Reply to the response to Entry 525

“While the proposition itself is without clarifying as to ‘whom’ such logic and propositions occur. On the other hand, the state of deep sleep as experienced for sure, by all forms of life, is rather taken for granted. If only you care to address this issue of ‘deep sleep’ fundamentally, it would emerge something like this.. If one could be aware of his/her state of deep sleep it would imply that he/she is not in deep state of sleep. On the other hand, upon waking up from deep sleep if he/she knows with conviction that he/she indeed slept deeply as we all know, it means that there ought to be a state or entity witnessing even deep sleep. How does your proposition deal with ‘deep sleep’? This has not been addressed by you so far! The above conclusion is a logical inference than being a subjective assumption like yours which takes the ‘I’ for granted due mundane and tangible perceptibility alone. Thus the state prior to the arising of ‘I’ as concluded logically (not subjectively) knows the all that occur in deep sleep, dreaming state as well as wakeful state. Such a state being the state prior to any reckoning cannot be described as there is nothing else prior to that! All the above conclusions are purely logical and not derived out of any subjective elements.”

R. Rangan February 22 2005

Response:

Just because an individual believes with conviction that he or she had a deep sleep, it does not necessarily follow, as you contend, that there has to be “a state of or entity witnessing” his or her believed deep sleep. For instance, the basis for the individual’s conviction may be his or her feeling of restfulness when he or she woke up, or no known disturbance while he or she slept.

Also, what is the basis for knowing in a state prior to the arising of “I”? In other words, how can individual know without the inclusion of “I” or similar identity?

529. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 528

“Probably you do not want to deal with the state of deep sleep in a fundamental sense. With your perspective of ‘more reasonableness’ how do you deal with the state of deep sleep which is a well known fact of existence. If you know the state of deep sleep while sleeping then you are NOT in deep sleep of oblivion. If you are oblivious then how do you know? Just like one does not know while dreaming that all events in the dream are virtual only upon one's waking up, if you could become aware in the state which is prior to and even witnessing the state of deep sleep only then you can validate one's knowledge about such deep sleep. Though such a state of awareness is always inside everyone the attention shifts in a trice to the identifications and notions of the wakeful state alone. Do you agree from your perspective that the state of deep sleep is a fact or not? If it is a fact then how do you justify without a subjective element? If there is a state prior to the state of deep sleep, is it not logical that such a state is the common point to all, wherein the subjective reckoning ceases as ‘I’ crops up from nowhere only upon getting up. For ‘I’ the rise is sudden and the fall is gradual/sudden depending upon if one goes through the dreaming stage before falling deep asleep. If one manages to capture or glimpse the state prior to & witnessing even the state of deep sleep with awareness, it does NOT mean that that one with such awareness cannot recall by shifting willfully to the wakeful state also, though it will remain to be virtual from his altered perception. Since I am not enlightened there is nothing subjective about all of this! Obviously such a state and state of total ignorance as in deep sleep ought to be mutually exclusive. Hence can it not be called a digital change of state? All activities and thoughts with ‘I’ attached are pertaining to the wakeful state (body& mind) or dreaming (mind only) and ‘I’ is absent in deep sleep. Your proposition and perceptions justifications thereof are NOT devoid of ‘I’ and conveniently you have omitted elaborating on this subjective factor as to ‘to whom’ all reckonings occur. That is the single most important factor to decipher logically or otherwise.”

R. Rangan February 25 2005

Response:

We agree from our limited perspective that there is a state of deep sleep. However, just because deep sleep itself is (apparently) beyond our conscious grasp, otherwise it would not be deep sleep, we can still know deep sleep in a limited sense from what we experience following sleep. For instance, if we are feeling extremely well rested, and we do not recall being disturbed while we slept, then we may conclude from our limited perspective that we had a deep sleep. So based on this example, it does not follow that we can only know deep sleep from a state of knowing devoid of “I” or a similar conception.

Moreover, we do not deny the possibility of knowing without “I” or a similar conception. Though we want to know from you how anyone could more reasonably know without “I” or a similar conception? I.e. what is the basis for knowing if there is no “I” or similar conception?

Finally, we do not ignore or overlook the “to whom” aspect of ourselves. Rather, we are proposing that our knowledge of ourselves including “to whom”, in part or in whole, is more reasonably incomplete.

In summary, it appears to us that in order to take your position further, since knowledge of deep sleep or meditation is not exclusive to experiential knowledge of sleep or meditation itself, you need to explain how you or anyone else can more reasonably know without “I” or a similar conception.

530. Entry:

Reply to the response Entry 529

“From what you have said it emerges that you seem to accept ‘Deep sleep’ though it is only out of collective subjective factor due to which alone it appears to be reasonable or more reasonable in spite of it being less reasonable logically speaking. Thus going purely by the logic of your proposition the known fact of ‘Deep sleep’ must be denied really speaking. All such perceptions, conclusions, propositions and comparisons are ONLY in the wakeful state. In other words your proposition does not seem to apply to anything in other states like dreaming or deep sleep or prior to that! Wakeful state is to dreaming state, (both being mutual exclusive) what the possible state prior to deep sleep (awareness) to the state of deep sleep (void) and the state of deep sleep both wakeful and dreaming states are thrown into oblivion or void. It is as if there is light permeating through void when upon waking up our awareness shifts to the wrong side instead of the right side due to which dreaming (mind alone) or wakeful state (body and mind) appear when the ‘observer’ and the ‘observed’ both appear simultaneously out of nowhere! On the contrary in the fundamental state prior to deep sleep there is no observer, nothing observed but only ‘observing’ prevails. Thus if a proposition may be made to describe such a possible state wouldn't it be more reasonable and more meaningful?”

R. Rangan March 1 2004

Response:

We agree with you that the challenge proposition is limited to the realm of conscious knowledge. Though based on our apparent inability to get outside of our minds and know that we are (so all we can know is what we consciously know), that limitation (unless more reasonably demonstrated otherwise) applies to any other proposition.

Also, though a proposition which describes a possible state of awareness prior to the arising of “I” would be helpful to your position, it does not necessarily follow that the proposition (limited to the realm of conscious knowledge) would be more reasonable. Viz., to be considered more reasonable, the proposition would have to go beyond mere description (and possibility), by establishing a more reasonable description and more possibility in relation to antagonistic positions.

In summary, the problem with your position is that you are bound to the realm of conscious knowledge in any explanation/proof/interpretation you provide, and yet what you are describing is outside of the realm of conscious knowledge. As a result, your position is anchored to mere possibility or speculation, unless you can either get (more reasonably) outside of the realm of conscious knowledge and into the proposed realm of awareness devoid of conscious knowledge and (somehow) know that you are (and thereby communicate the awareness to us…), or you somehow more reasonably include the realm of conscious knowledge into the proposed realm of awareness devoid of conscious knowledge.

531. Entry:

“We cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time. Who we are = x x=x. We truly know x and are x at the same time is false. We cannot truly know x (x or part of x) and be x (at the same time) is true. When we falsely know or do not know x, we are x (at the same time) is true. So, when we know we are human beings, we are no longer human beings (our species) (at the same time.) And, when we are human beings, we don’t know we are human beings (our species). Therefore, knowing x is outside being x and has nothing to do with it, and being x has nothing to do with knowing x. Therefore, a human being cannot both exist as a human being and know it is a human being at the same time. Therefore, a human being must not know it is a human being in order to exist, or when it knows it is a human being, suddenly no longer exists as a human being. Therefore, when we know we are human beings, we suddenly do not exist as human beings, but when we do not know we are human beings, we suddenly exist as human beings. This bit of information is critical for human beings as a species to continue to exist around other species or even our own species. When they suddenly are no longer human beings because they are thinking they are human beings is a dangerous moment. Other human beings who are not human beings (x) because they are not thinking about (x) it will not know what a human being is, and will kill them as snakes or whatever. Knowing x necessarily excludes being x. There is no inherent necessity in your premise. Your premise defies experience and is incoherent.”

Jack Ferguson March 2 2005

Response:

Because Challenge proposition 1 is asserted from our limited (or incomplete) perspective*, the proposition makes no claim of truth or falsity. Therefore, your argument premised on Proposition 1 making true and false claims is not correct.

In short, Challenge Proposition 1 proposes that we cannot more reasonably completely know who we are. But in doing so, the proposition proposes as well that we can know who we are in a limited, incomplete sense. So if Proposition 1 is valid within limits, we have incomplete knowledge of who we are, with the possibility that we may have complete knowledge of who we are without (completely) knowing that we do. In other words, Proposition 1 is proposing within limits that more reasonably all knowledge of who we are is incomplete, or more reasonably there is no complete knowledge of who we are.

* From the definitions of the principle terms (of Proposition 1), it states that “we cannot [more reasonably] truly know” refers to our inability to more soundly and consistently show we can know something in entirety.
Also, the concept of more reasonableness, an integral part of Proposition 1, refers to the (more or less) soundness and consistency of a reason/position based on comparison to other reasons/positions. Hence, more reasonableness due to its comparative aspect, is limited. (I.e. there is no claim of truth or falsity.)
Further, in the opening statement of Proposition 1, it states by the author of the proposition that he is “not fully certain” of the proposition’s validity, which then implies that the proposition is asserted within limits.
Furthermore, from the main arguments supporting Proposition 1, it states under the title Limited perspective:

By asserting [Proposition 1] within limits (or with incompletion), we avoid the skeptical contradiction of claiming to not know anything from a position of knowing, and the contradiction of claiming to not truly know who we are from a position of truly knowing who we are. Also, the criticism that the proposition is limited or incomplete, thereby uncertain, is cancelled out because apparently all propositions from our perspective are (more reasonably) limited or incomplete.

532. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 530

“What you say amounts to saying that you cannot let go your theories in spite of knowing fully well that their scope is very limited and restricted to the wakeful state only and trying to verify a state outside of it through such limited perception and rejecting it is like a jackal saying that the bunch of grapes hanging outside its reach must surely be sour and therefore not worth the effort! Since such perceptions (logical or otherwise) still has ‘I’ attached as the ‘to whom’ factor has not been dislodged but taken for granted or conveniently omitted. That is where the following analogy or metaphor or indirect approach might prove to be helpful. Let us assume that the state prior to the arising of ‘I’ as a factor which could be present in all living creatures (vegetation, animal kingdom and human beings) to witness the state of even deep sleep, permeating through void (deep sleep) as in a kaleidoscope, causing infinite patterns, shapes and colors perceivable only in the dream state or wakeful state. Such kaleidoscopic panorama of the cosmos, dogmas & beliefs are for limited perceptions from one side only. On the other hand if such perception were altered to the state which negates the very void state or consequences thereof, nothing would remain but the constant awareness at the state prior to ‘I’. Consequently, all one has to do is to approach living with a state of mind ‘I do not know’ rather than ‘I know’ as the former is a fact and the latter can be a non-fact owing to infinite perceptions and variations thereof. In void everything is certainly unknown while the known is probably uncertain. Summarizing, your proposition must be overcome NOT because someone has to win or lose but for the sole reason that it arises owing to inherent limitation only and NOT due to impossibility of any other state or perception. In trying to prove or reject in accordance with limited perception alone is illogical. Instead a more fundamental approach using all available tools of logic to look into the puzzle would be more meaningful. Since your proposition cannot even handle ‘deep sleep’ without subjective factors would it be logical to reject that ‘deep sleep’ is just impossible? As this would be surely absurd it goes to prove that the very proposition itself is far from being perfect and hence applying this to judge anything else is incorrect, logically speaking. The right conclusion should be that the proposition needs to be amended to take into account the void state of deep sleep as well as the logical conclusion and certainty of the state prior to the arising of ‘I’ which alone negates the void as well creations of shapes, colors and movements and events arising in our perception due to the ignorance or void state.”

R. Rangan March 6 2005

Response:

In order for your position that a limited proposition or perspective (e.g. Proposition 1) ought not logically be the basis to evaluate other propositions/perspectives to make sense, you need to (more reasonably) establish a perspective that is not limited/incomplete. All you have proposed is an “indirect approach” which is within the bounds of limited/incomplete perspective. In other words, you criticize Proposition 1 for being imperfect, and yet you provide no example of a “perfect” proposition or perspective. So your criticism of Proposition 1’s (apparent) limitation is cancelled out until you or anyone else can (more reasonably) establish a proposition/perspective which is not limited.

In consideration of our response above, how is the state prior to the arising “I” completely certain?

Why are Proposition 1’s limited/incomplete accounts of the so-called void of deep sleep and “to whom” we are, not acknowledged by you? Since your standard of knowledge is a complete account (rather than an incomplete account), we request that you provide us with an example of a complete account.

Entries 524-527 Entries 533-537