"Instinctual existence, unconscious nature...the very absence of an immediate meaning, the non-dual hidden nature of reality, the uncertainty principle, the "inexpressible", are just different ways of expressing, not just "a necessity of reason", but of the need we have of an intermediate domain of reality to close the gap between mind and reality, physical reality or the physiospher, the 20th century physicist four dimensional space-time continuum. That intermediate domain, the domain of form that as a matter of fact can be empty or full, the Karl Popper third world, the forms of ancient philosophy, can be expressed mathematically not necessarily to express a given reality in advance, but the evolutionary-dynamic and changing reality.

If we pose an unconscious domain we can pose too a superconscious domain where reality can be "seen" without the Descartes-Kant drawback. In that superconscious domain it does not have any sense to even use "our ability to refute or prove a proposition" because a binary or an excluding logic is not a main (basis) anymore. When we are in front of one we love we don't even need words to express that love. A deep sexual experience between two different and complementary beings as a man and a woman is of one of the most spiritual physical realities in which words are not necessary.

The problem is not the with the need of "individual bases" but with the need to take into account in our frameworks the profound and dual nature of reality, like a pattern that can be applied in that domain of the being, in that domain of mind (consciousness, thought) and that intermediate- all-encompassing level between mind and physiosphere, the domain of form. But the news is that that domain can be represented mathematically without the Descartes-Kant reductionistic drawback.

Mathematically exists a symbol that was discovered for the first time by Cardano in 1545 when trying to solve a simple mathematical equation such as

x² + 1 = 0

where

x = Ö-1 = J

is the square root of a negative one, that certainly nobody will ever see in the real world, as it is a radical symbol, for separating, for differentiating two different and independent entities. The interdependence of those two independent entities was discovered 200 years later, in 1745, by the most prolific mathematician of all times Leonard Euler when he discovered a relation, that is known by his name. It is a relation in which, just as in representation of words, we have the sum of two entities separated by a radical symbol normally written as J. This relation is then an ideal mathematical symbol for representing a dual reality, meaning by dual, a reality with two very different components but in a comprehensive whole, that of Euler Relation which is then a unit in which the whole/part, the quantitative and the qualitative, the non-dual and the dual nature of reality can be represented without reductionism, and as so all the fundamental equations of physics, such as the Pendulum formula, the Quantum Schrodinger wave equation can again be obtained, as uncertainty and dynamism can be related with the chance we have in some case to reduce the qualitative to the quantitative, but also those cases in which the qualitative cannot be reduced to the quantitative even in the physiosphere, as is the case with the Quantum Schrodinger wave equation and the electron.

It is with this relation that we say that 1+1 is not necessary equal to 2, and it is with this relation that we can express the principle of synergy where we can have a sum greater than the sum of the parts, without the metaphysical prejudice anymore, because it is expressed in mathematical language.

The noosphere, the sphere of mind is an all-inclusive totality and that is why Descartes with his "cogito ergo sum", could reduce "sum" to "cogito". But a totality can only be expressed within another all-encompassing totality, that domain of the being, that domain that exists independently of human mind and because of that eternal and anthropocentric tendency we have been trying to reduce to mind since Descartes. Of course behind that tendency we have that same unconscious fear Descartes had when trying to save the scientist from being burn. But is it not time for us to start seeing the whole picture, the whole integral picture of reality so we have a better place to live?

So I have overcome that idea by deciding myself to have not just an intellectual experience, but an integral experience where the big three: being, mind and form (biosphere and physiosphere included) can be joined together by a gluing principle, the principle of synergy, so that the emergence of new realities is always at hand depending on the decision to apply that principle, as if I decide not to what I obtain is entropy, confusion, disorder, degradation of form."

Epsilon Pi July 23 2000

Response:

How can mathematics express the "evolutionary dynamic" and "changing reality" without actually being the dynamic behind the change in reality?

What gap is there to close between mind and reality, since mind and reality are the same thing? Also, how can we close the gap between something conscious and something else unconscious, through only our consciousness? We would still be left with the gap between conscious and unconscious.

How can you pose a "superconscious domain" to things that occur unconsciously without contradicting yourself? Sure, things occur unconsciously like the love inexpressibly felt between two people. Though we have no grounds to assert that love and feeling of it is something conscious, especially when it is occurring unconsciously.

The notion of "synergy", implying interconnectedness and "sum greater than the sum of the parts" does not explain how we can know who we are, and even though our minds and being(s) appear interconnected. In other words, interconnectedness does not mean that things, which are interconnected, are intrinsically the same.

Also, your claim that mathematical language is without metaphysical [bias] is incorrect, because mathematical language itself, due to its metaphysic, is open to interpretation, and therefore, the possibility of bias to one view over another.

How can we overcome Descartes "all-inclusive totality" and see the "whole integral picture of reality", when we cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are? We argue that we cannot get outside of our minds, and therefore the best thing we can do is strive to understand the totality of our minds themselves and our relationship to them, while remaining cognizant of the limitation of what we can know, and the necessity of our beliefs being self-consistent and sound in relation to antagonistic beliefs. It is through this inquiry that we come to the belief that the validity of our existence through thoughts, and their material extensions, cannot be maintained, and that our existence through thoughts amounts to a means to exist devoid of logical justification.

In short, your challenge is unreasonable, because your theory of integral experience, including the concept of synergy, does not and cannot get outside of the totality of our minds, as illustrated by the fact that your theory, and the words and meanings that comprise it, are from in your mind. Therefore, your claim of creating another all-encompassing reality is an illusion, and even if it was not, your reality can only be expressed within another all-encompassing totality, thereby will be limited by the circularity of thought, which takes back to the main point that your theory is confined, from our perspective, by the apparent of totality of our minds.

Note: your claim that a "totality can only be expressed within another all-encompassing totality", is limited by the apparent reality that we cannot get outside of our minds, so no matter what conscious totality we come up with, it will be contained within the totality of our minds. This point shows that the notion of an all-encompassing conscious totality is an illusion. (ie. we cannot have an all-encompassing conscious totality contained in a conscious totality.)

72. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 71.

"Yes the main problem with Descartes-Kant dualistic framework, is that we cannot express within its symbolism a changing reality within a comprehensive whole, and without the reductionism drawback. Reality is complex. It has a minimum threshold of complexity in which we have two basic components:

- the inexpressible one, that one related with wholeness, with a dynamic changing form, with a positive in itself aspect in which no duality of signs must be considered and that can even be represented with figures, as a whole picture, and

- an expressible one, a static one associated with space and with mathematical exact equations, with a dual aspect in which the positive-negative sign problem associated with a binary logic, in which the like can always be expressed with the like, and as so predictions can be done with exactitude, with an exactitude that gave us such an arrogant certainty to reduce everything to the already known.

Yes, within a "simple" as opposed to a complex framework the logical conclusion is that everything is reduced to mind, because mind is all that exists, because the "sum" is reduced to "cogito". There, is the origin of idealism, of that tendency to make mind an absolute and therefore to the negation of the Absolute, because there is no other absolute but mind, human mind.

I can posit a superconscious domain, because in the same way reality has three independent but interdependent and all-encompassing domains, the one of the Being properly speaking, the one of mind, and the one of form expressed mathematically by means of a complex representation, then for each one of them we have a different manifestation of consciousness. You cannot go to the inexpressible domain with that logic in which the like is explained with the like without distorting that reality you are pretending to grasp. Yes, mind and reality are the same thing within the Descartes-Kant framework but not in a framework where the dual nature of reality is considered, because reality is complex not simple. An undimensional flatland framework is too abstract and simplistic to be able to represent with it the whole reality. Here is the origin of the impossibility to answer those questions within this competition. They do not have an answer within it, and it is the origin of paradoxes and contradictions. But the dual nature of reality can only be represented if we admit there is third independent domain in which the coincidentia oppositorum can be and is solved, the domain of reality, the domain of the being, that being that is independent of the human mind. Love and feelings, of course, they can be unconscious, but I am not really talking just about that kind of love but of that one where my free will play an important role, that one where I must love not because of what I know who you are, but where I love you just because of what you are.

The notion of "synergy" implies in this case three independent and fundamental entities in harmonic interrelation, as it were, rotating at the same frequency, and producing then a new dynamic entity, the creation of new forms, the emergence of new things. Interconnectedness has become a fashionable catchword and we have idealistic phrases as that one "everything is interconnected". Idealistic in the sense that if it were true the second law of thermodynamics would not prevail so much in our world. What we normally see around us is entropy, confusion, contradictions, paradoxes, not synergy, because to obtain synergy we must abandon our reductionism tendency, to reduce everything to a closed system. Within a closed system what we have is a reality given in advance, objects of study very necessary for science and their material extensions, but they are just that, objects of study. Yes interpretation, a bias view is always at hand, we cannot avoid them because different points of views form part of that same nature of a dual complex reality, but another point is with metaphysics. Our assertions must be validated in reality, that is my main point. We have metaphysics when that cannot be done. This is why a philosophy that works completely independent of science, where a mathematical language is a real need, is the real cause of the metaphysical tendency. That only-philosophical thinking will try by all means to reduce everything, even an independent reality to mind, and this is idealism, this is metaphysics. It will be impossible for such a philosophical thinking to establish a hierarchy that starts not in mind, but in reality, in the same nature of being.

We cannot say idealism began with Descartes, because Descartes never deny the need of a mathematical language to interpret reality, it was with Kant that idealism started. And that idealism even invaded the domain of science, as we started thinking that by just thinking all reality could be found, but there was always reality to challenge the scientific mind in that sense. This is the real importance of validation, of experience when dealing with reality.

The whole integral reality, and all-inclusive totality cannot be overcome when what is behind is Kant's assertion that reality was unknowable and intelligible as an absolute assertion. Of course behind that assertion is the uncertainty principle, the incompleteness of knowledge we will always have in an evolutionary reality in which the objects are not always given in advance, as they must evolve, they must be discovered in the mean time our knowledge of reality evolve. Yes we cannot justify our being, our existence just by our thoughts, by our mind, for it we must transcend Kant's pretension, by validating always our inner reality with the reality out there. Yes if we consider the noosphere, our mind, our thoughts an absolute, it is impossible to overcome dualism let alone abandon that anthropocentric tendency in which the big three, being, mind and form or science, philosophy and spirituality, or truth, beauty and goodness can be integrated. It was good as part of our evolutionary process to differentiate the noosphere from the biosphere, but our main task is now to integrate them, but not in the sense of the dualistic and reductionistic tendency to reduce the one to the other, but by establishing a hierarchy that starts with the being, with reality, and not by denying the existence of the other two. But this is not a static and oppressive hierarchy anymore, as it is the three and its harmonic relation what really matters to obtain synergy. This is what I propose in my book Physics and the Principle of Synergy, with many figures to try to make expressible the inexpressible. I cannot say it is an illusion because in that proposal we find assertions, mathematical assertions that can be validated in reality, for example the new pendulum approximation factor obtained with it, and the way all other fundamental equations of physics are obtained, even that one of Quantum mechanics, the well known Schrodinger Wave Equation. I know this mathematical aspect is a disadvantage in so far as popularity is concerned, but I have tried to compensate that with figures, to say with them what cannot be expressed with a thousand words."

Epsilon Pi July 25 2000

Response:

Just because everything conscious is reduced to mind, does not mean that "mind is all that exists", nor does it mean that "mind is an absolute". By reasoning that we cannot get outside of our minds, we identify a limitation with knowledge. (ie. knowledge, from our perspective, is confined to our minds). Also, we know that "being is a necessity of reason" (Kant), so again from our perspective, mind is not all that exists. Further, since we cannot know something (ie. thought) solely through itself, it follows that we have no way of knowing whether or not mind is an absolute. Although through the axiom that we need intrinsic separation from what we know in order to know, it appears that mind itself is not absolute at least in terms of being.

You can posit whatever domain you want and justify it for whatever reasons you want; however, as long as you are using your mind to do your positing and justifying, your domain(s) and reason(s) will be contained within your mind, rather than outside of it. So, for example, the "superconscious domain" is a mere appearance, like any other phrase, word, symbol, in your consciousness. Yet, what changes the domain, at least from your perspective, is the meaning and value you attach to it (ie. conscious and super), and even though the domain remains part of your consciousness, which you cannot consciously get outside of.

If we accept that the feeling of love is inexpressible, it follows that regardless of the love someone has for someone else or something, it will be beyond our minds, and therefore, anything we express the feeling of love as will not be it.

How can there be such a thing as "free will", except for in our minds, when we have no control over the origin of our own individual existence, and we are dependent on many things (ie. air, water, knowledge) for existence?

How is the axiom that we cannot get outside of our minds a "closed system", when all the axiom does is place a limitation on the nature of knowledge? Are we to abandon what is reasonable and apparently unrefutable to build a conscious structure without a conscious foundation? It appears that you are guilty of creating a closed system by not incorporating fundamental axioms like our inability to know something solely through itself into your theory of integral experience.

You go on to assert that "our assertions must be validated in reality". What is reality? If it is outside of our minds through empirical evidence, you are overlooking that the empirical has consciousness as its basis. So to ignore the conscious because it is not empirically verifiable is contradictory. Hence, your assertion about validating in reality can be changed to:

Our assertions can only be validated in our minds.

However, you may respond that there is reality outside of our minds made up of forms, material objects, and physical laws, without realizing that everything you are describing is from in your mind. By asserting this point, we are not claiming that our minds are all that exists; rather, we are asserting that all we know is from in our minds.

Since we ourselves appear, within reason, to be the basis for our minds, it follows that all thoughts have their origin outside of the mind (ie. the mind is not an end, nor does it have an independent existence). So your claim that some systems of thought (ie. reductionist philosophy devoid of mathematics) have their origins in our minds does not stand.

How can we validate our inner reality (ie. consciousness) with the reality out there, when all we can know is our inner reality? (It appears that Kant did not have the pretension that you thought he did, and that he was quite aware of the limitations of what we can know, even though he made a gross assertion by linking reason to being in the form of a "supreme reason"). We assert that mathematical assertions, like Quantum mechanics and the Schrodinger Wave Equation, and including figures or any other conscious assertions, can only be validated or invalidated in our minds according to systems of thought.

73. Entry:

"As I have already expressed if the starting point of reality is mind and its binary logic, or that reasoning that the same always produces the same we will never go out from that vicious circle that is in that pretension of mind to know everything in the most precise way. The impossibility of knowledge is due, because in some cases we have realities in which both components cannot be reduced the one to the other, as is the case with the electron in which our knowledge cannot be exact knowledge, but this does not mean that we cannot know that reality from just one point of view, not necessarily quantitative, but qualitative.

Yes we have then a limited knowledge of that reality, but that is due to the same uncertainty of reality and not to the our minds. Mind in just one domain of reality, not the whole domain of reality. This is really one mistake due to Kant and since then we have "ontological idealism" so I know that within that framework it has no sense to discuss or aspiring to solve that problem even in 100 years. The only thing I have found is that postmodernists with Ken Wilber are already considering too, in an independent way as my proposal, the integration of the big three as the great task of postmodernity, and this has meant for me that I am not alone in that intent, which in my has a mathematical complex foundation."

Epsilon Pi July 26 2000

Response:

Since we cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are, it follows that the starting point of reality from our perspective, is our minds. To deny this reality because of its implications like "vicious circle" and our inability to "know everything in the most precise way", and without reasonable grounds or any at all, is a dangerous move, similar to Kant linking reason to being. Moreover, to deny a reasonable conscious reality because it interferes with your aims, throws into question your aims and whatever you attain through them.

If we cannot get outside of our minds, it does not matter what conscious point of view, whether quantitative or qualitative, we come from; everything we know will be confined to our minds.

How can our limited knowledge of reality be from the uncertainty of reality, and not our minds, when reality, from our perspective, is a manifestation of our minds?!

We agree that mind appears to be only one domain, and yet the mind is the only domain that we can know. Any other domain, even being, is part of our minds.

Why is it a mistake of Kant to reason the limitation of our knowledge and its confinement to our minds? How is Kant being idealistic? It appears that in your intent to know the "whole integral picture of reality", you are ignoring a fundamental reality of knowledge and mind that shows what you are striving for is beyond us consciously. From our perspective, your so-called big three, "being, mind, and form", are fabrications of what we cannot truly know. (ie. we cannot reason or imagine what we cannot know). Also, to justify your intent by using mathematics as a foundation is to ignore the inventive and subjective nature of mathematics. For example, the fundamental building block of mathematics, the equation (1+1=2) is false, if we consider that in terms of space and time, there is no such thing as identical things or units. For further explanation see (1+1=2)=false .

74. Entry:

"Knowledge, like truth, seems to be a basic concept that is not reducible to or explicable/definable in terms of more primitive notions. So to know something is in a certain sense undefinable. However, this does not mean that we cannot say anything about knowledge, all it says is that it is folly to try and define knowledge. I propose that much light can be shed on the question of knowledge in general, and of who we are in particular, by asking what it is to understand something. For surely, before we know something we must first understand it. If that which we come to understand is real or true, then it could be said that we gain knowledge of that thing.

To understand something is, in general, to situate that thing within a certain framework. So our understanding tends to operate in modes. We understand things as things of certain sorts or types. For instance, to understand a certain event or thing as mental, it is enough to situate that thing amidst things or events that themselves are understood as mental. Sound circular? In some respects it is-we understand things by relating them to other things, in systematic ways. The way in which we relate things constitutes the mode of understanding, i.e. physical, mental, aesthetical, spiritual, etc.

So to understand something is, in general, to see how that thing relates to other things. But since things can relate to one another in innumerable ways, there are numerous systematic methods that can all be used to enlighten us. So much for understanding. What of being? A being is certainly something that can potentially or actually be related to other beings. This feature of being is, indeed, what enables us to come to understand other beings. However, the feature of beings in question (that they can and often are related in certain ways to other beings), while certainly real and legitimate, does not seem to be characteristic of being, that is, it does not seem to be one of being's essential or indispensable traits that it be related to other beings. I submit that this is a simple and relatively uncontroversial conceptual truth: it is a characteristic of being that a being be able to exist independently of all other beings. Is this not part of what we mean by the word 'being'?

Suppose I am right. What follows? Well, it seems that our understanding, in whatever mode it takes, cannot be up to the task of comprehending being. This is so not because of some contingent fact, but because of the nature of understanding and being. To understand something is essentially to show how that thing is related to other things, in certain systematic ways. But to be something is not necessarily to be related to other things at all. To know ourselves is, at least, to understand ourselves. And to understand ourselves is to become aware of how we are related to other things. However, to be ourselves is simply to exist with certain intrinsic features, features that cannot be understood in relation to other things. This situation appears untenable. Fortunately, there is a way out.

Knowing and understanding are processes and states of being, in particular, human being. So to know is, in some sense, to be, or to be in a particular way. So to know something is, necessarily, to be something. The question is, how is the being-state that is associated with a certain knowledge-state (knowledge of that very being-state with which that knowledge-state is associated) is related to the being-state that is not associated with a certain knowledge state? That is, what is the connection (if any) between being-knowing and just being (being-being if you like)? The answer, I think, can be stated succinctly-for every being-knowing state of ourselves, there are innumerable other states that would count as being-knowing states. Our knowing cannot exhaust our being. We are more than we could ever know, although we can know some (perhaps many) things about ourselves. Who we are, in general, extends far beyond what we can or do know. This does not mean that we cannot know who we are, it simply means that whatever we know about who we are, there will always be more to know. This follows from the earlier discussion of understanding. Let me explain.

To say that we know who we are is to say at least that we understand who we are. This means two things-that we are a certain way, and that our being can be related to other beings in certain ways. So we can certainly know who we are and be who we are at the same time: in fact, we must. For to know is to be in a certain way. However, there are always many ways in which to know something: we can know it physically, mentally, spiritually, etc. These ways of knowing are often incompatible, so we must choose and use one at a time. So our knowledge of anything, and ourselves in particular, will only be partial: there will be lots left over of being that is not captured by a given mode of understanding at a given time. So other states of being that we are not at any moment will never the less qualify as knowing-states. This means that there are different ways of knowing for different ways of being, and the only conceivable way of truly knowing who we are is to be everything we can possibly be. This, of course, is an extremely difficult task, one that might not be accomplished in a lifetime. Therefore, in order to overcome the proposition, we must be everything that we can."

Ade Artis August 1 2000

Response:

How can we say anything about something (ie. knowledge) that we apparently do not know (ie. knowledge is irreducible from axiom 1. we cannot get outside of our minds, and axiom 2. we cannot know something solely through itself)? It appears that whatever we say about knowledge is from our limited perspective, including the knowledge we imagine we understand.

Your definition of understanding through relational meaning, does not include that we need to know the things we are relating in order to understand them, or even relate them. If we cannot know things themselves, due to the limits of reason, we are left fabricating things and relating the fabrications to one another: we call it knowledge.

Since "being" is apparently beyond our minds, we have no basis to assert anything directly about it. So your assertion that beings exist independently of each other is unreasonable. The important point is that we accept the notion of being (ie. "being is a necessity of reason"), without directly defining it.

How can we know somethings about our being, without actually knowing our being or whether or not it can be separated into parts? How can we know parts of our being and be those parts of our being at the same time?

In short, your challenge falls short because you do not show how we can know "some of ourselves", "ourselves in a certain way", or "everything we can be".

Entries 66-70 Entries 75-81