| Challenge the Philosophy Competition 1 - Entries 515- |
Definitions of the principal terms used in the competition:
"We cannot [more reasonably] truly know": our inability to more soundly and consistently show how we can know something in entirety. For further explanation, and explanation of "know", see "cannot truly know".
Reply to the response to Entry 503
“Given my reaction to this latest response, it may be
possible that the subject matter I assumed we were dealing with
(homo sapiens – we – all of us) was a mistake on my part.
In this regard I will separate each section of your response,
and attempt to relate my understanding of its content, and I
would appreciate it if you would take due regard to the extended
definitions of each concept, and the necessary process required
to arrive at evident, and reasonable conclusions.
To reiterate, all principles, factors, are the basis of all our
actions and are not based on anyone’s opinions or assertions.
Your acceptance of ‘mutual agreement’ comes about, not because I offered up the opinion, or assumed it, but because it is an observable fact. When any member of the Committee, or anyone else, experiences “mutual agreement’ for the Reality it is, then you will understand that so called ‘thought’ ‘opinions’ ‘assumptions’ or ‘assertions’ have nothing to do with the experience.
‘Your examples of relationships, though possibly complete, fall short of
more reasonably demonstrating completion. To illustrate, you assert in a
complete sense that “we all [i.e. humanity] must breathe”, and yet it is
more reasonably unclear in a complete sense who this “we all” or
humanity is. You provide no explanation; rather, you just assume, while
at the same time make a claim of completion.
You seem to be arguing that there are no observable grounds that you
will accept as being Real!
Seeking answers in the ‘mind’ artificially locates one in a mythical
compartment denying any union with Reality.
Do you seriously believe that when Archimedes ran naked through the
streets of Syracuse shouting “Eureka”, and on giving his explanation of
the principle of water displacement to weigh silver, and gold, that he
was asked to give a *complete* description of his bathroom, its
dimensions etc, etc, etc, before the principle was understood? It is the
understanding of the principle involved that offers us completeness, and
if we had to follow the infinite regress explanations you propose, the
given definition of sanity below could never apply!
I have already referred to the concept of the microcosm in relation to
the macrocosm. To seek in any analogy I’ve given (the ball – the baker-
the motorists) an infinite regress explanation of the circumstances
hardly seems credible. Psychological definition of ‘sanity’: ‘A
condition of *normalcy* with respect to behavior’. Given the above
definition, (I presume you accept it) presumably it would be ‘easy’ to
accept the ‘mutual agreement ‘ example given as a condition of normalcy
with respect to the behavior of motorists at green lights. It is an
analogical reference example to portray the human condition at
particular points in time, and the *completeness* of that singular
activity. These forms of activities we enact at every moment in time,
and they are a measure of our sanity. That we can observe that principle
at that point in time is because it is a microcosm of the *complete*
principle. *Completeness* is the benchmark of sanity.
The point of any analogy is to draw attention to the similarity of
circumstances in which the principles can be ‘seen’ to operate. There
can be a multitude of ‘difference’ between each analogy, but the
principles are not *different*! It certainly does not mean that the
principles that constitute the whole are *different*. You have already
agreed to the concept of ‘mutual agreement’. No matter how one would
attempt infinite regress the concept would not change. It is the
implicit principle enacted between participants that establish the
reality of ‘completeness’. To seek an ‘infinite regression’ description
of each customer, the baker, the product, is simply to deny the
principle of ‘mutual agreement’ at that point in time, and its commonly
accepted finality as a *‘complete’* act. The only constructive
information we ever have of Reality is only of this moment, but that
moment can be the experience of Eternity, which encapsulates all
Reality. It is only in the ‘moment’ that ‘completeness’ or the ‘whole’
can be recognized, contrary to the paradoxical nature of this sentence.
Consequently that which is quite specific (motorists, green lights,
bakers, balls, “mutual agreement’ etc,) have implicit within them all
the factors, principles, necessary to provide us with an understanding
of their Universal qualities, which means understanding the moment. The
purpose of all factors, principles, is to overcome the illusory view
that there can only be a ‘comparative, and incomplete perspective’,
which obviously denies the reality of that which is ‘whole’. It is
essential that we learn to view ‘wholes’ (which are in abundance) to
overcome the habitual problem of seeing ever ending extensions, which
lead nowhere. To contemplate existence as ‘causal infinity’ (as you
appear to do), rules out any possibility of making transparent ‘who we
are’, which would make it impossible for any entrant to answer the
Challenge Proposition to your satisfaction. Through definitive language
processes we can begin to understand the immediately available
opportunities we have to recognize the constant properties that are
implicit. The purpose of my presentations is to make the reader aware
that there are principles involved, and they always have been. This in
turn allows us to address the question of ‘who we are’. With principles
we can comprehend the real qualities of existence – we can understand.
Comprehension begins when principles are understood. Consider the extent
of human progression, and the use of principles (and how they were
understood) in all human endeavors that are the foundation of
evolutionary progress. That progress imposes obligations on us to
further their transparency.
To speculate on the concept of ‘infinite regress’ as reality is to give
credence to the proposition that we can deny ‘what is’, a negative
fantasy, as opposed to Reality.
‘Infinite regress is a euphemistic term for ‘more reasonable’, or
‘comparative perspective’.
The nature of human experience based on the concept of ‘comparative
different’ realities skews objective identification, and leads also to a
denial of ‘what is’.
We really do not need to know which country they are in, the type of
cars they drive, or who is driving them! It is the principle of evident
agreement concerning motorists, and traffic lights that is complete,
*and* *whole* at that point in time, and in terms of this debate the
only thing that is important.
Each act of ‘mutual agreement’, or any other set of principles involved,
is a microcosmic ‘complete’ act, which if ever experienced for the
Reality it is, offers us insight to that which is *‘whole’*.
Natural simplistic conclusions that are significant:
*1. *Centrifugal force goes from the center outwards.
*2. *Centripetal force goes inward toward a center.
*3. *A perfect wheel is a perfect circle.
*4. *A line is the joining of two points.
*5. *A point is the intersection of two lines.
By definition all factors are significant. We may conclude from that
that combinations of factors would lead to significant conclusions.
Present = Immediate Reality Reality = Immediate Present
Communication = Making Known Making Known = Communication
This position (your comparative perspective) seems to conclude that no
other perspective exists, and that consequently no definitive answer to
the Challenge question will ever be accepted. Any ‘significant
conclusion’ (no matter how simple) requires a ‘correct vision’ to
validate its existence e.g., an Archimedes – Edison – James Watt etc, etc.
Simplistic ‘significant conclusions’ are enacted at every point in time
through the simple process of ‘mutual agreement’ and they require no
comprehensive analysis other than a common-sense acceptance of their
Reality
I would deem it a fair question to ask if *you* would please supply ‘a
significant conclusion” argument that was circular?
5. If separation is a “mythical measure” as you say, then your position
based on separation viz a via comparison, is mythical as well.
6. You say, “each act is a microcosm of the whole”, and yet you provide
no more reasonable explanation for the whole (to existence).
Also, based on our comparative, incomplete perspective, it is more
reasonable that existence is defined by causal infinity rather than a
thing-in-itself (or whole).
7. It is unclear to us how the Committee’s more reasonably refutations
of challenges to Proposition 1 result in denials of the existence of
entrants. Proposition 1 merely claims that we more reasonably cannot
completely know who we are. It does not deny our existence.
Sure, through your entries, “we are here—we are present—we are
communicating”, but it is unclear to us how you or us, or anyone else
more reasonably completely knows “we are here—we are present—we are
communicating”.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 503)
To truly know ‘who we are’ there must be the recognition, and admittance
that ‘who we are’ is an inclusive reality which can never be understood
in isolation. Our natural commonality of existence dictates the power of
relationship, and the laws required to provide us with guidelines to
cement that relationship. There is no such thing as *nothing*. Address
what is Real! That which is mythical does not exist. Relationships are a
constant reality despite contemporary dichotomies attempt to categorize
‘separation’ as a reality. The only constant in this context is
‘relationship’ – at whatever level we find it. To use contemporary
conventional dichotomous terms does not lend validity to ‘separation’ as
a reality. Attempted ‘separation’ is similar to attempted
‘independence’. No matter how strong the belief neither can be achieved
as Reality. *Everything is, and everything that is, is connected.*
Please re-read 7/7/2004 Entry on separation.
“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?”
If your point is that love and knowledge is only possible through
interaction, you still have not more reasonably demonstrated that
interaction is *completely* necessary for the existence of love and
knowledge. To do this, you need to overcome the comparative nature of
human perspective.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 503)
Cosmic philosophical joke in relation to the Challenge question:
Overbearing impatient male visiting psychiatric hospital bangs on
receptionists desk for attention, and loudly demands of the young female
receptionist: *‘Do you know who I am?’*
Young girl looks up, smiles sweetly, and answers: *‘No, but the nurse over
there will tell you’.
Humanity: Not to recognize ones own reality is a severe form of
self-deception. Complete denial of any observable Reality (the
microcosm) is an attempt to undermine Reality itself!
Complete Whole = Constant Value = 1+1= 2
Secure Information = Exact Standard = 1+1 = 2
Proven Measure = Common Understanding = 1+1 = 2
We have used the principle of ‘completeness’ or ‘whole’ throughout human
history in the construction of all forms of civilization. It is the
ability to understand the principles in operation, and address them for
what they are that is essential. To go off on a tangent from that
reality is to dismiss stability to the imaginative realm of ‘infinite
regress’ – a denial of life’s activity as the only Reality.
All principles are ‘complete’. They are reality standards we use each,
and every moment. Their development use by us is a continuous process of
re-cognition. As opposed to having a comparative perspective we must
learn to view that which is ‘complete’ that which is ‘whole’. A new
paradigm integrating, and propagating principles, or ‘necessary factors’
would establish a wholesome environment.
Through the process of language factors, and their proper definition,
direct insight into the nature of Reality is possible. To deal with
negative dichotomies as though they were real excludes that possibility.
The fragmentation of Reality through misguided analysis (infinite
regress) – the ball, the baker, the motorists, is denial of the
principle factors involved. The presumption of an infinite number of
circumstances to debate an issue only leads to the ‘mind in a box’
position you hold. That form of distraction (infinite regress) limits
the ability to see ‘what is’, which is a common human malady (Lost Shadows).
The critical distinction between the presumption of knowledge, and the
experience of the actual reality lies partially in the use we make of
the experience (Archimedes). Prior to Archimedes, one may have presumed
knowledge of the principle of leverage, but the transference of the
experience, and the construction Archimedes put on it to make it
transparent, offers us an insight into Reality. Throughout one’s life,
one may have been disposed to use the principle of leverage (or any
other principle), but never realized the significance of that Reality.
With passing observation we can now recognize its constant use, and can
deduce that its existence has been a ‘constant’. Indeed it is only
because principles, ‘necessary factors’ are constants that human beings
can engage in their reality.
The implications of your proposition as stated: ‘and that ‘individual
identity’ is not ‘truly knowable’ within the context of singularity. The
Challenge quite rightly words the proposition in ‘dualistic’ terms ‘we
are’. Unfortunately the term ‘we are’ has lost significance when we
attempt to reduce it to the singular ‘I am’ (see previous references).
There can be no true claim to ‘individual identity’ without at least one
other. There can be no claim to moral, legal, ethical, or social
cohesion without human unity, and that can only be realized through the
existence of at least *two*. The imperative directive in the statement
‘we are’ is one of inclusion which is an absolute, and can be the only
basis for any prospect of morality, ethics etc. The implicit question in
the Challenge proposition about knowledge of ‘who we are’, is an
automatically inclusive question, ipso facto it accepts the reality of
two at least. It is imperative that we consider the establishing of
constant absolutes to direct our attention. Nature, and Reality, however
we find them, offer us a constant source of information that we can
sensibly agree on are ‘inherent’ constants.
There can be no claim to ‘individual identity’ unless (this is becoming
repetitive) there is at least one other! The mythological being in black
space I have already exampled was an evident refutation of any form of
reference, human, or otherwise. In that particular circumstance how
could any morals, ethics, intelligence etc, be practiced in a mythical
non-existent environment? We must have reference points to relate to!
= Exact Evidence
= Identifiable Law
Back to Archimedes, or any other human who has realized some of the
factors that constitute exact evidence, and offer us identifiable laws
that we can use as true standards. In effect they offer us *proof * of
their existence through their realization of some of Natures bounty!! It
is at that point in time when there is realization of the factors that
constitute reality that *anyone* can truly ‘know’ the form reality
takes. When that form of realization is extended toward another human
being then it is axiomatic that ‘knowledge’ of ‘who we are’ is
‘complete’. We then experience the totality of ‘agreement’ that exists
between us that forms the foundation of human existence. A ‘true’
experience is not contingent on ‘a mind in a box’ knowledge of the
experience. *Experience* has implicit within it the factors of Truth +
Understanding = Knowledge. (Viz., Archimedes). Misguided beliefs in
individuality (mind in a box) creates dysfunctional societies – hence
wars, division, criminality, pathological activity.
Mind in a box:
Direct experience of Reality is not attained through thought processes,
or the retrieval of historical knowledge. Our very existence necessarily
depends on factors within the structure of Nature, and Reality. We live
with the illusion that so called ‘thought ‘ processes based on
historical knowledge are the primary arbiters of human functionality,
and we continually utilize this mythical structure in our attempt to
arrive at ‘who we are’. Confirmation of the dangers in such
fundamentally wrong belief systems is evidenced by our ability to kill
one another, and the ongoing destruction of this planet. Conventional
dichotomous thought processes attempt to ‘separate’ ‘individualize’
‘categorize’. In essence it is an attempt to control ‘what is’. That
process inevitably can never ‘experience’ the Reality of the object, or
the person. The dichotomous thought process can only be overcome when
direct ‘experience’ of ‘what is’ is attained, and we understand in part,
or in whole, the nature of Reality. A ‘true’ experience is not
contingent on ‘mind in a box’ knowledge of the experience. Experience has
implicit within it the factors of Truth + Understanding = Knowledge
(viz., Archimedes experiences). Experiences of that which is ‘whole’ are
experiences of an order beyond what we call ‘conventional’ experience.
That which is *unclear*.
In a hypothetical ‘think’ tank which operates on the basis of
comparative perspective (deals with dichotomies) the fundamental factors that establish Reality will always be unclear, e.g., Where
there is a verbal battle raging between two people, proponents of the
comparative perspective will find it difficult to establish that
‘communication’ is being presented. Conventional wisdom would deny that
it is communication, and would be unclear as to the reality that is
being presented. At whatever level we find them, basic factors are all
that we have to, or can, deal with. That must be established – that must
be clear, before there is extension.
A doctor (who also deals in dichotomies) who finds a patient with physical ailments, will address ‘disease’ in an attempt to have the
patient return to health. When we learn to deal with health as the *only
*reality then we have a stable foundation to extend from, and the
medical profession may have a clearer direction to go in.
The ‘comparative perspective’ would presumably see dichotomies as an
acceptable reality, with causal infinity, and infinite regression as
bedmates. The opposite of causal infinity could be construed as
‘completeness’, which if true, it would be wise to exercise our ability
to recognize that which is whole, that which is complete. In so doing we
conform to a reality that provides us with a strong foundation that is
natural, and correct. When we recognize the traverse of the ball from A
to B as ‘complete’ we have established ‘what is’, and affirmed that
immediate Reality.
A ‘comparative incomplete perspective’ can be due, I would suggest, to
the inability to see ‘wholes’. The cause is dichotomous thought, and the
result is fragmentation, and division. It is not *natural* to hold the
view that a ‘comparative perspective’ is the only activity we are
capable of. When there is the ability to observe (not from a comparative
perspective, incomplete, or otherwise) that which is ‘whole’ ‘complete’
then it is a view of a microscopic reality. That view allows us to be
where we are without the prospect of ‘causal infinity’ denying our
immediate Reality. It also holds the potential that we can experience
the totality of our Reality, of *‘who we are’*.
Given the similarity of questions you have asked on ‘completeness’
suffice to say that the answers I have given to several should cover
them all.”
Bridie October 24 2004
In your entry you make several arguments in support of your contention that we can more reasonably completely know who we are. It is our contention, which we will more reasonably demonstrate, that all these arguments more reasonably fall short of establishing more reasonable complete knowledge of who we are.
First, you argue that based on your definition of sanity (i.e. “a condition of normalcy with respect to behavior”), there are complete principles like mutual agreement. However, what you appear to overlook is that the notion of normalcy does not necessarily equate to completeness. What the notion equates to is some form of status quo, which may or may not be complete.
Second, you argue that the concept of infinite regress (and concept of causal infinity) is a denial of “what is”, or “an attempt to undermine [so-called] Reality itself”, or “a denial of life’s activity as the only Reality”. Yet, what you appear to also overlook is that your argument is based on the assumption of what is “Reality”, and a denial of the possibility that Reality is unknowable (as illustrated by the concept of infinite regress). In essence, you are denying that Reality could be unknowable, while the infinite regress position (by definition) leaves open the possibility that Reality may be knowable. So in fact it is you who may be denying “what is”, by declaring to know “what is”.
Third, related to your second argument, you contend that so-called negative dichotomies exclude the possibility of insight into Reality. This contention is incorrect, because so-called negative dichotomies like infinite regress contend as mentioned above that insight into Reality is possible. Infinite regress by definition is limited, and thereby leaves open the possibility for anything.
Fourth, you argue that human experience contains the equation “Truth + Understanding = Knowledge (Viz., Archimedes)”, or “direct experience of Reality is not attained through thought processes”. In other words, human experience itself is a source of truth. Yet, according to the responses to Entries 308 and 310, there is no such thing as experience itself from our perspective without thought processes. Viz., if we do not know an experience, it does not exist from our perspective. Also, due to the apparent separation between experience itself and our thought processes, experience can only be known through our conscious interpretation of it, thereby refuting within limits the notion that experience itself contains truth. (Of course, we concede that experience itself may contain truth, but the arguments above more reasonably demonstrate otherwise.)
Moreover, for you to deny the separation between experience and thought processes, then based on the apparent necessity of thought processes for the existence of experience, you cannot avoid the (apparent) comparative, incomplete nature of our thought processes defining our experience as well.
We are not saying that the statement you make concerning humanity, “that we all must eat; we all must drink; we all must die” are not scientific Realities applicable to the human race. We are contending that the statement you make concerning humanity, “that we all must eat; we all must drink; we all must die” are not more reasonably complete scientific Realities applicable to the human race. (Note our implied distinction between complete Reality and incomplete Reality, with the former referring to knowledge known in entirety.)
We are not arguing that there are no observable grounds we will accept as reality. We are arguing that there are no apparent more reasonable grounds for complete reality. (Of course, if a participant provides more reasonable grounds for complete reality, we will accept them, but so far in our view, a participant has not provided more reasonable grounds.)
Our position on the apparent comparative nature of human consciousness, does not “conclude that no other perspective exists”. Rather, the position due its limitation, concludes that anything is possible including a non-comparative nature of reality.
In response to your request that we supply “a significant conclusion that is circular”, the conclusion that “the centrifugal force goes from the center outwards” is circular because, for instance, the concepts of centrifugal force and center are incomplete when broken down in terms of their meanings, just as the transaction itself between a purchaser and baker is circular, because the bases for the transaction itself (i.e. the baker, purchaser, bread, money etc.) are all incomplete in terms of their meanings. To contend as you appear to do that the transaction itself (in the instance) is separate from the bases for the transaction, leaves the transaction itself devoid of meaning. I.e. there is no transaction itself without the baker, purchaser etc.
Your contention that “everything is, and everything that is, is connected”, is in contradiction with your contention that there exists “microcosmic complete acts”. Viz., microscopic acts more reasonably cannot be complete without complete knowledge of everything (and according to you “everything is connected”). So to isolate observable (complete) microscopic acts from non-observable (complete) microscopic acts, as you do, is contradictory.
"Who we are": the entire make-up of ourselves as human beings. For further explanation see who we are.
"Be": the state of living or existing.
"Existence": things and life-forms occupying space.
"We": all Homo sapiens who are existing, regardless of level of functionality.
"At the same time": the simultaneous occurrence of true knowledge of who we are, in part or in whole, and being who we are.
"Overcome": more reasonable refutation of the proposition, "we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time". "More reasonable refutation" entails using reason in the most objective manner possible, and includes the arguments stated in the entries and
disputes submitted to this "Challenge the Philosophy" competition, and the arguments stated in the responses to them. Also, one idea or position is deemed more reasonable than another idea or position if it is more sound and consistent. (Overcoming the proposition can entail more reasonably refuting its terms and the concepts behind them.)
515. Entry:
The same reasoning applies to your assertions that “we all must eat”,
“we all must drink”, and “we all must die.”’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 503)
Everything is, and everything that is, is there to be examined, and that
of necessity includes us. My presumption was that the principle terms
used in the Challenge (homo sapiens – we - all of us) required no
further explanation because of their elementary nature. Are you saying
that the statements I make concerning us, ‘that we all must eat’ ‘we all
must drink’ ‘we all must die’, are not factual scientific realities
applicable to the human race? These seemed to me to be more than
reasonable observations to make on matters that are quite specific, and
part of the general, and universal information required to address the
Philosophy Challenge. Do you know of any human being who does not
breathe, does not eat, does not drink, and is not alive? Because each person
is a microcosmic human entity we can know with certainty the basic
necessities required for *all of us* to exist on this planet. Nature has
endowed us with a commonality, and within that structure there are rules
required for survival, which it is reasonable to suppose, are absolute.
With ‘correct’ knowledge one can *assume* that if 1+1 = 2 then it will
follow that 2+2 = 4. It is only on the basis of correct alignment that
there is predictability. If the above equations are correct, then all
equations using the same principle in mathematics are correct. If Nature
determines that all human beings must of necessity be delivered air,
food, and water to live, we can reasonably presume that any beings that
can live without these requirements are not human. Any other
construction you may put on this is outside my normal domain. Universal
principles have a universal commonality, and we use them in abundance!
‘Moreover, your example of a ball thrown from one side of a room to the
other, and therefore, the “whole or complete traverse of the ball is the
instant it leaves your hand until it arrives at the other side of the
room”, lacks a more reasonably complete explanation of the thrower,
room, and sides of the room. (Viz., it is unclear to us when the
thrower, room, and sides of the room actually originate, and it does not
necessarily follow from our comparative perspective, which results in
infinite regress, that the parts of the thrower, room, and sides of the
room are complete.)’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 503)
It does not matter where the ball is thrown from, who throws it, or
where they come from! The point of the analogy is to draw attention to
the *complete* traverse of the ball from *A* to *B*, no matter the
distance. If one views this activity, and sees only the ball leaving
point *A* then clearly they have not seen the *whole* action!!
‘Similarly, your assertion that the activity of the motorists waiting at
traffic lights for the green signal to drive, and then the motorists
drive through the green light, is a complete act, does not entail a more
reasonable complete explanation of who the motorists are, or what the
traffic light is. Viz., an activity cannot more reasonably be considered
complete unless all parts of the activity are complete. In your example,
you have simply assumed the complete parts. We challenge you in the
context of Competition 1 to more reasonably demonstrate the complete
“motorists”, “we all”, or “thrower”.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 503)
All motorists who conform to the Road Code, and do not drive
through red lights, have at that point in time conformed to the implicit
principles in ‘mutual agreement’. There is implicit in conformity to the
Road Code the concept of ‘mutual agreement’. At an elementary stage it
is a simple recognition of ‘what is’. At a realization stage it is the
experience of all the principles involved in that activity that make it
a ‘whole’ ‘complete’ experience. They are available constants that can
provide us with a view to ‘who we are’. Co-existing within the context
of motorists at traffic lights, we can also recognize the principles of
interdependence, mutual responsibility, freedom, and conformity to law.
Consider contemporary international road traffic without a Road Code?
Please consider ‘microcosmic’ experiences in the moment – which is in
Reality all we ever have. As a simple exercise we could take four
learner motorists aside, and instruct them on Road Code rules concerning
traffic lights. We then instruct two of them to drive up to a chosen set
of traffic lights, and observe their activity. If one chooses to drive
through a red light (for whatever reason), we could safely say there was
no ‘mutual agreement’ between the two drivers. We do the same with the
second pair of drivers. When both these drivers conform to the Road Code
we can just as safely observe that there was ‘complete mutual agreement’
at that moment when they both stop at a red light. Implicit within the
concept of ‘mutual agreement’ reside all other principles. There is
Conformity, Reason, Understanding, Intelligence, and they all become an
active ‘whole’ exactly at that point. It can be the *realization* by any
of the participants (observers or drivers) of that conformity between
them in that instant that can make each moment a ‘complete, and
Universal whole’
‘1. It is unclear to us how “mutual agreement” implicitly implies
complete agreement between individuals. How is an agreement complete in
all possible senses? For instance, how is the agreement between two
motorists not to drive through a red light a complete agreement? How can
the agreement entail all possible circumstances? How does the agreement
entail complete knowledge by the motorists (i.e. what they agree to)? Etc.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 503)
Within the microcosmic context of motorists at traffic lights,
and the amount of knowledge required to function in that scenario, it is
apparent that human beings have learned at that point in time (to those
who conform, see definition of ‘sanity’) to agree, and behave in a
manner that ensures that what they have agreed to will provide some
personal safety. It is when the act is fulfilled (from point A, to point
B) that we can recognize the validity of that form of agreement – either
stopping at red lights, or proceeding when the light turns green!
‘Your statement that “a circular argument is only circular if it
does not lead to significant conclusions” is only valid if the
significant conclusions themselves are not circular. From our
comparative perspective, please give us a more reasonable example of a
non-circular significant conclusion (i.e. a conclusion devoid of
infinite regress).’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 503)
*Circular argument*: This question I can only interpret as being that
the Committee takes the stand that all arguments are inherently
circular, and that they all require ‘a more reasonable’ standard, and
can never be devoid of ‘infinite regress’, from your ‘comparative
perspective’.
‘You claim that the concept of completion is used “to order our
everyday actions”, and yet as pointed out above, your examples of
complete action do not hold up. To illustrate further, you say that a
complete transaction is established by going to a baker, agreeing to the
price of a loaf of bread, and buying the loaf, and yet you fail to more
reasonably establish complete knowledge of the baker, purchaser, price,
loaf of bread etc. You just assume that they are complete through the
action of buying a loaf of bread.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 503)
Pray tell me what any knowledge of the customer – the baker –
the bread – or its price would really have anything to do with the
analogy of a ‘complete transaction’. The operative word in the analogy
is ‘transaction’, which is ‘completed’ when the purchaser buys the
bread. I repeat, we perform these complete transactions in countless
ways, and any one of them could have been used for the analogy. It is
the recognition that we constantly deal with ‘wholes’ that can provide
us with *realization*. You are using superfluous attachments, which
avoid the reality of ‘completion’, of seeing the ‘whole’, of any real
experience of ‘mutual agreement’. This observation will suffice to
answer question 4 on the basis that the ‘mind in a box’ position (the
continual storm of *mental* projections) has little to do with Reality.
‘4. You criticize the conception that “we cannot get outside of our
minds; so all we can know is what we know (from within our minds)” on
grounds that an “interioralisation of concepts, or principles, leads
only to a denial of their exterior reality”. Yet you have not more
reasonably refuted the mind in the box position.
Answer: Conventional behavior dictates that ‘we know’, and exhibit
tendencies in accordance with our everyday actions, and we also
conventionally know the condition of our fellow humans by the ‘normalcy’
that they display. Microcosmic moments of such knowledge are ‘complete’
at that point in time without fragmentation, or division, and constitute
a sane, and dependent society. When there is severe fragmentation, or
division (war, criminality) then we also ‘know’ that conventional
standards have been breeched. All acts, all experiences, are ‘whole’ in
themselves. It is the lack of direct experience of the manifestation
that subordinates them to the realm of that which is mysterious,
unexplainable, unwholesome, and unclear! The ‘mind in a box’ position
could be likened to self-delusion in which the ‘individual’ believes
that their particular view of Reality contains the only conceptual
values available, which includes an overall attachment to divisional
dichotomies. Comparisons are made on the basis of division, and
separation, resulting in a distorted view. The only realistic measure we
can ever attain are those of factors that exist – we cannot measure that
which is illusory! The centered in the mind position reduces the
capacity to merge with Nature’s Reality. Our conventional frame of
reference would always benefit from the discovery, or realization, that
we constantly conform (to some degree) to principles implicit in our
day- to-day existence. Pure experience of Reality, or ‘who we are’, does
not necessarily arrive from accumulated knowledge, or a mental
perspective. When we increase experience of Natural principles – therein
lays the possibility!
‘8. Regarding your questions from Entry 493,
The point that is being made is that there can be no human
perspective of any kind in such a hypothetical impossible scenario. It
would be in such a hypothetical circumstance that the Challenge question
could *never* be answered, because mathematically there must be at least
*two* to constitute the term ‘we are’. As we do know there is more than
two in existence, and in Reality, we can get on with the business at hand.
Proof = True Standard
Response:
Other issues:
Entries 510-514 Entries 516-518