"If being necessarily takes place outside the realm of knowing, it implies that within a sound philosophical debate we must assume nobody is present, since any debate of such kind pretends to be based on a single thing: Knowledge of reality.
The question would become: Who am I talking to, and who is this "I" being mentioned in the beginning of this sentence? We can't let him win the contest, because he doesn't exist!

It has been mentioned that proof of our non-existence could be a satisfying solution to the problem. It would not so much prove our actual non-existence I think, but a basic blind spot (Limit) in the instrument being used, namely language and so- called "reason". Being has no substance, being the experience of substance itself, and can therefore only be represented metaphorically, allegorically, abstractly and what not. As far as knowledge is concerned, we most truly and essentially don't exist. Any knowledge stating otherwise is necessarily portraying a ghost.
This creates a paradox: We can't know what being is, so what happens when we state: We can't do it and at the same time "know who we are"? In other words, it's strange to say we can't be something we know nothing about, while we "are knowing who we are."

Of course I have not exceeded the confines of my brain performing this cerebral act, but that's like demanding from a brain to become an entire body, or even the universe itself.
Is that what's being said? That the only way to refute this brain-devised proposition is by sorcery? I don't see how this brain-devised proposition could claim such a status, since it states how dubious knowledge of being in itself is. Let's not forget that the proposition IS telling us something about being. According to itself, it should not be able to do that.

A proposition based on knowledge, talking about something outside the supposed body of knowledge (namely "being").
The word "being" can in my opinion never refer to what it's supposed to refer to, namely this state that's forever beyond the grasp of language. It merely creates the illusion that we know what we're referring to (In a similar way as with the word "God").

Since we can't get outside our minds and know that we are outside of them, we can't speak reasonably about being, when we KNOW that we are speaking "truths" concerning it. Therefore, we can't know what we're talking about. Somehow we merely "are" in the talking itself.

I suppose that the proposition can't possibly be clear on what it's referring to. Hence, the challenge is insurmountable in one sense and artistic in an other.

In the end one could say, that it's the proposition itself that claims to have exceeded the limits of knowledge. It's the proposition itself, that makes assumptions about a phenomenon, supposed to be forever beyond its grasp, since the proposition itself is founded in knowledge (and language). This phenomenon is supposed to be unknowable. How can the body of knowledge state anything about something it can never know?
It cannot even state that it can never know it.

Within the limits of my brain this is sufficient refutation, but what that says about anybody else's.

I AM CERTAIN: I DON'T KNOW."

Raoul Starren August 19 2000

Response:

Just because being apparently exists outside of the realm of knowing, does not mean that being is not behind knowing, so that someone can be present in a debate, without really knowing that they are.

We disagree that "as far as knowledge is concerned, we most truly and essentially don't exist". In fact, knowledge through reason shows that "being is a necessity of reason", and thereby a necessity of knowledge as well, because otherwise we would have no reasonable explanation of our thoughts (ie. we cannot be non-existent nor can we be everything, and our system(s) of thoughts maintain sense.)

We agree that we cannot know anything about "being". Yet, through our limited perspective, and the relation between knowledge and the concept of being, we can show whether we can know being or not, without actually knowing it do so. In other words, though we cannot know anything directly about being, we can know something indirectly about it through the relationship between being and knowledge. Though this indirect approach is limited, because being is apparently inexpressible so we may be missing something which would refute our indirect knowledge, it is the best we can do, since we cannot get outside of our minds. However, if we were to accept your reasoning that unless we know something with 100% certainty, we cannot say anything, direct or indirect, about it, there would be nothing we would know.

Also, assuming that "being" is inexpressible, we agree that the concept of being can never refer to what it is supposed to refer to. Though we disagree that the concept creates the illusion that we know what we are referring to, when we have made it clear that "being" is a conscious representation of whatever or whoever we are. Moreover, to associate "being" with the word "God" is not accurate, because the meanings attached to "God" (ie. all knowing and powerful, creator, ect.) does not compare to "being", which simply states that there is something, like soul or spirit, behind our existence and outside of our minds. In fact, our preference in terms, is "inexpressible", which in our view is the most accurate conscious representation, because it has the least meanings attached to it. (ie. inexpressible refers to the limit of what we can know, without saying anything about who we are except that we ourselves exist.) However, we do not have control over how people express themselves in their entries.

We agree that through our body of knowledge, we cannot state anything about what we can never know, and not even that we cannot know it. However, as mentioned, if we took this position, we would not know anything. Instead, we determine knowledge based on reasonableness or approximations to truth, without knowing whether or not our reasonableness is truly reasonable.

You claim that "[YOU] ARE CERTAIN: [YOU] DON'T KNOW". Yet, your statement implies that you do know (ie. you know that you do not know.)
Also, if you do not know who you are, how can you be certain you do not know who you are? (ie. you may know who you are, without knowing that you do.)

87. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 85.

Excerpt from Response: "How can you conceptualize ‘total wholeness’ and know that you do?"

You can't conceptualize this, but experience. There is no doubt of the experience, until you think about it.

Excerpt from Response: "How can you know what the so-called creator is capable of, if it is beyond your mind, and the basis for your existence?"

Again, the experience of being made whole.

Excerpt from Response: "How is it possible, since you claim that ‘anything is possible’, for you to become the creator of the creator, or the creator?"

LOL, the truth repeats, I am who I am..

Excerpt from Response: "‘How’ can you know who you are through the creator?"

‘Relationships are the mirrors in which we see ourselves.’ (J. Krishnamurti) To ‘bring forth’ the ‘I am who I am.’ is to have a relationship with the creator. In doing so all answers can be had.

Kevin Ward August 20 2000

Response:

If you cannot conceptualize "wholeness", it does not follow how you can know that you experience wholeness. In other words, we cannot experience something (ie. wholeness) we do not know, and know that we experience it. Therefore, your claim about experiencing wholeness is unreasonable.
Also, your claim of knowing what the so-called creator is capable of (ie. "anything is possible") through experiencing wholeness is unreasonable as well for the same reason, namely you cannot experience wholeness and know that you do.

How are "relationships", without knowing wholeness, mirrors in which we can see ourselves?

How does a relationship with the creator allow us to know who we are? More specifically, how does the creator allow us to know who we are?

Finally, it does not follow how we can know the so-called creator of our existence, since it is the basis for our entire existence. In other words, the creator cannot create who it is from who it is. Hence, it follows from your argument that we are not only intrinsically separate from the creator, but the actual creations of the creator. Therefore, it appears that we cannot know something (ie. creator), which is beyond us to know, and even with the help of the creator, which makes the word creator a label of what we cannot know, and anything we assert about the creator is fabrication. Is your fabrication about the creator reasonable? We see no evidence of that, and even that there has to be a creator of our existence. In fact, based on the apparent emptiness of thought itself, and "creator" being a conscious phenomenon, it appears that there is no creator, in terms of creation through mind, of our existence.

88. Entry:

"I know who I am, and there is no deep level to understanding that fact. If it is claimed from the outset that there is indeed some deep, dark, mysterious level to who I am (other than my ordinary understanding) then I can only begin to investigate this allegedly deeper understanding from my ground-level ordinary understanding of who I am. I know I am not a cat, a fish or the square root of 5 because I know who I am (to deny that I do not know I am cat would be an error, and I can only make that claim by in fact knowing who I am--i.e., not a cat). I always am who I am by tautology. I can never be who I am not. Since I *always* am who I am, there is never a time when I am not who I am (that would be a contradiction). If I ever know who I am, then at the same time I know that fact, I also am who I am (because, to repeat, I *always* am who I am whether I know anything or not). Who am I? I am who I am. When am I who I am? Always. So I know who I am and I am who I am at the "same time"--always. So long as I know who I am, I am. I know who I am."

Rick C August 20 2000

Response:

Yes, we agree that from your limited perspective, you are not a "cat, fish, or square root of five". You are a human being and named Rick C. However, it does not follow that these labels, "human being" and "Rick C" are truly who you are.

Also, we agree that you cannot help from being who you are as long as you are living, and that if you ever know who you are, you would still be who you are. Yet, it does not follow that by merely being who you are, that you know who you are. (ie. what you know yourself as, may be a fabricated conscious representation of who you are, rather than who you really are.)

89. Entry:

"The precise problem (in my opinion) is your definition of "who we are". You seem to assume that "who we are" is our fundamental driving principle. I disagree. Our fundamental driving principle is survival, in which case your statement is wrong. We know survival, and we are surviving, to the best of our abilities.

I propose that who we are is the accumulation of our knowledge. I base this on the principle that all our choices are made through our knowledge, and that knowledge changes constantly, as does who we are.

Thus, I propose that we cannot NOT know who we are, as our knowledge IS who we are.

As to expression of this self, we express who we are constantly, through our actions and inactions.

A new proposition:

We cannot EXAMINE/OBSERVE who we are and BE who we are at the same time.

My basis is the assertion that the accumulation of knowledge changes who we are, and thus the knowledge gained through examining/observing ourselves changes us.

In such a case, the person we are examining/observing is the person who existed AT THE MOMENT OF EXAMINATION/OBSERVATION. This person no longer exists."

Marc Reside August 20 2000

Response:

We do not assume that who we are is a "fundamental principle". Rather, we assert that there is a fundamental level of being behind our existence, which we label "who we are".

If our level of being is beyond our minds, it follows that whatever we label it as, including the notion of "survival", is not it. The important and only consideration is that we have asserted the existence of a fundamental level of being. (ie. "being is a necessity of reason.")

If who we are is the accumulation of all our knowledge as you assert, how can we know all our knowledge, and thereby who we are, since according to you, our knowledge is "constantly changing"?

Your assumption that knowledge and who we are change constantly, even if it is true, does not mean that knowledge is who we are. In other words, just because two things are changing constantly, does not mean that they are the same thing. Further, it does not follow how two things, like being and knowledge, in terms of space and time can be identical.

If we cannot know who we are as you assert, how can we express, and thereby know, who we are constantly? (ie. how can we express something and not know it at the same time, including the notion of knowing something without knowing that we do?)

If knowledge is who we are, it does not follow how can you distinguish the two of them as though they are not the same as each other.

Also, if knowledge is who we are, it does not make sense how we can know anything? (ie. without separation from what we know.)

Finally, how can the accumulation of knowledge change who we are, since as you assert that knowledge is who we are? In other words, how can who we are change who we are?

90. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 89.

"My point is that knowledge need not be observed, nor put forward, to exist.

As to a fundamental state of being: energy. Why put more to what we really are? We are nothing more than energy in complex form.

I also wish to clarify that I did not mean that we ARE knowledge, but that "who we are" is DEFINED by our knowledge, and continues to be redefined by our knowledge.

It is from this that I assert that the only thing we can know completely is "who we are". All other knowledge is jaded through perception."

Marc Reside August 21 2000

Response:

It does not make sense how knowledge could exist without being first observed or put forward, at some stage, if we are the creators of knowledge. Further, it does not follow that just because knowledge is observed or put forward that knowledge actually exists.)

How can you know our fundamental level of being is "energy", since our being, at the least what the conception of being is referring to is beyond our minds, and energy is a conscious phenomenon (ie. energy is a word with invented meaning)? Also, how can energy be the basis for itself? What is behind energy itself? What is behind knowledge itself?

Just because "who we are" may be defined by our knowledge, does not mean that our definition(s) of who we are is really who we are. (ie. our definition(s) may be a conscious representation of who we are without actually being who we are.)
From another angle, it does not follow how knowledge can be who we are, if who we are is the basis for knowledge. Further, if knowledge and who we are are "constantly changing" as you assert in Entry 91., it does not follow how we can "completely" know who we are, since we would always be a step behind. (ie. knowledge is relational, or comparative, and thereby temporal, or in other words, we do not simply know, we know through what we know.)

91. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 88.

"You admit the following to me:

"Yes, we agree that from your limited perspective, you are not a "cat, fish, or square root of five". You are a human being and named Rick C. However, it does not follow that these labels, "human being" and "Rick C" are truly who you are." (Excerpt from Response)

Do not put words into my mouth and do not misunderstand the sequence of my presentation (or the irrelevancy of any sequence).

For now, I wish to emphasize that nowhere do I claim to know that I am a human being or Rick C. My point is that I know who I am NOT, I know what I am NOT. I know I am not a cat, I know I am not a fish, I know I am not the square root of 5. The condition that makes possible my ability to know that I am not a cat, a fish or square root of 5 is that I know who/what I am (at some level, no matter how superficial, I clearly know at least that much). I do not claim or need to claim any deep knowledge of who or what I "truly" am. I know I am not a fish, and that is knowledge.

I am not claiming to be a human being or Rick C. Even if I did make such a claim, I would be claiming to be a kind of being (a human being) or a particular being (Rick C)--which is not the same as claiming to be a "label" as you suggest in your response. I, in fact, do not state the knowledge I have of what I am as a particular affirmation of any particular entity. My argument is safely neutral to any criticism of the knowledge I do have articulated in positive terms (without a "not" as I do claim, since I make no positive identification of who/what I am). I merely start off with the obvious knowledge that I know who/what I am NOT. If you deny this, you are wrong (clearly, I know I am not a cat, etc.). If you accept this, (as you seem to do), then you must admit I have knowledge of who/what I am at least to the degree that I know I am not a cat.

Now, if you admit I know what I am NOT, you must admit that I have (at least) a very ordinary, superficial understanding of who I am. This is the point of my argument--that this knowledge is so ordinary, I believe the other respondents have overlooked this obvious knowledge. My obvious knowledge of what I am is only intelligible if one grants that I know *at some level* what I am.

I do NOT claim (as you suggest I do) that I know who or what I "truly" am. I was careful to emphasize that I know what I am NOT (and hence, part of the knowledge of what I am) at a very superficial level. Your use of the word "truly" suggests that I am implying some kind of deeper knowledge that I know I am a human being and Rick C. I do not claim such knowledge in my argument (I do not need to).

Since I do not claim to be a human being or Rick C, I do not claim to be any particular entity nor do I claim to be a "label" as you also suggest that I do. [Who would claim to be a "label" anyway? Labels are a means of identification, not what gets identified.]

The second part of my argument, which you seem to mistake as the first part, notes that to be who I am is necessarily true. You do not disagree with that part of my argument so I assume I am home free in overcoming the proposition. But let me clarify that part here...(I should note that both parts are true independent of the other--I do not claim the first part of what I say to follow from the second, as you also suggest that I do). Below, I further support the second claim in my original argument, but I believe it works as originally written and independent of the first claim.

Further support for the second claim: I can NEVER be who I am not. Even if I were dead and scattered to pieces, I would still be who I am--I would not be a fish, or a dead fish or a scattered fish. I make no assumptions on being or non-being as it relates to death. I stick to the demands of the contest and the use of reason. When I am dead, I--who is not a cat--is dead. My being dead is still a mode of being insofar as I am not (or would not be) a dead fish. I am not claiming that I would be a dead Rick or a dead human being (I simply avoid any criticism you may make to any knowledge of that sort by not claiming any). I also do not claim that I would be a dead being who has knowledge (I do not have to claim as much). I need only note that I always am who/what I am and that if I *ever* have knowledge, then 'when' I am with knowledge is whenever I am--always. It does not follow that I always have knowledge--I do not claim as much. But so long as I have knowledge (as you claim I have such knowledge of what I am not), it is still true that I always am what I am, that I am not what I am not, and hence, when I have knowledge, I also am.

To recapitulate: It is enough that I claim to know who/what I am not. You accept that I know this, but fail to see the consequences of accepting this claim of mine. Reread my original entry, reread your original reply. Your reply does not address my argument. The bottom of your reply does not apply to my argument at all since I make no claim to being a human being or to being Rick C. I do not claim that, nor do I claim knowledge of that. I don't have to for my argument to succeed.

As far as I can tell, the most direct way for you to refute me (or deny me the satisfaction of overcoming your proposition) is by denying me the knowledge claim that I know what I am not--not a cat, not a fish, not the square root of 5. If you deny that I know that I am not a cat, then you would be mistaken. You would essentially be denying that I understand the proposition at some basic level (the basic level being that the proposition is not addressing a cat by myself who is not a cat). If I do not or can not understand the proposition at some very basic level then I suspect the problem is with the proposition and not myself.

The second part of what I say is true regardless of any knowledge I may or may not have, let alone of knowledge I may or may not have about myself. The second part does not 'follow' from the claim that I know what I am not, and the claim that I know what I am not does not follow from the necessary truth concerning being.

I always am who I am by necessity. You do not disagree with this point so I do not repeat myself here. But if you now accept the knowledge I claim to have, then you must admit I overcame your proposition in my original entry 88. As far as I can tell, my original entry stands unrefuted."

Signed-----not a cat, not a fish, not the square root of 5. August 22 2000

Response:

Yes, we agree that you know you are not a "cat, fish, or square root of five", and thereby through this knowledge, you have knowledge of who you are. However, the critical question, which you have not answered, is what is the nature of your knowledge: Is it absolute or limited? In other words, do you know you are not a "cat, fish, or square root of five" from absolute knowledge of yourself, or do you know from limited, invented knowledge of yourself?
Also, what is the knowledge of yourself which allows you to know that you are not a "cat, fish, or square root of five"?
If you do not know the knowledge of yourself, how can you claim to know you are not a "cat, fish, or square root of five" without having some conception of yourself to compare these things to?!

By claiming to be a kind of being (ie. human being) or a particular being (ie. Rick C), assuming that you did, it follows that you may be using a label to make your claim, without really knowing the kind of being or particular being you are. This assertion does not mean that you are claiming to be a label, but you are using a label to make your claim.

As we stated in the response to Entry 88., just because you cannot help from being who you are as long as you are living, it does not follow that what you know while you are living is really who you are. How does being translate into knowing being? Sure, knowledge appears to be a creation by who we are. Yet, just because we create something, does not mean what we create is who we are. Two reasons for this position are as follows:

1. we cannot create who we are through who we are. (ie. we cannot reasonably be the ones behind creation and the creation as well.)

2. From the premises, "we cannot get outside our minds" and "we cannot know something solely through itself", knowledge itself appears to be non-existent, while knowledge is an illusion created by us ourselves. Hence, knowledge as a whole appears to be an "empty form". From these points and the premise, "being is a necessity of reason", we conclude that we ourselves exist, and thereby we are not what we know. (ie. we are not non-existent.)

Finally, a basic level of understanding of the challenge proposition, in consideration of your perspective, is that your knowledge of yourself needed to know that you are not a "cat, fish, or square root of five", is not really who you are. Rather, it is a fabricated identity of who you are which you compare to other fabricated identities, and then derive, through comparison, fabricated knowledge that you are not a "cat, fish, or square root of five". What confuses this process of knowledge is that individuals think what they perceive is what really is, so that they overlook the apparent separation between "in their minds" and "outside of their minds", or perception through their minds at what they do not know.

Entries 82-85 Entries 92-97