Reply to the response to Entry 517

“‘The concept of infinity is limited because infinity itself faces its own infinite regress. Moreover, the concept implies no beginning or end, which then by definition mean there is no whole or completion including the notion of no beginning or end.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 517)

Although, to me, your first and second sentences on infinity above appear contradictory – this view of infinity offered, may clarify the issue.

We may symbolize a point as being infinite in the sense that any line can be categorized as being infinite with an infinite number of points in any line. We can reduce a line to an infinite number of points, but the line concept is still intact for the sake of argument.

If we intersect any line by any other line then we have a specific identifiable point at the intersection, which at that point in time has an infinite quality, yet constant and complete.

Any such point has Matter, Energy, Space, and Time, the epitome of the microcosm See extended commentary below on infinite regress.

‘Your notion of sanity with reference to what is “reasonable and evident” does not correspond to the standard of Competition 1 (i.e. more reasonable demonstration of complete knowledge in all possible senses).’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 517)

My definition of sanity with any other definitions forwarded are proposed that we may locate a Reality point that establishes the Truth. Conventional mechanical ‘thought processes’ deal with dichotomies that are based on a comparative perspective ideology, and consequently skew any real experience of that which is real.

You will note in the definition that it is Reality we must use as a true standard to measure how reasonable a person is. It is only on that basis that we have the possibility of extension. Would you agree that that would be a proper method to use in evaluating how sane a person is?

We must use correct ‘measuring sticks’ to secure proper standards, but from the point of view that there is a belief in dichotomies, it will always be a compelling argument that aspects of reality can be contradictory. The element of denial within human historical memory accumulates to establishing dichotomies as being real.

We are defined not by how ‘different’ we are, but by our commonality of existence. When we locate that Reality point we will then know that the definition in itself has a whole, and complete explanation of ‘sanity’ in all possible senses.

‘By us contending that the concept of “centrifugal force” as a significant conclusion is circular, we are not denying as you argue the conclusion. No. We are merely placing a more reasonable limitation on the conclusion in terms of completeness.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 517)

By placing your qualification on centrifugal force as a ‘more reasonable’ limitation, it is an extraordinary refutation of an established, and common standard. Centrifugal force would be a useless concept if we constantly applied your misdiagnosis of ‘what is’. In a real sense you have missed the point that each moment in time is complete in itself, and therefore eternal, and not prone to infinite regress. All the reality we can deal with is here, and now. There is no possibility that ‘infinite regress’ (an imagined reality) is any part of our immediate experience. Infinite regress through thought processes, deals with questionable imponderables. It is a descending spiral, which further removes one from reality, which only produces illusion, and correct meanings are always deferred. It is making a holy virtue out of complexity. In the extreme you are saying that there is no established reality that you will accept as a constant, and complete whole. In effect there are no standards that constitute our being ness. The more complex the application in refuting principles, the simpler is the underlying reality. The epitome of completeness is the active realization of the operational principle.

Significant conclusion: A brick – a house – each complete in themselves.

A house is not composed of one single brick, but each brick in its composition is complete, and whole in itself in that it has matter, energy, space, and time. In that context it is a microscopic whole which has implicit within it the macrocosmic whole.

‘Infinite regress and causal infinity by definition do not rule out, as you contend, that which is complete and constant. Rather, infinite regress and causal infinity project limitation on what we know including the concepts themselves. Therefore, there is a possibility through the concepts of infinite regress and causal infinity that some things are complete and constant.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 517)

All things are complete, and constant.

You impose imaginary limitations on all Reality. The infinite regress concept has no capacity to identify, that which is complete, and whole.

Can you validate the existence of ‘infinite regress’, as opposed to validating the existence of ‘constant knowledge’, that there is constant knowledge of gravity, sustenance, energy etc, etc.

There are an infinite number of points in any line, and the process of following those lines is infinite regress. When we intersect any line with another we locate a specific point. That which is complete, and whole is that specific point. Each moment in time is a specific point – each a microcosm of the macrocosm – a Eureka moment. This is the only time when we experience completeness in which the microcosmic ‘necessary factors’ are revealed, and we can make transparent a complete whole. In that experience there are no extraneous factors (infinite regress et al), no thought processes.

Reality is not composed of imaginary conditions, it is, all manifest life.

Each intersection of lines is part of the evolutionary drive toward what we already are. When you discuss the methodologies of thought as a Reality, you automatically admit to, and discuss the limitations so called thought imposes on you, and those limitations will never allow ‘complete’ experience. The barrier to ‘pure experience’ is what you call conscious thought, which is a product of historical human accumulation.

So long as there is no intersection then we continue on the imaginary lines with notions of infinite regress, comparative perspective etc, despite clear evidence that there is constancy in each moment. The principles of leverage, gravity et al, have always been, it requires the experience of that point of intersection for equilibrium to be achieved, and made manifest.

The point of intersection is in that existent network of Reality, and all we can ever do is experience its transparency, and experience the Truth. Within that point of reality our conventional modes of understanding are transformed.

Again, unless and until these become an experience of immediate reality (Eureka), they are only mechanical thought processes. Despite any cerebral denial to the contrary, all Reality at each moment in time is always available to be experienced in moments of equilibrium. In any cerebral argument as to the reality of that which is complete, and whole, the very thought processes claimed to be used, constitute a formidable barrier to real experience. Seek significant, and original concepts of that which is complete, and whole.

Adjudicate on the proposition that mechanical mental constructs, which accept infinite regress concepts, as being real, by their very nature can never experience that which is complete. It therefore follows that it has no ability through ‘conscious’ thought to assimilate ‘pure reality’. That does not mean that we abandon our so-called ‘conscious’ activity, but recognize its severe limitations, and use what we can to overcome it. Thought processes (which we are all subject to) are no substitute for direct realization experience of ‘that which is’.

With cerebral equations we can theorize an infinity of imaginary realities which in effect attempt to deny ‘that which is’. Complexity then becomes more important because it is a protective mechanism, which can never be explained. ‘Conscious thought‘ is your measure of Reality, which you experience in a particular state. When you come to an intersection point all you will have is the whole measure of that particular Reality, without extraneous cerebral misinformation. What you call ‘conscious thought ‘ is continuous experience. My experience at the moment is sitting here writing a variety of words from a cerebral computer into a mechanical computer (not much difference between them), it is the measure of my natural reality, but at this stage it is only composition, an endeavor to promote the reality of direct experience where no separation exists. When the complexity of the computer generated ‘conscious thought’ meets a point in an intersection, then its amorphous existence is exposed, and we experience Reality without the mechanical complexity of so called ‘conscious thought’. I’m sure there would be general consensus that the critical difference between myself, and this computer, is that I (as a homo sapien) have the ability to experience.

In a realm where complexity reigns, it is difficult to establish that which is easy, constant, true. Making a virtue out of complexity is not the road to wisdom. Within each intersection point there are no complex circular arguments –no infinite regress – any causal infinity. Doctrinal academia can invest in complexity at the expense of simple realities. Simple objective evidence can stand as creative symbols of knowledge that can promote experience of positive enlightenment. Establishing Reality is Knowing. There is (to use the term) a dimensional difference between knowledge of something, and the experience of knowing something. The experience of ‘knowing’ is the point of intersection! Hypothetically any line can extend to infinity, in which there are an infinite number of points. The paradox that exists is that when one line intersects with another, a point is located! Potentially within that point (which symbolizes completeness) we can experience that Reality. All any of us can do is use our own accumulation of terms in the paradoxical endeavor to remove ourselves from them, and experience what is Real.

The dysfunctional problem that exists is the constant search by ‘conscious thought’ for that which is complete, and whole, through your own mental construction. It is an exercise in futility for two reasons, in that it already exists in myriad fashion, in countless ways, and is, an inherent part of our nature, it could not be otherwise. That which you call ‘conscious thought’ excludes the very Reality that is constantly there (the general human condition) to be experienced. The historical compilation of mechanical information compounds the problem, and is used to promote cerebral continuity. It is this constant exercise that removes us from the experience of ‘who we are’, and creates the paradox of searching for our own Reality.

There is in effect a duality in language construction which ‘thought’ utilizes to establish its credibility. There is mechanical knowledge, and there is real knowledge. The effect of being in a ‘state’ where real knowledge is made transparent (Archimedes et al), is that it deals directly with ‘what is’, and the question of ‘who we are’ in that state, is superfluous. The impositional question itself contains the properties that deny the entity the right to transparency. The whole exercise can simply be called self-centered mechanical activity, which of course has no resolve.

You may recall that I posited the analogy of two-dimensional beings living on a paper plain. Pushing a lead pencil through that two-dimensional world the inhabitants could never describe what a complete pencil was as they can only view the cross section of the pencil as it passes through their world.

The distinction as you would have it between more reasonably establishing completion, versus more reasonably establishing more reasonableness is simply one of experience. That experience is realization of the paradox that exists. The experience may be likened as an escape to another dimension. As in the above analogy, the two dimensional beings if they could enter a three dimensional world would realize what a complete pencil was, but the truth is there are no other dimensions in our world. There is only ‘what is’. Reality is incapable of distorting the truth. It is the experience of Reality as it is that allows us to actually see ‘who we are’. Is there any real argument that we are natural products of Nature itself, and could conceivably be endowed with all the properties that allow us to exist in harmony with the Reality nature produces?

All Matter, all Energy, all Space, and all Time are the product of Nature, and everything that is, is that manifest evolutionary Reality. In the world we occupy there is no ‘infinite regress’, these types of concepts are imaginary constructs that lead only to further complexity, and exacerbate the cerebral difficulty. This argument can easily be reduced to the supposition that infinite regress can be categorized as part of reality, or that completeness exists in our everyday lives. The problem with infinite regress is that it has no recognizable sustainability whilst the simple period point at the end of this sentence epitomizes completeness.”

Bridie January 23 2005

Response:

We acknowledge that every aspect of your position on “direct realization experience of [Reality] or ‘that which is’” is possible. However, in context of Competition 1, what is required is not merely more reasonably demonstrating possibility, but more reasonably demonstrating more reasonable possibility. So we ask: Is your position on “direct realization experience of [Reality] or ‘that which is’” more reasonably possible?

In your entry, you acknowledge that conscious thought, from our perspective, “excludes the very Reality that is constantly there to be experienced”. In other words, you acknowledge that we (apparently) cannot know Reality or ‘that which is’ through conscious thought. From this position, which we agree with, you somehow make the step from so-called experience of ‘that which is’ to direct realization of experience of ‘that which is’. Without this step, there would be no apparent way we could know that we experience that which is. Viz., realization--whether direct or indirect--that we are consciously aware (of experience of ‘that which is’) is contingent on conscious thought which takes us back to the limitation of conscious thought. If you remove the realization step, then as mentioned, we would be left with experience, which we are not consciously aware of, and therefore, the experience would not exist from our perspective. So we think your position is limited by necessary inclusion of conscious thought, and therefore, your position is a less reasonable possibility of direct realization experience of ‘that which is’.

Your challenge may be to more reasonably demonstrate how we can more reasonably realize through so-called experience ‘that which is’ without including conscious thought in the process, or by backtracking on your position that conscious thought “excludes the very Reality that is constantly there to be experienced”, more reasonably demonstrate how conscious thought includes that very Reality that is constantly there to be experienced.

520. Entry:

“The basic notion of ‘More Reasonableness’ implies inherent comparison and evaluations thereof. Obviously, it can only be in the realm of what is known only. As we do not know for certain as to what lies at the other end or even if there is a starting point or end point at all, it could more reasonably fit into a realm of what is ‘unknown’. However, if one claims to have become enlightened and knowing the ‘unknown’ then it would fall into the realm of the known! On the other hand, if what is unknown remains unknowable, still one may taste being in such a state and yet, may NOT know it all, it would only mean that such a state is a dynamic state, ever-changing and infinite including all which can be known within the constraints of mass, space and time and beyond, yet NOT remaining attached to any thing or happening. Thus it would more reasonably prove to be NOT short-sighted and restricted to only the known where the human mind always compares and possess and bottle up the infinite into a small apparatus so to say. Such a state, obviously be a dynamic state of immense sensitivity, love and compassion without any known attributes or restrictions and hence be unconditional, always. Even the person witnessing various aspects of being in such a state of notionless mind, in trying to point towards it in terms of the known, knows the impossibility and inadequacy of known expressions and there can never be a coming back to the petty state of the realm of the known, for such an enlightened person. In other words, realms of the known and the unknown are mutually exclusive, yet, both are more reasonable in their own right depending on the digital state of the mind which is either ignorant or not ignorant of the total movement!”

R. Rangan January 26 2005

Response:

If the unknown remains unknown, an individual cannot “taste” the unknown and know that he or she has.
If the unknown becomes known, an individual may “taste” the unknown (now known) and know that he or she has.
In the former case, the unknown remains unknown, and in the latter case, the unknown becomes known. So we are left with division between the unknown and known. Yet in terms of Competition 1, it is unclear to us how the unknown realm itself more reasonably allows complete knowledge of who we are, because the realm is beyond what we know. In other words, how can an individual “taste” the unknown and know that he has and still remain in the unknown? If he cannot know that he “tastes” the unknown, then what grounds does he have to assert that he does, except for mere faith (in something beyond his comprehension)?

Further, if the unknown remains unknown, you are then assuming that the unknown is “a dynamic state, ever-changing and infinite including all which can be known within the constraints of mass, space and time and beyond, yet NOT remaining attached to any thing or happening”, because by definition, the unknown is beyond your (or anyone else’s) comprehension. Regardless the unknown remains unknown, and therefore it is unclear how we can more reasonably completely know who we are through it.

In summary, how can anything more reasonably be known exclusively in the unknown realm? Note, we are not referring merely to the possibility of knowing exclusively in the unknown realm, but to more reasonableness of knowing exclusively in the unknown realm.

521. Entry:

“‘To be who you are, is to know who you are; who you are is not a part of the whole time that you truly know who you are to be...’ ‘We know that we don’t know our true selves that the same time we truly don’t know who we are...’ ‘Time knows who we truly are; time can part out the time it takes to truly know the whole time it takes to not know a reason to truly be who you are.’ ‘Reason is an excuse for the same to be reasonably a part of who we are not. The reason time is always the same is the same reason we truly can't know who we are, and is the same time the reason we don't know.’ ‘You can’t be what you know’... ‘We don’t have a reason to take the time to truly know who we are because at the same time we are apart of who we are the same time and we are truly knowing who we are for no reason.’ ‘We truly are who we are when there is a reason to be at the same time.’ ‘Be your true self when its time for a reason to not know who you are.’ ‘If you don’t know who you are, you cannot be who you truly are. You have to know the time in order to be the reason why time is apart of who we are....’ ‘To be is to live, to know is to have truth, to have time is to be a part of the whole time; its the same time you have to know the truth to be and the reason to be the truth to know...’ ‘We know that we don’t even know what we truly know without knowing that we don’t even know that we really know what we know…”

Supplementary information requested by the Inexpressible Committee:

We request that you clarify your entry.

Reply:

EMAIL-CONFIMATION

------------------------------
ACTIVE STATUS
------------------------------

JuLz January 29 2005

Response:

You appear to be contending that we completely know who we are when there is “no reason” to, so that we completely know who we are in moments when we are not consciously aware of completely knowing who we are, and in moments when we are consciously aware of who we are we do not completely know who we are. Hence, you are contending that the state of complete knowledge of who we are is beyond our comprehension (i.e. “moments when we are not consciously aware”), and yet it does not follow how you or anyone else could more reasonably completely know that a state of complete knowledge exists, because as soon as you think you do, you do not completely know. (Or as you say, “we know we don’t know what we truly know without knowing that we don’t even know what we really know what we know”).

We acknowledge that your entry and reply to our request for clarity more reasonably demonstrates that you, whatever or whoever you are, exists. Though it does not necessarily follow that your entry itself or reply itself (i.e. “active status”) or the act of submitting an entry or replying more reasonably demonstrates complete knowledge of who we are. Based on our more reasonable inability to get outside of our minds and know that we are, and the apparent incomplete, comparative nature of what we know, your entry and reply themselves, and your act of submitting an entry and replying, all within the conscious domain, are limited knowledge of who you are (or who we are).

522. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 520

“The realm of the ‘known’ is an analog state which remains static and full of distorted and colored sensory perceptions of memory clips dealing with objects and events with desires and attachments. In comparison, the realm of the ‘unknown’ which is like a digital change of state or transformation which seems to be in a dynamic state dealing with the totality of movement rather than any sort of attachment to anything or happening therein. Notionless and devoid of any comparison if anyone happens to be in such a state of transformation, the tools devised in the realm of the known would certainly fail to deal with the dynamic perceptions. However, some aspects of it may be retold in the realm of the known. This only means that unconditional love turns into compassion without any subjective desire when an enlightened entity which happens to be in such a dynamic state of the unknown, perceiving infinite perceptions and constant change can never be static and wilful memory recall may be resorted to out of compassion for those who or limited to the perceptions only in the realm of the known. All our comparisons and tools of our logic with a perspective tainted with colorations and distortions and obscurity would be useless and meaningless in such a dynamic state. As the totality of immense movement and heightened sensitivity to such movement alone matters total attention without a flicker is implied here. More reasonably one may happen to be in such a transformed state in the realm of the ‘unknown’ only when the mind ceases to chatter, moving away from what ‘is’ owing to our notions and conditioning.”

R. Rangan January 31 2005

Response:

We do not deny the possibility of the unknown realm, whereby an individual through cessation of mental “chatter” may transform mentally into the realm. However, it is unclear to us how an individual can describe/know the unknown realm using notions and comparison, like your own, without succumbing to contradiction, when the unknown realm according to you is defined by notionless and no comparison. The same criticism applies to your assertion that “some aspects of [unknown]” can be “retold” in the known. Viz., how can something apparently notionless and devoid of comparison be accurately manifested in something defined by notions and comparison? How can the recall of willful memory, regardless of the intention behind the recall, be consistent with the unknown which is devoid of individual will? How can (conscious) chatter, no matter how miniscule, be consistent with what is devoid of (conscious) chatter? Since the “unknown”, according to you, can only be accessed when the mind ceases to chatter, how can individual whether enlightened or not, be in the unknown when his or her mind is in a state of chatter?

523. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 522

“When someone realizes the chatterless state of mind a sudden illumination or awareness with a heightened sensitivity capable of registering a dynamic state of a total movement where individual desires or notions disappear, never to reappear occurs. Only universal unconditional state of love prevails. However, such tranquility only when the eyes remain closed as in meditation, prayer etc… is not all. If such persons can be in such a digitally transformed state even while awake, seemingly engaged in mundane daily chores, actions and reactions of the not so enlightened around could trigger bouts out of overflowing compassion that appropriate pointers may be given by the enlightened by willfully coming down to the realm of the known though only momentarily. There can be no question of describing the ‘unknown’ ever. Since the domain of the unknown includes all things and events in the known and the beyond, such a feat would not be impossible if the enlightened shifts the attention to the domain of the known willfully at times, not so much for any personal gains but out of overflowing compassion in a state of universal love while witnessing immense apparent grief arising and owing to the ignorance prevailing all around. Hence, the unknown still remains unknown as a quantum field constantly changing and ever fresh and all-enveloping, and things and events in the domain of the known are only temporary appearances and disappearances causing grief or delight to the ignorant owing to their subjective attachments due to individual's desires and notions and many shades of such conditioning.”

R. Rangan February 3 2005

Response:

As mentioned in the response to Entry 522, we do not deny the possibility of enlightenment as explained by you. Our purpose is to evaluate the more reasonableness of enlightenment (as a means to completely know who we are).
To further that evaluation we ask:
What is it about the “chatterless state” that an individual “realizes” the (infinite) unknown?
How can an individual realize the unknown when realize, a conscious phenomenon, entails the known?
What is it about a “digital” transformation of the mind that complete knowledge of who we are is attained? What is this digital transformation? What are the mechanisms behind the transformation?
How can an individual in a chatterless state or unknown state know that he or she is aware of the unknown?
Since according to you, “the domain of the unknown includes all things and events in the known”, it follows that there is only the unknown. So why is there a need to be in a chatterless state to be aware of the unknown? Since the known is part of the unknown, why can’t the unknown be explained by the known? If the known is dimensionally part of the unknown, it means that everything we know is the unknown, and therefore by the mere fact that we know, regardless of what we know, we completely know who we are. Is this the position you are taking?
How can the unknown ever be more reasonably proven when it apparently can only be accessed through a chatterless state, so that the individual who accesses it or believes he or she accesses it, can only rely on the subjectivity of what he or she believes? In other words, how can the subjectivity of an individual’s interpretation of experience (Responses to Entries 308 and 310) be avoided (which takes us back to our questions on the natures of the chatterless state and the mind’s digital transformation)?

Entries 516-518 Entries 524-527