Reply to the response to Entry 538

“‘Your position that ‘everything is’ is self-defeating because it means that contradictory positions like "nothing is and everything is", and "everything is disconnected and unrelated, and everything is interconnected and interrelated" are all what "is". (Excerpt from the response to Entry 538)

The consistent limitations you place on argument by asking for 'more reasonableness' is predicated on your profound adherence and acknowledgement of 'contradictory positions' which in effect do not exist.

To repeat - there are no dichotomies. That 'which is' has no opposite.

We are connected. However tenuously it may be, that is the measure of our connection, and so it is with all 'necessary factors'. We do not have the ability to deny 'what is' by attempting to categorize a mythical dichotomy in the form of 'contradictory positions' which are simply cerebral products which have no relationship to fact.

It is why I have profound reservations concerning the validity of mind, or thought.

‘It is unclear to us how we can know through so-called "real" or "immediate" experience without the use of conscious thought. You refer to innate knowledge, but even still experience requires the use of conscious thought in order for us to know. Viz., experience itself does not allow us to know; it is only by interpreting experience that we know of experience. Note, to argue that we interpret experience through the use of innate knowledge in a so-called Archimedes' moment, still involves conscious thought. (I.e. conscious interpretation of both the experience and innate knowledge.)’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 538)

Only if you were the recipient of an Archimedes moment could you know that the highlighted phrase above is not true (Note - knowledge). Historical cerebral limitations of thought which give credence to mythical dichotomies are the very barriers to the 'immediate experience' potential which can expose us to the world of Reality. Whenever basic presumptions, or mistaken certainties (which are in error) are used to extend an argument, then that error is magnified as it progresses. True knowledge, and true experience are one and the same, it requires experience of reality to recognize the principles.

It is a fact that the principle of leverage now exists as a reality which is quite easily demonstrated. Humankind is the beneficial recipient of a multitude of the facts that Nature & Reality provide, and we can safely, and reasonably presume, that they have always been, and always will be. The principle of leverage is!!

‘Moreover, it is unclear to us the origin of innate knowledge, and how there could (more reasonably) be complete innate knowledge, when knowledge is based on (past) knowledge. If you argue that complete innate knowledge is latent in the external world and/or our minds, then you need to more reasonably demonstrate that it is, and more reasonably explain how it enters our minds without being changed by our minds.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 538)

This is a repetitive question with a repetitive answer.

The principle of leverage is, and we constantly use it.

As I have said previously I have severe reservations about concepts of mind or thought, but I continue to use them for ease of reference.

To some degree or another each of us is directly connected to reality (we do not have any choice in the matter), and we can potentially evaluate 'what is' through the utilization , and examination of factual reality.

We are the microcosmic part of that Universal Macrocosm, and because we already have that innate information it is a matching process when we have a Eureka moment, an epiphany, an understanding beyond question.

Nothing enters our minds - we already know!

Everyone has innate knowledge of the principle of leverage (true egalitarianism - somewhere it is said we are all born equal!). It requires correct examination of "what is" for realization to occur. It is then relief to have "mutual agreement" on the things we would wish to make transparent to others.

NB: Consider please the futility of realizing a fundamental truth, which on entering our so-called minds is then altered by it. That would be prostitution.”

Bridie April 10 2005

Response:

We do not deny the possibility of your position. However, as your position stands we question its more reasonableness based on the following points:

1. You claim “that ‘which is’ has no opposite”, whereby “we are connected” in an implied oneness or whole.
What is this oneness or whole you are implying, and what grounds do you have to claim it is more reasonably completely ‘what is’?

1.1 Since you more reasonably can only know from your comparative perspective, no different from anyone else, how is a non-comparative position (i.e. complete oneness or whole) more reasonable than a comparative position like causal infinity?

2. You state that you have “profound reservations concerning the validity of mind or thought”, and yet your position is from your mind or expressed as thought, and therefore, if mind or thought is invalid, your position must be as well. So we ask you how can you consistently reconcile your dependence on mind or thought while at the same time question the validity of mind or thought?

3. What more reasonable evidence do you have of innate knowledge? Where does innate knowledge come from?
Since the human species itself is finite, it follows that any so-called innate knowledge is finite as well, which contradicts your claim of complete or pure innate knowledge. If you retort that existence itself is defined by principles which are contained in all human beings, then we would like to know where the principles more reasonably come from?

4. You claim for example that the principle of leverage exists as reality, and yet with reference to George Berkeley and his work, Principles of Human Knowledge (Oxford University Press, 1999), you or anyone else cannot know anything without the use of your mind, and therefore, it is less reasonable for you to assert that leverage itself exists independent of your mind in so-called reality. The more reasonable assertion is that leverage exists in your mind, and you have no way of knowing whether or not leverage or any other principle exists in so-called reality because you cannot get outside of your mind. Or as Berkeley writes,

…. It is but looking into your own thoughts, and so trying whether you can conceive it possible for a sound, or figure, or motion, or colour, [or principle,] to exist without the mind, or unperceived. This easy trial may make you see, that what you contend for, is a downright contradiction. Insomuch that I am content to put the whole upon this issue; if you can but conceive it possible for one extended moveable substance, or in general, for any one idea or anything like an idea, to exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving it, I shall readily give up the cause…. But say you, surely there is nothing easier than to imagine trees, for instance, in a park, or books existing in a closet, and nobody by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no difficulty in it: but what is all this, I beseech you, more than framing in your mind certain ideas which you call books and trees, and at the same time omitting to frame the idea of anyone that may perceive them? But, do not you yourself perceive or think of them all the while? This therefore is nothing to the purpose: it only shows that you have the power of imagining or forming ideas in your mind; but it doth not shew that you can conceive it possible, the objects of your thought may exist without the mind: to make out this, it is necessary that you conceive them existing unconceived or unthought of, which is manifest repugnancy…. But the mind taking no notice of itself, is deluded to think it can and doth conceive bodies [or principles] existing unthought of or without the mind: though at the same time they are apprendended by or exist in itself…. It is very obvious, upon the least inquiry into our own thoughts, to know whether it be possible for us to understand what is meant, by the absolute existence of sensible objects [and principles] in themselves, or without the mind. To me it is evident those words mark out either a direct contradiction, or else nothing at all. And to convince others of this, I know no readier or fairer way, than to entreat they would calmly attend to their own thoughts; and if by this attention, the emptiness or repugnancy of those expressions does appear, surely nothing more is requisite for their conviction.” (Pages, 33-34)

5. How do you more reasonably completely know that you “experience reality” or “correctly examine ‘what is’”? What is the ground for your “understanding beyond question” or doubt?

How does a Eureka moment more reasonably establish complete knowledge? How are you more reasonably completely certain, in all possible senses, that your so-called innate knowledge corresponds exactly to what you experience through your sensory? Also, how are you more reasonably completely certain, in all possible senses, that your innate knowledge is complete, and your sensory information corresponds exactly to so-called reality?

544. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 543

“‘We do not deny the possibility of your position. However, as your position stands we question its more reasonableness based on the following points:
1. You claim “that ‘which is’ has no opposite”, whereby “we are connected” in an implied oneness or whole.
What is this oneness or whole you are implying, and what grounds do you have to claim it is more reasonably completely ‘what is’?’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 543)

The evidence above I am confidently proffering to be true is not my personal property - it simply and intrinsically is “what is”.

It is only in being ’who we are’ that we can truly know ’who we are’.

To postulate cerebral philosophical difficulties with evident matters of fact only compounds the problem, and dissuades the emergence of real understanding.

My radical contention is that only when the notion that the ‘individual’ so called ‘mind’ is recognized as a myth can Reality take its rightful place. The only thing that does exist is Reality, and we do not egotistically own an individual part of it that we can mould to suit our personal ego! The evidence of our own being in this universe, can only be understood in relationship, one to the other, and our conformity to the universal principles we commonly share. Give credence to the fact that what we share is not the product of an “individual” mind, otherwise it would be a contradiction in terms!

To activate any reasoning faculty we need to establish knowledge of standards that are common to us all. Any plausible understanding, or conclusion, must initially proceed from a positive base that will provide unity of purpose (see drivers and green lights).

The measure of any success will lie in the fundamental recognition that we all interdependently conform to the same laws. That being confirmed provides accurate guidelines for rational action, and a sense of predictability.

‘1.1 Since you more reasonably can only know from your comparative perspective, no different from anyone else, how is a non-comparative position (i.e. complete oneness or whole) more reasonable than a comparative position like causal infinity?’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 543)

To occupy a world in which contradictions predominate (infinite regress - causal infinity - more reasonableness) we lose the capacity to identify wholes.

‘2. You state that you have “profound reservations concerning the validity of mind or thought”, and yet your position is from your mind or expressed as thought, and therefore, if mind or thought is invalid, your position must be as well. So we ask you how can you consistently reconcile your dependence on mind or thought while at the same time question the validity of mind or thought?’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 543)

Seeing people as they really are goes beyond nominated conventional thought processes, and the accumulation of human history - it is identified (when it happens) as “pure experience”.

‘3. What more reasonable evidence do you have of innate knowledge? Where does innate knowledge come from?

Since the human species itself is finite, it follows that any so-called innate knowledge is finite as well, which contradicts your claim of complete or pure innate knowledge. If you retort that existence itself is defined by principles which are contained in all human beings, then we would like to know where the principles more reasonably come from?’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 543)

There is no Nature and Reality source. We live in a Universe which has always been, and always will be. Our only contact with that Universe is here and now, and our only real understanding of that Universe is the experience of ’what is’.

We live, move, and have our being in Nature, and Reality. We are all composed of the same laws of Nature and cannot exist without complying to the innate principles which are fundamental to all life in the Universe.

To posit a source, or beginning, then you must posit that there was no thing before beginning. As that is manifestly impossible it follows that there could be no beginning - no source - everything is!

We are - not because we ‘think’ we are, but because we are an inherent part of everything that is.

Seeking truths with so-called cerebral activity is a contradiction if such activity has a false basis to extend from. Cerebral attempts in this regard can never attain the experience of absolute certainty, because it then nullifies its source.

Could you please tell me where your knowledge that ‘the human species is finite’ comes from. Surely that statement falls into your own category question of ’more reasonableness’.

‘4. You claim for example that the principle of leverage exists as reality, and yet with reference to George Berkeley and his work, Principles of Human Knowledge (Oxford University Press, 1999), you or anyone else cannot know anything without the use of your mind, and therefore, it is less reasonable for you to assert that leverage itself exists independent of your mind in so-called reality. The more reasonable assertion is that leverage exists in your mind, and you have no way of knowing whether or not leverage or any other principle exists in so-called reality because you cannot get outside of your mind. Or as Berkeley writes,

…. It is but looking into your own thoughts, and so trying whether you can conceive it possible for a sound, or figure, or motion, or colour, [or principle,] to exist without the mind, or unperceived. This easy trial may make you see, that what you contend for, is a downright contradiction. Insomuch that I am content to put the whole upon this issue; if you can but conceive it possible for one extended moveable substance, or in general, for any one idea or anything like an idea, to exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving it, I shall readily give up the cause…. But say you, surely there is nothing easier than to imagine trees, for instance, in a park, or books existing in a closet, and nobody by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no difficulty in it: but what is all this, I beseech you, more than framing in your mind certain ideas which you call books and trees, and at the same time omitting to frame the idea of anyone that may perceive them? But, do not you yourself perceive or think of them all the while? This therefore is nothing to the purpose: it only shows that you have the power of imagining or forming ideas in your mind; but it doth not shew that you can conceive it possible, the objects of your thought may exist without the mind: to make out this, it is necessary that you conceive them existing unconceived or unthought of, which is manifest repugnancy…. But the mind taking no notice of itself, is deluded to think it can and doth conceive bodies [or principles] existing unthought of or without the mind: though at the same time they are apprendended by or exist in itself…. It is very obvious, upon the least inquiry into our own thoughts, to know whether it be possible for us to understand what is meant, by the absolute existence of sensible objects [and principles] in themselves, or without the mind. To me it is evident those words mark out either a direct contradiction, or else nothing at all. And to convince others of this, I know no readier or fairer way, than to entreat they would calmly attend to their own thoughts; and if by this attention, the emptiness or repugnancy of those expressions does appear, surely nothing more is requisite for their conviction. (Pages, 33-34)’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 543)

Sufficient for my purpose the extract given points to a determination of the superiority of the individual mind collection, and the certainty of its own convictions as having knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the erstwhile principles.

Notably the author was born some thirty years later than Rene Descartes, and undoubtedly as an academic in his day would have embraced the Cartesian myth, Cogito, ergo sum (I think - therefore I am ) as would have generations thereafter Therein lies the conviction that one cannot get outside of ones mind. My own view of that malady is that it is a protective mechanism to overcome its inherent morbidity, and the superficial fear of loss of existence if it relates in any way to that which is real. Surely an admittance of the Platonic cave syndrome and the foundation for pre-Freudian narcissism. That form of containment allows the illusion of separateness which in turn sanctions every inhumanity conceivable.

Human individual egotism and its capitulation to mechanical knowledge throughout history holds itself superior in spite of the evidence that we constantly share and use principles in myriad forms to structure the societies we inhabit.

It is not mechanical knowledge that is the criteria for sharing that which is Real. No one owns the truth of objective, or subjective reality, no matter the façade of intellectual superiority mechanical knowledge may engender. To consider that as a human potential (ownership) would indeed be repugnant.

Manifest evidence of ’what is’ is always available - it is the human interpretive experience of Nature and Reality that structures our being. Universal truths do not exist as mental constructs, nor are they part of the confusion of mind that principles exist in the abstract. My relationship to the principle of leverage is easily demonstrated in the use of a crowbar - but the realization of its existence as a principle was the experience of one Archimedes - because it was there!

In reference to Bishop Berkeley, and the committee, it was Archimedes realization - not mine. My adherence to the evidence of Archimedes in the matter of principles may be construed as a simplistic attachment to an historical figure - but there are many other principles used by others throughout history that must be continuously available to continue its evolutionary course. We all live and share to some degree the innate, and intrinsic principles that Nature, and Reality hold as eternal properties.

If humanity had treated principles in the abstract as Bishop Berkeley infers there would have been no evolutionary progress. The artificial human ego is not the repository of the principles in question. Simply because we prefer the comfort of our own philosophy, and belief systems (no matter the direction they take us in) it is almost impossible to establish a paradigm that may take us in the right direction!

The sad egotistical arrogance that cannot perceive of a Universe that exists other than in its mythical mind is pitifully evident when we attempt to deny the parallel activities that are so much of our daily existence. Bishop Berkeley is the epitome of the Cartesian dogma education which was promulgated some thirty years prior to his birth. We do not exist as separate individual identities. We can only exist as human beings in relationship with recognition of our dependence on each other.

Fortunately the Committee has not completely discouraged those concepts. We need to focus attention on context, and accept the intrinsic reality in each moment which in turn allows us to relate to some degree to ’what is’. Habitual, and active deviation from context (infinite regress) is in its own way destructive of our own being-ness, it removes us from the actuality of who ’we are’.

Principles do not exist in the abstract, nor are they ‘independent’ of human nature. The above Berkeley extract that I am replying to conforms to the principle of Communication, and I am its recipient - unbeknown to Bishop Berkeley - I am here!

It is not the process of individual egotistical mythical minds that establish principles, but the reality of the principle itself that we constantly share, whether with direct perception, or a slow dawning of their existence. We now take for granted the concept of Communication, and constantly utilize, and extend its values.

To consider as Bishop Berkeley implies that only individual ego and its ‘mind’ construct is the criteria for pure experience of any form of Reality is the height of arrogance. What escapes Bishop Berkeley is the reality that he like all others cannot function outside our dependence on principles. We co-exist with Nature and Reality in our use, or misuse of the principles that are the proper property of our being.

‘5. How do you more reasonably completely know that you “experience reality” or “correctly examine ‘what is’”? What is the ground for your “understanding beyond question” or doubt?

How does a Eureka moment more reasonably establish complete knowledge? How are you more reasonably completely certain, in all possible senses, that your so-called innate knowledge corresponds exactly to what you experience through your sensory? Also, how are you more reasonably completely certain, in all possible senses, that your innate knowledge is complete, and your sensory information corresponds exactly to so-called reality?’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 543)

To establish evidence of common natural standards we are obliged to secure facts that identify our mutual dependence on the principles that support life. Indisputable knowledge in the form and function of our bodies provides common-sense evidence of their needs (applied principles).

Certain knowledge of basic information that we can honestly agree upon will deliver up laws that we can reasonably support. It is manifestly evident that throughout societies people conform to their own particular laws which in the main are designed to promote safety, and security. There is no freedom without law (applied principles).

When we actually conform to the basic truth of our dependence on Nature then we can operate with a measure of intelligent reason to identify the disciplines we can use to understand our present existence, and come to terms with ‘who we are’. The discovery of basic principles that provide a strong positive connection in the form of our immediate reality offer up that measure of proof that constantly connects us. It is possible to find real values that we can trust.

Ergo the modern techniques of land care, proper cultivation etc, which has provided an abundance of food which could sustain an ever growing planetary population, if properly distributed.

Every aspect of education, and technology that has evolved (applied principles).

Where else will you find the answers you seek other than here, and now?”

Bridie May 29 2005

Response:

We agree with you that life-forms, things appear to be interconnected and that barring moments of instinctual assertion, humanity is guided by principles and ideas. However, you take your position too far, in terms of more reasonableness, by implying that there are complete principles (i.e. things-in-themselves) embedded in Nature including our minds, and asserting that we have the means to “directly experience” what is. Sure, we are in a momentary existence, but that does not necessarily establish we have complete knowledge of the moment. What you appear to overlook is that due to the apparent interconnection of life-forms, things, everything is in a state of interaction including our perception (i.e. interaction of our sensory receptors with the external world), and yet as mentioned you claim we can directly experience. The underlying tension between these positions, indirect experience or perception, and direct experience or perception, is knowing with our minds and knowing without our minds. Bishop Berkeley has made it clear that we cannot know without our minds otherwise there would be no basis for us to know. As he says, “all things that exist [from our perspective], exist only in the mind, that is, they are purely notional.” Your counter argument that Berkeley’s position is rooted in Cartesian (i.e. dualistic) philosophy does not refute Berkeley’s position. Rather, it points to the dualistic, comparative nature of human thought which defines everything we know, including your position on direct experience and innate principles. We challenge you beyond merely saying there are no dichotomies, to more reasonably demonstrate there are no dichotomies. In essence, we challenge you to more reasonably demonstrate how you or anyone else can get outside of your mind which is defined by comparison.

To get around Berkeley’s mind problem, intentionally or unintentionally, you contend that complete, innate principles in the external world are also in our minds, so it is just a matter of connecting the two through moments of direct experience similar to Archimedes and his experience of the principle of leverage. However, we come back to the problem of direct experience in an existence defined by interconnection, and the problem of more reasonably demonstrating complete innateness whether in our minds or in the external world, which takes us back to the problem of getting outside of our minds which are defined by comparison and thereby incompletion.

In summary, it appears to us that the main problem area with your position and which needs to be addressed is:

the notion that our minds (or thoughts) are defined by completeness or non-comparison.

The premise behind this idea is:

existence is or contains completeness.

This idea of completeness leads to the challenge for you to more reasonably demonstrate how you or anyone else can get outside of your mind which is defined by comparison and thereby incompleteness and dualism. (Up to now, your notion of direct experience (and indirectly complete, innate knowledge), though possible, falls short of the more reasonable standard--because of the more reasonableness of Berkeley’s mind in a box position and the concepts of interconnection and interaction.)

545. Entry:

“Perhaps ‘knowing’ who we are comes by ‘being’. I accept the statement reversed; ‘We cannot truly 'be' who we are - until we 'know' who we are.’ You will ‘be’ and ‘are’, whether you are aware of it all or not, but awareness completes the state of being.

Having little knowledge of their birthright, they walked in darkness, never treading on the path towards home because they knew it not to be their heritage. Had they known, they might have contributed more to the cause they were intended. Instead, they merely ‘were’ and, without the understanding, there was cause to question that they existed at all. {Statement my own}

Carmen DePietro June 22 2005

Response:

Since we apparently cannot help from being who we are, as long as we are alive, and regardless of what we think or do, what does awareness or knowledge of who we are have to do with being who we are?

We do not think complete knowing and being at the same time is (completely) “impossible”, because that would be a contradiction, since impossibility from our limited perspective is itself grounded on possibility (i.e. the possibility of impossibility). (See Entry 168) We think and propose that complete knowing and being at the same time is less reasonable than incomplete knowing and being at the same time.

How can complete knowledge of ourselves be regarded as a valid “goal”, when due to our comparative and incomplete perspective, we cannot more reasonably comprehend completeness? In other words, how can something beyond our comprehension be a valid goal? The notion of goal implies something concrete to strive for, but complete knowledge in our view is anything but concrete.

546 Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 545

"We cannot accept the statement '...we apparently cannot help from being who we are, as long as we are alive, regardless of what we think or do...' as we would have to, as you said, be certain of who we are to ascertain whether we are 'helplessly complying' as suggested. This statement denotes too much importance to the state of being alive, as though this is what constitutes existence: all that we perceive to be reality between birth and death, and all existence ends at the point of physical death (although there may be justification for the idea that this existence, as we know it, will end). Also, that what we think and do has no relevance must be tested against theories of Will. There is not sufficient basis of supporting evidence to assume the apparancy of any of these points made.

In order to understand how awareness and knowledge have anything to do with who we are, it is necessary to properly classify knowledge {external information observed, learned, absorbed} and consciousness {internal information: the processing of self, impact upon external world, etc.} as separate senses wherein awareness is the resulting functionability. Knowledge and consciousness are both forms of information, both imply the application of themselves as some form of awareness.

If we seek an understanding of completeness, we must refer to that which we have gleaned from our observations and what definitions we use for what we observe. Therefore, 'complete' may be understood as something "having all it's parts" or, as in 'the following of a pattern/cycle from the beginning to the finishing point' [birth to death, human life cycle] by our definition.

Awareness as knowledge and/or consciousness, when working together at proper optimal functioning through this interaction, can be considered 'complete'. The individual parts should not have to be complete. (For example, a pilot uses his consciousness to obtain knowledge, the skills he will use to fly the plane. He will apply his consciousness to interpreting further knowledge as he flies the plane. This pattern is complete awareness; knowing and being. He does not require complete knowledge as to how to build a plane or repair it, nor does he need complete consciousness of how he feels about planes and flight, how his passengers are responding to his actions, or what the flight crew is doing. All this information (i.e. knowledge) will continue to be absorbed anyway as long as awareness is complete.) Accordingly, knowledge and consciousness can exist independently and it is this that gives us the definition of awareness more specifically as knowledge or consciousness alone. When one has consciousness or knowledge without the interaction of the other, one has [incomplete] awareness. One example might be how a small child has consciousness and has to use this sense to accumulate knowledge and so forth. This continues all through the child’s life. Due to this process, 'knowing' and "being" are integrally connected and, while we can accept that incomplete knowing and being is more reasonably the likely state, it stands to reason that complete knowing and being is more reasonably the expected state.

As to complete knowledge as it was referred: the statement 'we cannot truly know ourselves, in whole or in part, and be who we are...' at the same time, does not insist on complete knowledge. Rather, it imposes the impossibility of any knowledge of ourselves, which is not reasonable at all. We must have some awareness of whom we are to function as such. Complete awareness, even without complete knowledge, fits the definition of a goal as 'something to strive for'."

Carmen DePietro July 15 2005

Response:

In defense of our statement (and claim) that "we apparently cannot help from being who we are as long as we are alive", we ask you how someone more reasonably cannot help from being who she is (whoever she is) in each moment she is alive?
If someone is not who she is in one moment while she is live, then more reasonably who is she in that moment? Sure an individual may be influenced by external forces beyond her control; but how is that individual still not being whom she is? The emphasis is on the state of "being" and its equation to the individual.
Further, since the individual has no apparent control over her existence (i.e. the individual is derived from parents who are derived from other parents ad infinitum), how can it more reasonably be said the individual is not who she is in any moment she is alive?
To be is to exist, and by existing, we are being who we are in some form. To deny that inherent connection between being and who we are, is to deny the individual him or herself, thereby contradict our individual perspective.
Also, since our claim of the connection between being and who we are is from our limited perspective, we do not need to be "certain" of who we are. All we need is the more sound arguments. We challenge you to more reasonably demonstrate how someone in a moment she is alive, could "be" without being who she is, with the emphasis on being itself (rather than the action(s) extending from being).

We accept your distinction between knowledge as external information and consciousness as internal information. Though we qualify the distinction by asserting that the internal is necessarily connected to the external and vise versa. (I.e. from human perspective, there is apparently no external knowledge without consciousness, and no consciousness without external knowledge.)

Though more importantly, it is unclear to us your reasons for considering “awareness as knowledge and/or consciousness--when working together at proper optimal functioning through this interaction--complete”. Sure as with the pilot, he or she is able to fly the plane safely as long as certain conditions are satisfied such as the proper mechanics of the plane itself, reasonable weather conditions, reasonable awareness by the pilot, and reasonable behavior by the passengers etc. However, how can this situation be considered complete in all possible senses or even just one sense, without crudely diluting the meaning of complete? It appears to us you have settled for a crude definition of complete, which is situational based. Also, you mistakenly assume that “all this information” (i.e. knowledge of the plane’s operation and passenger behavior etc., will continue to be absorbed as long as awareness is (crudely) complete. What if the plane seriously malfunctions, and the plane crashes—how is the pilot’s awareness complete in this tragic situation? Better still, how is the pilot’s awareness "complete" when he safely flies the plane? (I.e. how is his awareness of the plane’s instruments, for instance, complete in all possible senses?)
What you appear to be saying is that we can attain through our knowledge and consciousness, practical states of actions, but your inclusion of completeness is unsupported. Our definition of complete (or true) (from Proposition 1) refers to knowledge of something known in entirety.
You have not more reasonably demonstrated knowledge of something known in entirety, and instead you argue that we do need complete knowledge to perform actions we want like successfully flying a plane.
Though we accept your argument within limits, to take it further by including completeness (i.e. "complete awareness") is as mentioned unsupported.

It is unclear to us how the process of being and knowing leads to an "expected" state of complete being and knowing. Viz., just because a healthy child gradually attains more and more knowledge as it grows/lives, it does not follow that growth, life, and more knowledge leads to complete knowledge (and being). They may simply lead to more and more incomplete knowledge (and being).

Regarding the proposition that "we cannot (more reasonably) truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time", it does not impose, as you contend, the "impossibility of any knowledge of ourselves". Rather, it proposes that we more reasonably cannot completely know who we are, though it is possible we could completely know who we are.

Finally, we do not see how "complete awareness" could be considered something to strive for, because as mentioned in the response to Entry 545, the notion of completeness is beyond our comprehension, and therefore, it is unclear to us how we can have as a goal something beyond our comprehension. As mentioned, nowhere in your example of the pilot flying the plane safely, do you more reasonably demonstrate complete awareness. All you demonstrate is awareness within an incomplete framework of external and internal information.

Entries 538-542 Entries 547-551