1. Yates : If we don't know who we are, then how do we know existing fully for ourselves is the proper standard or place to which we ought to conform?

Garvey: I don't know in absolute terms. We must use our reason to guide us.

2. Yates: What good does existing fully for ourselves do if it leads to non-existence for the individual who happens to be weaker?

Garvey: I believe the opposite. Existing fully for ourselves would lead to the "full" existence of the individual. And it would be so "full" the individual would not be aware of it. He or she would simply exist--

3. Yates: Are you implying that if we could produce a genetically superior race--through survival of the fittest (i.e., through natural means), that this race would be intellectually and morally superior as well--a.k.a. the perfectibility of man?

Garvey: An unconscious, instinctual, human race would likely have a greater chance of preserving itself in the long-term, than a conscious, reasoning, human race. (Intellectuality and morality have no place in the former).

4. Yates: Are you saying that any and all thought, takes away from who we are? If so, then is it only at the infant stage (when we're most dependent) that no thought is possible to change or alter us?"

Garvey: No. I am saying that by us ourselves existing through thoughts themselves, and their material extensions, we suppress ourselves in relation to us NOT existing through thoughts and their material extensions. (And this does not mean that we do not benefit in the short-term from existing through them. Though in its essence, regardless of what benefit we receive from existing through thoughts themselves and their material extensions, we are suppressing who we are).

Change depends on the individual in question. Though I concede that it would likely be more difficult for an adult, after being habituated, to make a change than an infant.

To profoundly change how we exist appears to require a gradual transition, so that infants only many generations ahead would be in a position to exist without thoughts, if at all.

5. Yates: If we don't know in absolute terms, this then throws all possibilities into the mix, correct? And when you say "We must use reason to guide us," this means to pick, using reason, the best alternative? If so, you've chosen "fully for ourselves" as the best alternative--why (if I may ask)?

Garvey: Because we can't get outside of our minds, all we can know is what we reason. So the idea of using reason to guide us is not our "best alternative," but our conscious reality. (All systems of thoughts, religious, scientific, philosophical ect., have their basis in reason).

6. Yates: I believe that I was unclear in my second question so I will rephrase it. You have claimed (paraphrasing) that our interference with the natural order (and I'm accepting for now this definition of natural order) has made us weaker. In many cases it has saved individual lives. Are you claiming that these lives should have been sacrificed, in other words they should have accepted their natural fate-- death from disease, weakness, etc., for future generations to reach the "fully for us" stage?

Garvey: We can't change the past itself. All we can do is shape the future by how we exist in the present.

If it is true, within the confines of our reason, that we are suppressing us ourselves by existing through material inventions, and that it can only lead to more suppression, we will have to do something about it. In other words, we will have to gradually give up our material shield, and instead rely on "natural" or unconscious ways of defending and nourishing ourselves.

7. Yates: I wonder if you would agree with me then that an "unconscious human race" is synonymous to an unaware race of animals. Instead of being the overman, would we not instead be the underman. Is this not regression, or is it just strength and/or independence that determines our progress?

Garvey: In my view, an "unconscious race" is synonymous with an "unaware race" only in terms of not having knowledge. (There is more to awareness than knowledge. There is instinct.)

Progress is whatever we define it as, and the same applies to "overman", "underman", "strength", "regression" or any other notion. To understand our existence, we must ask ourselves what do we really know? For me, this leads to the challenge proposition, which proves, within the confines of our reason, that we can't know who we are. So what we know itself is not who we are. I believe this proposition is significant because it can't be overcome, without contradicting reason. For me that is the closest thing to a truth.

8. Yates: How do we know suppressing ourselves is necessarily bad, especially considering we do not know ourselves?"

Garvey: We know ourselves IN RELATION to thoughts themselves:
A. thoughts themselves are empty of who we are
B. we exist
C. there is a basis behind who we are
It follows that by us ourselves existing through empty thoughts, we must be suppressing who we are. I assume this is an "unwanted" situation for us ourselves, especially since by existing through thoughts, we are making the means for our existence empty of who we are, and making us ourselves weaker in relation to unconscious nature, which exists DIRECTLY rather than through thoughts.

9. Yates: Once again I've failed to make my self clear. I agree with you about reason, I am asking why you have chosen the superman philosophy or "fully for ourselves," as the most reasonable of all the other worldviews, philosophies and religions? I assume you will say because of the challenge proposition, so I will add that the proposition itself gives us no more reason to accept your philosophy than any other does(in terms of an overall philosophy)--do you agree? I must admit I have not yet read the book.

Garvey: I have not choosen existing "fully for ourselves" as the most reasonable worldview, philosophy ect. All I have basicly said is that there is an inherent difference between who we are and our thoughts themselves, and that we should do something about it, because it appears, within the confines of our reason, that by us existing through thoughts, we are suppressing who we are. And by doing something about our means to exist, it appears that it will result in a situation in which we are existing fully for ourselves. Existing fully for ourselves has never been an end, but merely a result.

10. Yates: Your refusal to answer the question directly speaks for itself I think. If you won't speak about the past then simply consider the question asked about the present. Should we with hold treatment (at least voluntarily) that brings us certain death so that a race, sometime in the distant future, can exist as unaware beings? If not in the present then when?

Garvey: I choose not to speak about the past because it is not for me to second guess what has already happened. In other words, what has happened appears to have occurred because it was meant to happen.

If it is true, from my perspective, that the world is self-destructive, and can only increasingly threaten us ourselves, ("degenerate recursion loop") then it follows that we would have to do something about it. If the answer lied in a gradual detachment from material inventions, then it appears that some people would have shorter lives than if we didn't detach. Though in the long-term, the species may survive, whereas, if we didn't make the change, it would likely not. This is a form of entrapment. Anyway we deal with the situation, lives will be effected. And the longer we wait to act, it appears that the more lives will be compromised. (Yes, if we follow the detachment through, at the some point, we would have to withhold treatment which would bring death sooner to some people than if we didn't. Though if the treatment itself is the problem, there is nothing we can do about this. Moreover, we could look at it from the perspective that some people would not be alive if it weren't for certain treatment. So in some sense, they are fortunate to have their length of life). For example, I believe that the practice of medicine is detrimental to humankind, because through physicians and the medicines they use, we are shielding ourselves from unconscious nature. In other words, we are relying on others and things to preserve us rather than relying on ourselves. This is inherently weak compared to unconscious nature, which simply exists.

11. Yates: That is why I mentioned unaware race of ANIMALS for they have instincts as well. Are you saying that instinct is a type of awareness, or something we are aware of?

Garvey: I disagree with your use of the notion, "unaware beings". What makes us so aware by using knowledge, if knowledge itself is fabrication? Yes, instinct appears to be an unconscious form of awareness. Surely, you don't think that animals have the capacity to think or that they are unaware?! What purpose would knowledge serve if it is empty of who we are? Could it be that we are worse off in the long-term be existing through knowledge, than if we did not?

12. Yates: Nature exists directly, but it is meaningless to itself. Our existence directly, without awareness, would be meaningless as well. Therefore, in terms of meaning, existence directly=non existence--do you agree?"

Garvey: Just because nature is not consciously aware of its existence, it does not follow that existence is meaningless or non-existence. (existence = non-existence) = false
(existence = non-existence) implies that there is nothing behind existence itself.
(existence itself = whatever it is) I don't believe we can ever know. (Proof = challenge propo.)

13. Yates: I may have misunderstood the purpose of the book (for I have not yet read it) but my understanding of it is to convince people your philosophy is the most reasonable, this is not true? Then what is the purpose, just to offer a new idea? I will admit the proposition itself is extremely interesting (though the conclusion of our self destructive nature is nothing new), but it can be inserted into many different philosophies of man and his relationship to the universe, and your alternative is not the only we have to choose from for the course of man.

Garvey: One purpose of The Superman Philosophy is to present a philosophical outlook in simple terms, and let people make up their own minds what they think about it.

If my philosophy is a true reflection of our relationship to our conscious existence, it would appear that the "alternative" proposed is the only one available to humankind. (This includes more moderated approaches).

Yes, other philosophies, such Sartre's in Being and Nothingness, have shown similar findings. Though what distinguishes my work is that I apply it directly to our existence (ie. challenge proposition), and not just says the world is self-destructive, but shows why it is so (ie. the Race to Invent, directness versus indirectness).

14. Yates: I believe you have answered this question 10 in full--thank you for your candidness.

15. Yates: If knowledge is fabrication then are not all these notions of self, instinct, meaning, etc., fabrications? Are not these concepts based in knowledge, is not the knowledge you put forth to save mankind (if your philosophy were true) helpful to mankind therefore "purposeful" as you say?

Garvey: As mentioned, because we use reason to guide us, we must use what makes the most sense to us. (In our opinion, the closest thing to a truth is an idea which can't be overcome, without contradicting reason. The "Challenge the Philosophy" is a way to determine whether the challenge proposition meets this condition). Moreover, our relationship to knowledge, shown through knowledge, may have a sense of truth about it within our fabricated consciousness.

16. Yates: I agree direct existence=non existence=false, but does meaning exist in a universe of unconscious beings? Doesn't meaning exist for conscious beings only? For whom or what does meaning exist in a universe unconscious of itself? Any reply that something has meaning for itself is only meaning for the person replying, not the thing itself for it cannot perceive meaning.

Garvey: It would appear that "conscious meaning" does not exist in a "universe of unconscious beings". Though this does not rule out unconscious "meaning" beyond our minds.

Conscious meaning, in terms of reason and knowledge, appears to exist only in thinking beings. We do not accept the position that beings unconscious of themselves are non-existence. If they have existence, regardless if they exist unconsciously or not, there must be something behind their existence.

16. Yates: "Am I correct that your philosophy assumes a naturalist view of the universe? Even then, why can't conscious instinct be willfully balanced to conform to unconscious instinct while the person still remains conscious? If reason is valid it should be able to do so?

Garvey: I let my reason guide me. It has led me to turning reason on itself, and discovering that it can't stand up to itself. So to answer your question, I do not assume a "naturalist", or any view, of the universe.

I agree with you that if "reason is valid," we should be able to balance instinct with reason. (Though from my perspective, I know that reason is not a viable means for existence. (Challenge propo. ect).

I don't understand what you mean by "conscious instinct"? For me, it is like saying "cold hot". If we act instinctually through our thoughts, it still amounts to unconscious instinct.

17. Yates: You don't show why the world is self-destructive. You only attempts to show why mankind is, correct?

Garvey: Sorry for any ambiguity. The world itself is not self-destructive. Humankind is not self-destructive. What is destructive is humankind's relationship to unconscious nature, which manifests itself in humankind's existence through thoughts themselves, and their material extensions, and the corresponding destruction to humankind itself and unconscious nature. 18. Yates: When you say "fabricated consciousness," what do you mean? Are you implying knowledge/reason is false in determining truth? You say the closest thing to a truth, but that seems to have no meaning. What is truth if it does not exist, and how can you reason if reason itself is not valid in conforming our beliefs, opinions and ideas to objective reality?

Garvey: Fabricated consciousness refers to the invented systems of thoughts which comprise our minds.

I am not "implying"; I am claiming that knowledge/reason can never determine or express "absolute truth".

When I am using the phrase, "the closest thing to a truth", I am using it hypothetically, and in relation to "who we are". In other words, if there was such a thing as an "absolute truth", the closest thing....

"Truth" is an idea, concept, word, appearance, whose meaning is limited by reason. (ie, limited to system truths).

If reason itself is not valid in forming our beliefs, opinions, and ideas to [existence]", we are in a dilemma, and that dilemma is the thrust of my work. (One way to avoid it is to get our system of thoughts, particularly scientific, to match the existence around us. Though it can only "degenerate" our situation because by destroying unconscious nature, we destroy ourselves ect.)

Our contemporary dependence on reason is justified through the concept of moving through the negative closer to the positive. (It is like we are at -100, and the more we use reason to deconstruct, the more we move closer to zero. Our direction is positive, even though it is still in the negative).

19. Yates: Does "unconscious meaning" have a basis in reason? Once again I agree (direct existence=non existence=false).

Garvey: From my perspective, reason itself (including knowledge) has a form of existence, which is empty of who we are.
If "unconscious meaning" is equated with "who we are", it follows that "unconscious meaning" does have a basis in reason.

20. Yates: I simply mean we are conscious of our instincts, that they are recognizable to us therefore, theoretically controllable.

It does not seem to follow that we need to be unconscious to live in the same fashion as unconscious humans. Your conclusion from the proposition seems refutable by just one person living in a nondestructive way. It seems it is theoretically possible to live in an identical way to an unconscious human and/or a nondestructive human. With that said, I must add another factor to what I believe is the flaw with your philosophic deduction (not the proposition itself).

(P) says we cannot know who we are and your conclusion assumes, at the expense of reason, that this means reason cannot "stand up to itself." You've claimed (3.b), that knowledge cannot express absolute truth. At the risk of sounding cliche, this sounds like an absolute (even in the "if there were such a thing" scenario, this seems impossible,) how can this be? If by absolute knowledge you mean ultimate knowledge (knowledge of everything), then I agree we can't have absolute knowledge. If you mean instead, we cannot determine truth at any level, then this seems unreasonable. It would seem much more reasonable to instead to say the proposition leads to a paradox. The paradox position cleans up all of these inconsistencies and is itself reasonable.

Garvey: I disagree that if everyone lived in a "non-destructive way", we would not need to live
"unconsciously" to get out of the "degenerate recursion loop". We would still be in the loop, heading
to the same end. The only way to get out is to exist unconsciously.
(Consciously (reason/knowledge) = self-destructive way)
(Unconsciously (instinct) = non-destructive way)

I don't assume that "reason can't stand up to itself. I show why it is so, within the confines of reason.

"Absolute truth" refers to the "knowledge of everything". Please note that in response inquiry 18, I mentioned "system truths", which refer to truths within systems of thoughts.