, within itself, and thereby presenting contradiction to the whole. Total Consciousness must be reached in order to contradict itself and continue the cycle of survival. Consciousness acts to reach its full potential of Total Consciousness, or consciousness ceases to survive. The unchanging is the greater whole continuing on, survival, through contradiction, through consciousness, through life and death, through individual action and reaction. Consciousness has a life span. Survival is survival and does not change. The lifespan of consciousness must end. Therefore, it must change. The survival of consciousness must survive. Therefore, as consciousness acts to contradict, in order to spring forth a new life, consciousness must act to reach its full potential, just as humans must act to reach its full potential, which is death and life in a form of greater consciousness. It is by definition necessary for Total Consciousness to include all understanding. Understanding all includes the human ability to know itself and be itself at the same time, to be within itself and without itself at the same time. Therefore, it is possible to know our self, and be our self, at the same time. There cannot be argument that we do not know enough about consciousness to exert that Total Consciousness cannot be reached and that it does not include the knowledge of self whilst being that self unless we exert that we do not know enough about consciousness to truly conclude the opposing argument. Throughout human history we have encountered perplexing equations that have been seemingly impossible to fathom, only to reach that equation’s simplicity through growth of understanding, growth of consciousness. It has been more reasonably describe that the nature of consciousness is knowledge, therefore the nature of human consciousness does not precede what we know but occur simultaneously and only exist as separate entities through human invention.

Language

Language creates, as each human has its own experience of the universe and therefore carries individual meanings to each experience as well as each word describing that experience. Though we have standard definitions for each word, no one individual can ever fully describe each personal experience to another because each experience is unique. What is shared between two separate experiences is the joining of the two separate experiences as a new experience shared between the two individuals and forever becoming different, as the number of individual experiences together become the greater overall experience as a greater combined consciousness. Though every experience carries its own interpretation, there can only be one ‘truth.’ This one truth is described differently by each individual, but is always what it is at any given point, regardless of its interpretation. The ‘truth,’ as described through human language, is what it is known to be at any given point as described by all individual experiences describing that truth, to all those receiving such interpretation. To oppose this by stating that we must know each individual iota of what make up ourselves, among other things, in order to know ourselves, is defined by the interaction of individual interpretation, and therefore no longer relevant to the original argument, because it is in a constant state of change. Who we are is not dependent on each individual part, as we are not each individual part; we are the whole, regardless of what individual parts make up whom we are. The whole could be made of apples and oranges, or ones and zeros. It matters not. The whole is always the whole of whatever makes it up. Whatever makes up that whole can only be the interaction of those individual parts. Those parts are finite in making the present whole, though the combination of those finite parts may change. Infinite are the individual descriptions of that one finite thing. Regardless of whether we use the same words and experiences to describe the one truth or not, we are all describing the same thing with different experiences, and therefore different words. The makeup of the individual parts as a whole is always what it is and therefore can be described as such. The whole of who we are as described by us is the joining of all our experiences as a greater whole. Whatever that greater whole is at any given point, is who we are, though what that greater whole actually is, through all human capability of description, is in a constant state of transition. We are changing and must be understood as changing beings, evolving. All parts of us are evolving. We can understand each part through evolution just as language is understood through evolution. But though the words and meanings change, what is being described remains the same. There cannot be precedence relating to possibility and impossibility due to the nature of what possible and impossible are. Possibility is not necessary for the existence of impossibility because impossibility is not negating possibility. To say possibility precedes impossibility is not possible; it is impossible. ‘Precedence of possibility’ is saying that in order for something to be impossible there must be possibility first, but the two states are independent of the same subject. It is either one or the other. There can be no order of necessity when describing a single entity. There needs to be more than one. But something is either possible or impossible, period. The appearance of possibility and impossibility as opposing is an illusion. This is a human misrepresentation using two words that appear to be opposite when both are describing completely unrelated phenomena, other than human perception. Human perception is merely a relational aid for survival. It is impossible to relate possibility to existence because existence is not a matter of possibility; it is a matter of necessity. The actuality of possible and impossible has been misunderstood as it relates to ‘precedence of possibility.’

Position

The human ability of locomotion enables it to manipulate its position to coordinate proximity based on a common coordinate known as ‘time’ in order to ensure that particular humans coordinate their locomotion to occupy a defined proximity at a relative position as per our present manipulation. We connect our destination to a point consistent with the change of space that actually makes that destination a different distance than the original. The original destination does not change. The desired distance has, as it is a destination connected to changing space and will necessarily entail the span of an altered definition of that space. Time does not exist in the sense of past, present and future, as it has been commonly represented, but rather exist only as relative position. To say that something has happened already and is not happening anymore is a misrepresentation. That ‘time’ is nothing more than relative human perception. All these events are ongoing and still happening in the present and will continue to happen in the present. I can see no reasonable argument that validates thoughts being dependent on ‘time’. I see argument validating the notion of time and the notion of thought. Time is just a notion while thought is both a notion and an actuality not dependent on time. There cannot be past and future knowledge, only changes of representation of current knowledge based on experience. Therefore, what we reason and thereby know is based on what we currently know, not what we previously know. Any knowledge of human invention is not who we are but only a representation of who we are. We cannot invent actuality. To state that conscious knowledge is an invention is a misrepresentation of actuality. Conscious knowledge is not an invention; the interpretations of that conscious knowledge are the inventions. Knowing who we are and being who we are at the same time seems impossible because it is done through an attempt to constantly chart the points on a line to pinpoint where we are. In doing so, we fail to see the greater unchanging truth, that we are in a constant state of change. We are trying to describe ourselves through frozen frames of change when we are not defined by those frozen frames but as the greater whole of change. We are what we are, regardless of how the definition changes through our experiences and the language we use to describe them. Existence is defined by a constant state of change. Existence is defined by our thoughts. We are aware of our thoughts therefore we are aware of our existence and the existence of consciousness. We think, therefore we are. Any attempt at knowing anything more is just another random combinations of interpretations of the same overall truth. It changes not who we are. We can know one thing and be that one thing at the same time. That is all we ever can be. We are contradiction. We exist.

Conclusion

Just as complex equations become simple, there is a finite amount to interpret before we are no longer interpreting this amount, but actually knowing this amount, and in effect being the whole of that amount. In examining this argument, this particular span of the pulse, we have illustrated the greater picture, the greater whole. This argument has contradicted itself by stating that there are actual opposing forces, through arguments interacting and causing change, but in turn, our arguments are actually arguing the same point, the same overall truth, by necessity. The only way that a single overall truth can oppose itself is if contradiction is that overall truth. This point has been described as Recursive Reflexivity (infinite regress). We say infinite regress is the point where we encounter an infinite loop because we cannot find an endpoint, though what eludes us is, as has been mentioned previously, is that the infinite loop is the endpoint. When we reach the point of infinite regress, we have made all the many interpretations of the spans of that truth and have actually arrived at that truth. Any point of infinite regress that we encounter is actuality. When our interpretations of ourselves reach ‘infinite regress’ we will have reached our actuality and truly know ourselves whilst having no choice but to simultaneously be that self. It matters not whether the proposition has limited-truth value or not. It only matters that counterarguments are bound by the same parameters. ‘Limited-truth value’ is a human interpretation, an estimate based on current understanding and both arguments can change from ‘limited-truth value’ to ‘absolute-truth value,’ simultaneously or independently, depending on how it is interpreted at any given point. It follows Universal Law that the proposition and the opposing proposition can be or necessarily is of limited perspective, but this does not make it necessary that the proposition and opposing proposition cannot represent actuality, whether in opposition to each other or independently. Contradiction is necessary, thereby making your argument no more necessary than the opposing argument. It matters not whether each is true or false. One is true at one point and one is true at another, but both are necessary by The Universal Law, and therefore one actually holds no more truth than the other one. Universal Equation is not the argument against the proposed argument but more reasonably proves a counterargument in its process, thereby producing a valid counterargument through the necessity of The Universal Law.”

Dennis Stawicki September 9 2004

Response:

We agree that your so-called “Universal Law”, which states that existence is defined by “contradiction” (or a “constant state of change”) more reasonably proves in a limited sense counterargument(s) to Proposition 1. However, the important question in terms of Competition 1 is whether or not your Universal Law more reasonably completely proves the necessity of counterargument(s) to Proposition 1. In other words, is your Universal Law more reasonably complete?

Your entry provides no more reasonable explanation for the completion of your Universal Law. Rather, the Law is assumed by you through the conception of “whole” existence. Moreover, if existence is in a constant state of change, it follows that there cannot be a whole (or end) to existence, without contradicting the constant state of change. Further, if contradiction is necessary as you assert, then it follows that non-contradiction is a possibility, which invalidates the position that contradiction is more reasonably completely necessary. Completion (in entirety) is incompatible with possibility.

To defend your position, you contend that possibility and impossibility are two separate entities. Yet what you overlook is that from our limited, finite perspective, possibility precedes impossibility. To argue that impossibility (in a complete sense) does not negate possibility (as a separate entity) contradicts our apparent limited perspective. For your position to stand, and the more reasonable completion of counterargument(s) to Proposition 1 as well, you need to more reasonably demonstrate complete perspective whether in the form of impossibility or the whole of existence.

Other issues:

Just because Proposition 1 derives from what we know and experience, it does not necessarily follow that what we know and experience, including Proposition 1, is more reasonably completely who we are. Viz., what we know and experience is not necessarily completely who we are. It may be who we are in an incomplete, limited sense.

Though the level of actuality must be more reasonably who we are whilst being who we are, than not, in order for us to present a more reasonable actuality, does not mean that the more reasonable actuality is more reasonably completely who we are.

Just because Proposition 1 implies only limited knowledge of who we are, does not necessarily mean that the Proposition is more reasonably false. Your argument is contingent on the existence of “truth” (i.e. completion), which you have not more reasonably established.

511. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 510

“The Law I describe is not assumed by me, it proves itself through its application. In actuality, the described mechanism applies itself. I am just describing it. The fact that the ‘Universal Law’ I describe entails contradiction and non-contradiction simultaneously means that your argument will and won’t be contradicted by it repeatedly. That type of action has the ability to create some ‘serious’ waves. Non-contradiction is a necessity, but ‘contradiction’ is being kept as a static definition within our argument. We need a different word. Contradiction as law, states that the non-contradiction is necessary. We do not have a word to describe that phenomenon, but that is the ‘mechanism’ behind ‘existence’. What word will we use to dub the mechanism of the interaction of contradiction and non-contradiction? It is more reasonably whole through its application. Just as the universe is more reasonably whole through application of that mechanism, and your argument is more reasonably whole through application of that mechanism. That is the very essence of this competition. If the mechanism of ‘Universal Law’ (let’s call it ‘expansion through application’) is not at least as reasonably whole as your argument, then you will be employing a less reasonably true mechanism to further the whole of your understanding, hence the overall truth-value of your proposition. You will be no more sure of your argument’s truth-value after, than before the competition. If you are surer of your argument after the competition, then that validates my argument. The mechanism I describe is the continuous simultaneous interaction of the two states trying to occupy the same ‘space’. Therefore, it is not contradiction then non-contradiction arising as a possibility, one arising from the other, regardless of ‘order’. It is the effect of the two being simultaneous. This statement adheres to ‘Universal Law’ and continues proof that my argument is at least as reasonably whole as the competition proposition. If my burden lies in describing the necessity of proving that the competition argument needs counterargument(s), it would have to be from the standpoint that the competition argument has not been experienced and/or described, and that it just is. Because the competition argument would need to be experienced and/or described to have an argument derived from that experience, the competition argument would have to derive from contradiction; the application of opposition to reveal itself as valid, even though it is not the subject of experience and/or described. This method of reasoning greatly depreciates the truth-value of the competition proposition. It makes the competition argument just another description of truth that has never been actually described. It is no longer an argument in this state, just a possible truth (which only exists through human invention), which is certainly less reasonably true than my argument, which reveals itself as both human invention and truth (through application). In order to expand our knowledge, in order to have implications on our views of ethics and morality, the competition argument must be applied. That can be described as ‘expansion through application’. My argument is more reasonably an actuality than the competition argument. The competition argument is contingent upon mine, mine not contingent upon the competition argument, which makes my argument more reasonably true than the competition argument.”

Dennis Stawicki September 16 2004

Response:

The notion of contradiction (or “the continuous simultaneous interaction of the two states trying to occupy the same ‘space’”) does not contradict Proposition 1. (Viz., Proposition 1 is premised on the limited comparative nature of human perspective.) So whether the notion of contradiction is more reasonable than Proposition 1 or not, is irrelevant to overcoming Proposition 1.

Other issues:

It is unclear to us how any argument or conception for that matter can be considered “more reasonably whole”, when all human thought is apparently incomplete. (The conception of incompletion is antagonistic to the conception of whole.)

Though Proposition 1 is partly abstract, it is experiential and descriptive in limited senses. For example, from our limited perspective, we experience (through our every thought) “not [more reasonably] truly knowing who we are”, and describe it as a state of knowing who we are, while really not knowing who we are. To challenge our limited experience and description from the standpoint of actual experience and description, you need to more reasonably establish that our experience and description are not applications. To argue that we cannot know whether we cannot truly know who we are or not, is to inconsistently apply an argument, because there is apparently no complete knowledge, and therefore, we cannot truly know anything whether who we are, the universe, or your so-called “Universal Law”.

512. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 511

“Thank you for your time and consideration. I find it difficult to believe that we are expected to argue a hypothetical situation. Well, here goes. Our morality is a direct and necessary result of comparison and thus reveals a massive gap in your rationale. Let’s explore. We have a proposition based on your assumption of limited perspective. This assumption is the premise and matters not whether it is true or not. It is backed by misconceptions of human perspective deriving from limitation that only exists through human invention. I have described this in enough detail in the ‘language’ and ‘position’ portions of my argument. Limited Perspective: Limited perspective is of limited perspective. So, we have the mechanism I clearly described, but truth has no place in this ‘competition’. Thus, both arguments must be subject to the same limited perspective, so it should matter not, except your argument is limited perspective, so it ‘one-ups’ the contrary. Sound familiar? But truth has no place in human experience. Your premise is contradictory. It subjects the competition to ‘limitations’ your ‘proposition’ claims immunity from. Hands on experiment: Let’s have the ‘committee’ take itself and throw itself against a solid brick wall as hard as it can. On the count of three: ‘One, two…. three’! Do you feel that? Feels good, eh? The truth hurts. Which takes me to my next point. Forget truth. Let’s stay hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, the competition proposition (my fingers can’t handle that) is as objective as possible. So, since it is, let’s ignore the human aspect of the proposition. Let’s ignore the fact that it comes from a personally, emotionally vested interest. Since truth has no place in this ‘competition’, let’s deny the fact that this argument is tainted by ‘blind conviction’. Let’s make this competition the product of ‘truth’ since it cannot possibly be from perspective. Let’s make it an ‘application’. Sound familiar? You must prove to me that this argument is no more than a combination of words that seems to make sense based on the experience of a select few who choose to make the words sound more reasonable even though such an idea, without an element of truth, is completely preposterous. If you want my contribution of truth, refer to the following: The committee: ‘We agree that your so-called ‘Universal Law’, which states that existence is defined by ‘contradiction’ (or a ‘constant state of change’) more reasonably proves in a limited sense counterargument(s) to proposition 1. However, the more important question in terms of Competition 1 is whether or not your Universal Law more reasonably completely proves the necessity of counterargument(s) to proposition 1. In other words, is your Universal Law more reasonably complete?’ (Note: From my (i.e. Stawicki’s) perspective, ‘complete’ is the same as ‘whole’.) Dennis Stawicki: ‘If my burden lies in describing the necessity of proving that the competition argument needs counterargument(s), it would have to be from the standpoint that the competition argument has not been experienced and/or described, and that it just is. Because the competition argument would need to be experienced and/or described to have an argument derived from that experience, the competition argument would have to derive from contradiction; the application of opposition to reveal itself as valid, even though it is not the subject of experience and/or described. This method of reasoning greatly depreciated the truth-value of the competition proposition. It makes the competition proposition just another description of truth that has not actually been described. It is no longer an argument in this state, just another possible truth (which only exists through human invention)’.”

Dennis Stawicki September 28 2004

Response:

For your argument (that the competition proposition is “just another possible truth (which only exists through human invention)”) to overcome the competition proposition, you need to more reasonably demonstrate either truth (rather than possibility) or possible truth which exists through more than human invention and is more reasonable than possible truth which exists only through human invention.
Note, your second option faces the problem of more reasonably demonstrating something which only exists through human invention, especially inconsideration of the apparent necessary relation between the external world and our (i.e. humanity’s) internal conscious world. Viz., it is unclear to us how the competition proposition or any other proposition can “only” exist through human invention. Basically, what you are proposing is that the competition proposition derives from human consciousness as a thing-in-itself, which is inconsistent with our apparent comparative and incomplete perspective, and our relation, as mentioned, with the external world via sensory receptors.

Other issues:

For your position that “truth has no place in human experience” to maintain consistency, it needs to be asserted from your limited perspective, and therefore, it is possible according to your (consistent) position that truth has a place in human experience. Hence, the competition proposition is not contradictory as you claim. Viz., the possibility of truth leaves open a gateway, no matter how narrow, of overcoming the competition proposition.

Also, your assertion that the competition proposition claims “immunity” from “limitations” is incorrect. The competition proposition is asserted from our limited perspective, and therefore, it is possible a limited proposition could overcome it.

Further, your contention that “truth has no place in this competition” ignores or overlooks that it is possible truth has a place in this competition if for example a participant can more reasonably demonstrate truth. For you to retort that it is not possible to more reasonably demonstrate truth, then you would need to more reasonably demonstrate that it is not possible to more reasonably demonstrate truth.

513. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 512

“The committee’s (‘your’) main response to my latest entry (along with much of it) was written with an apparent misconception as to what I was attempting to express, which I hold myself as the responsible party. I wrote from an ‘if I were you’ point of view of which I find it absolutely necessary that you prove that the competition proposition does not need counterargument. It is my contention that (more reasonably) the competition proposition cannot continue to exist without some constant form of counterargument. Since we are staying within the bounds of an ‘apparent limited perspective’, ‘truth’ need not enter the argument, though it most certainly does by the nature of what truth is: essence. Since what I describe more reasonably provides that there is a more direct counterargument to the competition proposition, it is not more reasonable that, ‘we cannot (more reasonably) truly know ourselves, in part or in whole, and be ourselves at the same time’. Rather, it is more reasonable that we continue to understand the counterargument to the proposition, or at least continue to search for it.

It is more reasonable through our apparent limited perspective that the proposition is of comparison. Any knowledge that humans claim, including any proposition it may conjure, exists in relation to the contrary. Reasonable cannot be imagined without the contrary of unreasonable and vice versa. It is less reasonable that our apparent knowledge derive from comparison of ideas of less contrariness. If the contrary were removed from the competition proposition, the competition proposition would not exist as it does because human knowledge is, as you put it, ‘of a comparative nature’.

The proposition and the contrary are no more or less notions than one another. Each and every backing argument for the proposition, and each and every backing argument backing argument, is subject to the same comparative nature. It only stands to be more reasonable that what we deem more reasonable at one point changes, making what is more reasonable something different than what was originally considered.

Notes on the response to entry 512:

I submitted entry 512 from a highly antagonistic point of view with a hope of illustrating the nature of the proposition as being limited perspective because we make it limited, not because it is necessarily limited.

Notes on other issues:

P1: The position you refer to as mine was actually written facetiously/sarcastically within my previous entry to illustrate the fact that propositions are propositions of human perspective, period, though they might describe, in a limited sense, a phenomenon outside of human perspective, and furthermore, be truth in essence. It was to illustrate that limited perspective is by choice; by choosing ignorance, by limiting the argument to what seems more reasonable to you at that point, without considering influences you have not considered as of yet. It is denying that the available options left unconsidered will more reasonably impact your perspective.

P2: The point is that if we cannot truly know something due to limited perspective, somewhere along the line of compounded comparisons leading to the summation presented as the proposition, there must be a point at which a comparison is more reasonably 50%, which brings the proposition down to choice. A comparison must have resulted in a choice based on even reasonability (Viz. one or the other) due to the fact that a choice had to have been made in reference to something beyond the scope of human perspective, if our perspective is indeed limited.

P3: References a comment by me also written facetiously/sarcastically.”

Dennis Stawicki October 6 2004

Response:

Because human consciousness is apparently comparative in nature, we contend that the competition proposition, like any other proposition, exists based on some form of comparison. Though it is unclear to us (based on your entry) the reasons why that comparison has to be in the form of counterargument.

From the position of comparison (i.e. the competition proposition needing some form of comparison to exist), it is also unclear to us how you more reasonably defend the claim that “there is a more direct counterargument to the competition proposition”. Viz., the necessity for comparison does not necessarily mean that a comparative form is more direct or more reasonable than the principle comparative form (or competition proposition).

We agree that due to the apparent flux of human consciousness, the determination of more reasonableness in the context of Competition 1 is limited, but the same criticism can be said for any other determination. Therefore, the criticism is cancelled out.

Moreover, we agree that the limited time frame of Competition 1 (or no apparent absolute endpoint to the Competition), means that relevant arguments may be left unconsidered. Yet, as above, the criticism applies to any other determination, and therefore, the criticism is cancelled out as well. (If you disagree, we request that you more reasonably demonstrate an absolute endpoint to anything.)

Further, we agree that because Competition 1 is apparently finite, it follows that at some point a choice(s) must be made whether to undergo the Competition or to adhere to the methodology of more reasonableness. Yet, again as above, the criticism is cancelled out, because finiteness, and thereby the necessity for choice at some level, (apparently) applies to all of human thought.

514. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 513

“‘Why the comparison by which propositions exist must be in the form of counterargument and why there is a more direct counterargument to the competition proposition?’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 513)

How is the determination of the nature of an observation made? For physical objects, we know what an object is through what that object is not. For descriptions: Ex. High can only exist in opposition to low and vice versa, simultaneously. Since human knowledge is of comparison, and therefore the proposition, we can substitute the competition proposition with the proposition of ‘high’. The competition proposition is describing ‘high’ so it says ‘high’. The counterargument to the competition is describing ‘low’, so it says ‘low’, though, in actuality, both the argument and the counterargument are quantifying the same space (the more direct counterargument). We are both arguing the same thing from different perspectives. Though, we are not actually arguing what we ‘intended to’. We can ‘truly know’ what we are arguing by eliminating the comparisons of the contrary and see the space the two sides consume. Any argument I have ever had, that has actually gone the distance (ended), has ended up with the both of us arguing the same thing from ‘different perspectives’. We realize this, the argument ends, and a bond is formed.

Argument: ‘‘We cannot [more reasonably] truly know’: our inability to more soundly and consistently show how we can know something in entirety.’ inability: ‘lack of ability or means’

I do not contend that a comparative form is more direct or more reasonable than the competition proposition. I do contend that the competition proposition is not more reasonable or more direct as its opposite(viz. is just as reasonable or direct), which would cancel each other out (viz. create a new form consisting of the two). As mentioned earlier, ‘ability vs. inability’ (‘possibility vs. impossibility’) exists through human invention. We can only imagine an ability or inability to do something. That something we are imagining an ability or inability to do is of a human invention (viz. the description, not the event, since the event would not be ability, it would be actuality). We agree that our existence is not human invention for reasons previously explained. It is not more reasonable to say that humans have an inability to exist. Therefore, it is not more reasonable to say that humans have an ability to exist. It is more reasonable to say that something else has the ‘ability or inability’ to make ‘humans’ exist. That would be the comparative nature of human knowledge attempting to express a perceived phenomenon. It is more reasonable that we are of an existing phenomenon (viz. not separate from an ‘external’ world).

If something has ability or inability, then that something’s ability/inability does not exist, other than through human invention. We cannot assert that something has ability, unless that something actually does what we think it has an ability to do. If that something never does what we think it has an ability to do, apparently, it doesn’t have that ability. Therefore, we cannot know anything that is human invention. We cannot know high and low, only describe it as a quantification of an estimated space, just the same as time. We cannot know what is more reasonable other than through quantification of estimation. We cannot know ‘ability vs. inability’ but we can know that we are and we do. We know we exist. Existence is knowable. Therefore, there is no ‘knowledge vs. true knowledge’, there is just knowledge. Either we know something, or we don’t. If it can be said that there are things that we are not, then it stands to reason that there are things that we are, which means, as described above that ‘who we are’ exists through ‘who we aren’t’. The physical make up of a human being and who we know human beings to be as existing entities, exists through contradiction, through opposition, through counterargument, through comparison.

‘You have an electron, I have an electron’. When these electrons have opposite spins (our argument), it enables the two atoms (one person vs. another) to bond. Through human comparison, we can describe it as either sharing, or an attempt by one to take while the other not yielding, or the one attempting to give and the other not taking. Of course, it is more reasonably none of these, because those descriptions exist as descriptions of something. What we do know is the whole; that those physical things exist, continue to exist through the act of existing: doing what they do, thereby surviving, by ensuring its survival by ‘comparing’ and ‘choosing’ what will help it survive based on that comparison. We know this because we exist in the same manner as those atoms and electrons, just as does a proposition. Once we discern what is not knowledge from what is knowledge, we will eliminate all that is not knowledge from the proposition. Once we do this, we will only be left with what exists, which may seem too numerous at this particular point. Though, numerousness is not valid reason to assume that ‘we cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time’. Technically, knowing we exist is ‘truly knowing’ who we are in part, while being that existence. Maybe the answer is in the question.

P3, P4, P5: Three of the five paragraphs of argument/counterargument have resulted in a ‘canceling out.’ This is the point I contend. My perspective would not be cancelled without the competition perspective being simultaneously cancelled, because I am not trying to limit my perspective to one side or the other. It is not more reasonable to assert the competition proposition based on imposed time limits and unconsidered aspects. That is the same as saying that Earth is more reasonably flat. You choose high, but I choose the quantified space of ‘high vs. low’. As long as there are still options which may affect my perspective, it is not more reasonable for me to assert that one perspective is more reasonable than its opposite (viz. high is more reasonable than low).

Within this competition, comparative nature is not more reasonably limited but, moreover, its limitation is chosen by the methodology of more reasonableness. We cannot apply the methodology of more reasonableness to a proposition that considers truth (viz. ‘truly know’). Furthermore, this is so, because the proposition claims truth as a primary defense (viz. we exist). The very ideas that validate the proposition are the same ideas that invalidate the proposition. Observe long enough, and this becomes more reasonably the case. It all depends on the perspective. The truth behind that is the greater picture, the whole that the two perspectives describe.”

Dennis Stawicki October 14 2004

Response:

We acknowledge and concede your argument that the combination of the competition proposition and counter proposition(s) is more reasonable and more direct than the competition proposition itself. (Viz., based on the conception of interconnection, it is more reasonable that the competition proposition is based on relationships (or comparisons) rather than simply no relationship (or comparison) (i.e. thing-in-itself). However, it does not follow that your argument overcomes the competition proposition because it is not antagonistic to the competition proposition Viz., as you say, “I do not contend that a comparative form is more direct or more reasonable than the competition proposition.” In other words, all you have established is the more reasonableness of comparison, and not the less reasonableness of not truly knowing who we are. Yet, you take your argument further by contending that we can truly know “we exist”. Though all you have more reasonably demonstrated is that within the realm of human thought, we are of an “existing phenomenon”. You have not more reasonably completely demonstrated we are of an “existing phenomenon”.

Other issues:

To argue that the competition proposition, due to imposed time limits and (potential) unconsidered aspects, is incorrect for proposing one perspective is more reasonable than another, ignores or overlooks that the proposal of more reasonableness (of the competition proposition) can be (and is (i.e. “within limits”), and thereby maintains consistency. For example, ‘the competition proposition is more reasonable than antagonistic propositions’ is more reasonable within the limited time frame of Competition 1 and the limited submissions considered in the evaluation process. Of course, due to the limited time frame and (potential) unconsidered aspects, it cannot be said that the competition proposition is completely more reasonable than antagonistic propositions. Though this criticism on the more reasonable lack of completeness of the competition proposition is cancelled out because of the more reasonable lack of completeness, due to various limitations, of any other proposition.

You are correct that as a fundamental premise, the competition proposition claims that “we exist”. But, the proposition does not claim, as you contend, that we completely (or “truly”) know that we exist. Rather, the proposition claims that we exist within the limits of what we know, and therefore, the premise that we exist does not invalidate the proposition. (Viz., the premise and proposition are both asserted within the limits of what we know.)

Finally, it is unclear to us that direct opposites are necessary for human thought. (I.e. “…. we know what an object is through what that object is not… High can only exist in opposition to low….”) For example, an individual can know the conception of “high” through simply defining the conception by anything above the level of the individual’s height. The important consideration in our view is that human thought requires comparison, whether it takes the form of opposites or not. Obviously, a comparison of a conception to an opposite may help clarify the meaning of the conception itself.

Entries 509 Entries 515-