Reply to the response to Entry 636

“You seem to miss the central point. Your propositions lie in the domain of the known wherein the obscurities, coloration and distortions due to our minds is taken as the norm without questioning further. Consequently they have arisen out of errors from the notionless state of our own infanthood as our mind has processed something which is at variance with aspects of the unknown which got registered as the reference templates in our infanthood. On the other hand if what is perceived now happens to coincide with that of infanthood, tranquil moments of rapture would be triggered when the mind is left with nothing to process. Consequently, we may have to redefine ‘knowing’ to be grossly different from knowledge as we usually understand. Knowing is alive while knowledge is dead already. Knowing is when the knower vanishes and merges with the known and only a dynamic state of knowing remains ever fresh. As infants we are NOT aware while as adults if enlightened as above, the awareness dawns upon one who is so awakened. Once awakened going back to living by virtual reality or notional approach in the domain of the known does NOT arise at all. Though one my casually bother to talk in the domain of the known, he/she would be in constant state of blissful rapture remaining in a state of utmost vulnerability and extra-ordinary sensitivity all around. Incidentally your proposition also would be overcome if only one could recapture the lost innocence and lovability of one's own infanthood state of transparency and calmness from within.”

R. Rangan February 13, 2008

Response:

Your notionless state is outside the domain of the known, and therefore it is inaccessible except in a limited sense through the known.
We are not denying the existence of the notionless state. We are saying that because the notionless state is out of reach of what we know, it can never be grounds for completeness. Viz., there will always be doubt no matter how miniscule regarding its existence. So the best you can say is that we more reasonably (incompletely) know who we are through the notionless state, (rather than we more reasonably completely know who we are through the notionless state).

We don’t understand how the act of knowing changes the limits on knowing the notionless state. The act of knowing is merely the brain’s processing stage prior to the actual production of knowledge. It is dynamic only in that different sensory data are being processed.
If we consider knowing something, like a child knowing it is a sunny day, then the brain has shifted from processing different sensory data, to processing the actual knowledge that it is a sunny day.
In both cases, the act of knowing does nothing to shed light on the notionless state, because the act of knowing is outside of the domain of the known as well.

639. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 637

“The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle:

Looking for uncertainties and propounding a mythical principle to accommodate it, is a contradiction in terms. Exactly the ‘mind’ thought that attempts to produce impossibilities like ‘infinite regress’. Uncertainty is an attempted inversion of a constant reality.

Everything that is, is certain. All principles have as their base a reasonable possible construction from which considerable extensions can be made. All experience and knowledge have a foundation of certainty, which continually sustains us. Whatever it may be, it is a complete constant reality. If we attempted to progress the mythological Uncertainty Principle, then like the equally mythical ‘infinite regress’ we could never have established knowledge. All that we ever have is the certain reality of the ‘here and now”. Only from that sound basis can we establish ‘stable principles’ which are the construct of all existence. Principles are the constants that provide certainty and a measure of predictability!

Astonishingly someone (clutching at straws) addresses Heisenburg as having met your ‘more reasonable’ standards to refute substantial evidence of what truth is. Holding elevated mythical concepts of what ‘truth’ should be, will always regard reality as an impenetrable barrier despite it being the only source for ‘true experience’ (already said).

Your observation:

The phrase “truth = knowledge; knowledge = truth” is subject to endless regress, and therefore, it does not establish completeness. If you wish to refute “endless regress,” you will need to more reasonably demonstrate a concept that does not succumb to infinite regress when it is broken down in terms of its meaning.

The truth of mathematics is that 1+1=2. Equally, in mathematics we know that 2=1+1. The digits like the words, truth and knowledge, are interchangeable, very simple, very clear, very certain, very complete. No endless regress and they are universally accepted standards that require no attempted endless regress explanation to confirm their existence.

Do you categorize the definition of Truth or Knowledge in my last entry as ‘infinite regress’? Does the relevance of the definition completely escape you? With honesty, observe its reality, in its wholesome action, and ‘infinite regress’ will become as irrelevant to you, as it is to me. Reality can be seen to exist.

Below my example of the definition extended, in reply to your observations. The equations can be substituted using any established principle.

Truth or Knowledge is the Universal application of a mutual standard that we trust e.g. 1+1=2. Its constructive purpose is to create simple and efficient laws that we constantly use e.g. 1+1=2. Where there is clear evidence of an interdependent measure that has reciprocal value, then it becomes unifying constructive knowledge e.g. 1+1=2. We recognize and accept that constant obligation toward truths that are enduring by the increasing use we adapt them creatively, and conform to their principles throughout the evolution process e.g. 1+1=2.

Utilizing the process above, insert any of the practicality concepts that you agree with into each section of the definition (e.g. Communication) and if none of them meet the defined objective, or justify them, then they are neither established truth nor knowledge! Each term is the innate meaning in each process, and must conform to its directive, because the definitional terms relates to our human involvement and direct evidence and proof of the orientation, which is Universal. No personal opinion.

No real concept is ever subject to ‘infinite regress’. The Principle of Leverage (accorded to Archimedes) has always been, and always will be, we now have identified its existence, and its real meaning is self-explanatory.
If there was any validity to the concept of ‘infinite regress,’ then your definition of truth could never be realized, because (despite its terms), it reaches for ‘nothingness’. There are many arguments for and against the notion of ‘infinite regress’ but for me it is simply a rejection method and a refusal to justify the commonality of basic principles. This is especially so if the denial has as its basis a mythical belief system which can provide no significant reality to support its form of rejection. Instead of focusing on the immediate content of any argument (which may provide solutions), ironically there is the indulgence to perpetuate the very misdemeanor the perpetrators accuse others of, simply because of the inability to deal with a constant and immediate reality.

Your observation:

We agree that based on human agreement it can be more reasonably established (practically) that a “a table is a table, is a table, is a table.” However, that establishment is not the same as more reasonably completely establishing.

Everyone experiences, and subject to the quality of any experience, we acquire specific knowledge. Each moment of human experience necessarily includes its immediate reality with the consistent knowledge available to be realized, and made transparent.
For every “practical” issue that you agree with, there was the reality of a principle at its base that is now made manifest (miraculous practicalities). My impression of your observations is that that which is “practical” and now commonplace, has no place in your philosophical library and is demoted via your ‘more reasonable and complete’ dictum. What seems to escape the Committee is that there is nothing other than ‘what is’ to be evaluated and that whatever is, is complete in that momentary experience, else it could not be recognized for what it is.

We need to recognize that every ‘practicality’ is the ‘specific’ manifestation which experience has offered up to be expressed. Truth proliferates because it is a common property available to us all to be realized and used.

Everything that is, requires no convoluted or mythical concepts, to realize their potential. Only the experience and the necessity for application drive our collective creativity (Archimedes et al). The spurious need to elevate our common reality into a mythical realm, attempts to deny, the very certainty that determines our daily existence. Within that certainty we can construct, and make manifest those constant principles that make all things possible.

You have lately come to ‘agree’ on the commonality of commitment to principles (however practical you may find them), and I can only suggest that within that overall framework you will find a ‘more than reasonable’ answer to ‘who we are’.

Your observation:

If we consider that knowledge is a product of sensory, and our sensory is in an indirect relation to the external world, then it follows that knowledge is not complete, and therefore it cannot be equated to truth or completeness.

You’re considered impression of sensory experiences and knowledge has been adequately explored in previous papers.

Simply put, if no one has ever had a real ‘Eureka’ experience, then no explanation of what real complete knowledge is, or its immediate and available truth will ever suffice, but I do attempt to provide enough information that may offer up the experience.

Excerpts copied and pasted from previous entries on the question of sensory perception:

Your observation:

Agreement or communion is not a ground for more reasonable complete knowledge. (Excerpt from the response to Entry 624).

How do you know this is true?

Your observation above can only be expressed when one has never experienced direct communion! To repeat, complete knowledge is not amassed information. Knowledge is the experience of ‘what is’, and the recognition of its fundamental constant reality, and integrity."

How can you on the other hand then question the factual reality of the principle of leverage (well established and embedded universally as a simple fundamental truth) _whoever_ it may have been that experienced its presence, evaluated its reality, and its evidential worth. Its validity as a truth lies in its constancy and universal application as a direct continuum. We do not require to ‘think' about the principle of leverage in its Universal application, it is natural, and constantly effective. (See definition of Truth or Knowledge)

Your observation:

The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, for example, more reasonably refutes the concept of immediate or direct experience (of truth).

This is simply a self-defeating exercise. How can anyone possibly establish that which is,uncertain, and then claim any form of validity to the claim! All that anyone can ever do is establish what is. (Again, see the definition of Truth and Knowledge).

Your observation:

Commonsense, though valuable on practical level, does not necessarily establish truth.

Read revised definition of Truth and Knowledge.

Your observation:

The idea that “everything is,” is subject to endless regress, and therefore it does not more reasonably establish completeness. For example, it is more reasonably possible that everything is not is.

The same as it is to both comments on The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle.”

Bridie March 5 2008

Response:

1 +1=2 is not an absolute, complete statement (or equation). For example, in terms of space and time, 1+1 must equal more or less than 2. Or there is nothing that says completely that 1+1=2. The units and symbols in the equation are definitional, and thereby subject to relativity.

A “mutual standard” or agreement on a universal or super-universal level does not necessarily establish truth or completeness. Even if everyone living and deceased agreed on one point, it does not necessarily establish truth or completeness. Agreement itself is not a ground for completeness.

Your notion of “direct [or immediate] evidence and proof” is contingent upon opinion or perspective, and therefore it is not necessarily complete. You need to more reasonably demonstrate that your notion, “direct evidence and proof” is complete. How do you more reasonably completely know? How do you know your perspective is more reasonably complete? Perceiving the act of leverage, for example, does not necessarily establish completeness. It establishes your perspective which may or may not be complete.

How do you more reasonably completely know that “what is” is complete in momentary experience, and how do you more reasonably completely know that you recognize that experience completely for what it is? What makes your perspective all-complete-knowing? Do you think you are God or a similar entity?
Your “what is” may be a matter of perspective, so that what we perceive/know is simply from our subjective perspective. The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle makes this point, by proving that complete observation of an object is beyond human grasp, because for instance, the act of observing itself distorts what is being observed. (There is no pure, complete observation.) We are not denying “what is.” Rather, we claim that we can only know from our perspective.

The commonality of much of human existence can be attributed to the human faculty of reason, and human sensory of the external world. It is not necessarily attributed to a complete external world, which humanity can truly, completely perceive.

640. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 639

“‘1 +1=2 is not an absolute, complete statement (or equation). For example, in terms of space and time, 1+1 must equal more or less than 2. Or there is nothing that says completely that 1+1=2. The units and symbols in the equation are definitional, and thereby subject to relativity.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 639)

‘A mutual standard or agreement on a universal or super-universal level does not necessarily establish truth or completeness. Even if everyone living and deceased agreed on one point, it does not necessarily establish truth or completeness. Agreement itself is not a ground for completeness.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 639)

Within the context of general conformity (mutual agreement), the specific reality is that we know the value of such agreements. This then allows us the freedom to function within the natural laws that are the basis of that agreement. This in turn affords us that measure of certainty to interact within the structure of our particular society. That certainty is compounded universally when we can observe other civilizations conforming to the same natural laws. The only real knowledge that can exist is that which applies universally.

Individual perspective, which has its own limited utility, can be by –passed to achieve that universal insight that connects us to the proper content of the reality that always exists. Within that ‘natural’ experience nothing changes except that transformational understanding of ‘what is’. A chair, is a chair, is a chair, even at the individual perspective level. That is extended by the overall enrichening experience of our ability to relate to the fundamental structure of each human being. That experience of our abundant potential prescribes the very nature of our mutual interdependence, and the universal principles that we agree to uphold.

‘Your notion of “direct [or immediate] evidence and proof” is contingent upon opinion or perspective, and therefore it is not necessarily complete. You need to more reasonably demonstrate that yournotion, “direct evidence and proof” is complete. How do you more reasonably completely know? How do you know your perspective is more reasonably complete? Perceiving the act of leverage, for example, does not necessarily establish completeness. It establishes your perspective which may or may not be complete. (Excerpt from the response to Entry 639)

You may recall that I have categorized experience of Reality as ‘direct communion’. In that instance, there must be the principles in play for the exchange, and the principles must exist completely to validate their reality.

To perpetuate any form of belief system constructed around a delusional mythology that has no relationship to reality, has the perverse result that those who ‘believe’ in the system have no solid foundation (or certainty) to conduct their lives. The side effects of that are profound.

‘How do you more reasonably completely know that “what is” is complete in momentary experience, and how do you more reasonably completely know that you recognize that experience completely for what it is? What makes your perspective all-complete-knowing? Do you think you are God or a similar entity?’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 639)

‘Your “what is” may be a matter of perspective, so that what we perceive/know is simply from our subjective perspective. The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle makes this point, by proving that complete observation of an object is beyond human grasp, because for instance, the act of observing itself distorts what is being observed. (There is no pure, complete observation.) We are not denying “what is.” Rather, we claim that we can only know from our perspective.

The commonality of much of human existence can be attributed to the human faculty of reason, and human sensory of the external world. It is not necessarily attributed to a complete external world, which humanity can truly, completely perceive.’ (Excerpt from the response to Entry 639)

Perpetrators of all persuasions claim an effortless superiority by offering up impossible prescriptions that can never be validated. The construct of opinions and the democratic entitlement placed on them (no matter how wrong they may be), allowed for any individual to pursue his or her particular issue even to the severe detriment of others around not coming within the scope of that particular opinion. Principles that form the innate structure of the human phenomena have been misused by various cultures claiming they are peculiar only to that group.

Historically that has transformed that form of elitism into their particular faith, or belief system, and in effect laid claim to a natural force as their special intellectual, spiritual, or political property. Within that attempted personal acquisition of Universal principles the natural meaning was undermined, and misunderstood, which in turn formed deep divisions throughout the human evolution process. However intellectual, or hierarchical any claim is, the principles that we are constantly obliged to function within are corrupted by any claim to them as a form of personal property.

Your parenthesis statement (there is no pure, complete observation) confirms my constant reference that it is something you have never experienced. This in a perverse way gives you some kind of authority to deny truth, knowledge, and the very reality that provides us with the opportunity to experience that ‘pure complete observation’. The act of observing anything based on amassed information (or your perspective) will always distort that which is being observed. For Heisenburg to assert from that, that it is ‘proof’, that there is no pure, complete observation, and that it is beyond human grasp, is just arrant nonsense.

Using the criteria of the definition supplied previously, there must be justification – knowledge etc, for certainty to be realized. It is only the principles that are themselves absolutes that can conform to the requirements of the definition. Within those structures, there is certainty.

No less a personage than Albert Einstein denounced the Uncertainty Principle. As a layperson that has no knowledge of quantum mechanics I will defer to Einstein’s denunciation (for whatever reason he gave), simply because common sense tells me it is an impossibility to establish an uncertainty. Life exposes us to experience, and from that experience, we gain knowledge.

Knowledge can be absorbed mechanically, or it can be absorbed through a form of discrimination, constantly questioning the content validity. To repeat ‘real knowledge’ is not amassed information, nor is ‘completeness’ all the components of such amassed information.

Knowledge and reason in evolutionary terms are absolutes that gradually determine the values and ethics implicit in their obligatory use.

Your discard of our common reality and its evident powerful manifestations raises the question ‘What is it your Challenge hopes to achieve – if anything?’

That I am seriously interested in ‘what is’ in ‘relative’ terms, is contrary to the apparent direction your Challenge heads for, namely ‘what isn’t’. You say that you agree with ‘what is’ and then pronounce that it does not establish for you, your comprehension of ‘completeness’. It is abundantly clear that the human phenomena with all its evident manifestations hold no real meaning at all for you. That particular issue is the reason why there is the need to explore the real function of experience, and its emerging absolute knowledge. The principles that we eventually validate become recognized and established realities for the ‘common good’. One of the many properties any principle holds is that of ‘certainty’. Thus with some conviction we can view the human phenomena, and address the certainties that are expressed in our daily existence. See again drivers at traffic lights (perhaps you would view them as a God given command).

Whether they are right, wrong, quantum theories of certainty, or otherwise, would hardly be information that filters down to the general populace. Amazingly, in spite of that, the human conformity where something is right is the universally adopted principle that survives. Its innate constant completeness is the evolutionary measure that promotes its very existence, because it is true. Given the remarkable extent of human conformity, you now admit to, with the appropriate principles that must exist to establish reality, rather than reaching toward a profound affirmation, you are determined to deny their real significance. To do that you must have an entrenched image of what should be, contrary to the evidence that confronts you daily.

Long reflection on the human phenomena, and the basic principles that are its foundation, can provide that instant certainty, and completeness that you find difficult to understand. Having a sense that we are ‘interdependent’ is less tangible than ‘knowing’ we are interdependent. Interdependence is not born from any decree from on high (least of all me). It is a natural absolute state, whose greatest benefit lays in the knowledge of its constant condition. The recognition of reality, as it is, promotes its own natural understanding, devoid of any elevated spurious opinions. The product of ‘knowledge’ is an experience not nurtured by amassed mechanical information, but by a natural process that ‘knows’ no other way to conform. Unless life and its reality is dealt with, as it is, then no academic posturing of what ‘should be’ will offer up satisfactory and reasonable conditions for social cohesion, and the recognition of ‘who we are’. The ‘common good’ defines its own rules for the ‘common good’ in all our interactions, and is never subject to the dictates of personal opinion. Our common grasp of the principles that function within that interaction promotes its own evolution.

Real knowledge is that direct relationship with the principles that are absolute (already said).

(The material below is copied, and pasted from the previous entry (639), as it is more apropos to this Entry.)

No real concept is ever subject to ‘infinite regress’. The Principle of Leverage (accorded to Archimedes) has always been, and always will be, we now have identified its existence, and its real meaning is self-explanatory. If there was any validity to the concept of ‘infinite regress’, then your definition of truth could never be realized, because (despite its terms), it reaches for ‘nothingness’.

There are many arguments for and against the notion of ‘infinite regress’ but for me it is simply a rejection method and a refusal to justify the commonality of basic principles. This is especially so if the denial has as its basis a mythical belief system which can provide no significant reality to support its form of rejection. Instead of focusing on the immediate content of any argument (which may provide solutions), ironically there is the indulgence to perpetuate the very misdemeanor the perpetrators accuse others of, simply because of the inability to deal with a constant and immediate reality.

Without the vigorous contestability of arguments, it is questionable that I could have survived this Challenge debate for so long. Rereading this Entry, I note that it is unusually aggressive for me. Perhaps it was the intention of the Committee to provoke that. Curiously, I have thoroughly enjoyed it. Look forward to more.”

Bridie April 9 2008

Response:

The Committee for Challenge the Philosophy Competition 1 is not looking for a higher form of truth (i.e. knowledge known in entirety or in all possible senses.) Rather, it is looking for more reasonable grounds for a higher form of truth.
Due to the relativity of human knowledge, thereby the possibility of all things known, it is not impossible to establish, more reasonably, a higher form of truth.

Your entries have more reasonably shown the possibility of a higher form of truth. Though at the same time, they have fallen short of more reasonably establishing a higher form of truth. The universal commonality of human knowledge, the existence of principles, and your claim of direct, immediate experience are not more reasonable grounds for a higher form of truth. Viz., universal agreement does not necessarily mean a higher form of truth; principles regardless of how valid they may appear are not necessarily truths, and claims of direct experience do not necessarily mean direct experience exists or you or anyone else more reasonably completely know it exists.

As mentioned the standard of Competition 1 is more than more reasonably establishing the possibility of higher form of truth. It is more reasonable demonstration of a higher form of truth. I.e. more reasonably demonstrating how you or anyone else completely knows. In the case of your entries, you need for example to more reasonably demonstrate how you completely know direct experience. I.e demonstrate you more reasonably completely know something directly. The emphasis on this demonstration is more reasonable completion.

641. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 640

“With regard to your expressions on a higher form of truth, they appear to be an attempt to by-pass your contradictions. Please note my regard for that form of mythical reality. It is a stance that has been my consistent mode of demonstration throughout this debate.

The process of evolution can be transcribed by the human terms we use to evaluate its progress. Not only must the transcript contain the truth in absolute terms, but that truth must also contain a justifiable recognizable meaning that can be applied universally. The ramification of the correct term and its meaning, and its subsequent use, would be the clarification of a specific reality, and our place in it.

The resistances at this time to evident ‘necessary factors’ has some justification only because human evolution has prescribed a measure of reason that is limited by its own measure. Contemporary reason accepts the precept of dichotomies as a reality. Necessary factors are absolute and complete within themselves, and know no discrimination. The need to develop innate reality and experience a true external measure is incumbent on the recognition of ‘what is’, which then dispels historical indoctrination. When dichotomies are allowed to prevail, this in turn creates perspective malfunction, which gradually becomes the accepted norm, ergo the human aspiration and the need to adopt mythical deities.

A prescribed dialogue on the manifest principles in human terms needs evaluative expression i.e., the real values that can only exist in any manifestation. That form of Communication will foster a positive recognition that can measure the real identity of human evolution.

Definition: Principle. The essence of a reality factor that recognizes its own value.

Rival philosophical, religious or political positions when devoid of ‘necessary factors’ are devoid of real meaning. Unless the innate meaning of any general principle is established then ‘understanding’ of reality is diminished. Collaboration of real meaning related to ‘necessary factors’ establishes continuing improvement exponentially.

‘Necessary factors’ must have inherent meaning that is applicable to all possible worlds. That inevitability arises when the factors that are expressed have no opposites and are in effect Absolutes. When any statement is true, it cannot be independent of its necessary meaning. Therefore all ‘necessary factors’ are interdependent and have consistent correlation in terms of their established use. When Communication is defined necessarily as Making Known the equation is conclusive and requires no further justification as to it having been established. When we ‘know’ that all life communicates to some degree, it means also that we have established a truth.

In whatever form: To Communicate = To Be = To Make Known = Universal Reality.

All life is the product of Space – Time – Energy – Matter! The human phenomenon is an ongoing natural reality that is truly well established, and constantly demonstrated.

To understand that the principles of Space – Time – Energy – Matter exist, are interdependent, interchangeable, and are the very essence of life, it is vital to establish the truth of their existence. The establishment of principles celebrates the ‘differences’ of established wisdom.
When you discard principles as not establishing completely a more reasonable demonstration of truth, you discard the fundamental structure of their meaning externally and internally.
Everything that is must have basic principles as their foundation. The mathematical equation 1+1=2 is a mathematical principle whose basic justification for existence is established in its own interchangeable meaning of balance, certainty, correctness, and including all other interdependent principles. That certainty and correctness is used universally and ipso facto is recognized as a truth because of its reasonable facility. Real evidence must be predicated on a factual reality.
The equation is the factor. All the meaning is implicit.
Each manifestation of life as we experience it is that direct complete experience. All that is ever missing is our recognition of it. You are endeavoring to exact knowledge of an experience that already exists, and in the process of looking for it, it passes you by. It is trying to exact the answer to a mystery that does not exist.
Evolution takes the correct path when the true meaning is recognized as co-existent with every manifestation. When meaning is realized it becomes that basic act of inclusion that promotes a network of real identity, and so we develop.
Where the principles (necessary factors) of justice, evidence, proof and truth are universally applicable it is incumbent on any form of adjudication (whatever measure of reason is applied) to confirm that enough is enough. Within the wrong context, ‘more’ can shroud the reality. To attempt to deny such reality without providing any alternative valid construction is less than reasonable. Chasing shadows exhausts real experience. For some, to satisfy an appetite and become sated, they can take the unhealthy path of looking for ‘more’. It is only fundamental truths that are used as a basis of reasoning, which then is recognized as a principle.
All forms of identifiable experience can only be properly evaluated by the very principles that are its natural domain. Acknowledgement of our daily encounter with the factors that constantly sustain life perpetuates the evolutionary process. Principles are always established. It is the recognition of their existence that determines the form of reality that we can experience.
We are a metaphor for the existence of principles, and innately we know it. It is not something we need to learn, only recognize!
When we conclude that there are no dichotomies the principles that remain are Absolute. We can only distinguish the proper activity of any measure of reality by a correct standard. When we establish correctness then it is a developmental process from that point.
The ironical condition of contemporary understanding of truth is that diverse divisions claim it as their particular property. That claim made from an elitist stance, cloaks it in particular belief systems that shroud it in mythical mysteries, and consequently remove it from the common good. Social harmony and unity is undermined when the availability of truth as a constant reality is denied, and as only being realized in some mystical form.

The implication in your text above implies the conventional view that a higher form of truth is much more than our available commonplace reality.
That very distinction promotes a remove from the very reality that surrounds us, hence the attempt to move into the realm of some mythical other than!
The overall absolute abundance of truth as the life force needs universal recognition through formal education.
All principles are equal. To experience the expressed reality of any two in combination, is the ultimate and complete demonstration of manifest reality e.g., 1 + 1 = 2. When one other exists, we know ‘we are’.

You may describe my entries as bordering on a higher form of truth; rather I would describe them virtuously as commonsense."

Bridie May 2 2008

Response:

There is no attempt on our part to by-pass the limitations of Proposition 1 by setting a standard of a higher form of truth. No. Proposition 1 is explicitly in contradiction with a higher form of truth. Therefore, it follows, necessarily, that a competition centered on overcoming Proposition 1, more reasonably, would entail a higher form of truth.

The key question and issue which stems from your entries, is how to recognize completely and more reasonably “what is.”
In your latest attempt at this feat, which no one living or deseased has succeeded at, you refer to “necessary factors” and “common sense.” And yet again your entry falls short of the standard of Competition 1, because necessary factors are subject to the limitation of the thinker/perceiver, thereby succumb to relativity, rather than completeness. Similarly, common sense is subject to the limitation of the thinker/perceiver, and thereby is not necessarily complete. I.e. what is common sense to one person, may be nonsensical to another, and what is common sense to all may not necessarily be complete or a truth.

What our argument comes down to is the issue of what you or anyone else knows. We claim that humanity knows, basically and incompletely, through sensory receptors, and cognitive and genetic processes.

You claim that humanity knows partly through complete knowledge inherent in life (and ourselves), and that it is just a matter of experiencing this external knowledge to bridge with the same knowledge in us. Your position begs a few questions:

What is the origin of external (and innate) knowledge? (And how do you more reasonably completely know?)

How is direct experience more reasonable when humanity perceives through the indirectness of sensory receptors? (And how do you more reasonably completely know?)

How can you or anyone else think/perceive through a non-dichotomy framework when human reason is comparative in nature? (And how do you more reasonably completely know?)

As it stands, your entries show a possibility of more reasonable complete knowledge. Nothing more.

642 Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 641

“Response: 2 The key question and issue, which stems from your entries, is how to recognize completely and more reasonably “what is.” In your latest attempt at this feat, which no one living or diseased has succeeded at, you refer to “necessary factors” and “common sense.” And yet again your entry falls short of the standard of Competition 1, because necessary factors are subject to the limitation of the thinker/perceiver, thereby succumb to relativity, rather than completeness. Similarly, common sense is subject to the limitation of the thinker/perceiver, and thereby is not necessarily complete. I.e. what is common sense to one person, may be nonsensical to another, and what is common sense to all may not necessarily be complete or a truth.

Reply: 2
Common sense by any elementary definition means that we all in ‘common’ exercise the same judgment, given a set of circumstances that are real. Necessary factors are absolute constant principles. They are not subject to any process of thought or perception. It is in that reality that we have the opportunity to experience ‘what is’. If they were as you say subject to the vagaries of human thought or perception, we would still be in the dark ages. A ‘truth full’ experience demands no questions. It is ‘what it is’. What it does, is offer up the commonality of its existence.
To ask ‘what is truth’ – is nonsensical. Everything is the truth!

The acquiescence to mythical dichotomies erodes the perception of the very reality we endeavor to make transparent.

Newly acquired information/knowledge is ephemeral and never rated in reality unless processed and evaluated against a background of principles. Without that process, it can lead to elitism. That form of separation grows and discounts its own common reality. Rather than seeking and finding agreement with ‘what is’ as a collateral necessity, conditioning defends its own domain. It is that ‘common’ sense of the same constant reality that provides us with safety and security. We identify the ‘same’ things and act accordingly within that reality capacity (see drivers at traffic lights).

The journey we are on is the exploration of our reality, and to that end, it can only be done through the understanding of our interdependent relationships.

The common denominator in transparent multiple truths is the evident ‘use’, and the overwhelming applicability of the principles they represent.

No form of human civilization can be constructed without the necessity of the interdependent nature of the species. The evolution of all moral and ethical structures depends on the cohesive strength of innate principles, and recognition of their abundant multiplicity. Nothing can ever be truly understood in isolation. Attempted isolated individualism creates its own aberrations, especially so, when it further attempts to identify itself in an interrelated, interconnected social structure.

Sense receptors as you have implied previously, is that which we commonly see and identify is illusory. The sensory process is not only restricted to visual coordination, and in this respect, I would agree with you that as you express it, the definition is incomplete. For it to develop correctly it must make sense of reality through an historical process of discrimination. This includes the process of meaning and its relationship to the observation of reality (no dichotomies). Therein lays the value in the manifestation of principles throughout time, for we can see and understand their meaning now, and immediately, and their potential for the future. The whole picture must include why we use any object. The overwhelming evidence again is that in all particulars we use tables for what they were designed. The greater truth in this perceptual debate must fall squarely on the facility of tables, and for what they were designed. When we conform to implicit principles, then we confirm the truth. That truth is the evolutionary path we are obliged to traverse. When we ‘experience’ the reality of such truth we are included and encompassed by the knowledge, and know that we are (already said). See below.

Copied and pasted from previous Entry for further evaluation:

For me to pronounce that herds of elephants were all tables on the move would indeed be good reason for health authorities to come to my aid, and say, this man has lost touch with reality. Social commonplace agreements support each other in the wisdom of using tables for the utility for which they were designed. My observation of tables in a restaurant, and diners using them, is evidence that my brain construct of what a table is, is true. It is supported by the same scenario in a multiplicity of restaurants the world over. The present ‘use’ of tables in this manner is human evidence of a truth. We have agreed to this form of truth, and it is now established knowledge. Innate and explicit correct information has universal value in that it becomes commonplace, and has essential and evident application (e.g., a cell phone). Knowledge is a basic construct of what ‘truth’ is. The overwhelming evidence of Universal agreements gives purpose and meaning to their existence. Though now commonplace, and taken for granted in their multiplicity, they are the proof of Natural evolution. To attempt to deny their existence by constantly postulating that a ‘mind’ has more merit toward understanding their reality is simply denying one’s own experience. Bishop Berkeley’s adherence to concepts of ‘mind’ or ‘soul’ makes it quite impossible to contradict that which is mythical, so I for one will not attempt it. What I will do, and continually attempt to do, is to make reality manifest for what it is.

The greatest advance we can make to recognize ‘truth’ is to recognize that we do not have the ability to manufacture ‘truth’. In this regard, the only ability we have is to recognize its real existence. This leads to the question. What mechanisms do you apply to recognize the form of truth you are looking for? Asserting the truth for what it is, is not a choice. All of life is that living example of a natural deterministic evolution. The very serious confusion that exists with so called ‘conscious knowledge’ is the belief that it is self-generated, which leads to alarming claims of individuality, exotic monism, and the extremities of narcissism. No fit ground to establish who ‘weare’.

What our argument comes down to is the issue of what you or anyone else knows. We claim that humanity knows, basically and incompletely, through sensory receptors, and cognitive and genetic processes.

You claim that humanity knows partly through complete knowledge inherent in life (and ourselves), and that it is just a matter of experiencing this external knowledge to bridge with the same knowledge in us. Your position begs a few questions:
What is the origin of external (and innate) knowledge? (And how do you more reasonably completely know?)

See reply 2&3.

Response 3:
How is direct experience more reasonable when humanity perceives through the indirectness of sensory receptors? (And how do you more reasonably completely know?) How can you or anyone else think/perceive through a non-dichotomy framework when human reason is comparative in nature? (And how do you more reasonably completely know?)
As it stands, your entries show a possibility of more reasonable complete knowledge. Nothing more.

Reply 3:

Necessary factors are the ubiquitous constant principles that form the essential formula to construct real meaning. Only when ‘necessary constant factors’ are established will the mythology of dichotomies dissolve and reality can be experienced for what it is. The construction of our reality can be achieved by recognition of the principles to which we all conform. That form of inclusion gradually dissolves the myth of dichotomies and establishes the real connections that allow reason to flourish. Thus, inclusion as to ‘who we are’ is the natural common sense process toward complete identity. A very simple step toward our common identity is to realize that we are all included, interdependent, interrelated. The phenomenon of the human species is its constant progress.

Everything that is, is governed by the same absolute principles. The human phenomena, with all of its subjects extraordinary ability to become aware of the innate principles that shape our inner lives, can in turn provide us with insight to that ‘sameness’ that exists externally. That experience offers us that exact and complete communion for pure recognition.

If you must have a label that you call a ‘source’, everything that is, is its own source. The ability to view life in terms that hold no dichotomies is the prescription for ‘seeing’ reality as it is. Absolutes then become part of reasonable understanding that forms the logic of an infinite condition that is always complete.

If the evolutionary process needs a new paradigm, it may benefit from the paradoxical view that everything is constant. The paradox lies in our own evolving reality within a time structure that remains constant. Within that structure are contained all the principles that form the basis of real knowledge.

The heuristic principle operates at its best when we recognize and experience the reality that ‘weare’. No individuality per se, no monistic barriers to exclude the truth. Our brain has twisted contemporary perceptions of reality, which need alignment to process its equivalent reality. For amassed information to be effective, it requires to be transformed to knowledge that has meaning

Superficial knowledge can never be ‘known’ completely. What can be known is the wholesome content of a reality that is complete.

Given the state of ‘conscious knowledge’, it is true to say that we can never ‘know’ ourselves in the ‘whole’ because all conscious knowledge is governed by embedded thought processes. Those ‘thought’ processes are the mechanisms that prevent recognition of their own limitations (you have already obliquely referred to this state). Conscious thought confers on itself the attribution of ‘knowledge’ and continually processes any form of information to label it as knowledge. Against that background there can be no escape until we recognize reality for ‘what it is’. That exposure introduces new experiences free from the dictates of thought processes.

Within the reality of absolute time, when there are simultaneous experiences of any principle then common sense would prevail to acclaim that the principle is established e.g. leverage. Whatever is established as an absolute is the truth. Time is a truth that we all acknowledge; therefore, everything that comes within the ambit of time is a truth. With the interdependent nature of space, time, energy, matter, it follows that the absolute relativity between them that contains everything, is contingently the truth also. Within those constants is the only form of reality that truth can exist and be translated through human replication.

Knowledge based on individuality can never be transposed to recognize the reality of ‘whoweare’. The very context it uses to define anything is always doomed to failure and can find for itself the recurrent mythical themes of ‘circularity’ and ‘infinite regress’ to support its stance.

Individuality and separation are the basic dichotomies that control the denial of any real experience that will provide an honest appraisal. To contemplate that which is whole, agreement must be given to its present reality. How else could one possibly experience it?

To view life as limited only to an individual perspective that can never be understood in the whole, leads only to utilizing convoluted methods to assert that position and offer up impossible reality propositions as an answer to fit the rejection of lack.

Individual monistic perception carries with it all the vagaries of division and perception, which promotes convoluted reasoning in an attempt to establish a mythical reality. You can attach whatever imaginary labels you like to any aspect of reality, but none of them will provide any measure of real meaning. That meaning is only made transparent through the natural application of innate principles, which then become real knowledge. That which is infinite – constant, has no source, no beginning (already said). The existence of such a reality cannot be constrained or evaluated by individual mechanical knowledge. That which is true and constant, is not open to singular value judgments that restrict direct recognition.

When we experience the reality of any principle, then we experience the reality of them all, because they must co-exist.

The true evidence of ‘who we are’ is wholly exacted through that direct and pure experience of at least one other. In that experience ‘sameness’ presents itself in its entirety, and we unquestionably know ‘who weare’. That profound and correct equation of ‘sameness’ establishes the basis for wholesome knowledge in the form of the principles that are forever constant. It is through that initial recognition that we can understand the commonality of the human phenomena. Despite the transparency of being, and interaction, the struggle to experience that reality is a contradiction to its very evident existence. Experience of that nature does not come within the ambit of so-called ‘conscious knowledge’ with all of its convoluted mechanical limitations, and equally limited constructs of a reality that is constant. Historical concepts of ‘human consciousness’ are generally closely related to the concept of a ‘metaphysical mind’, thus bestowing an imaginary form of elitism from an imaginary base. This perpetuates the proposition that truth is unattainable, and beyond human experience.

Subscribing to the general notion that the accumulation of amassed information/knowledge (past, present, or future) is the content of that which is ‘whole’, epitomizes the mechanical approach to ‘what is’. Since as you say ‘human consciousness’ is apparently incomplete, and consequently limited, it would follow that the measures it uses to define reality are subject to those limitations. Indeed, if it exists at all, human consciousness itself must be brought into question as the arbiter of what really is.

True knowledge can only exist as a reality when ‘sameness’ is made transparent through the recognition of the constant principles that represent that equal reality. The curative process of dissolving the myth of dichotomies enhances the possibility of direct experience.”

Bridie June 2008

Response:

“Everything is the truth” is a nonsensical statement because it means contradictory statements or even absurd statements are truths. Also, it is unclear to us what grounds you have to claim that you more reasonably completely know everything is a truth.

Though existence appears partly defined by interdependence, the concept of interdependence puts a necessary limit on human perspective, because the concept means everything causes everything else. And since we can’t know everything and know that we do, our knowledge of a single thing is incomplete or limited. We can’t know everything, because things are constantly changing, so that we perpetually fall short of really knowing something, and we cannot be completely sure we know everything due to the comparative/casual nature of human thought.

Evident use and applicability of a concept though useful to establish practical knowledge, they fall short of complete theoretical knowledge. Evident use and applicability of use are necessarily defined by human perspective which is incomplete or limited.
Human perspective determines what humanity knows. (Mind in the box position.)

Commonplace agreements, whether universal or not, are also defined by human perspective. Everything known by humanity is defined by human perspective. There is no getting around this fact, except by more reasonably showing how you or anyone else can know from a non-human perspective.
Underlying our position, as mentioned, is the position that human perspective is limited or incomplete. What follows is that there is no truth from human perspective. So tables for example regardless of universal agreements on their use and evidence of their use are not truths. The best that can be said is that knowledge of tables is a limited truth.
Though sameness in human perspective is an apparent step in the directness of completeness, it falls short because sameness is defined by human perspective. So if everyone on the planet had the same experiences, their experiences would still be limited, and therefore the sameness of experiences as well. For example, there would be differences in individual mental structure, time, space etc., which would negate complete sameness of experience. Hence, it follows that if no two perspectives are identical, perspectives which are similar are not complete.

You need to more reasonably demonstrate completeness. I.e. something known in entirety or all possible senses or without a trace of doubt no matter how miniscule or absurd.
The way forward for you in our opinion is to face objectively the limited nature of human perspective (or the mind in the box position). Denial or avoidance of that position leads to less reasonable arguments. Although we acknowledge that some things may appear to be closer to a truth than other things, based on stronger evidence and greater agreement. But that gradation does not establish truth itself.

Entries 634-637