Reply to the response to Entry 544

“Exploration of a mythical dichotomy below for the purpose of establishing principles. Principles that are not a 'mind' construct, but the very essence of our being. Independence, the curious and dangerous malady where humanity has lionized a negative mythology in denial of its own reality.

The human fundamental reality has at its base the simple natural law that we are dependent beings. From conception the human embryo is entirely dependent on the health and well-being of its mother to provide it adequate healthy sustenance to enable its entry into the world. That form of innate dependability the human species carries with it throughout its spectrum of life.

Every aspect of human activity is premised on the availability of air, food, and water without which the organism cannot survive (this would be an incontrovertible 'more reasonable' truism).

In a perverse way that which is our natural state has become the target for what appears to be open defiance of the laws that govern our behavior.

When a basic premise is either used mistakenly, or deliberately, its consequences can be socially far reaching, for any deviation however far it is extended is a distortion of the truth, and a denial of ' who we are'.

The erroneous conclusion through exercising responsibility that we can confer independence to our actions has gained a distorting and ubiquitous influence which paradoxically undermines the very responsibility practiced.

Within the context of being dependent we can correctly be responsible for our own actions but with the surety of knowledge that that responsibility is contingent on the measure of life giving forces available that we are dependent on.

The mythical dichotomy 'independence' connotes with the myth of separateness, division, alienation, and the force of these particular myths is expressed in wars, genocide, criminality. Alarmingly the mythological term has become a residual in our lexicon and is used more widely with acclaim than its true counterpart.

To uphold delusional 'independence' as a value to strive for erodes our human heritage by diverting useless energy toward a dubious goal, and consequences that leave us questioning our means of arrival. Sadly it is a loss of self with the paradoxical view that the energy expended will deliver up a personal reality.

The cult of independent individuality with its mythical ideology based on personal intimacy is now taken for granted, which then passes into the acceptance of the spurious dichotomy as a tangible reality. This in turn disposes the adherents to discredit the very essence of their being, and in the process dehumanizes many cultures. The presumption of independent individuality leading hopefully to a superior future is in fact counter productive to the purpose, and leads eventually to corrupt power, and subsequently the invention of immoral policies that continue the negative spiral, which in the end has no ethical base to extend from. The alienation from our substantial being creates inevitable tension anxiety, and the need to somehow relieve that anxiety with any artificial means available.

Being responsible for any social activity would best be enacted with regard to the effect it will have (directly or indirectly) on the lives of those who are dependent on a beneficial outcome.

To recognize with some significance the basic structure of our being in turn significantly increases the measure of our understanding of human relationships. Being dependent is not a mental construct choice - it is a state of being, and there can be no being-ness without at least one other being, there is then the possibility that the principle of true egalitarianism becomes the manifest reality. Being-ness can only be identified and expressed in relationship. This is why the cult of 'independence' is eventually so socially destructive, as it creates that alienation which attempts to deny each real human need, and leads to a depravation of honesty.

Human relations between children and adults where independence is the accepted norm is severely undermined when the educational process predominantly teaches an unnatural form of living (either intentionally or unintentionally). The educational process is then reduced to the adoption of a fiction, which in turn puts at risk any educational programme.

The effect of interpreting mythical dichotomies as described here is symptomatically ascribed to the existence of all other principles that govern life.
The construction of any ethological debate should not be premised on comparative perspectives, based on human thought (which I have emphasized), but rather on the issues that we can recognize as being universally compatible, therein lies the common denominator point of extension. The focus of attention on comparative perspectives denies justice to 'what is'. To contemplate the 'right or wrong' of any circumstance is a deviation from truth. The correctness of any debate (however minute the finding), is the justifiable extension, and the only true trajectory we are morally obliged to travel. Truth is not defined, nor experienced by comparison, but by 'what we are'. An orange is to an orange, what an orange is to an orange.

To define correctly there should be careful and disciplined action toward establishing 'true factors' that we constantly use to promote reasonable standards.

In that moment of time, (that interaction of our sensory preceptors - your phrase) we have the potential, which I consistently repeat, to merge on an equal basis with the reality that exists, and to know what true interaction is. That is the point of 'direct experience'. It is then that we know the truth about ourselves and the beauty of this Universe which also reveals to us the folly of our present conditioning. In that experience it becomes very clear that all so called cerebral activity has nothing to do with the reality. The fundamental repository of our knowledge and relationship with life is our being-ness, which is not located inside a mental box to be analyzed, accepted, or discarded at will, but the very privileged natural gift of being.

What Bishop Berkeley deals with is the appearance of life prescribed by the illusion of comparative perspective which functions on the basis of dichotomous ideology. It is in effect a denial of our humanity to conclude that ‘all things that exist [from our perspective] exist only in the mind, that is, they are purely notional’. It compounds the denial of 'what is', and an extraordinary refusal to observe transparent life. If I interpret this response correctly you seem to fall squarely on the side of Bishop Berkeley's support of the Cartesian dualistic philosophy, and your adherence to comparative perspectives. It should be noted that there is ample contemporary exposure of the Cartesian doctrine, and in this regard I would refer you to the works of Professor Gilbert Ryle, notably his publication The Concept of Mind.

The heuristic principle applies throughout when establishing our connectedness with reality. It is only through our contact with reality that we can discover, and equate with the mutual structure of the principles that govern all existence.

Have already noted that it is also a peculiar form of arrogance that presumes that life is only a notional existence beyond the boundaries of the 'mind in a box' assertion. It would be foolish of anyone to assert that ice cream has a cold smooth satisfying texture and taste on a warm summers day unless they had actually experienced it, preferably on more than one occasion. For anyone who has never enjoyed that experience it would be foolish of them to discount the very numerous accounts of such an experience that is available just because they had not been party to that event.

From a logical point of view, given the avowed experiences of ice cream eaters, we could reasonably ascertain the validity of each experience by documenting their separate opinions. Each participant would have 'direct experience' in the consumption of ice cream, which at that point in time has the potential for that participant to experience the full measure of that factual reality. We have the natural capacity to experience coldness, smoothness, which equates with the reality that exists, and the potential for those realities to unify.

It is not a question of how to get outside of our minds (mind in a box position); we are constantly outside our so-called minds performing acts of transparency throughout our entire existence. The belief that our constant engagement with reality can never be based on a rational acceptance of 'what is', is at the least, very sad.

The Platonic Cave shadows are a metaphor for the (mind in a box) syndrome, or vice versa.

That you say I take my position too far is an interesting observation, as in several earlier replies I have drawn attention for the need to reach simple, and obvious conclusions, 'the purchase of bread' 'drivers at traffic lights' etc. Accepting them for the reality they are at that point provides the opportunity to engage the complete reality of the moment. It is indeed going too far beyond the reality of the moment searching for philosophical profoundness which does not exist, that fails to establish the constant principles that always operate. Pure principles are not amorphous shadowy ideals; they are represented in everything that exists. The only way we can equate our inner knowledge of reality is through direct experience of its truth.

Your last paragraph consistently presumes there is a mind to get outside of. Note that I have referred to so-called thought as constant engagement with reality. Within that context then, life cannot take on a notional existence, but is an existence that is very real, and that we continually share through our innate knowledge. Your insistence that our so-called minds are defined by comparison - incompleteness - dualism would have extreme difficulty in pursuing the proposition that we are defined by our direct relationship with reality which is expressed in our innate ability to directly interact with 'what is'. The reality of interconnection, and interaction, are not idealistic concepts of a notional nature, but actual and consistent transparent realities. We do not live in a shadowy world that is hidden from our direct experience, but we are constantly engaged in the process of life, and we do not have the right, nor the choice, to deny it.”

Additional information as requested by the Inexpressible Committee:

“Notably Gilbert Ryle’s reference on the Cartesian Myth. The first paragraph on The Absurdity of the Official Doctrine (p.17 The Concept of Mind) as Ryle writes,

…. Such in outline is the official theory. I shall often speak of it, with deliberate abusiveness, as 'the dogma of the Ghost in the Machine'.

I hope to prove that it is entirely false, and false not in detail but in principle. It is not merely an assemblage of particular mistakes. It is one big mistake and a mistake of a special kind. It is, namely, a category-mistake. It represents the facts of mental life as if they belonged to one logical type or category (or range of types or categories), when they actually belong to one another. The dogma is therefore a philosopher's myth. In attempting to explode the myth I shall be taken to denying well- known facts about the mental life of human beings, and my plea that I aim at doing nothing more than rectify the logic of mental-conduct concepts will probably be disallowed as mere subterfuge.’ (p. 17)

The general tone of Ryle's work seems to some degree, deliberately negate the books title, and bears some resemblance to the arguments I have presented, not withstanding my lack of professionalism.

When the Cartesian Myth is exposed in such a manner then the false philosophical dictates it created become dangerous educational prescriptions based on a wrong premise. (Please note my reference on education above with regard to the myth of 'independence')

Further on he writes,

….If, in conclusion, we try to compare the theoretical fruitfulness of the Hobbes-Gassendi story of the mind with that of the Cartesians, we must undoubtedly grant that the Cartesian story has been the more productive. We might describe their opposition in this picture. One company of a country's defenders installs itself in a fortress. The soldiers of the second company notice that the moat is dry, the gates are missing, and the walls are in collapse. Scorning the protection of such a rickety fort, yet still ridden by the idea that only from forts like this can the country be defended, they take up their stand in the most fort-like thing they can see, namely, the shadow of the decrepit fort. Neither position is defensible; and obviously the shadow- stronghold has all the vulnerability of the stone fort, with some extra vulnerabilities of its own. Yet in one respect the occupants of the shadow-fort have shown themselves the better soldiers, since they have seen the weaknesses of the stone fort, even if they are silly to fancy themselves secure in a fort made of no stones at all. The omens are not good for their victory, but they have given some evidence of teachability. They have exercised some vicarious strategic sense; they have realized that a stone fort whose walls are broken is not a stronghold. That the shadow of such a fort is not a stronghold either is the next lesson that they may come to learn.’ (pgs. 310-311)

It would be my consideration that readers of 'The Concept of Mind’ may come to the conclusion that Ryle himself questions ‘The Concept of Mind’.

If so, his questioning may come from a purely academic base, my questioning comes from ‘pure experience’, promoted by my deliberation on spurious dichotomies.”

Bridie August 8 2005

Response

In our view, the main issue/question still exists: how you or anyone else can get outside of your mind (or thoughts) and know that you are?
You refer to this Berkeley position as “arrogant” and “a denial of our humanity”, and yet your understanding of Berkeley’s position is inaccurate. Viz., you contend that Berkeley and ourselves are arguing that “things exist only in the mind”. No. Berkeley claims that from our (human) perspective, we can only know from within our minds. It does not mean things only exist in our minds.
In the context of Competition 1, we challenge you to overcome the mind-in-the-box position. Note, mere claims of “direct [or “pure, or “true”] experience and “innate knowledge” (i.e. “principles” as the “very essence of our being”) without more reasonable supporting evidence merely establish the possibility of complete knowledge.

Other issues:

Based on your quotations of Gilbert Ryle, he appears to offer nothing of significance to the issue of complete/incomplete knowledge of who we are. Viz., his reference to “[things] actually belong[ing] to one another” merely points to the interconnectedness of things, without establishing a ground for their wholeness or oneness. In other words, interconnectedness itself does not necessarily establish completeness.

Regarding your claim that “every aspect of human activity is premised on the availability of air, food, and water without which the organism cannot survive”, [is] an incontrovertible ‘more reasonable’ truism”, you does not establish “truism” or “completeness”. Rather, you assume that the availability of air, food, and water for survival is a truism without providing any more reasonable evidence to support the claim. It is one thing to claim more reasonableness within limits, and quite another thing to claim more reasonableness with no limits.

Similar to the mind-in-the-box position, and with reference to Ryle’s criticism of Cartesian philosophy, we would like to know how you more reasonably overcome the comparative nature of your thought? Would you give us an example of something non-comparative.

If things are interconnected as Ryle contends, why does our state of being have to correspond to “what is” to become “truly human”? I.e. based on interconnectedness, our state of being is connected to “what is”, regardless of how we act or think. (This point is connected to our contention that we cannot help from being who we are as long as we are alive, because existence is (apparently) constantly unfolding.)

548. Entry:

“Since we are basically stimulus/response entities and only respond to events we relate with, and our responses are more or less pre-programmed by our conditioning. The question is either important enough for me to respond to it or not to respond. The fact that I did respond is a clear indication that it resonated with me. Be who I am is related with my instinct to survive, so that's more or less automatic, but to know who I am is based on four different approaches—philosophical, perceptive, belief, and practical. Philosophical: ‘I think, therefore I am’. Perceptive: I am; therefore I think. Belief: I am by the grace of God. Practical: Whatever I am, I'm stuck with it. Conclusion: The typewritten words of the question are objective; the question itself is subjective and open to interpretation and can't be realistically considered until we all agree with the definition of ‘who’ and in what approach.”

Richard L Stover August 11 2005

Response:

We agree that the question itself of Competition 1 (i.e. how can we more reasonably completely know who we are and be who we are at the same time?) is subjective, and thereby open to interpretation. However, the subjectivity of the question itself is consistent with Proposition 1, which proposes that there is more reasonably no complete (human) knowledge.

Moreover, even if everyone in the world agrees on the definition of “who” and “what approach” to the answer of the question itself of Competition 1, the question itself would still be subjective and open to interpretation. Viz., universal agreement is not necessarily grounds for completion.

549. Entry:

“An Argument from Crisis. Ignoring the obvious question as to whether or not we can actually truly know who we are, I believe its possible to argue that we can at least know in part who we are, and that further that that knowledge is a necessary of being who we are. Consider that as human beings we all have certain core values and beliefs, things that we hold precious above others. Yet for most of our existence, we have only a general understanding of these things, a rough idea if you will of who we are. Yet at all times during this existence, we are who we are, by definition. In Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which this proposition appears to be an analogy of, we have a rough idea of the position / energy of the electron, but we have not interfered with it by our observation. Now consider the situation where our core values, beliefs are suddenly thrust into conflict, which happens to all of us from time to time. This may be something as dramatic as a burglar pointing a weapon at us and demanding cash, or something as prosaic as a naughty child raising our ire. The important point is that for a moment this conflict is sufficient to waken us from our normal sleepwalking routine and make a decision. Do we hand over the money, run or fight, do we punish the child, ignore him or forgive him? I would argue that in that moment when we are truly awake, and when we are faced with a decision, a crisis that challenges our core beliefs and values, we are truly aware of who we are, and that that awareness is a necessary result of being who we are. In greater detail (though simplified), consider the weapon pointed at us. Assume that there are only two (for the sake of argument) values guiding our decision. The value of justice, i.e. the outrage at being robbed, and the value of self-preservation, not wanting to be hurt or killed. In the face of the imminent threat those two values are forced into direct conflict with each other, and we are forced to make a decision, which is more important to us. Do we act to preserve our health, or do we act to prevent an injustice. In that moment of making that decision we must surely know the part of ourselves that will determine the decision, i.e. we know how powerful our need is to prevent injustice happening, and how powerful our need is to preserve ourselves from harm. In that moment we are also who we are as we make our decision. The proposition is overcome - at least in part. Some would argue that because people when faced with such crises often change their values, that we either do not really know who we were, or our act of observation changed us, and that therefore the proposition is upheld. I would counter this by saying that our true values, as much as we understand such things, are not formed and / or changed in instants. Rather they are formed over our entire lives. What does change in these cases is our perception of who we are. Until that challenge was presented, we did not truly know who we were.”

Greg Curtis August 25 2005

Response:

We agree with you that in a limited or incomplete sense, we have an opportunity to know ourselves better in moments of decisions over values/beliefs or over anything for that matter. However, to claim we more reasonably have unlimited or complete knowledge of who we are in moments of decisions over values/beliefs as you do, is more reasonably unsupported. To illustrate, first you claim we more reasonably have complete “part” knowledge of who we are in moments of decision-making over values/beliefs, and yet complete part knowledge is a contradiction, because complete implies whole. (I.e. in order for part knowledge to be complete, it itself must be complete.)
Second, you provide no explanation of how our knowledge of our values/beliefs is complete; rather, you just assume our knowledge of our values/beliefs is complete, with reference to being “truly awake” and “true values”.
What is this “truly awake”? How can we more reasonably completely know we are “truly awake”? How does being “truly awake” allow us to completely know?
What are these “true” or complete values, and how do we more reasonably know they are complete?

(Note, if values are “formed over our entire lives” as you contend, it follows that our values are in constant flux, thereby are never complete while we are alive.)

In short, we think you need to take your position further by more reasonably showing how our values/beliefs, which are exposed and possibly changed in moments of challenge to them, are complete. To merely expose our values/beliefs and possibly change them in moments of challenge, does not more reasonably necessitate that our knowledge of our values/beliefs themselves is complete.

550. Entry:

“Our identities are subjective. Since the materialistic differences between most human beings are miniscule, one must assume these divergent identities are due to human cognition... knowledge. Therefore we can infer that my ‘knowledge’ is as much a part of me as are the hands I apparently possess. I assume that knowledge is truly a part of who we are because of your primary claim, that is, ‘We ourselves must exist at some level, otherwise there would be no conscious awareness of thoughts/utterances/appearances.’ From this we can infer that conscious awareness, and hence cognition/knowledge, is truly a part of our existence, a part of who we are. If this is the case, if knowledge we posses is truly a part of who we are, then we know, at least in part, who we are at all point of being who we are.”

Saba Kabir September 14 2005

Response:

How do you more reasonably completely know our knowledge is truly part of who we are?

How does the necessity (within limits) of us (i.e. human beings) existing at some level, more reasonably establish complete (or true) knowledge?

551 Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 547

“Please refer again to the Cartesian dogma ‘I think-therefore I am’, and your rejection of Ryle’s dismissal of its worth in establishing a principle that offers us direction. His contribution, as I see it, is the important need to expose myths that do in fact cover the truth. If he is effective in doing that, then he will have done considerable service to those of us who seek a clarifying view of ‘what is’.

Significantly Descartes ‘thought’ processes utilized the ‘singular’ personal pronoun ‘I’ to establish a philosophy, and yet the Competition predominately uses the term ‘We’, the plural subject of I, with (my impression), a background of Cartesian acceptance!

The Cartesian dogma is premised on the illusion of separation, division, singularity, and can never reach that basic Reality where the whole can be experienced. This is where the Cartesian dogma acceptance creates a singularity arrogance in the belief that a cerebral activity establishes the being, ‘I think - therefore I am’. His confirmation of that belief is as you quote him; ‘we can only know from within our minds’.

To overcome the proposition I have consistently argued that if misguided fundamental beliefs are used as the direction to establish an answer to the proposition, then however far those beliefs are extended they will never provide correct answers.

The use of historical mental mechanical information is the material to construct a mythical individualistic ego which uses such information to construct a very formidable internal mythical citadel to protect itself.

The Cartesian dogma, and its acceptance, provides wonderful nourishment to those who would hail it as a fundamental truth, and disseminate its individualistic message, and has as its basis the ‘assumption’ that we have a mind that dictates our being-ness.

Throughout this debate I have repeated in several ways that there can be no individualism unless there is at least one other individual, again I would claim that this is a ‘more reasonable truism’, and the proper basis for our being-ness.

The language of the proposition insists on knowing who WE are despite your adherence to the Cartesian dogma. There can be no possible answer to that unless the above paradigm is recognized, and the Cartesian dogma is treated to a measure of truth, and exposed as a foolish fiction.

Many times I have made references to that which is absolute with the view that their recognition would be at least possible, if not elementary;
We Reality
Nature Everything is
Drivers at traffic lights What is Customers in shops etc, etc. Truth

In that regard I have repeated (using Ockham’s principle) that there must be at least two to have individuality, which leads us to the proposition that ‘two’ would be a fundamental absolute basis for data to be prescribed. Curiously that has brought little response from the Committee!

The principle above is correct when validated through experience and the removal from a cerebral mechanistic process.

You say my understanding of Berkeley’s position is inaccurate.

You say Berkeley claims that from our (human) perspective, we can only know from within our minds.

My consistent contention is that true knowledge is not contained in the domain of the ‘mind in a box’ position but is only experienced as it is in Reality, from which I would say my understanding of Berkeley’s position was clear enough, in essence he never did experience Reality.

Each moment of our immediate experience is an absolute which exists forever and within itself is complete. In your denial of completeness, you are denying each moment in time, the only source of true understanding we have to experience its completeness. The pure paradox!

Everything that is, is an Absolute!

The principles which are expressed in the example of drivers at traffic lights et al, are safety, security, interdependence, agreement, conformity to law, they are our consistent reality. That is all there is!

Without those absolute principles, necessary factors, (fundamental truths used as a basis of ‘reasoning’), there never could be progression!

Each moment in time, each progression we make, can only be actioned in the implicit completeness in each moment. It is our obligation to conform to that dimensional relationship, and we necessarily meet that obligation, whether it is with reality consciousness, or not.

It is within the ambit of these actions that we then establish the truth, and strange as it may be to the Committee it is our constant actions that establish the level of ‘what is’. However we may engage with reality its denial only defers our own truth.

True meaning is not a ‘thought’ process and there can be no ‘reasonable correlation’ within the constraints of a mechanistic process which will never experience the dimensional relationship necessary to establish reality. When properly engaged with reality the main/issue question (as you put it): how you or anyone else can get outside of your mind (or thoughts) and know that you are? - does not exist.

Your question above relates to a metaphorical Platonic cave, the inhabitants of the cave experience the shadows of life as though they were real.

A human being is part of the Whole...He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest...a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.
-Albert Einstein

It is a contradiction in terms, and untrue, to say ‘I am’, then claim, ’we are interdependent’.

Words on a page can be useless symbols unless we derive truth from their meaning.

When we experience their true meaning then knowledge of Reality is available and we can make constructive statements about the experience (e.g. Archimedes). To say ‘we are interdependent’ is an absolute which is established when we use inclusive principles. We are all dependent on the principles of leverage, and gravity. Principles identify our absolute connectedness with Reality because they are the properties of our own reality, and the basic construct of our being.

To ask for Truth from an illusory base is impossible. Truth could be defined as finding a practical application to a conscious experience of reality - then properly communicate it (Archimedes). To relay that Truth to the same illusory base is just as impossible.

True meaning is not a ‘thought’ process, and there can be no ‘reasonable correlation’ within the constraints of a mechanistic process, which will never experience the dimensional relationship necessary to establish Reality.

You may recall that I drew your attention to the problem a two-dimensional being would have in describing a pencil being pushed through its two-dimensional world. All it could identify would be the cross-section of the pencil - never the whole or complete pencil. We could liken our existence to that of a three dimensional being with the profound belief that it is only two dimensional, and can only experience a separate individualistic world which has no connectedness to Universal Wholes, or the potential to experience the available dimension which contains them.

As long as we have a belief in mythical dichotomies we are as limited as the two-dimensional being, never seeing the whole, nor understanding the nature of our completeness, continually asking the question ‘Who are we?’

Interconnection - interdependence and all other principles are the fabric that comprises the whole. To overcome the dimensional barrier we need to address Reality (what - is), and establish principles (necessary factors) which are the constant properties of an Absolute Universe.

With regard to the Challenge debate and your support of the Cartesian dogma, you then diverse the proposition by supporting singular pronouns. The question is not ‘Who am I’, but ‘Who are we’, because, and I repeat, there can be no individuality, or being-ness, unless there is at least one other individual, we can only be known through relationship. The principles of Interdependence - Communication - Understanding - Co-operation, have as an absolute the existence of at least one other. There is then the potential for reciprocal Truth. Each moment in which we call Universal Time is an Absolute, and a complete whole, available to be experienced.

When we are able to establish Absolutes as the only form of Reality then we deal with ‘what-is’, which is of necessity the Truth, and not contingent on any opinion. That which we conventionally call Reality demands of us incredible energy to sustain its imaginary existence.

Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... It is a good thing to proceed in order and to establish propositions (principles). This is the way to gain ground and to progress with certainty. ... I hold that the mark of a genuine idea is that its possibility can be proved, either a priori by conceiving its cause or reason, or a posteriori when experience teaches us that it is a fact in nature. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)

We prove the existence of principles every time we use a lever, when we are sustained by air, food and water, when we agree to rules that Nature, and Reality decree.

Introduction: The Metaphysics of Space & the Wave Structure of Matter

I must admit that I have spent considerable time thinking about writing an introduction to this website on Truth and Reality. As a philosopher these concepts are central to all the work I do. Unfortunately, I happen to live at a time where ‘reality’ is more closely associated with ‘reality TV’ (surely not the high point of human culture!), and it seems everyone is entitled to their own truths, no matter how fanciful they may be (the joy of ‘relative truth’). It is almost deemed insulting to some, to suggest that there is a physical reality, and as a consequence, absolute truths that are necessarily derived from this reality. When considered though, this postmodern view of 'no absolute truths' is rather strange, because people, generally, don't jump out of windows thinking they can fly, as they recognise this absolute truth of gravity and the resultant risk of injury or death. And there are many examples of these absolute truths in daily life that we must abide by to survive, e.g. sleeping, eating, breathing, etc. (For the attention of the Committee) So my first point is that there are absolute truths, founded on physical reality, and these are clearly important for our survival

. However, of profoundly more importance is that I am now quite convinced that the source of this absolute truth, i.e. physical reality itself, has finally been discovered (i.e. we have finally worked out the correct language for describing how matter exists and moves about in Space). That careful study of these subjects of Philosophy, Physics and Metaphysics over the past ten years has convinced me (and many others) that there is now a very simple and sensible way of describing reality that clearly corrects a lot of past errors and problems of human knowledge.
Geoff Haselhurst 2005

The above quotation and the highlighted portion are in reply to the third paragraph of your reply. In addition, given a ‘more reasonable’ expectation of acceptance that each member of the Committee would understand that as each of them require air, food and water, to survive, then it could be posited that all Homo sapiens within the ambit of ‘We’ as an absolute, require the same minimum sustenance to survive.

To establish any objection, it is incumbent on the Committee to provide evidence of the reverse proposition - if there is any!

There are no abstract principles, they co-exist with us in multitudinous form, and our obligation is to make them equally transparent.

Consider a blank piece of paper on a copy printer. When you action the copier to print, all you will receive is another blank piece of paper - no information.

The generality which is the Absolute can only be understood through the specific experience which is the medium for the whole.

Based on that which is absolutely specific, the generality is the same Reality.

Example of non-comparative: Everything is, and everything that is, is Absolute! All principles are non-comparative. Everything is absolute. The question is irrelevant. Such questions arise from the view that there are separate ‘different’ things. It is a worldview point which gives credence to a dysfunctional form of Reality where underlying principles do not exist.

Cerebral distortions set out reality as different, separate etc, creating an individualistic comparative illusory reality. It is akin to separated orchestral musicians playing their particular instrument, and there particular part of the orchestral piece where no harmony exists and the music is unintelligible. The so called ‘separated’ musicians may well sound discordant to a non-musician, but each musician practicing to bring their particular notes to excellence (not through a mind comparison) ‘knows’ what is required. Each note played is the same but it has the innate potential to be brought to perfection. An orchestra is a group of musicians with a common-meeting ground of agreement. An orchestral performance is that immediate experience which is absolute in time with all the implicit principles available to recognize - harmony, balance, accord, beauty etc. Put all the musicians together to play in unison and we can understand the orchestral piece - a harmonious, non-comparative moment in time which can be a whole reality experience.
(Reply to first paragraph of "Other issues" from response to Entry 547)

That form of containment (the mind in a box) allows the illusion of false separateness which in turn sanctions every inhumanity conceivable. That false separateness cannot experience the reality of interconnectedness, cannot relate to ‘what is’, and cannot be truly human.

You at least admit that we cannot help being who we are as long as we are alive. Very early on in this debate I pointed out that the great paradox is that when we experience reality we will find that in that unfolding process we had already arrived.
(Reply to last paragraph of "Other issues" from response to Entry 547)”

Bridie October 3 2005

Response:

Overall we agree with the thrust of your entry. I.e. all human beings, and all life-forms for that matter, are necessarily (in a limited sense) interconnected. However, in our view, again as in previous entries (e.g. Entries 547, 544, 543), you take your entry too far by asserting/assuming absolute knowledge. To illustrate, we agree that the Cartesian maxim, “I think—therefore I am” is limited to the individual, and yet as you point out, the individual is necessarily contingent on the existence of other individuals (and other life-forms) for existence. However, the Cartesian maxim does establish human existence (be it one individual or more) by the undeniable existence (within limits) of thought. Or as we say with reference to Entry 550, “We ourselves must exist at some level, otherwise there would be no conscious awareness of thoughts/utterances/appearances.”
More important, you claim that the statement “there can be no individualism unless there is at least one other individual” is a “more reasonable truism”. What are your grounds for claiming truth or complete knowledge? We agree in a limited sense that individuals are not complete ends-in-themselves, but how do you more reasonably know this is a truth or “fundamental absolute”?

Similarly, you claim for example that the dependency of human beings on “air, food, and water” for life is a truth. Again, what grounds do you have to assert complete knowledge? Note, we agree that air, food, and water are necessary (in a limited sense) for human life, but how and why are they necessary in an unlimited sense? How do you or anyone else including Einstein and Haselhurst more reasonably completely know?

Further, you claim people generally do not jump out of windows thinking they can fly, because they know the absolute truth of gravity and that the truth of gravity is necessary for their survival. Again, how do you or anyone else more reasonably completely know gravity? And why is human survival necessarily contingent on complete, absolute knowledge? Why can’t human beings survive with limited knowledge or faith in what they know? We can take our questions further and apply it to all aspects of human life. For instance, if we pour gasoline over a dry stack of wood, we can be sure that lighting the wood with a match will cause a fire to erupt. But how and why can we be more reasonably completely sure a fire will erupt? What are the grounds for our complete knowledge? Similarly, if we watch without interruption or distraction a plane land on a runway, and then passengers exit from the plane, how and why can we be more reasonably completely sure that a plane just landed? The mere fact that we witnessed the plane land and passengers exit from it, does not necessarily mean we are completely sure. To be completely sure, we must examine the nature of what we know and how we know….1

Your answer to these situations and questions is that “immediate experience” is the source of more reasonable complete knowledge. I.e. you claim that “everything is”, so by observing in the moment, we cannot help from observing what really is. Though it is unclear to us how we more reasonably completely know what we observe in the moment is really what is, or that everything is. For example, what we observe may simply be our subjective interpretation based on sensory information. In other words, the problem with your position is that you are assuming observation in the moment is absolute, when it may be based on interpretation (of what really is) rather than what really is.

In short, though we agree in a limited sense, for example, that all life is interconnected, human life is dependent on air, food, and water, and earthly existence is defined partly by gravity etc., we do not see how you more reasonably make the move from limited sense to unlimited sense without imputing your (apparently incomplete) beliefs and assumptions.
You refer to “immediate experience”, but you do not more reasonably explain how that experience is complete—you simply assume it is, based on the unsupported claim that “everything is”.
Moreover, your entry is premised on the existence of so-called “truths” or “fundamental absolutes”, and yet you merely claim absolutes without more reasonably demonstrating they are absolutes. So we return (from Entry 547) to the (comparative) mind in the box position and ask how you can more reasonably overcome the necessary comparison/dualism that results from that position? You counter that “everything is absolute” is non-comparative, and yet our necessary interpretation of your statement is contingent on comparison (of its conscious meaning with other conscious meaning), just as your own interpretation is.

Finally, your entry as mentioned is premised on the existence of absolutes, and in contrast, we contend that there are no absolutes we can more reasonably know that we know. (I.e. there may be absolutes, but we cannot more reasonably know that there are.) So we ask you, why do you more reasonably believe there are absolutes? Faith? Einstein’s reference to “whole” (in which he apparently cannot completely comprehend)?.... I.e. what is the basis for your belief? It is a belief, isn’t it?

__________________
1. You may argue that air, food, and water are absolute aspects of human existence, because if someone does not have air, food, or water for a significant duration of time he or she will die. We respond that your knowledge, or anyone else’s, of death is more reasonably incomplete. (I.e. you or anyone else does not more reasonably know with complete certainty what death is.) Similarly, you may argue that a fire must absolutely erupt from a stack of wood wet with gasoline and lit with a match, and to prove it, you insist we put our hands into the flames. But as previously, your knowledge, our knowledge, or anyone else’s, of pain from being burnt is more reasonably incomplete. I.e. due partly to the circularity of human thought (which apparently all human thought, perception, and experience cannot avoid), there is no complete knowledge of pain. Rather, human knowledge of pain is based on subjective interpretation regardless if there is universal, global agreement on its meaning.

Entries 543-546 Entries 552-557