Reply to the Response to Entry 86.

"First of all, I'm afraid my statement: "I am certain: I don't know" has been unable to convey the meaning I had intended. What it was meant to say is that I AM certainly (being), so I necessarily don't know. This because the proposition states, that we can't do it at the same time. So what I do first, is to reason according to the message of the proposition. The result proves to be that I can never truly be involved in the knowing-business, if I acknowledge that a human being can't stop and start being at will. We are merely born and will cease to be in the future. If the proposition would be sensible nevertheless, this implies that we will know at the moment of our death. I'm not advertising for the afterlife, I think I'm just being logical.

I wish to stress that I'm not trying to be concerned with the implications of this line of reasoning, I just try to follow it. There seems to be a dilemma attached to this problem: On the one hand it's easy to see which vantage point is required to perceive the proposition as reasonable, irrefutable. But what does it mean if there's a vantage point from which it is irrefutable and another from which it is not? What status has a proposition, if it possesses such a trait? (Supposing our limited minds can't come up with a grand unifying theory, which seems logical if we think it to be limited).

Second, my comparison between the concept of being and the concept of God wasn't concerned with their properties as such, but with their quality of both being inexpressible.

*******

"In fact, knowledge through reason shows that "being is a necessity of reason", and thereby a necessity of knowledge as well...." (Excerpt from Response) I agree with the above, but disagree with what follows: "because otherwise we would have no reasonable explanation of our thoughts."

This is what I propose to be the second vantage point: No reasonable explanation is required for our thoughts. From here it seems as if these concepts and propositions behave like beings themselves, and they are struggling for their lives within the universes of our minds. Now that is something I can understand. What I don't understand is how either of these "beings" could attain the status of being irrefutable (invincible), no matter what happened.
I will say again that this is a way of looking at it, which can't be refuted either. It can only be refuted from a definite vantage point: The point where knowledge is only knowledge, if we know where it came from. I say knowledge would still be knowledge if we didn't know that at all. At its base, knowledge has to face its inexpressible decendancy.
I propose that knowledge is an art form, or a mode of being if you like.
You agree that the concept of being can't refer to what its supposed to refer to.
From the second vantage point I say the same goes for knowledge itself, as long as we are convinced of the inexpressibility of being itself. Whether one thinks this to be unproductive or not, in my view doesn't influence its irrefutable nature.

YES, I KNOW THE PROPOSITION IRREFUTABLE: THIS LEADS ME TO BELIEVE IT CAN'T BE IRREFUTABLE AT THE SAME TIME."

Raoul Starren August 28 2000

Response:

How can we know who we are at the moment of our death? If the "moment" refers to prior to our death, it does not follow how we can know who we are while being who we are, and if it refers to at our death or thereafter, it does not follow how we can know who we are because we would have no consciousness to know.

In our view, all propositions are irrefutable and refutable from different systems of thoughts. Though our job, from our limited perspective, is to determine which is the most reasonable with our only constraint being reason itself. By asserting this point, we assume that there is no two opposing vantage points which are equally reasonable. In other words, we believe that reason has a logical basis, which explains all thoughts and their systems.

In terms of your second vantage point, just because concepts and propositions appear to be behaving like beings themselves, does not mean that they are beings themselves. We argue that they are creations of who we are, and thereby their existence is contingent on ourselves giving them meaning.
Moreover, we assert that it is a necessity of reason that our beliefs or systems of thoughts be reasonable from our perspective. If you disagree with this position, please tell us how someone himself can have an unreasonable perspective and know that he himself has an unreasonable perspective.
Though we concede that no reasonable explanation is required for our thoughts, unless an explanation for thoughts themselves is part of our beliefs.
Further, your second vantage point does not contradict our reasonable, and apparently irrefutable, claim that we cannot know who we are.

We disagree that knowledge cannot refer to what it suppose to, because the inexpressibility of being is distinguishable from the unknowability of knowledge. (Garvey, I Am Existence) Inexpressible implies that we can never know, whereas, unknowable implies that we may know without knowing that we do.

By claiming to know that a proposition is irrefutable, does not necessarily mean that you really know that it is. Also, even if it is irrefutable, does not mean that its irrefutability means that you know what it is referring to. In other words, irrefutability does not mean that you know what is inexpressible. In fact, by something being inexpressible, it follows that you really do not know it through irrefutability or anything else. (Irrefutability is not the same as inexpressibility, because irrefutability implies a limit to reason within the bounds of reason, whereas inexpressibility implies beyond reason.)

99. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 90.

"First point: You assume that we are the creators of knowledge. We are not. Knowledge need not be created, knowledge is. Knowledge has always been.

Second point: You assume that energy is only a word with invented meaning. The word "energy" is a label, NOT a thing. What it REPRESENTS is a thing.

Third point: You assume we live only at one period in time. However, if we have lived in the past, and will live in the future, is it not impossible (though currently impossible to prove) that we CONTINUE to exist at those moments in time that have past, and may likely exist in those moments in the future already?

Fourth Point: You assume everything has a basis. Is this true? Can you prove that EVERYTHING has a basis?

Now, to boil down your philosophy: we cannot achieve the true knowledge of ourselves due to representation. (i.e. we use labels to represent what we perceive.)

You know, this sounds awfully like Plato's Cave, except you're saying it's IMPOSSIBLE to leave the cave. So what? There are many people who would agree with you. But it still isn't really a new idea. All you're saying is that we're not perfect, and therefore can't TRULY know anything about the real world. There will always be some point of doubt. I don't think this is a new concept.

How this leads you to believe that deconstruction of technological society would benefit mankind, I don't know."

Marc Reside August 28 2000

Response:

If we are not the creators of knowledge, where does knowledge come from? Also, how can we know knowledge has no beginning, and how can you reconcile this point of view (ie. knowledge has no beginning) with the progressive nature of knowledge?

Since, we both agree that the word "energy" is a label, what is the "thing" that energy represents, and what is the basis for the thing?

We do not assume that we live only at one time, because obviously the past influences the present (ie. a form of the past) and future, just as our anticipation of the future, and thereby the future itself, influences the present, thus the past. However, it does not follow how we could exist in the future, past, and present at the same time. Though as mentioned, we agree that we do in a limited way through the influence these periods of time have on each other, through us ourselves.

We assume that everything has a basis from our limited perspective because "being is a necessity of reason". To give up the conception of being or basis, our perspective would become unreasonable because we would either be non-existent or ends, which are both unreasonable.

100. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 96.

"How does "[being] there/one" allow you to know that you are experiencing "wholeness"?" (Excerpt from Response)

Because you're there, that's the best I can do from here, in my very limited self.

"When you saw the jewelry crafted beyond any beauty you could grasp with your mind, how did you know you were experiencing wholeness?" (Excerpt from Response)

How else could you see such ungraspable/unperceptable beauty? Like the time I accidentally pulled a steel handrail off it's mounts with one hand there was the force/intelligence within and without giving unlimited ability. I guess you could say having unlimited ability is how you know you're in wholeness. Yet this moment is very brief, just a taste, and will not lend itself to unjust acts and exploitation. It's purpose is to teach and inspire.

"Perhaps, you experienced something that was beyond your individual comprehension, which you interpreted as experiencing wholeness? " (Excerpt from Response)

The ability that wholeness lends goes beyond anyone's comprehension.

Wisdom allows wholeness/truth to become more graspable. The wise do much introspection and external observation. The wise become wise from the things learned through the relationship with the creator/wholeness. The things we create in following our real interests in life is our way to wholeness. There is no doubt when the relationship is in wholeness, there is truth, joy, and satisfaction. When Einstein's famous formula was given to him in his moment of wholeness he had no doubt. After he had time to think about it he probably had doubt, but that's another story.

Life's right there with intelligence, mankind can't make either. There will be no artificial intelligence, artificial ego yes, that's the computer.

How can the whole make another whole? We can't think of the whole or imagine the whole either. We can try though. We are a part of the whole made by the whole by intentional fragmentation. Why? Who knows? My guess would be that it's part of the process of adding to the creation. The whole can allow a conscious fragment to share in the wholeness. In wholeness there is no contradiction and no thought, simply what is.

Kevin Ward August 29 2000

Response:

It does not follow how you can know "wholeness" through being aware of "unlimited ability", because wholeness and unlimited appear to be beyond your mind.

How can you have "no doubt", a state of certainty, about something when you cannot know absolutely?

If "we cannot think of or imagine the whole", it follows that we have no way of knowing whether we are part of a whole or that it even exists.

If we are part of the whole made by "intentional fragmentation", it does not follow how the creator (ie. "the whole") could create himself through himself.

101. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 99.

"Now, the amusing thing about this debate is that I AGREE with the proposition, and initially was playing Devil's Advocate. However, I do NOT agree with your conclusions about the salvation of humankind lying within the deconstruction of civilization.

First, to clarify, I believe that EVERYTHING creates knowledge. In essence, it is knowledge and EXISTENCE which are inextricable, as you cannot have existence without creating knowledge, and you cannot have knowledge without first having something which exists.

The next real point is that as soon as an idea becomes verbal, or visual, or any form outside the mind, it ceases to be an idea, and becomes a REPRESENTATION of that idea. Each representation has LEARNED meaning, and diversity of people provides diversity of ideas. This is not a new idea.

Now, it flows logically that if knowledge is inextricable from existence, then we cannot exist without knowledge. How, then, can we avoid knowledge?"

Marc Reside August 29 2000

Response:

We agree that in the human species’ present evolved state, we cannot exist without knowledge. So we agree with your assertion that "we cannot have existence without creating knowledge." However, if we subtract the human species from the equation and add all other life-forms, it does not follow that "creating knowledge" is necessary for existence.

Also, we agree with your second statement, "we cannot have knowledge without first having something that exists". Though just because knowledge is contingent on the existence of something else, does not mean that knowledge is inherently the same as the something that exists. In other words, dependency by one thing on another, does not mean the dependent itself is the same as the independent itself. It means that there is a connection between the two things, which produces existence for the dependent.

Regarding your argument overall, you appear to be assuming that since knowledge is from our existence, it is a necessary part of our existence. Yet, just because knowledge was created through our existence, does not mean that it will always be created through our existence or that we cannot exist without knowledge at some point. However, you may be arguing that knowledge has always been part of our existence, yet, this argument does not hold, because knowledge is progressive and a creation of our existence. (ie. we need to first exist in order to create, which corresponds to the idea of knowledge as progressive.)

102. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 101.

"You seem to assume that we, as human beings, are the only things in existence that perceive knowledge. However, any creature with a certain level of cerebral capacity retains knowledge as well.

A tiger will know its own territory, and can differentiate between its own and another's territory.

A dog knows its master.

These creatures do not create tools, yet they have knowledge. They also, through existence, CREATE knowledge. If a dog does not exist, then there is no knowledge about the dog. If the dog does exist, then there is attainable knowledge about the dog. Likewise, if a rock doesn't exist, there can be no knowledge about it, yet, BECAUSE it does, there is attainable knowledge about it.

So, if knowledge exists for creatures that live "natural" lives, why is knowledge something we ourselves must avoid?

And, of course, you could ask: "What about unicorns? They are fictional, yet knowledge exists about them. Doesn't this indicate that knowledge is created by the mind, and therefore is a human invention?"

Well, I agree, SOME knowledge is purely of human invention. Such knowledge, however, is progressive FROM knowledge based OUTSIDE human creation (ie. horses and a horn = unicorn, where both horses and horns are NOT human invention).

Your second paragraph is very interesting. You seem to be alluding to the greatest problem of language and knowledge: the inaccuracy of perception. One word can (and does) mean a thousand different things to a thousand different people.

How do you propose we fix that problem? Decivilizing won't work; we still need to communicate, and communication requires perception, and perception is inaccurate.

All in all, I maintain that WE are not the SOLE creators of knowledge, and that knowledge is a facet of ALL existence, not just what labels humans have created. An object's existence forms the knowledge pertaining to it."

Marc Reside August 30 2000

Response:

We agree that "any creature with a certain level of cerebral capacity retains knowledge". However, the key questions are what is the knowledge retained, and is it the same for all creatures? Further, do all creatures know they retain knowledge, and do they themselves consciously retain knowledge?
Does a tiger know that it knows its own territory? Does a dog know that it knows its master?
Do animals other than human beings, know that they create knowledge? Does a bird create and use a blueprint to build its nest, or does it act from instinctual knowledge derived through gradual adaptation?!

A problem with your claim that knowledge is attainable from the existence of things is that you are using knowledge, like dog and rock, as though they are not knowledge, as things outside of your mind. Hence, your claim amounts to knowledge from knowledge, which we agree with.
However, we are still left with the question of whether or not we need things outside of our minds to know?
In our view, it appears that we need a limited, sensory connection to outside of our minds, in order to give material form to our knowledge, and generate the stimulus necessary for knowledge. So we agree that through the existence of things beyond our minds, there is attainable knowledge, but not attainable knowledge of those things, except in limited way.

Deconstruction is not intended to fix the problem of inaccurate, invented perception through intellect, but to fix the problem of us existing through what is empty of who we are.

We agree that knowledge, in different forms, is a facet of all life-forms. Though it is questionable that knowledge, in terms of reason, is a facet of all life-forms.
What other life-forms other than ourselves create knowledge, in terms of symbols with conscious meanings, and know that they do?

If an object’s existence forms the knowledge pertaining to it, are you saying that knowledge comes from the object, and therefore we do not create it? Or are you saying that the object’s existence, whatever it is, helps form the symbol of knowledge, but not the meaning we attach to the symbol?

103. Entry:

"I would first like to state that your proposition makes a vague assumption. If you are referring to knowing who we are as in possessing the ability to predict every aspect of life, then of course, we cannot know who we are. It has already been hypothesized by Roger Penrose that the soul of all life lies within the inherent randomness that governs the behaviour of all the particles that make up the universe. The human may not be the simplest form of life, but it is not the most sophisticated either. However, what separates intelligent humans from other life on earth is that we not only know, but we know we know. And if that is the type of knowing you are referring to, than this exercise is nothing but a greedy attempt to push your books."

Sami Saab August 31 2000

Response:

Knowing who we are as defined in the competition refers to reasonably showing how we can know our fundamental level of being. We do not attach the notion of being able to "predict every aspect of life" to being. In fact, we do not attach anything to being, except that there is a being from our limited perspective.

We disagree with Penrose’s claim that the soul of life lies in "randomness", because he is using a conscious term, "random", to describe something apparently beyond consciousness.

We agree with your statement that our conscious self-identity separates us from other life-forms. Though it is unclear how other life-forms could know as we do through reason, without having self-identity? In other words, how could other life-forms know without knowing that they do?

What other type of knowing could we be referring to than knowledge through conscious self-identity?

Why and how does our self-identity equate to who we are?

104. Entry:

Reply from the Response to Entry 100.

In wholeness there is unlimited ability, to experience this is to know of it's existence.

"How can you have ‘no doubt’, a state of certainty, about something when you cannot know absolutely?" (Excerpt from Response)

In wholeness you do know absolutely. Albert didn’t have to prove to himself E=mc (squared) to believe it. While in his moment of wholeness he saw this truth, he had no doubt, till maybe later when his ego tried to understand it with it's limited ability.

"If ‘we cannot think of or imagine the whole’, it follows that we have no way of knowing whether we are part of a whole or that it even exists." (Excerpt from Response)

Exactly, that's why we have to have a relationship with God/the creator/the whole. Selflessness is the key to unlock this door. Picasso said, "I'm at my best when I'm not aware I'm painting." Bruce Lee said, "I don't hit, it hits." God said, "I am who I am." If you look at what the exceptional people in our past have said concerning their works you'll find quotes from about all of them describing in their own way selflessness. Albert called it imagination, as did many others. When understanding individuals it's very important to see how they mean their words. My idea of imagination is not Alberts, but my mind is still open enough that I can see this and not misunderstand him. This was the only way I figured out all these awesome individuals were all saying the same things even though it doesn't sound that way at first.

If one day mankind could clone himself would we say he made himself? I'd say no, he made an image of himself with a free will all it's own. He could work with the clone and try to make it like himself, but it would always be apart, yet the same, sort of 8). Let's say this man was a Vulcan, Spock from the Star Trek show, and used the Vulcan mind meld to join the clone and become one. In this intimate bond the clone would know a wholeness with it's creator. So, he's not creating himself through himself, he's just helping a fragment of himself get to know the whole of himself."

Kevin Ward September 1 2000

Response:

How does experience allow us to know unlimited or infinity?

How do you see truth, without knowing that you do?

How can we know we have a relationship with a God/the creator/the whole, since we cannot "think of or imagine the whole"?

How can someone use their mind to combine with their clone body in a state of oneness and know wholeness through that state?

How can anyone help a fragment of himself get to know the whole of himself, since the whole is beyond our minds?

Entries 92-97 Entries 105-113