Can anyone overcome the "challenge the philosophy" proposition at http://www.inexpressible.com ?!

Peter

The challenge is: "We cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time."

"Who are we?" Is there an answer?

CHAPTER FIVE: Each One of Us, Conscious

We still are not conscious of all the elements of
our mind that are our identity. Our identity is
far greater than what we think of in our personal
being when we think "I am." Though our
consciousness allows us to think that we have a
mind, it still does not allow us to think,
entirely, what that mind is. But now we can know
that the mind is greater than the product of its
consciousness. In our mind is an identity greater
than the one we know; but this identity
materializes our reality and to this greater
identity we must defer. Conscious, if we are to
more fully occupy our space in time, our reality,
we must become more conscious of that identity.
Conscious of that identity, we become more.

(not a direct response to above, only input from
Habeas Mentem)

Who are we? There is an answer.

We are human beings placed here on the planet Earth. We have communication skills, yet we do not communicate. Nor, do we want to. Why? Because of greed and self-gratification. Learn all you want to learn, be the best you can be. But until you have helped someone other than yourself, deep down inside, are you really human(e)?

Communicate the need to help others. Is that really a silly thing to do? Teaching the poor to not be poor? Teaching the lonely to find a friend? Teaching people to become communicators? By doing that you will have indeeded helped yourself. Knowing -how- to help others is the key toward knowing how to communicate as a human being; and to know who you are.

we are as one another.

Please visit my website. It is rough, but complete
draft about meaning of life on Earth, about
mankind, his behavior and psychophilosophy. Soul
and genetic circuit, brain and music, belief in
god and Darwinism, science and civilization, love
and homosexuality -- everything finds a place.
Free to browse or download.


http://www.geocities.com/vladparkhom/

How does one function in a teaming see of
dysfunction?
(sic)

I thought to share this article with you. (Author
is unknown to me).

Morality has nothing to do with religion. It is
the matter of economics.
The question is where to invest our vital energy
for a higher yield. If you invest your energy into
sensual pleasures you will get a temporary
gratification. If you invest it in more meaningful
things you will get greater satisfaction that
would last for ever.
Leading a moral life is not about renouncing
pleasure. A life that is not gratifying is not
worth living. It is about choices.
What we choose for pleasure? That is the question.
One who invests his energy in the service
of humanity gets more satisfaction than the one
who indulges in the pursuit of worldly pleasures.
But this is a personal choice. Morality should not
be imposed by a higher authority or a religion. An
imposed morality is not morality. One who
leads a chaste life for the fear of hell is not a
moral person because he has not made his choices
freely. Fear and greed,
the traditional contrivances of religion, used as
incentives to force people into
accepting their morality do not make the society
moral.
No one and no religion should impose its morality
on people. The imposition of morality
is immoral. Religions that threaten their
followers with the hell fire or
lure them with the promises of paradise do not
make them moral.
Stick and carrot have better results in training
animals than educating people.
Only the person who chooses the higher road freely
can be called a moral person.
A moral person chooses to live morally because it
gives him immense pleasure. One, who is honest,
takes pleasure in being honest. He would
prefer to be tortured than to lie or to deceive.
But as I said, this must be left to the
individual. Our morality is
directly linked to our spiritual maturity. The
closer we get to God, the
more pleasure we get from things that brings us
even closer to Him and less pleasure we
perceive from things that are of sensual nature
and separate us from Him.
When we evolve spiritually knowledge, service and
abstinence from carnal pleasures gratify us more
than indulging in them.
And the rewards in these are in themselves.
Would a person who loves knowledge require further
incentive to learn
than learning itself? Would Einstein, e.g. have
delighted more in his scientific discoveries or if
someone promised him a new car if he could
write the theory of relativity? You may promise a
child an ice cream if he did his homework but that
would not be necessary for an adult who
seeks knowledge and finds his satisfaction in
learning.
Religions treat you like children; they want to
impose their outdated morality on you by
threatening you with hell and
enticing you with heaven. Whether you are moral
because of this fear and greed or because
you find satisfaction in leading a moral life,
depends on your maturity
and spiritual awareness.

I BELIEVE (a secular belief)

I believe I live in a very big, great universe:
That my mind knows more than I can ever know, and
lives it.
In a blueprint for social order built on laws of
agreements, called Habeas Mentem.
In life, that in freedom all living things are who
they are.
That spiritual awakening helps me be who I am.
In love, humor, beautiful things.
My prayers are heard, my dreams part of a greater
whole.
In a secular spirituality which loves all
religions, not constrained by them.
In forgiving, that no living being is a threat
unless I empower it to be so.
In One, God, Who is equal for us all.
I believe in truth.

(Demian)

S_______ VERSES

"Here, in the waterless wilderness, he abandoned
her. She asked him, can this be God's will? He
replied, it is. And left, the bastard. From the
beginning men used God to justify the
unjustifiable. He moves in mysterious ways: men
say. Small wonder, then, that women have turned
to me. -----"

Pg. 95
Guess whose verses?

IS BEING AWARE OF ITSELF?

This is an entry posted into Inexpressible.com
message board:
http://www.inexpressible.com/wwwboard/MBoard.html
*************************************************
Entry 174.

I Being aware of itself? Can we be who we are and
know who we are at the same time?

I think the problem can be approached in the
following four steps:

1. Being is conditional only on itself, whether
or not it is aware of itself. Let me explain:
One way to understand Being is to see it as an
expression of the interrelationships that exist
within the reality of being, i.e.: the universe,
taken to its totality. If everything is in
spatial relations to everything else, then nothing
exists outside this web of interrelationship and,
by necessity, is somehow influenced, or defined,
by its position within this totality. If it is
allowed, I would call this web an infinite
interrelationship.

2. Being within this infinite web of
interrelationship is then defined by its position
within this totality. This is another way of
saying that each thing within existence, because
of its spatial position within the whole, is then
defined in terms of that totality; i.e., it is its
definition in terms of the whole, or if allowed,
its infinite identity.

3. Now, if a thing within being is related not
only spatially, but also in terms of time, then
its connection to this infinite interrelationship
also dates back to first life. (This is a big
"if", because we can only "guess" that first life
started somewhere back in the beginnings of the
existence of our universe.) In terms of our
awareness, however, this means that we, as each
living thing, are connected by a time line through
our birth, and the birth of our predecessors, to
the beginning of when life began. So, we are both
interrelated into spatial infinity, which gives us
an identity in terms of the totality of the
universe; and we are related to a timelinear
identity, which connects us to all the lifetimes
that precede us through the continuous (and
unbroken, except by species extinction, which no
longer counts) chain of successive births into
this existence at present.

4. Thus, here is the connection between Being and
Awareness: Our minds. Through the process of
selective survival, each living thing has
succeeded in surviving its infinite
interrelationship and, in doing so, has developed
its identity through time, which is represented by
its mind, which now defines the success of its
survival.
This success has even granted us humans a degree
of self awareness. So there had been an interplay
between the real, existence or being, and the
mental, awareness or mind, for all of the time
that life existed since the beginning. If, and
again this is a big "if", there was no
discontinuity since the beginning of life and the
present, then we, as thinking species who are also
aware of ourselves, are then cognizant of our
being while at the same time occupying our
"identity", the who we are, within this being of
which we are aware. Are they the same? Only if
the conscious mind could plumb all the infinitely
minute connections that define its identity. From
my experience, I would judge that this is
impossible.

So the answer to the question: Can we be who we
are and know who we are at the same time? NO.
Not in the present state of our awareness. This
does not negate the right to "be who we are", even
if we are unawares of this, which is a whole other
story. (One can find this further exploration, on
the right to being who we are, in Habeas Mentem,
published on the web at:
http://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm , if one
has the desire to follow this line of reasoning.)
However, this is beyond the scope of the initial
question stated here. So in the end, we are never
consciously aware of who we are.

I thank you for your attention.

Ivan D. Alexander, thinker at large

Response:

We disagree that it is "impossible" for us to know who we are, because impossibility is contingent on possibility (i.e. for there to be impossibility, there has to be possibility of it), whereas possibility is not contingent on impossibility. (For further explanation see the Response to Entry 168.) Therefore, though we agree that it is more reasonable that we cannot know who we are than doing so, it is possible that we may know who we are.
Since we cannot help from being who we are as long as we are alive, how can there be a "right" to be who we are?

IS BEING AWARE OF ITSELF (continued from above):

In concise words, tell us how the idea that we
cannot know who we are and be who we are at the
same time can be overcome.

Definitions of the principal terms used in the
competition:
"We cannot know": our ability to refute or prove a
proposition, within the limits of what we know, by
more reasonably contradicting our use of reason
than not doing so. For further explanation, and
explanation of "know", see "we cannot know" and
"know".
"Who we are": the fundamental level of our being
from our limited perspective. For further
explanation see who we are.
"Be": the state of living or existing with who we
are as the basis.
"Existence": things and life-forms occupying
space.
"We": the individuals who make up humankind.
"Overcome": our ability as individuals to more
reasonably refute the proposition, "we cannot know
who we are and be who we are at the same time",
than reasonably supporting it. "More reasonably
refute" entails using reason in the most objective
manner possible, and includes the arguments stated
in the entries and disputes submitted to the
"Challenge the Philosophy" competition, and the
arguments stated in the responses to them. Also,
one idea is deemed more reasonable than another
idea if it is more consistent and sound.


185. Alexander's Entry:

"Thank you for your response to Entry 174, "Is
Being Aware of Itself?"
I agree with your comment, that impossibility is
contingent on possibility, thus it is
not-impossible to know who we are and be who we
are at the same time, at least in some manner. To
answer to this quest further, I feel it is
necessary to add one more point to steps 1-4
already stated in Entry 174: The act of Will.
Thus, let me add the following step:
5. Contingent on the points above (1-4 in #174),
the mind's impossibility of being and knowing who
we are at the same time can be negated into a
knowledge of who we are through our will, i.e.,
because we choose this. If I make a conscious
choice to be who I am, either in my thoughts, or
by voice, "I am", then I am connecting consciously
into that state of being that is already defining
my identity of who I am through existence's
interrelationships explained above. Through my
volition, my conscious choice, I choose to
position myself within the identity of who I am: I
will the right to be myself. This is something not
every mind can do unless it is aware of itself,
and chooses it. So, even if I cannot express this
to another in words, or even to myself in my
thoughts, who I am in this being, "I am" is the
key to the possibility that this is so. Taken from
the perspective of an infinite interrelationship
defining itself as my identity in this moment, "I
am who I am", my thoughts and being merge as one.
(Or, as said by Stephanie Kirmer in Entry 178:
"There is no entity which has the capability to
determine what one is other than oneself.") In
effect, through an act of will, my being becomes
aware of itself. Thus, when I choose "I am", it
disproves the proposition that we cannot know who
we are and be who we are at the same time.
Finally, if I am allowed this act of will, then
there is the possibility that I have gained my
"right" to be who I am! And if not, then I am
merely someone else's definition of me, which I
would not allow."
Ivan D. Alexander February 28 2001

Response:

Yes, through the possibility of knowing and being
who we are, and within your own system of
thoughts, you can overcome the challenge
proposition by simply willing that you know and be
who you are at the same time. You may even believe
that your perspective of knowing and being who you
are to be more reasonable than any other
antagonistic perspective. However, your act of
will is not consistent with the competition, in
which we are considering all proposed perspectives
on their merit. (i.e. their consistency and
soundness in relation to antagonistic
perspectives.)
No, we are not denying you the right to be who you
are. We are simply questioning your ability to
know who you are. (Note, we have consistently
claimed that individuals cannot help from being
who they are as long as they are alive. So the
issue is not being who we are, or the right to be
who we are, but simply can we know who we are.)
http://www.inexpressible.com/e185-193.html

MUSINGS ON IDEAS

Posted by Ivan Alexander (152.163.207.74) on
February 17, 2001 at 10:58:44:
Some musings on the Ideas in Stephen Garvey's
Proof, separation between who I am and thoughts
themselves:

1. (Premise 1: I cannot know anything about
knowledge itself, except through the perceiver) An
idea is not divorced of its being's reality, but
it surpasses the being's perception: Reality,
existence, the universe, infinite
interrelationship, etc. may trigger
electro-chemical reactions in the brain to create
an idea at that moment in relation to an infinity
of visible and invisible inputs into that mind.
This process is as yet unknown to us, consciously,
though it may be why we think what we think at any
moment of time, like right now!

2. If the above is true, then I myself am in fact
not separate from my conscious knowledge regarding
my thoughts, to myself. However, knowledge can be
separate from me, in the abstract. And my
conscious awareness of my thoughts can be totally
wrong. So my conscious knowledge regarding my
thoughts is no proof of its knowledge. Whether or
not a thing or being is conscious cannot be
directed by our consciousness. Rather, it can be
directed only through either empirical evidence of
this consciousness, ie. apes learning sign
language and creating sentences, or through direct
communications of their consciousness, speech,
pictures, mathematics, music, etc. So we are not
the authors of consciousness, but rather only
receivers of it, when it exists.

3. (Premise 2: I cannot go outside my mind and
know that I am.) Can I go outside my mind to know
if I exist? I exist when I am asleep, though I am
outside my conscious mind. Upon waking, I am once
again reminded of my existence, though if I did
not wake, either from deep sleep or anesthesia,
then my existence would cease, whether or not I
knew this in my mind. So I can know of my
existence in the abstract, even if my mind is
turned off. What about death? Can I know that I
will die? I am sure this is a certainty undisputed
by actuarial tables.

4. (Premise 3: I cannot know knowledge solely
through itself.) Can I know knowledge only through
itself? Again, only in the abstract. I can
construct a model of a universe that can know
itself, thus call it knowledge, though I do not
know what it knows. Of course, if I am lucky and
smart, then I can know what it is thinking,
maybe... sometimes. The proof is always in the
test of reality to see if my assessment is right.
If I walk off a roof, I think the universe is
thinking of me falling. I dare not test this,
however.

5. (Premise 5: I cannot have language without
knowledge, and knowledge without language.)
Language and knowledge are more or less
interchangeable, but not always. I can talk
gibberish: blah, blah, blah. Or I can know without
being able to express it: Words fail me in love,
etc., though I know I love. Maybe poetry? I can
know fear, and still not know how to say it.

6. (Premise 9: I myself imagine knowledge.) I
myself am not the only author of knowledge: The
universe got there first! Also, in the case of
mass knowledge, whether or not it is correct, it
is something I can tap into, it exists without my
know it, and can have a life of its own: Culture,
language, mass hysteria, etc. The city I live in,
the car I drive, the computer on which I write
this, all are embodiments of knowledge that far
surpasses my knowledge. So if I am imagining I am
writing this, the machine on which I do this is
far better (it's a Mac) than my imagining of it.
( This leads into Premise 11: I do not create
knowledge. But it does not necessarily follow to
"conclusion j", we have evolved to a state of
existing from knowledge.) Our self awareness, of
existing, may preceded knowledge as we know it
today.

7. (Premise 10: At some past the human species did
not have knowledge.) I think the flat worm has
knowledge, how to survive, when to turn away from
venomous red ants, how to capture an earth worm
for dinner. We have always had knowledge of some
sort, even if we were little aware of it.
Well, that's all I can think of for now, but this
is fun. In closing, I think that our self
awareness, what we call our conscious mind, our
knowledge that we know, was a manifestation that
resulted from electrochemical reactions in our
brain, after it grew to a certain level of
sophistication, that anchored itself in us, so
that now we share this universally. We all, as
humans, share in a self awareness we call our
conscious self, the "I Am". I do not think we did
this. It is something that happened outside of us.
Remember, that I am, has the "am" in it. This
means that I and reality, at least in our minds,
in our conscious will, are equal. A possible
theory? We were cloned by an advanced species who
had a self awareness! No, only kidding.

Thank you. With kind respect, Ivan D. Alexander

http://www.inexpressible.com/wwwboard/MBoard.html

CHALLENGE BILL'S AND IVAN'S PHILOSOPHY: A dialogue
on free will and human identity.

In a message dated 03/31/2001 1:43:44 PM Eastern
Daylight Time, Humancafe writes:

<< The philosophy, strongly supportive of
individual human rights, steps beyond fixed
thinking of the past, because it shows that our
identity can be altered, and we then cease to be
"who we are" by being forced to occupy space and
time contrary to who we are. Pain, unhappiness
results. So Free Will is a force that is far more
important, in this kind of universe described,
than previously imagined. >>

I disagree. Reality is what it is. Humans do
have free will but do not always think
objectively. However, regardless of what human
perception of reality happens to be, that very
perception does not alter in any way what the
reality is. Our identity cannot be altered
because we will it. Our (individual) identity is
what it is. It is possible to change one's
attitudes through the application of thought and
thereby to make choices that formerly one might
not have made. But this change comes about only
because we act on the basis of free will, not
because free will alters identity. Pain and
unhappiness result from actions based on free will
just as much as they result from inaction.
Happiness results when the activities you freely
choose are those that are appropriate to a human
being, having a conceptual faculty. That is, when
you choose to be productive and independent (not
dependent); when you earn self-respect through
your refusal to be dependent and your refusal not
to produce. We are not "forced" to occupy any
particular space or time. We just happen to exist
at a particular time and in a particular space.
It is not within our ability to make the choice to
exist. We can decide only not to exist and then
only not to continue to exist as a living,
functioning human being. It is this requirement
of reality: that one must choose to live, that
leads to the concept of value. Once you decide to
live, you have to make choices of what you need to
acquire in order to continue to exist. These
entities that you strive to acquire are called
values. The standard of evaluation is your own
life. Should I do A or do B? This question means
"is A or B more important to my survival?" When
one faces reality and accepts existence as primary
to consciousness, these are the kinds of choices
that anyone must make. Finally, free will is not
a force. It is merely a component of human
existence.

Regards,

Bill
*************************************

Hi Bill, sorry did not write sooner, but busy at
work with stock market doing its volatility thing.

Yes, I can see your point of view regarding
reality as a fixed reference point of existence
which cannot be altered through our will. That is
the accepted scientific and objective view in our
current thinking. What I try to show in my
philosophic treatise, Habeas Mentem, is that this
reality is not as fixed as people imagine.
Instead, it can be influenced in how it is
structured, meaning circumstances that influence
us, in relation to how we are in it, not
arbitrarily as non thinking and unconscious
beings, but as human beings whose identity IS to
be aware of their individual reality, to have a
mind. This alters, albeit only slightly, the
current perception that reality is a fixed and
inert existence, and instead replaces it with a
universe that is full of the life force and that
is alive, with us being alive with it. I realize
this may not make much sense, since it is written
with a language and vocabulary that has little
experience in this new kind of thinking, except
maybe in the New Age, but that is murky at best.
So the point is this, that we do make choices in
our lives, to which reality responds with its own
circumstances, but both the choices and the
circumstances are a reflection of a greater force
which I think is a living force of what powers our
universe, both the inert-objective side, as well
as the living-subjective, to both of which we as
thinking human beings are privy. Hope this makes
some sense to you, and if not, my apologies for
being an inert mind.

Take care, all the best, Ivan
*******************************************

In a message dated 04/07/2001 12:06:21 PM Eastern
Daylight Time, Humancafe writes:

<< So the point is this, that we do make choices
in our lives, to which reality responds with its
own circumstances, but both the choices and the
circumstances are a reflection of a greater force
which I think is a living force of what powers our
universe, both the inert-objective side, as well
as the living-subjective, to both of which we as
thinking human beings are privy. Hope this makes
some sense to you, and if not, my apologies for
being an inert mind. >>

Your mind is definitely not inert. However, you
are confused. Reality is whatever it is. Period.
There is no such thing as " . . . a living force
of what powers our universe . . .".
Circumstances may lead one to make such erroneous
conclusions, but reality does not change. What
changes is your perception of reality. This
change is hierarchical and contextual. Concepts
are abstractions from reality, which includes
other concepts and the perceptual world. If you
get the hierarchy wrong (incorrectly identify the
underlying concepts and percepts from which a
particular concept is abstracted), then you cannot
demonstrate that you know what you think you know.
If you identify conflicts of context (hold
simultaneously another idea that is in conflict
with the concept you are examining), you cannot
assert knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge only
when you have the correct hierarchy (you can point
to something independently identifiable to
demonstrate the idea) and when you have eliminated
all contextual conflicts. For a full discussion
read Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist
Epistemology. This book should be in your local
bookstore or may be purchased from the Ayn Rand
Institute (www.aynrand.org). It is clearly
written and easy to understand, unlike so-called
modern philosophy.

Regards,

Bill
************************************
Thanks Bill, I'll have to look up Ayn Rand again,
since it's been over 30 years since I read her
books. I was impressed with her thinking then,
but less so with time, since in my lexicon of
reality, things are not as fixed as they are for
her. Is she still living? I remember her
picture, sitting in her apartment in the Empire
State Building, holding a cigarette... ah, those
were the days!

Much regards, Ivan
***************************************
Dear Bill, a follow up on my last,

Re: "Our identity cannot be altered because we
will it. Our (individual) identity is what it is.
It is possible to change one's attitudes through
the application of thought and thereby to make
choices that formerly one might not have made.
But this change comes about only because we act on
the basis of free will, not because free will
alters identity."

Have you considered what happened to people who
suffered arrest and internment into Soviet Labor
camps, or Nazi camps? Was their identity altered?
What about the boy from the village, or the
mathematics professor from the city, who were put
to work side by side digging graves, and they were
offered instead the job of selecting who of their
inmates will die. One accepts the offer and
lives, the other rejects the offer and dies. Was
their identity altered? Obviously, they were both
victims of coercion, where their free will was
taken away, but then returned stingily with their
one choice, to live or die. Is there not a logo
in your neighboring state, Live Free or Die? My
point is that as free men, we are who we are; as
slaves, victims, abused beings, we are not who we
are, for then we become something different, and
quite often something ugly, or even surprisingly
good. And this is not just at the local level,
the point of reference being ourselves, what's in
our minds; this also takes place at a much greater
dimension which defines our identity of who we are
in terms still difficult to describe, since then
we enter the realm of universals. So from my
point of view, who we are is a very complex thing,
not so easily explained as saying that we are who
we are no matter what.

All the best, in thoughts and being,
Ivan

ps: I like this dialogue well enough to post it
into the Forum at Humancafe. Okay with you? I
am sure many people think of these things, but we
don't talk to each other.
**************************************

In a message dated 04/08/2001 12:30:04 PM Eastern
Daylight Time, Humancafe writes:

<< ..... What about the boy from the village, or
the mathematics professor from the city, who were
put to work side by side digging graves, and they
were offered instead the job of selecting who of
their inmates will die. One accepts the offer and
lives, the other rejects the offer and dies. Was
their identity altered? .....>> ....

.... << So from my point of view, who we are is a
very complex thing, not so easily explained as
saying that we are who we are no matter what. >>

Identity is what it is. This is a philosophical
statement. It states a universal truth. Your
example of the boy and the professor serves to
illustrate this truth. One's identity led him to
reject the idea that he should decide whether or
not others should die, even at the cost of his own
life. The other decided to accept the idea.
These choices are reflections of the identity of
the person making the choice. Free will is the
common element. There is no moral element here,
because of the presence of coercion. One who
chooses to live does not necessarily increase the
number of those who will die. After all, by
accepting the option, one might be in a position
to prevent some deaths. Yes, we are complex
beings. But that complexity is part of our
identity. Identity, as a universal, applies to
all concretes (all objects). According to
Aristotle, A is A. You are what you are. What
you are may not be something that I can fully
know, since you have free will and I cannot read
your mind. But within the context of what I can
observe I can identify you. You may not be what
you appear to be, but that does not alter what you
are. It just means my perception is not perfect.
What makes this so is that existence is the
primary, while consciousness is dependent on
existence, a priori. One can choose to change
one's behaviour, based on experience but one's
identity remains fixed. For inanimate objects
this is quite clear. It is the fact of free will,
part of human identity, that makes it a complex
issue.

Regards,

Bill
**********************************

Hi again, yes, some things, like a person's
identity, may appear to be fixed, but in fact it
is in constant flux, since I am no longer the
person I was a minute ago, even my cells changed.
All input, circumstances, ideas, feelings, change
us all the time, as to who we are. At least,
that's how things work in my universe, maybe no
one else's. An aside, the boy or professor who
chose not to collaborate with the enemy dies, so
ceases to exist, and his identity becomes a moot
point. The one who collaborates, maybe not too
proud to have done so, maybe even in shame, since
he is not true to who he, he is obligated to
coerce others. Of course, he now lives. Is his
identity altered by this? (Did he loose his
soul?) In my opinion, a philosophical point as
you say, is that yes, he is changed. Another
example is a person doing drugs. Is the person
flying on LSD still the same person who we knew
before taking the drug? Or even after the drug is
worn out, and the persons still hallucinates
seeing cats climbing walls (I knew someone who
described this, then giggled about it, as if it
were happening then), is he or she altered as an
identity? Certainly altered in relation to who
they were before they got drugged. But then
again, it is a matter of semantics, since it
appears that from your perspective, "identity" is
an immutable definition; from mine, it is who we
are at any moment of time. You might have fun
with the challenge proposition posed by
http://www.inexpressible.com, which says that: "We
cannot be who we are and know who we are at the
same time". If you can disprove this statement,
you win!

Good luck, all the best, truly enjoy our chats,
Ivan

Reference to Ayn Rand: http://www.aynrand.org/home.html

(to be continued...

CHALLENGE BILL'S AND IVAN'S (continued)

Rand died, I believe, in 1982. Reality for her is
not fixed, nor immutable. It is just what it is.
Her view is that philosophy serves to find the
common denominators in concretes; that is, the
purpose of philosophy is to learn the universals
shared by particular percepts in reality. Thus,
although all tables are not the same (varying in
shape, size, color and texture -- all
non-essentials), all tables share a common
defining characteristic, flatness. It is the role
of human cognition to integrate the evidence of
one's senses in order to understand reality. As I
said before, all knowledge is contextual and
hierarchical. One's context is necessarily
limited, but within such a context. one can
assert
knowledge when one has eliminated all conflicts in
the entire context while simultaneously pointing
to concrete examples of that knowledge (meaning
everything within the entire context--not easy,
but doable). You should read Rand again. An
especially interesting read is found in a new
book, The Art of Non-Fiction, by Ayn Rand and
edited by Robert Mayhew. The book is based on
Rand's course in non-fiction writing titled The
Art of Non-Fiction. Read Chapter 4: Applying
Philosophy Without Preaching It, fascinating. The
publisher is Plume.

Regards,

Bill
***************************************

Dear Bill,
I write in the opening verse of Habeas Mentem
Inversum (which is a short treatise of the 40
chapter philosophy of the three books of Habeas
Mentem) this:
"This is the formula of all philosophy, to
formulate the greatest dimensions in terms of
relations that offer the least resistance. It is
to bring simplicity to chaos, order where there is
a multitude of disorder."

So I too agree with philosophy being as you say in
your note: "the purpose of philosophy is to learn
the universals shared by particular percepts in
reality." Now, imagine taking this universal to
another level: where the interrelationships (even
moving objects and time!) that exist between
things, all over the universe, assembled to their
interrelated totalities, that these now have a new
meaning: that these interrelationship totalities
now redefine their individual components in terms
of the whole. These interrelated wholes, as
identifiable universals, now redefine, or give
identity to, their individual components so that
like a holographic image, each part of the whole
carries within itself the identity of the whole,
which is also its definition within the whole
because of where or how it is within it. For
some, this is a leap of faith, but what philosophy
is not? You have to believe in some form of
foundation. What I like about this
interrelationship-totality-identity based
universal is that it opens a whole new way of
seeing reality: Now, reality is not the order and
intelligence we give it, in our consciousness;
rather, reality is now an intelligent order of its
own, based on the myriad of infinite
interrelationships our mind could never hope to
grasp, which redefines itself at every moment of
time. So, at least from all my readings, this is
a brand new way of seeing reality. And what makes
it even more fun, for me at least, is that it is a
stand alone universal that defines itself even if
I do not understand it, and cannot ever hope of
understanding, since then it would be to
understand infinity. Looking at reality from this
point of view, each thing, occurrence, idea,
person, being, anything at all, is all defined by
its place or interrelationship within the whole,
and this "identity", if I may use the hierarchy
idea you mentioned earlier, is of the highest
hierarchical level, because it is an intelligence
of infinite magnitude. We then, as thinking and
conscious human beings, are able to participate in
this intelligence, albeit rather badly, and make
sense through science and philosophy of the world
we live in. This is a bit disturbing, however,
since we are used to being with our intelligence
at the top of this hierarchy; under this new way
of seeing reality, we are rather at the bottom! I
am sure I am not doing this justice here, in this
short space, but I think the 12 Keys to
understanding Habeas Mentem, which I have listed
below, may help you see what I mean. (They are
also found at the web:
http://www.humancafe.com/12_keys.htm) The second,
third, and fourth chapters of Habeas Mentem of
Book 1, On a Metaphysical Reality, deal with this
specific subject in an effort to describe this
process of identity through interrelationships.
The end product is that in the end this process
defines for us our Mind. But I fear my failure in
making it wholly understood, and my apologies if
this is so. Looking forward to hearing from you
soon. I thank you sincerely for your valuable and
enjoyable correspondence.

Best regards,
Ivan


12 Keys to Understanding Habeas Mentem:

1. All things are related to everything else in an
infinite interrelationship.

2. The definition from that web of interrelated
totality gives each thing its identity, its being,
in terms of its position in the image of that
whole.

3. All things in reality have their identity from
infinity; in living things, and in conscious
beings in particular, that identity is defined in
the mind.

4. To have the mind (habeas mentem) is to be one
with that identity, to be who we are.

5. We are who we are in our mind when we do things
through agreement; we do not have the mind when we
do things through coercion.

6. Habeas Mentem is the philosophy that protects
the conscious human mind from coercion, and
defines the Law of Agreement.

7. In a society of conscious individuals, the Law
of Agreement preserves our identity in terms of
who we are.

8. In a society of Habeas Mentem, each mind is
free from coercion and has the right to
materialize in his or her reality their being, as
long as they do not trespass on the identity of
another through forced disagreement.

9. Free from trespass, the conscious human mind
then materializes in its existence the order of
the universe in terms of who we are.

10. When we do through agreement and are free from
trespass, we dream with the soul a new
consciousness into our reality.

11. Then we are free to choose a more conscious
reality with our more spiritual being.

12. In the end, it is all One.


Ps: If I may offer an afterthought: the three
books of Habeas Mentem were written over a period
of about 30 years, and represent an evolution of
the idea of interrelationship from at first only
as an abstract idea, book 1; to later a
possibility of a spiritual idea, book 2; to the
third book which is a spiritual idea, written in
1998. This happened naturally over time, without
my awareness of it until looking back on it years
later. Just the way it turned out.

"This is how men are judged fools, when they trust
unto others without reason, even unto God."

Dear Bill,
I am so pleased to have gotten your
last correspondence below. In it is the crux of
the matter in our search for truth, to which I
will answer with a quote from the Humancafe Forum,
listed at the end below, where I wrote: "But it
is a quantum leap to see interconnectedness as a
definition from the whole redefining its
individual parts." In seeing our universe as a
product of its own interrelationships is in fact a
quantum leap, where the whole redefines its parts.
If this is true, then we have a whole new way of
seeing reality and our existence in it. And if
not, then I gracefully withdraw the proposition,
and we are left with the world unchanged. I am
happy to let others and history be the judge. At
least in today's world, a search for truth is
forgiven (if not rejected and quickly forgotten),
and happily we are no longer burned at the stake
for thinking new ideas. As always a joy to hear
from you, best wishes in our mutual search for
truth.

Ivan

**************************************************

In a message dated 04/13/2001 1:54:14 PM Eastern
Daylight Time, Humancafe writes:

<< These interrelated wholes, as identifiable
universals, now redefine, or give identity to,
their individual components so that like a
holographic image, each part of the whole carries
within itself the identity of the whole, which is
also its definition within the whole because of
where or how it is within it. >>

You are a deep thinker. In your effort to grasp
the totality of reality you have made it more
complex than it need be. Sure, each entity is a
part of a larger context, but it, his or her
identity does not depend on the whole. Each
entity, each precept, each person is a whole in
and of itself, herself or himself. My identity
does not depend on my identification as part of a
larger group. Collectivists could agree with you,
but I do not.

<<For some, this is a leap of faith, but what
philosophy is not?>>

Objectivism is not.


<<You have to believe in some form of foundation.
What I like about this
interrelationship-totality-identity based
universal is that it opens a whole new way of
seeing reality: Now, reality is not the order and
intelligence we give it, in our consciousness;
rather, reality is now an intelligent order of its
own, based on the myriad of infinite
interrelationships our mind could never hope to
grasp, which redefines itself at every moment of
time.>>

Reality, meaning the surroundings within which one
exist, has no consciousness; therefore, "it"
cannot "define" anything, much less itself. You
have consciousness, but first you exist. The role
of consciousness is to discover, not to create,
reality. The foundation you seek is existence.
The means to discover what existence is, is your
own mind, your consciousness. The job of
consciousness is to integrate the sensory data
(sight, sound, feel, smell and taste) into a
coherent whole.

<<So, at least from all my readings, this is a
brand new way of seeing reality. And what makes
it even more fun, for me at least, is that it is a
stand alone universal that defines itself even if
I do not understand it, and cannot ever hope of
understanding, since then it would be to
understand infinity. Looking at reality from this
point of view, each thing, occurrence, idea,
person, being, anything at all, is all defined by
its place or interrelationship within the whole,
and this "identity", if I may use the hierarchy
idea you mentioned earlier, is of the highest
hierarchical level, because it is an intelligence
of infinite magnitude. We then, as thinking and
conscious human beings, are able to participate in
this intelligence, albeit rather badly, and make
sense through science and philosophy of the world
we live in. This is a bit disturbing, however,
since we are used to being with our intelligence
at the top of this hierarchy; under this new way
of seeing reality, we are rather at the bottom! I
am sure I am not doing this justice here, in this
short space, but I think the 12 Keys to
understanding Habeas Mentem, which I have listed
below, may help you see what I mean. (They are
also found at the web:
http://www.humancafe.com/12_keys.htm) The second,
third, and fourth chapters of Habeas Mentem of
Book 1, On a Metaphysical Reality, deal with this
specific subject in an effort to describe this
process of identity through interrelationships.
The end product is that in the end this process
defines for us our Mind. But I fear my failure in
making it wholly understood, and my apologies if
this is so. Looking forward to hearing from you
soon. I thank you sincerely for your valuable and
enjoyable correspondence.
>>

Your failure in "making it wholly understood"
stems from your granting to reality an aspect
that it does not contain. There is no such thing
as a universal consciousness. There is only
consciousness that exists as part of an integrated
body and mind. Such a consciousness, that is
aware both of itself, the body within which it
exists and the external existence within which it
exists is an aspect only of a human being. The
concept reality does have a hierarchy, as you
point out. It is necessary in order to validate
your concept of reality to point to something in
the real world that is an example of that concept.
In other words one must reduce his idea of reality
to the perceptual level. If the concept "reality"
has a separate metaphysical stature (exists
outside of consciousness and has its own
consciousness), as you assert in your thesis, then
one can never be sure what it is. But if the
concept "reality" is an abstraction from physical
entities, one must be able to point to those
entities in order to validate the cocept
"reality". Rand holds the latter to be the case.
Again, I refer you to Introduction to Objectivist
Epistemology. With your keen mind, this is a
must-read for you. Human consciousness is neither
at the top nor at the bottom of the hierarchy of
knowledge. Human consciousness is nothing more
nor less than a tool of cognition. A concept is
an intersection between consciousness and reality,
nothing more nor less. As such, consciousness has
no effect on the reality it tries to discover.
Consciousness is capable of error and capable of
reaching the truth but it does not define, as
Descartes asserted, existence. Good luck in your
search for truth.

Bill

**************************************************

Humancafe's Bulletin Boards: Humancafe's
FORUM-Bulletin Boards:
HABEAS MENTEM: a Quantum Leap
--------------------------------------------------

By humancafe on Saturday, September 18, 1999 -
02:28 pm:
Interrelationship is easily understood by most of
us as a mechanism that defines complex systems,
like the weather, ecosystems, market exchange,
living organisms. But it is a quantum leap to see
interconnectedness as a definition from the whole
redefining its individual parts. At infinity,
that redefinition becomes each thing's "identity",
what it really is in terms of the whole.
According to Habeas Mentem, that identity is then
evident in a living mind. We are who we are, in
the infinite whole, in our mind. Does this make
sense, or is it a quantum leap of faith? -Author

http://www.humancafe.com/discus/ FORUM at
Humancafe
***********************************************

PS: I look forward to reading essays by Ayn Rand,
"The Voice of Reason" and "The Romantic
Manifesto", which I found today in the public
library, to again familiarize myself with her
reasoning. Though I am not a Rand scholar, I will
look at "Objectivist Epistemology". You are most
welcome to access the Forum (link above) and add
your replies, objective ideas, reasonings, if you
wish. No ideas are rejected, though I did once
have to delete one that was abusive to others.
Thanks again for your input.
************************************************
Ayn Rand's philosophy: http://www.aynrand.org/home.html

In a message dated 04/20/2001 10:25:28 AM Eastern
Daylight Time, Humancafe writes:

<< "But it is a quantum leap to see
interconnectedness as a definition from the whole
redefining its individual parts." >>

How about a restatement along these lines:
"Knowledge of the real world can be proved only
when all the relationships among all things can be
shown." The end result is the same. That is:
you must demonstrate consistency within the total
context of everything you know (this is the
contextual part of knowledge). If you have
integrated everything into a coherent whole, then
it remains only to demonstrate in reality what you
mean by each idea you hold (this is the
hierarchical part of knowledge). Then, rather
than the whole "redefining its parts", it is the
parts that define the whole. Physical Law, which
existed long before Newton and Einstein, rules the
interactions of objects that are part of nature.
Physical Law can be discovered. Perhaps the
"interconnectedness" that makes you marvel could
be thouhgt of as the Laws that govern the physical
universe. But we do not discover entities by
examining the whole. We conceive of the whole by
integrating knowledge of its parts. Only after
this whole is conceived (a concept is formed
through integration) can one deduce that other
undiscovered entities may exist and may be found.
In no case does interconnectedness on its own play
an active conceptual role in defining anything.
However; you, as a functioning cognitive being,
may see the "parts" in a new light. This
redefinition is something that you can discover,
but it does not emanate from an active
consciousness other than that of a human being.

Keep thinking.

Bill

In a message dated 04/20/2001 8:34:23 PM Eastern
Daylight Time, Humancafe writes:

<< But then again, the ancient sages of the
Orient, where I spent some valuable time, call our
reality illusion. There is a reason for this. It
is because what we perceive as solid reality is
merely energy that had manifest itself into the
"obstructed" universe we perceive as real, and
more or less solid. (Taken from another angle, if
we were to view physical reality from another
reality, say from a dimension at 90 degrees to
itself, it might look like so many points of
energy; but since we live in this dimension, we
see it the way it appears to us. This is shear
speculation, mind you.) >>

You nailed it, yourself. Speculation. But why
speculate? The fundamental error of the Oriental
idea of reality as constantly self-forming energy
is that it puts consciousness (perception)_in
charge of reality. This is backwards from how
things really are. Consciousness could not exist
unless existence existed. Looking at things from
90 degrees is merely a bookkeeping entry. Things
do not change when you change your perspective.
What changes is your perspective -- not the
reality you are trying to discover. This is true
because things are what they are (Aristotle's Law
of Identity). Knowledge is objective. We humans
sometimes are not.

Regards,

Bill

Dear Bill,
I sincerely hope this letter is read in the spirit
of philosophical exploration, and not as
confrontation, since I have a great deal of
respect for your fine mind. Now that I've had a
chance to read again Ayn Rand, after decades of
absence, I remember why I had abandoned her. She
offered some very good and solid thinking
regarding reality, objectivity, individualism, all
of which I applauded; but she also had some ideas
with which I disagreed. As a free thinking
individualist, I had difficulty accepting some of
her arguments. A good example is her ideas on
Altruism. Rand seems to treat altruism with
suspicion, both in her novels and in her essays.
Her altruistic characters have a need to be
compassionate, out of weakness, to be good and
accepted by others. This is not how it is for me.
I offer compassion, or altruism, as a free gifts,
not because I need to do this, but out of strength
because it is what I choose to do. It is My
choice, a conscious event of which I am aware. On
the other hand, I can also be very
un-compassionate, and even selfish, if I choose.
For example, it would be compassionate of me,
altruistic even, to allow Rand to dictate to me
her philosophy, to find agreement in the way she
understands human nature and society. But I find
her reasoning too small, she's full of
disagreement, suspicions, and thus puts herself
into a box from which, in my opinion, she fights
like mad to break out. It is an inherent paradox
in the idea of individualism that another
individual cannot be told what to believe, only he
or she can choose what to believe. That is the
box. So Rand lashes out by finding fault with all
thinkers who don't agree with her, which to me is
not respectful of the individual's right to
choose. She even complains ungraciously that
others hate her! ("It is a significant commentary
on the present state of our culture that I have
become the object of hatred, smears,
denunciations, because I am famous as virtually
the only novelist who has declared that her soul
is not a sewer..." From The Goal of My Writing,
1963 essay.) So her view of humanity is too
limited for me, and I cannot share her suspicion
of others who do not agree, as being our enemies.
But that is my free choice, to believe in a
Reality that is a much bigger place. Rand came
from a world that succumbed to the siren songs of
Marxism, which was an embarrassment to her, as it
was for me too, for I too am of Russ-Ukrainian
descent. I am also aware that she wrote during a
time when many feared Communism as a real threat
to the free world. But Communism fell not because
of Rand's and others' philosophic disapproval of
that system, and rightly so, but because it was
inherently flawed, and might have fallen sooner
had we not artificially sustained its survival by
presenting ourselves as their threatening enemy,
against which they then kept their population
locked in fear and control. (Notice how we're now
using a different approach with Communist China,
which I think is about to fall anyway. China is a
Medieval society trying to wear modern Capitalist
clothes. However, they are afraid of change, so
are stuck with Communism running Capitalism, which
can't work. In the end, they are forced to
repress their own people. I think it will change
when the old order dies out.) Needless to say, I
do not care to be limited in anyone else's box,
communist or fascist or even individualist, but am
rather an explorer who would push on the envelope
of ideas instead. And I'm not afraid to do so.
My universe is much bigger than that of the
"ists". I do not see other human beings as
enemies, even if I believe they are wrong in their
thinkings and opinions. I choose this, sincerely.
With all due respect to Rand, I am not afraid of
compassion and altruism. A conscious mind sees
human beings who are a potential threat in a
dispassionate way, to be dealt with, but not hated
or feared. So no man is my enemy, but at the same
time I can choose to be an altruist and find good
even in those who think themselves my enemy. So
in closing, if I may push the envelope a little:
if I were truly an altruistic being because of my
need, then I would accept Rand's philosophy out of
compassion; but since I am more selfish, I must
admit that her philosophy, for all its good
points, nevertheless is flawed and not acceptable
to me in whole. Ayn Rand was a great woman, a
great thinker, and a very successful novelist.
Now, because I am altruistic by my choice, even if
her philosophy was inadequate for me, I accept her
as a great individualist, a great human being.

All the best, in the spirit of friendship and
philosophical discourse,

Ivan


PS: We're heading out for Las Vegas, which I find
a hilarious place, a kind of caricature of our
society, but more fun. Casinos are only a
curiosity for us, so don't make much of a
donation. (We're not altruistic enough?)
Somebody does, to pay for all thir extravaganza!
Ever been there? Back in a few days. Take care.

THE TYRANNY OF ABSOLUTE REASON:

"Sorry to have to say this, but your thinking is
flawed. Hers (Ayn Rand's) is totally consistent."

Dear Bill,
The above quote reminded me of something I wrote
long ago in Habeas Mentem:
"But that is the trap: Once the social order has
been perfected, argued complete and self
justified, there can be no justifiable dissention.
To dissent, under those conditions, is equivalent
to denying the legitimacy of human intellect as
supreme. It is to be unjustifiably rebellious, to
be socially ungrateful or, worse, to be irrational
or insane. In that closed world, there is no
outside legitimacy to order; it is entirely self
contained within the structure engineered by the
mind." (Chapter 6, We Can Choose.) I did not
pursue this line of reasoning further then, except
to state later in the chapter: "... such drive
for human progress, can actually be its greatest
impediment to it. Our thinking, our philosophy was
based on a closed universe; it revolved entirely
about the supremacy of our human intellect." I
think these lines, taken to the next step,
identify the root of my suspicion of human
intellect as being supreme. To me, reason and
logic are tools, much like a hammer or saw are
tools for a carpenter. But tools are not the
house he will build. So is it with reason, though
we must use reason, we cannot build a philosophy
on objective reason alone. There must be room for
more, for dreams, for explorations beyond reason,
even for speculations and mistakes. We human
beings need an open ended universe. If this is
not allowed, then reason, especially absolute
reason, becomes a tyranny. Interesting that the
mind can build itself a tyranny using itself. By
opening reality to be greater than the
consciousness of reason, we then can have the
freedom to go beyond what we came to accept as our
belief. Now, why would this be important? I
think it is important because I can conceive a
world where anyone who does not agree with the
accepted doctrines of reason, what had been proven
to be true, or socially accepted through logic and
reason, is then in danger of being persecuted for
holding ideas, or even ideals, that go contrary to
what had been proven to be right. Church dogma in
past centuries fell subject to this trap, though
they thought themselves logical Aristotolians.
Giordano Bruno, an Italian philosopher of the 16th
century, a brilliant thinker who even speculated
on the existence of other words, even inhabitted
ones, and on infinity, was burned at the stake in
Rome (in my wife's neighborhood! ), in Campo dei
Fiori, in 1600 because he dared to believe
something different. (You can find reference
links to Bruno on the Forum at HumanCafe.) By
their logic, convoluted that it was, the Church
was right, and he was wrong, and killed for it.
So a blind following of logic, of absolute reason,
is itself a kind of trap, to which I fear
brilliant minds gravitate, and ultimately fall
into, a kind of philosophical black hole. Rand
was one of those minds. My call. This is why I
stress so purposefully the right of the individual
to step beyond reason, even into the irrational,
because it is a freedom that should never be taken
away from us. The fact that we can dream, even
crazy dreams, should not be a threat, but rather
rewarded and encouraged, provided it does not
trespass on the rights of others. And if we're
wrong? Life will teach us, and even give us a
spanking if we need one. (We may be enjoying such
a spanking right now with the beginnings of our
dying planet, for example.) For better or worse,
we do not need to moralize on whether someone is
good or bad. A more scientific approach is to let
life teach us, so that our actions and beliefs in
reality are their own reward or punishment. Logic
is then useful to identify these, even codify
them, but it remains what it really is, a tool.
Nothing is ever guaranteed, and yous takes yous
chances... for better or worse. Where there is
risk, there is hope.
I also disagree with your statement: "Sacrifice
is the standard by which men are to be judged."
As just stated, I do not believe men should be
judged by others. They are who they are. If they
choose to sacrifice, then so be it, not good, not
bad. But this means nothing unless one sees it
from the "bookkeeping" perspective I described in
Habeas Mentem. So, unless one reads the book, and
it is a very long story... I won't go into it now.
Maybe I did not write it as well as I could, or
should, but it is what it is. And from it, one
reads that the most cherished freedom is the one
that allows me to be who I am, and even speculate,
philosophically speaking, on who that being is.
There are limitations, however, which are
described by the Law of Agreement. (As a
postscript, the Law of Agreement would state that
you may judge if you wish, but it is non-binding
on others unless they agree to it.)
You wrote: "You nailed it, yourself.
Speculation. But why speculate?... Knowledge is
objective. We humans sometimes are not." So, in
the end, am I free, or am I not, in your objective
universe? I know knowledge is objective. But
human beings are not. You said it! And if that
freedom to not be objective is taken away, then
the right to being who we are is also taken away.
Once that is done, then we are no longer free.
And that is what I mean by the Tyranny of Absolute
Reason. Of course, we know that we can also have
the tyranny of absolute freedom, anarchy, which is
not what Habeas Mentem advocates. Far from it!

Well, it is getting late, and I must turn in for
another exciting day on the Market. (I say this
tongue in cheek, since it was rather dull today,
but one hopes.) As that old song says: "You
gotta know when to hold 'em, an' know when to fold
'em... but don't count your winnings 'till the
game is done." The game of inquiry in life is
never done, but I think I'll fold them here.

All the best in logic and dreams. Thank you again
and again for your wonderful contributions and
ideas. Please feel free to write all you like,
even in the Forum. You have any good ideas on
this misery of a Stock Market?

Ivan

TYRANNY OF ABSOLUTES...

Bill Writes:
Ivan:
In a message dated 04/29/2001 1:24:39 PM Eastern
Daylight Time, you write:

<< So the big picture affects all the little
pictures that inhabit within it. >>

Surely this is a true statement. But one need not
impute a consciousness that drives changes within
the big picture. To achieve knowledge one must
make sure that none of the little pieces
contradicts anything in the big picture and vice
versa. Consciousness is a faculty of an
individual mind, an aspect of a living being. An
external consciousness, like "The Force" in Star
Wars does not exist in the sense of having
external volition. Even in this case the most
claimed for the mysterious Force was an energy
into which Luke Skywalker and others could tap.
But in the real world even this is not possible.
I will grant you that an individual person can
achieve a high state of concentration, where it
may seem that he achieves a kind of revelation.
However, such revelations can be explained as the
process of integration that goes on
subconsciously. This process does not require an
external, guiding consciousness. So, if you wish
to assert the existence of an external
consciousness, it is not enough to appeal to your
"faith". You must offer a concrete example of
that which you assert. I am ready to be
convinced. Just show me the evidence.

Warm regards,

Bill

... and also writes:
Ivan:

The crux of your argument is a question:

<< So, and this is the tough one, why not give
to reality the existence of a mind, consciousness,
supreme order, infinite interrelationship,
whatever... as an order of mind greater than ours.
>>

Well, why not? Answer: because no evidence
exists to support this idea.

<< What I do not agree with is this, that the
human mind is the final arbiter of these things.
Reality is. >> Here, you are correct, but you
reach the wrong conclusion. Reality is the final
arbiter. That is why you must offer evidence for
your theorem. If you cannot ostensively point to
that which you describe, then you have merely
constructed a floating abstraction: an idea
without roots, without foundation. One's mind is
not the arbiter, but it is the only means we have
of knowing reality.

<<So now the order is reversed, and where you see
man's mind as the pinnacle of reason, I see
universal reality as the pinnacle of reason. I
guess, Bill, we're on opposite ends of the same
spectrum!>> No, we are nowhere near being on the
same wavelength, if by the opposite ends of the
same spectrum you mean we have a common thread
with which to bridge the divide. I do not see
man's mind as the pinnacle of reason. I see
reason as a tool of man's mind. But reason is
capable of error. That is why one must compare
one's conclusions with reality in order to
validate one's thoughts. To conclude, simply
because one can infer an almost infinite set of
interrelationships (a valid concept), that there
must be some external, guiding consciousness is
not sufficient to prove your case. You must
reduce this concept to the perceptual level in
order to validate it. You must also demonstrate
that acceptance of the idea produces no
contradictions with anything else that you have
already validated. (Here you have to read
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology -- I am
sure you can find a copy in a local bookstore or
in your local library). If you can prove your
theorem, you will become famous as the person who
finally proved Plato was right. If you cannot,
then you must agree that Aristotle and Rand were
right. There is no middle ground on this issue.

Regards,

Bill
**************************************
Ivan writes in reply:
Bill writes: <<You must reduce this concept to the
perceptual level in order to validate it. You
must also demonstrate that acceptance of the idea
produces no contradictions with anything else that
you have already validated. (Here you have to
read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology -- I
am sure you can find a copy in a local bookstore
or in your local library). If you can prove your
theorem, you will become famous as the person who
finally proved Plato was right. If you cannot,
then you must agree that Aristotle and Rand were
right. There is no middle ground on this issue.>>

Well, Bill, you are a fox. Clever of you to put
it thus. But truly you place me too high to
compare my philosophy to that of Plato or
Aristotle. It is very simple, really: I am in
neither camp. Where philosophers have striven
through all time to prove, a priori, that their
philosophy is the right one for man; I on the
other hand am content to only describe it, without
desire for proof. Proof will come of its own in
time. You may wish to see my thinking as that of
Aristotle, or that of Rand, or that of Plato, or
Bruno, or whomever. It is immaterial to me,
because that is meaningless. I only offer a model
of the way the universe works for mankind. You
choose which model of the universe you wish to
accept. The proof is not in how we construct our
models, but in how well they represent reality.
Reality is always the final arbiter, even if our
models are perfect. Often they are imperfect, or
perfectly faulty. Remember how well reasoned was
the Medieval concept of our solar system? Totally
wrong. So, in my view of the universe, you have a
right to choose which one is acceptable to you.
Obviously, you've made your choice, and I mine.
Now, reality will tell us, in time, whether or not
we prove which system works better. I vote for an
open ended universe that allows me the freedom of
choice and belief, provided I do this through a
process of agreement and not coercion, and expect
that of others. That's Habeas Mentem. It is the
model I envision as representing reality best at
this level of our mental and psychic development.
Now, I don't know if Plato, or Aristotle, or Kant,
or Hume, or Adam Smith, or anyone else has a
better system. I am my own man, and I am content
to let reality decided what works best. If you
are truly an objective realist, as you claim to
be, then you would see it this way too. Not you
nor me nor Rand nor Plato, or anyone, but reality
decides. However, because your thinking is a bit
confused, and you want philosophical proof before
the test of reality, then I can see no way out of
your dilemma. It leads me to think that you
believe yourself an objectivist, but in the end
you want your mind to dictate what is right, what
is proven, and not the other way around. (Rather
subjective, no?) I think it is natural to desire
it so, because it is our ego that screams out to
be recognized, a priori. In fact, it is only a
small spark in a much greater fire. So I distance
myself for the old fashioned thinking that is
based on some a priori idea of proof. That is to
have the cart before the horse. I build a model
only, recognize it such, and then let history and
others, events of real life, then provide the
proof. This is the only scientific proof I could
hope for. If I am truly an objectivist in
reality, then this is the only way it can work.
Otherwise, it is only my ego, and I do not care
for that ego to be supreme.

Finally: "Reality is the final arbiter. That is
why you must offer evidence for your theorem. If
you cannot ostensively point to that which you
describe, then you have merely constructed a
floating abstraction: an idea without roots,
without foundation. One's mind is not the
arbiter, but it is the only means we have of
knowing reality." Funny how we can look he same
sentence and see if from totally different angles.
To me, what you say is good; to you, unless there
is a theorem of proof, it is a negative. Alas...

So you are right to say there is no middle ground
on this issue. You constructed your universe in
such a way that it is impossible to agree. What
you fail to understand is that your construction
is faulty. To choose between two irrelevant
issues is still irrelevant. You would have no
difficulty in this if your universe was based on
reality rather than your mind's interpretation of
reality. No matter how well reasoned this may
be, it is still only a model of the real thing.
Why not let the real thing decided for you what is
real? My answer to all of your arguments? "You
choose."

Always a pleasure to exchange ideas.
Take care, Ivan

METAPHYSICS VS. EPISTEMOLOGY ?

Ivan:

You think "Philosophy serves as a guide to help me
from making cognitive errors," and I think
philosophy helps us build a model that describes
for us the reality we live in. So far, no
disagreement. The job of philosophy is to
describe reality; to do this one must avoid errors
of thought. OK? "So I am forced to fall back upon
a question I had asked some time ago, and to which
you did not answer: Am I free to believe as I
wish, or do I have to bow to the tyranny of
reason?" You are free to believe as you wish, but
you are not omniscient. If you make an error of
thought, you will pay a price demanded by reality.
There is no tyranny of reason; the tyranny, if
any, is the discipline imposed by facts (reality).
To answer differently: I am not free to beleive
as I wish because I respect the primacy of
existence. You are free to believe anything you
want to believe, but you cannot prove your belief
unless it is in accord with reality. This is okay
if you do not care to acknowledge. It is also
okay to not agree with me. Thanks, and I do not
agree. I am glad that's ok. "I cannot conjure the
proof you request regarding the philosophy of an
infinite interrelationship having consciousness.
Why not? Somewhere in the Forum it says: Patience
is to give God a chance. So, patience. The proof
comes with time and observation. Therefore, from
my point of view, only in time can reality teach
us, and the mind of the universe will unfold for
us when we are ready for it. How about within
your lifetime? It is not necessary of a
preconceived proof. I can add nothing else,
except that if you have a true interest in this
new way of seeing reality, please read the text of
Habeas Mentem:
http://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm (Of
course, you are always welcome to add any comments
you wish to Humancafe's Forum, if it is of
interest to you.) All the best in your thoughts
and aspirations. I have very much enjoyed our
dialogue, but am happy to let it rest." I hope you
will reconsider. We both agree: existence is
what it is and our job is to find out what
existence is. Since consciousness is an aspect of
a living being who exists, consciousness must
defer to reality (that is, to facts). Here is
where we part company: you assert there is a
consciousness in the myriad interrelationships of
that existence. I say, ok, if you believe this,
show me the facts that support this conclusion.
You cannot simultaneously say that reality is the
final arbiter and offer a concept that is
abstracted from no perceptual data (that is, no
facts upon which to induce the existence of an
external consciousness). Either you must give up,
as Plato and Kant did, the idea that concepts are
objective or you must accept the responsiblity to
name the facts from which you abstract your idea.

It's been fun. Good luck.

Bill

*******************************************
<<You are free to believe as you wish, but you are
not omniscient. If you make an error of thought,
you will pay a price demanded by reality. There
is no tyranny of reason; the tyranny, if any, is
the discipline imposed by facts (reality). To
answer differently: I am not free to believe as I
wish because I respect the primacy of existence.
You are free to believe anything you want to
believe, but you cannot prove your belief unless
it is in accord with reality.>>

That, my dear Bill, is exactly true in my universe
too! So, there is a common thread of agreement
between us after all. You know, in thinking about
it last night while walking the dogs by the Santa
Ana River, which is now full of migratory birds
who get noisy as the sun sets, I think I can see
why it had been difficult to communicate our ideas
to each other. It is this, besides these being
complex ideas, that we were talking of two
different things. While I was trying to explain a
reality that is a metaphysical construct that is
in some way cognitive of itself, you were
demanding philosophical discipline of thought. So
it was not Objective Universe vs. Subjective
Universe, as it at times appeared to be. Rather,
it was metaphysics vs. epistemology. It's like me
saying "the sky's blue" and you replying "no, the
water's wet". Okay, so this got dead ended. Now,
I think I understand your points fairly well, even
read some of Ayn Rand's "Romantic Manifesto" and
her other essays. (Actually found it useful to
me, but she has a dictatorial way of writing which
gets my hackles up. Did anybody love that woman?
I would have killed her.) And by and large, I
agree with you: (1) One has to have objective
proof based on facts, as gained from our
observation of reality. Cool. Where we part
company, I think, and where I find scarce support,
except from G. Bruno (see below), is that
metaphysically speaking, we have a different
point of view: (2) The universe for you is an
inert manifestation of the physical reality,
including both energy and matter, that is devoid
of consciousness, except in its living species
with advanced minds, namely Man. Is this right so
far? In this universe, as Aristotle points out:
(3) A is A, and B is B; A can never be B. So, (4) we
are forced to use our reason to understand this
physical reality, and philosophy is the discipline
by which we can reason correctly about the nature
of our existence in it. This then leads to: (5)
Mind does not exist independently of our conscious
reason. (6) So the law of identity, now
epistemologically speaking, is fixed by the thing
itself (anything we choose to observe), not by
some universal Mind, and each thing is as our
reason, our mind, describes and fixes it in our
definition of it, as we can best ascertain and
measure and define from our observation of this
thing's reality. All right! We're getting
somewhere. So, from your point of view, and that
of most logical thinkers, including myself: (7)
Reason is how we understand this vast, infinite,
inert reality we call our universe, and to do so
correctly, there must be some rules followed, i.e.
A=A, as originated in the times of Aristotle,
later championed by Rand, so that we do not fall
into philosophical Error. How am I doing? If
this is correct, that I correctly interpret what
you have told me, then I am exactly in agreement
with you, up to this point. Now, here is where we
part company. My observation of reality
incorporates an additional element:
Interrelationship.

So there seems to be no epistemological
disagreement over how to observe our reality. I
actually mention the above in the first chapter of
Habeas Mentem, "Is there a Natural Order?" which
is introductory. About half way through, I
question whether the inert reality we understand
through our sciences is true: "The mind of man
succeeds against the universe because it is in and
of itself autonomous and supreme in its
intellectual accomplishments. Or is it?" So, our
disagreement as I see it, is from the metaphysical
interpretation of our reality. I do not wish to
debate this, however, since it is all written out
in my book. What I conclude, using the tools of
interrelationship as a supersedent to human
reason, is that the universe is pregnant with
life, reality may or may not be full of spirit
depending upon different things, and that the
human mind is the best and, to our knowledge, the
latest evolution of this living reality. Identity
exists, therefore, not only as observed by human
reason, but also in and of itself as each thing is
positioned within this infinite interrelationship,
as the pressure of everything else around it, ad
infinitum, allows it to be; as it is within the
image of the whole. This then represents each
thing's identity. Human reason, then, is still
supreme as a manifestation in us, and reality is
an interactive system against which we both test
ourselves and from which we learn. There may even
be a reason to believe in some sort of universal
totality that is manifest through the
interrelatedness of reality that is responsible
for this, and which may even be called, by some,
God. But there is no proof for this, since this
Totality is impossible for our human mind to
grasp, being infinite, and hence it falls into the
domain of Faith: We choose to believe or not.
End of sermon.

That in a nutshell, is the Habeas Mentem's
metaphysical description of the universe. It is
not that things have identity because we name them
as such (Ch. 3, What is the Form of
Interrelationship), but because they already exist
within a framework that defines them for us, and
we then are obligated to understand this identity
objectively with our minds. The ramifications of
this simple statement are immense. That's why I
wrote the book. This framework of reality even
affects our human identity and points to ways how
our interaction with one another is either
beneficial or destructive. So, we are free in
ways we did not hitherto understand because the
universe is more than merely an inert reality.
Few get this, so it is truly a new idea. But for
those who do get it, they tell me, it changes
their lives; and our universal reality, our human
existence within it, our interaction with one
another and with life itself, all become open
ended in ways we could never see before. A is
still A, but not because we say so. Proof? Life
as we know it. But a practical proof of whether
the conclusions from this new way of seeing
reality is correct will be furnished by the future
human condition as more and more people live
objectively within the simple rule that is
distilled from this new vision of reality:
Because one has a conscious mind, one may not
coerce another against his or her agreement,
unless that person is himself guilty of such
trespass, or is in essence without the mind, as an
unconscious being. That, my dear friend, is the
bottom line.

All the best, as always, Ivan

*******************************
Below, I have a short quote from Bruno:

"This entire globe, this star, not being subject
to death, and
dissolution and annihilation being impossible
anywhere in Nature, from time
to time renews itself by changing and altering all
its parts. There is no
absolute up or down, as Aristotle taught; no
absolute position in space; but
the position of a body is relative to that of
other bodies. Everywhere there
is incessant relative change in position
throughout the universe, and the
observer is always at the center of things."

(From G. Bruno's book: De la Causa, Principipio,
et Uno, On Cause, Principle, and Unity)
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/bruno.htm

If Bruno had taken it one step further, he could
have written Habeas Mentem!

The Dawn of Peace:

This is a new cycle of human power. All the
horizons of the world are luminous, and the world
will become indeed as a garden and a paradise. It
is the hour of unity of the sons of men and of the
drawing together of all races and all classes. You
are loosed from ancient superstitions which have
kept men ignorant, destroying the foundation of
true humanity.

The gift of God to this enlightened age is the
knowledge of the oneness of mankind and of the
fundamental oneness of religion. War shall cease
between nations, and by the will of God the Most
Great Peace shall come; the world will be seen as
a new world, and all men will live as brothers.

(`Abdu'l-Baha: Abdu'l-Baha in London, pp. 19-20)

IS THERE PROOF OF UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS (OTHER THAN HUMAN)?

My friend Bill B. writes: "Yes, it is difficult to offer a proof that the complex interrelationships of the universe imply an external consciousness... The reason for the difficulty may be simply its complexity, or it may be that the idea is not valid."

This is the dilemma of Habeas Mentem: What proof can we offer to demonstrate or show a consciousness in the universe other than that of the human mind? Without such proof, the idea of an infinite interrelationship redefining itself remains a mystery, in the domain of belief. Which is okay with me. But Bill is an objectivist, and he needs proof based on reality. Not for him the parting of the waters, or loaves of bread turned into fishes. I think the miracle of life is already proof, that evolution can create a brain capable of consciousness, a universe that has made a mind capable of looking back upon itself. There are physical laws we can identify, laws of forces that power our universal reality, but this is not proof of a consciousness outside our own. In Bill's view: "There is no universal consciousness external to the mind of a rational, living being. As far as we know, man is the only such living entity." So, what proof can we offer? Is the universe spanned by an infinite consciousness, even an infinite love? What is this apparently inert universe made of? Is interrelationship the mechanism by which the universe defines itself, that redefines any one of its parts in relation to its position within the whole? I think so, that we live in an interactive universe. But I cannot offer proof, other than to say that in time, when we live by the conditions that result from interrelationship, as described in Habeas Mentem, when we no longer coerce one another, our lives will change in ways we cannot even imagine. So in time a proof will present itself, based on the improved results of our future existence. But what proof can we offer Bill now? Is the universal reality inert, or is it made of consciousness, and if so, by what proof? Any and all ideas are welcome.

Ivan A.

POSSIBLE PROOF OF UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS?

Assuming existence, a priori, is the final arbiter of what is reality in the universe, can we also assume that this existence is infinite? If Yes, then is this infinite reality a closed system, totally self contained; or is it an open system, where it is subject to continuous change? If it is a closed system, then it is what it is and it may be possible to construct a proof of a universal consciousness within it. If it is an open system, with a potential for growth or change, then any proof would be voided by future change, since it would then be a non-self-contained, or non-static, system subject to variables, as chaos theory suggests, which would invalidate such proof. Finally, infinity that changes is different from an infinity that is static. In my opinion, however, infinity by definition cannot be static, for then it would be a closed circle and no longer infinity. At the margin, for it to be infinity, it must be open ended. So given this, then it is unlikely a viable proof of any consequence can be designed within it, since that would imply a closed universe. Thus, unless one designs a system that validates itself by its own dynamics, a proof is not viable, since we live in an open ended, probabilistic universe subject to risk, and one in which the certainty of proof, philosophical guarantees if you will, is not realistic.

Now, how does this affect a proof of a possible Universal Consciousness, one that is outside the human mind? Can there be proof of consciousness as defined by the concept of interrelationship defining its internal parts? (1) The thesis of interrelationship says that the interconnectedness of all things, of necessity connected to all things to infinity, makes each thing within this totality exactly as the pressure of everything else allows it to be. Hence, this interrelationship totality, as it is in this totality, is its definition in terms of the whole. (2) This system describes human existence as well, and thus defines our being in our body. We are how we are in relation to where we are within this infinite existence. (Note, this is not a definition I ascribe, but one that is ascribed by the system of interrelationship.) What distinguishes our human existence from that of other living species is that we have a conscious mind that is aware of itself, and we can say this, both to ourselves and to others. (3) Given the thesis above, this also implies that the consciousness we possess is exactly, being inside the body we possess, as the totality image of our existence has allowed it to be. (We are connected to existence both spatially and in time, being born of our parents, who were born of their parents, to the beginning of the bacteria or amino acids who preceded us.) (4) If this is so, it still being subject to much debate, then the fact that such an existence has created a conscious mind means that our reality is structured in such a way that this consciousness is possible within it. Is this, then, the proof we seek, that there is a univeral consciousness beyond that of our human brain? No, not yet. There is one more important step. Because we live in an infinity, which is an open system, any proof would be suspect. Instead, (5) we can reason that either we live in a conscious reality, or we live in a probabilistic universe, given to chaos, that at the margins of infinity can produce a consciousness on some of its individual entities. Either way, the system of interrelationship is such that it tracks each and everyone one of its components, and defines each, gives it identity, in relation to where it is within the whole. (6) The fact that humans possess consciousness, therefore, means that the totality definition for each human being, being where he or she is in the body, has a definition at infinity that is conscious. (That is the rule of interrelationship as described in this thesis. One could move around, have different thoughts, but the rule holds. Infinity tracks us completely, and it is a very big universe.) Therefore, (7) as we are conscious in our everyday existence, the universe is conscious with us, for us only at the point of our being, as it relates only to ourselves, at any moment of time. This is not to say that this consciousness exists outside of us, say around us, like in the rocks or soil we walk on. Rather, this consciousness exists only for the living entities that are endowed with it. (8) So this universal consciousness is conditional: Consciousness exists only for those entities that are capable of it. But, (9) because we are conscious, for us the universal consciousness exists; for those things that are inanimate, say pebbles on the beach, then the definition from infinity is different, for they are not conscious, and merely exist. This concept is neither Aristotelian nor Platonic, but may be viewed more as a symbiosis of the two. A is still A, not because we say so, but rather because existence, or an infinite interrelationship, says so; we are merely observers. (10) To me, the fact that A is A is already consciousness, because if defines a system of order, an existence, that is far greater than anything my mind can conceive, of an order of magnitude far higher than that of my conscious brain. So which is it? Is human consciousness supreme? Or is this "universal consciousness" supreme? Because we live in an open ended universe, there is no simple answer, only possibilities. Remember we have mobility and freedom of thought not afforded to non conscious beings. So, we are conscious, and existence is conscious with us. If it is truly an infinite, open ended universe, there is still room for more than this, with very exciting possibilities (beyond the scope of this thesis). But because existence is not static, it is also why we as conscious human beings have a free will. And it is because of this free will that we can either accept or reject this thesis as proof of a universal consciousness. Is this a proof is a universal consciousness? Our choice. Universal consciousness will continue with or without our approval. However, in final analysis, our consciousness will be greater if we accept it as such.

Ivan A.
http://www.humancafe.com

Re: Possible Proof of Universal Consciousness,
Paul writes in the margin:

I agree generally with your conclusions but I
think because you have described the universe as
though it was flat; this leaves the human in a
much too elevated position, relative to the
universe.

Definitely (infinity) an open system, with things
changing in arrangement .
Infinity cannot grow, or that would imply it was
finite and not infinite beforehand.
I am very sceptical about this statement (that
humans have a conscious mind, as distint from
other living species); a healthy dolphin would
appear to me to have more consciousness than a
human patient in a vegetative state of existence.

PAUL's THESIS IS:

UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Visible Evidence of Consciousnesses on The Earth

We humans can identify consciousness in ourselves,
and know that there are different states of
consciousness for human beings, from the
vegetative state through to the psychotic state.
Personally I believe that all the living things we
are capable of identifying, have consciousnesses
too, with states that relate to their respective
physical complexities. Consciousness resides in,
and possible around, the individual life forms,
until their respective deaths.


Inferred Consciousnesses on other visible objects
in Space

If we take for granted that life exists elsewhere
in space, then it would not be preposterous to
assume that consciousness resides in, and possibly
around those life forms as well, until their
respective deaths.

Consciousness residing with infinitesimally small
living things on Worlds within Atoms

If a world of benign conditions existed say within
an infinitesimal part of a (say) lithium atom,
there might be a pattern of dispersion of
consciousnesses existent around its surface,
similar to the pattern around our earth.


Consciousness residing with even more
infinitesimally small living things on Worlds
within Atoms within Worlds within Atoms

If a world of benign conditions existed say within
an infinitesimal part of a (say) carbon atom,
which in turn was part of the world in a lithium
atom, again there might be a pattern of dispersion
of consciousnesses existent around its surface,
similar to the pattern around our earth.

This Regression is endless, and there is always
space within and between particles to allow for
this.

This means that consciousness is everywhere, and
is certainly not the sole preserve of us X billion
humans.


Consciousness dwelling with a life form whose
atoms are the objects of visible space

If the visible stellar bodies are the components
of a massive object, that object would not be
likely to have an independently operating
consciousness, unless you take into account its
infinite separate component consciousnesses, or
unless, by chance it is a form of life in its
totality. Another massive object, in another part
of the universe would be an independent life form,
because of the infinite opportunities for this
condition to arise.


Consciousness residing with a life form whose
atoms are the worlds inhabited by the massive
object whose atoms in turn are the objects of
visible space

If the massive objects whose atoms are the visible
stellar bodies, are in turn the components of a
super massive object, that object may or may not
be an independent life form with its own
independent consciousness, despite the countless
consciousness contained within it. Though
inevitable there would be a super massive life
form in a far away part of the universe whose
components were the objects formed by masses of
visible stellar bodies, Just as our bodies contain
infinite an infinite number of consciousnesses
within their infinitesimally small parts.

The macroscopic progression is endless, and as we
can easily imagine, there is always space
available.


Paul Haseman
pnhaseman@btinterne
t.com

BILL'S & IVAN'S CONTD:

Hi Bill,

I had missed this on my first reading, and I think
it is important. You said:

"Without concepts the human mind would be
overloaded with the vast array of data needed to
explain the universe. Science depends on rational
thought."

And this is indeed true. We cannot possibly
incorporate all that is in existence in our minds,
so we find laws, principles, concepts to help us
understand our reality. They are the tools we
develop for our mind to understand what is.
However, they are only tools, so we created them
of necessity, as is the reason for most tools, for
the purpose of helping us deal with what otherwise
is too complex. We now have cranes to lift heavy
objects, or drills to find oil. These would be
virtually impossible if done by hand. So it is
with philosophy, we create mental tools, and I
think that Rand's statement: "Concepts are tools
of cognition which are interactions between a
consciousness and reality. As such, concepts have
no effect on what reality is; they allow us to
subsume a vast array of precepts under a single
title, the noun that names the concept.".. is
totally true. We must never confuse which way
things go here; the tools are to understand
reality, to act on it, to refashion it somehow in
our own image, but it is not to become reality.
So the subjective is to influence reality only as
reality allows it to, not to replace it. But now
think what this means: reality is already its own
existence, into which we as participants, since we
are a part of it, are then privileged with the
tools of our minds to do things. So, if this is
so, then there can be added another tool: that
reality redefines itself, in terms of itself,
which is what the concept of interrelationship
says. And this is a big step forward, for now we
can use our minds, our awareness, to better
understand when we are working with reality, or
against it. I wrote in The Examined Life
Discussion Forum by way of illustration: (to see
"Existentialism, Dualism, and Truth", May 24, go
to:
http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/index.html
where we discussed the idea of interrelation as it
applies to coercion:

"Action merely is, and reality then either
responds in the expected way, like moving a large
stone boulder and (applying) force on it moves it,
or it does not, the boulder stays put. Are we
coercing that boulder into moving aside for us?
Yes, of course. But the boulder has no conscious
mind with which to object, itself it neither
agrees nor disagrees. If it did have a mind, would
it consider our action 'evil'? But, joking aside,
a large boulder that moves in reaction to our
applying force on it is, in effect, a form of
acceptance or agreement (with the
interrelationship definition that identifies that
boulder at that moment): it shifts from its place
because the reality of the universe allows it to.
If the boulder does not move, then our action is
being met with a universal disagreement. Good or
evil? Neither. It just is. But from its being we
can then judge as to whether or not our action is
good, it succeeds, or evil, and we fail." (forget
the "good" or "evil" part, since they are words
that applied to that discuss.)

This is taken out of context, discussing good and
evil, or coercion and virtues, etc., but the
physical description of the boulder either
responding to our applied force or not illustrates
the point I want to make: reality has its own
mechanism that responds to what we do. And this
is why the concept of interrelationship, which is
a concept to describe how reality does this, is so
exciting, because it opens up a whole new avenue
of inquiry. So, getting back to you statement
that "the human mind would be overloaded" is right
on. But the work is being done for us already, by
reality! We don't have to become overloaded, to
try to understand all the infinite
interrelationships that make things happen (too
much data!), we merely need to observe what it is
already doing, and that simplifies things
tremendously. I wrote in the same Forum
(Humancafe's is broken at this time, so I'm busy
elsewhere): "...I cannot predict what will happen
to any one person in their choices in life, though
I may have opinions about my own; same as I cannot
predict if another person who is free is going to
be happy about it. Rather than Utopian, I would
call this system as Simplified: The system of an
infinite universal interrelationship is such that
a lot of the work is already done for us, we need
to only be aware of it and make our choices in
life." The operative word here is 'Simplified'.
Now, once we have this mental tool refined, where
we can understand it better, then we can use it
for our human progress. That progress, as I
envision it, is that we become more aware, more
conscious of what it is we do in reality, both to
ourselves and to other living things. I will
leave off here with this thought: How long did it
take for us to learn to use the physical tools we
have, to the point where they are easy and second
nature to us? I think it took a very long time
from when we picked up the first stick or stone
and fashioned it into a tool. Well, with
'mentals', it is the same. It will be a very long
time before our awareness, our conceptual tools
become second nature to us, for now they still are
a struggle. But some future generation will look
back upon us and marvel that we found it so
difficult at the time.

Take care my friend, hope you have a great
Memorial Day weekend.

Sincerely,
Ivan
--------------------------
Intrincisists recognize that concepts are
objective, that they are abstractions from
reality. But they hold the essence of a concept
lies in the percept from which it is abstracted.
Since ""we can never count all the percepts in the
universe which themselves are the source for this
abstraction,...""

By Jove, I think we've got it! The ""red
letters"" are the closest to my idea yet. We can
never count all the connections, all the
interrelated forces, all the interaction of
concepts that defines for us reality. Infinity is
too big, the universe too complex. Reality has to
do it itself, which in the concept of
interrelationship, it does. Really, my
philosophical idea is simply to go 'piggy back' on
what it's alaready doing to itself. I didn't
create it in my mind, not subjective; I only saw
it out there*, so it's objective. C'est tous!
Niente di piu. Thank you!

Cheers, Ivan

*I may share with you that I saw this
'interrelationship' idea one sunny day of Spring
when I was playing hooky from school, and took off
for Orchard Beach Park, the Bronx, watching a
tidal river flowing out to sea, and suddenly in a
flash I could see all the connections from the
rock where I was sitting to the water flowing
through the salt marsh grass, to the sea shells,
to the trees standing, to the sky and clouds, and
the birds that were feeding at a distance, all
connected to the oceans of the whole world, and
the stars beyond. I didn't know it then, but I
had found the Tao, the Watercourse Way. I think I
was 16. The philosophical development of the idea
of Habeas Mentem came some years later.

----------------------------------
Ivan:

Referring to the almost infinite complexity of the
universe and to the fact that one can never look
at each percept from which a concept is
abstracted, you said:
"We can never count all the connections, all the
interrelated forces, all the interaction of
concepts that defines for us reality. Infinity is
too big, the universe too complex. Reality has to
do it itself, which in the concept of
interrelationship, it does." Well, we agree,
almost. When you say "we can never count oll the
connections," I agree. But one can count all the
connections of the "interactions of concepts" that
one holds. The purpose of concepts is to hold in
mind as a kind of mental object uncounted percepts
as a class. What one knows is always limited;
that is, one can never know everything that
everyone else knows. Thus, within the context of
what one does know, one can reach certainty. But
it is not true that "Reality has to do it itself".
This is where we disagree. I hold that reality is
what it is. Reality has no self-defining
function. It just is. It exists. Our job then
is to think and to reach conclusions about what it
is that is. This is difficult, but it is
different from trying to figure things out when
the object is self-defining. Reality does not do
it itself, that is, define itself. We do this
job. Imperfectly and within the limits of our
efforts, but we do it.

Cheers!

Bill

P, S. I can just picture a sixteen-year-old
watching the ebb and flow of tides and thinking
about the complexity of nature. What a satisfying
image. Thanks for sharing this with me.

BILL'S AND IVAN'S LAST:

Hey Bill, I think I solved it!

You once said I should check my premises, so I
went back to the very first baby steps I could
find. It is this: If there are three points in
space, only that and nothing else in existence,
then how would you define those three points? In
your view, as you have told me, it is in the
'nature of things' for them to be those three
points. Period. End of discussion. In my view,
each point is defined by its relation to the other
two points as well as the totality of the three
points together as a triangle. That is my basic
premise. So when we both look at the same three
points, we have a divergent point of view. To
you, they are innately only three points. To me,
they are an interrelationship of each other, and
thus defined by their interrelationship positions
within the triangle. Starting from there, our
points of view diverge, and the more we discuss
it, the more this divergence grows. It seems to
me, that because I have a different premise from
you of what defines reality, our agreement is
impossible. How interesting. Because to me the
'nature of things', as an unexplained mystery,
require the question "why?" Based on my premises,
the answer exists, at least potentially. I
suspect that based on your premises, the question
remains just that, a question, for which no answer
can exist. It simply is. So, which is more
progressive? Which has a future? I think your
premise is an accomplishment of the past, and a
worthy one. My premise, if anyone ever
understands it, is the basis for a new
philosophical future. If you could agree at the
very least that our premises are divergent, then
Amen! I'll leave it here for you to ponder, if
you wish.

Hopefully yours,
Ivan
************************

Ivan:

You say: "If there are three points in space, only
that and nothing else in existence, then how would
you define those three points? In your view, as
you have told me, it is in the 'nature of things'
for them to be those three points." My answer may
not surprise you: There are more than three
points in space. If there were only three, there
would be no existence as we know it and we would
not exist. Any view of such a concocted reality
is arbitrary. It makes no difference whether I
view the points as existing independently of each
other or whether you are fascinated by the
relationship among the points. If we accept the
premise of this false reality, the answer is, as
you said, it is what it is. You go on: "So when
we both look at the same three points, we have a
divergent point of view. To you, they are
innately only three points. To me, they are an
interrelationship of each other, and thus defined
by their interrelationship positions within the
triangle." Any difference of viewpoint for this
simple example is simply bookkeeping. In your
example the answer to the question "What is
existence?" is "three points and the relative
positions of those points with respect to one
another." There could be no disagreement on this
answer. But in this example existence still is
what it is, that is, three points. There is no
room here for reality to define itself. So, we
agree, but we have not found an example to
illustrate self-defining reality. Where we part
is here: I ask "What is the nature of things?"
You ask "Why is the nature of things what it is?"
I accept things to be exactly what they are,
regardless of what I may think of them (no ego
involvelment). You want to ask "Why?" which leads
you to the idea of an external consciousness. Ask
yourself "Why cannot I accept reality as a given?"
The answer to this question will reveal your
premise, which you must then examine. You conclude
with: " My premise, if anyone ever understands
it, is the basis for a new philosophical future."
Actually, your premise has ancient roots. It
reaches back to Plato and his idea of a World of
Forms. His metaphysics stated that this world
(the world we observe) is a mere reflection of the
ideal. He saw this world as trying to define
itself. That definition was contained in the
ideal, an ideal that this world is struggling to
achieve but can never quite reach. His
epistemology granted external metaphysical status
to concepts (Forms). Aristotle corrected most of
this mess. Your thesis is a reflection of
Platonic roots. Nothing new. Sorry.

Striving to reach my ideal form,

Bill
***************************

Bill, You missed the point. A basic premise is an
'a priori' definition. It is not open to debate.
It is either a yes or no proposition. You do not
accept by basic premise, so that is why we do not
communicate. At least, we can establish this
much. Now, I build my philosophy on this basic
premise. Since you already reject the basic
definition of where my thinking starts, then what
can I do? I just wanted to show you why we cannot
agree. I rest my case.

Ciao, Ivan

POSTCRIPT TO BILL'S & IVAN'S:

The dialogue between Bill B. and myself goes
volumes beyond the posts here, as it goes on
still. But I wanted to post some of our e-letters
to each other to show the spirit of the debate, as
well as its content. No offense was ever meant,
and none taken, though at times it would seem that
way. These were not personal attacks, rather they
were genuine attempts at understanding each
other's point of view. And though neither gave in
their position, which was not expected, at least
not by me; I felt the deep sincerity with which
Bill's question were true to his search for what
is a reality for him, same as my search for what
is a reality for me. I feel that the introduction
of new ideas will always meet resistance, and it
is invaluable to be forewarned of what that
resistance will be, in order to be forearmed. In
this, I owe a great debt of gratitude to Bill's
input into how he saw the concept of
interrelationship. I must admit, however, that
some of his statements were puzzling to me, for
example his comparing me to Plato, since I could
never find a reference to 'interrelationship' in
Plato's writings. However, be that as it may,
this is the reality of what anyone exploring a new
idea should expect to encounter, when he or she
attempts to teach it to others. There will be
resistance by minds who are comfortable with what
is known, and become terribly suspicious of any
idea they had not encountered before. One wonders
what Newton had to go through when he began
teaching his infinitessimals as a way to solve the
equation of a zero point slope on a curve. So is
it with teaching how three becomes infinity as an
interrelationship that then redefines its
individual components. This is not an easy idea
to grasp, and quite frankly I little expect for it
to be widely understood, much less accepted, by
the general public in my lifetime. However, today
even school children learn calculus, and no doubt
will continue to struggle with it for generations
to come. Expect the same from the concepts of an
interrelationship of how reality redefines itself,
and the resulting conclusions of what it means for
us conscious and living human beings. It is a
very long and uphill road ahead. But it has to
start somewhere, and it might as well be here and
now. My thanks to all the readers who patiently
persevered through these dialogues, and I hope you
have all become the richer for it.

All the best wishes for all who seek new ideas.
All comments are welcome.

Sincerely,

Ivan Alexander

VIVE LA RESISTANCE!

http://www.inexpressible.com/e224-228.html

227. Entry:

"In reply to your Response to my Entry 224, I
would like to add the following:
You say: "Your only proof in this regard is that
being and consciousness are in an
interrelationship. Yet, the notion of
"interrelationship" implies separation between two
things, otherwise there would be no relation, and
therefore it does not follow that being and
consciousness are the "same".
It is the 'separation between two things' that I
would like to address. In the manner of
interrelationship here described as 'Being'
defining a 'consciousness' as it applies to each
living and conscious person, I think it is
important to note that the separation you mention
is in fact narrowed through a kind of calculus,
whereby the definitions of who that person is in
terms of their 'being' is minutely detailed by the
infinitesimal interrelationships (both micro and
macro) of their reality that define that being.
So, in the extreme of 'infinitesimality', they
approach each other to a zero, same as calculus
approaches zero at any point of the slope.
However, because in the universe, such a zero is
unattainable (even quantum physics bears this out,
where the observations fall into a domain of
probability), then the infinitesimal approach to
'identity' in the absolute is never totally
achieved, though it is as close as one can get
(that this is the 'same' in the closest this
universe will allow us to get to that point).
Also, I maintain that the consciousness of 'who we
are' is not something we manufacture through
sensory perception within ourselves, but rather is
a definition from reality's infinite Being that
allows us then to manufacture a sense of who we
are, what we think of when we say 'I am'. This is
a very fine distinction, but I thought it
important to point out. The definition, or
identity, of consciousness, the who we are, is
from a Reality, understood as an infinite Being,
which defines who we are; and not the other way
around, though it appears to our sensory minds
that it is 'we' who define reality. Appearances
are an illusion?
Also, in the second point of your Response: "the
problem with your example of equating being and
consciousness with law and social contract is that
the latter is dealing with conscious phenomenon,
whereas the former is dealing with both
unconscious and conscious phenomenon," fails to
consider that laws in and of themselves are not
conscious, merely written out formulae. The people
who create laws are conscious, one hopes, but the
laws themselves are not, same as the Social
Contract is not conscious. I did say that this was
a 'crude example', but wanted to use it by way of
illustration of how 'interrelationship' of a whole
made up of its parts then redefines its
constituent parts.
Finally, you say: "In other words, just because
being and consciousness appear interconnected, it
does not follow that they are intrinsically the
same things, as appears to be the case with law
and social contract because they are both
conscious phenomenon." Given my statement in the
paragraph above, "that laws in and of themselves
are not conscious", I would also like to point out
that 'consciousness' as defined by its Being as a
product of an infinite interrelationship is
conscious only because of the nature of the
'definer'; so no other analogy would ever fit,
since any other set of totality is less than
infinite, and thus falls short of the definition
each conscious being has from an infinite Being.
To make it simpler, it is not some Deity that
defines consciousness in us, though some like to
think of it this way; rather, it is inherent in
the mechanism of interrelationship, whereby each
thing is defined within its interrelated totality,
that defines a human consciousness. The fact that
we have evolved consciousness then means that the
Totality that defines each human being (who is
conscious) is itself Conscious, because that is
how the mechanism works. Any analogy or example I
could create with my mind would of necessity fall
short of this, since it is impossible for the
human sensory mind to ever capture all the
infinity of interrelationships that realize into
being this consciousness. The mechanism has to be
understood 'a priori', and then used to define
what is, which is only what the mechanism does
itself. Rather than whether or not the phenomena
examined are conscious, the Proof to the Challenge
is in the mechanism of interrelationship itself."
Ivan Alexander
Humancafe
June 3 2001

Response:

We have the following questions regarding your
"mechanism of interrelationship whereby each thing
is defined within its interrelational totality",
so that the totality, which defines each thing, is
comprised of each thing:
1. If the "whole is made of its parts then
redefines its constituent parts", how can the
parts redefine themselves, unless you make the
parts self-existent entities, so that the whole as
self-existent entity is a fabrication?
2. If human beings are merely part of an
interrelated whole, what is behind the
interrelated whole or the parts which comprise the
whole? In other words, how can interrelation
itself be a basis for existence, when
interrelation is dependent on the pre-existence of
things for there to be interrelation?

Other issues:
1. When we use 'who we are', unless otherwise
stated, it is used as a non-label with
non-conscious form, even though in terms of
phenomenon, 'who we are' is a label with conscious
form.
2. In the response to Entry 224, we are not
stating that laws and social contract are
conscious; rather, we are stating that they have
conscious forms.

*****************************************
The short answer to the Committee's responses
above is this: "The individual parts that
comprise the reality of a totality
interrelationship is made up of the same
substance, to its infinitessimal, that comprises
what the whole universe is made of."

Ivan

Good luck and Long Live the Challenge! Vive la resistance!

INEXPRESSIBLE (contd. from Vive La Resistance!)

229. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 227

You ask: "If the ‘whole is made of its parts then
redefines its constituent parts’, how can the
parts redefine themselves, unless you make the
parts self-existent entities, so that the whole as
self-existent entity is a fabrication?"

The individual parts that comprise the reality of
a totality interrelationship is made up of the
same substance, to its infinitesimal, that
comprises what the whole universe is made of.

You ask: "How can interrelation itself be a basis
for existence, when interrelation is dependent on
the pre-existence of things for there to be
interrelation?"

The pre-existence of things in interrelation to
one another from the beginning of the universe,
the 'creation' of the infinite Totality, Big Bang,
etc. Hence, we are back to a prime mover, or
Creator, syndrome, alas, so this becomes circular.

Ivan Alexander
Humancafe
June 6 2001

Response:

1. Even if everything that comprises the universe
is made up of the same substance, whatever it may
be, it does not necessarily mean that who we are
and thoughts as form are intrinsically the same,
even though they contain the same substance. (i.e.
the contents of who we are and thoughts as form
themselves may be different, despite both of them
being part of a common substance.)
Also, if you equate fundamental, universal
substance with fundamental level of being, how can
we create who we are through who we are? Or even
how can we create the universal substance through
the universal substance?
2. The important consideration regarding
interrelation is that in order for there to be
interrelationship, there must be things or
something behind the interrelation to begin with,
and therefore, the mechanism of interrelationship
itself is insufficient in explaining the
fundamental nature of things.
****************************************

Dear Inexpressible Committee,

Regarding your Response in post #229, indeed I can
understand what you say when you write:

"2. The important consideration regarding
interrelation is that in order for there to be
interrelationship, there must be things or
something behind the interrelation to begin with,
and therefore, the mechanism of interrelationship
itself is insufficient in explaining the
fundamental nature of things."

The short answer is: Yes, the thing behind
interrelationship is infinity.

Interrelationship as a mechanism is insufficient
unless it is taken in its totality, since lesser
interrelationships, say in smaller sets, have a
conceptual 'defining' quality as regards to its
internal parts, but are powerless. To have the
power to identify its parts, no matter what their
form, even infinitesimal forms, the complete
totality must be considered, infinitely as its own
existence, for then all things within it are
exactly as the totality image, the pressure of
all, allows it to be. This is a mental construct,
a model that requires a leap of awareness, and as
yet not one that is common currency in our
thinking. So the 'nature of things' under this
self defining system is defined in direct
proportion to how all of existence has molded it
over time into what it is, no matter what it is,
that we are observing. Is this a mental
fabrication? What concept is not? But if this
concept is taken 'a priori' as how things in
existence (those that we see from 'behind our
eyes', if you will, those that are observable to
us), are then as forms (nature of things) manifest
from that totality of interrelationship. So the
usual method of observing things in reality is
reversed, and instead of defining an object or
being from our perspective, we then understand
that it is already being defined by its own
infinite mechanism, and that we are then merely
observers of it. Because we are part of this
mechanism, when we become aware of it, while being
aware of our own being, the two tend to merge into
one, at least at some level of cognition by us.
(Hence, this is why I entered this idea into the
Challenge.) So it is mainly a matter of
perspective: From which side are we seeing
things? Is it from where we stand, from the
subjective-objective reason and sense of our
awareness? Or is it from that other side, the one
that spans infinity as it defines itself? It is
not an easy answer, since we are as yet very
unfamiliar with that 'other' that is self defining
itself as the universe's reality. Yet, without
that other side, then our existence is reduced to
being only what we think of it. In my opinion,
that is a self induced illusion. It is not 'we
who create who we are through who we are', as you
ask in your response. It happens from the way our
physical universal reality is structured as an
infinite set, a set within which we evolved over
time a mind capable of being aware of this.

In answer to the Challenge:

We are who we are and know who we are at the same
time because that is how the totality of
interrelationship has molded us over time, into
being where and what we are, while at the same
time giving us the capability of a consciousness:
that we are this, are aware of this, and
simultaneously aware of ourselves in our own
being. Further, it is of necessity 'at the same
time' because this system of identification is
active at any infinitesimal moment of time, or at
least as close to 'the same time' as is physically
(as defined by quantum physics) possible in our
probalistic universe.

Thank you for your thoughtful responses, and I
hope that mine are worthy of your fine work. At
least, it has been fun! Have you considered
putting some of your entries up for a vote? Just
a thought... not a serious request.

Sincerely,

Ivan Alexander

INEXPRESSIBLE, contd. http://www.inexpressible.com

Dear Inexpressible Committee,

RE #233: "The notion of totality as an explanation
for the infinity of interrelation is
contradictory, because totality implies limit,
whereas infinity does not."

If 'infinitesimal' does not approach 'zero', and
'totality' does not approach 'infinity', then
there is not hope!

"Though there is third way: to see things from a
theoretical realization that we cannot comprehend
the fundamental nature of things in part or as an
interactive whole, so that what we perceive is a
limited reality of what really is."

I essentially agree with this sentence, 'that we
cannot comprehend the fundamental nature of things
in part of as interactive whole'. And indeed,
from where we are, all we can hope to understand
is the 'limited reality of what really is'. This
is truly our starting point. To go beyond this
point, then, we need to use a concept that can
carry itself into dimensions beyond our ability to
perceive them. One such 'tool' is the concept of
interrelationship, which taken to its totality
reverts back on itself and redefines itself. This
is meant as an objective concept, outside our
subjective mind, if you will. To me, this is a
usable tool of conceptual thinking, since it is
able to span, dare I say it, an infinity. But
then, I conceive of infinity as a totality, so for
me it is not a contradiction of terms. The reason
that I think this kind of conceptual math is valid
is because it then lends itself to many
applications, which is why I wrote the book
"Habeas Mentem", (which can be found on the web),
and the tool of interrelationship as a
philosophical concept finds various applications.
In my opinion, and it is for the Committee to
agree with this or not, I think that this
'interrelationship concept' can reconcile the
Challenge, that we cannot be who we are and know
who we are at the same time. This is the why for
my 8 posts above: 174, 185, 211, 217, 224, 227,
231, 233. Your Challenge gives me a chance to
test the edge of this conceptual tool. And for
this, I am grateful and enjoy the dialogue. I too
believe that the ramifications for this proof can
be immense, since then we can reconcile 'Being'
with 'Who' we are, objective with subjective. I
do not believe this had ever been done
conclusively. As to whether or not you then judge
that this is a valid tool for you purposes, that I
cannot influence, and it is in the hands of the
Committee. The philosophy of Habeas Mentem, as it
is derived from the interrelationship concept,
arrives at a basic conclusion as it applies to our
conscious human existence: 'It is always our
choice'. But more exciting, if your proposition
is proven, as I see it, then it opens many doors
of possible knowledge.

Hope this helps you in your search for the truth.
Always a joy.

All the best, Ivan

From Inexpressible's 'Challenge the Philosophy'
Message Board:
http://www.inexpressible.com/wwwboard/messages/559.html
by the founder.

Do I sense a chink in the armor? --Ivan
-------------------------------------------------

Posted by garvey (24.78.190.179) on June 22, 2001
at 07:05:56:

A key argument defending the proposition is that
we ourselves are the creators of conscious
knowledge, and that we cannot create who we are
through who we are, which means that knowledge as
form must be empty of who we are. However, the
problem with creating who we are through who we
are can be avoided, by taking the position that
who we are, at a fundamental level, is contained
in all things, so that in the process of creating
of knowledge, whether through sensory information
and neurons, who we are is already contained in
the materials which we use to create knowledge.
Therefore, what we know as form contains who we
are.

Another key argument is that we can know who we
are without knowing that we do through the form of
knowledge. (phenomenological perspective) However,
this position does not make sense, because we are
never actually conscious of the form of knowledge;
we are conscious of knowledge as in meaning. Also,
since what we know is all we can know, it does not
follow how we can know knowledge as form solely
through itself.

So the challenge that we cannot know who we are
stills stands. Though the challenge claim that
thoughts as form are empty of who we are appears
to have been refuted.

Stephen Garvey
June 21 2001

-------------------------------------------------

Posted June 24, 2001, Challenge the Philosophy:

http://www.inexpressible.com/

237. Entry:

"In between ‘it is it’ and ‘is it is’ is Mind: ‘I
am I’.

Can we know who we are and be who we are at the
same time? Yes, because I know 'who I am' at the
same time 'that I am'. ‘I am I.’

Is this 'ego'? No. It is a conscious 'being' (it
is it); not only in the self, but rather also in
what is (is it is). We as human beings with a
self-aware mind are positioned in our existence
between the two. 'I am I' is at the center of our
conscious existence, whereby we are who we are at
the same time that we know we are. This is always
true for all self-conscious living beings. When
they can say ‘I am I’, they are consciously in
their mind at the center of their being."

Ivan Alexander
Humancafe
June 24 2001

Response:

We agree that human beings have a "self-aware
mind", and we assert further that a sense of
conscious identity at some level is a necessary
feature of the human mind, otherwise thought would
have no meaning to the individual. However, the
important question in the context of the
competition is what is the limit of the self-aware
mind? (i.e. can the self-aware mind be consciously
aware of itself, or can the self-aware mind only
be aware of itself in a limited, representational
sense?)

You contend that because "I", or our conscious
identity, is at the "center" of our conscious
existence, "I" is at the center of our being as
well, and therefore we can know who we are. Yet,
it does not necessarily that just because our
conscious identify is at the center of conscious
existence, that it is who we are or at the center
of our being. The "I", though a necessary feature
of our conscious existence, may be a limited
representation; and if we consider that we
ourselves appear to be the creators of knowledge,
in terms of the epistemology of knowledge, we
cannot create who we are through who we are. Also,
we cannot create from who we are, while the
materials, like sensa and neurons, we use to
create knowledge also contain who we are. (i.e. we
ourselves cannot be existing from one location
while being present in another.) Therefore, unless
you can refute this ontological and
epistemological position, we conclude that it is
more reasonable that "I" though a necessary
feature of our consciousness and at the center of
it, is a representation of who we are, thus we can
only know who we are in a limited,
representational sense.

-------------------------------------------------

POST SCRIPTS ON CHALLENGE THE PHILOSOPHY--DISPUTES & RESPONSES:

http://www.inexpressible.com/d9(26-28.html

Reply 29:

"Knowledge is clearly distinct from the self. Human culture is the evidence. Although the individual person can (create/discover) new knowledge, it is always within the context of the particular culture. The encoding and mapping of superpositions on an information space, be it linguistic or otherwise, represents shared knowledge. Since each mind is localized within the whole of knowledge, understanding can only be incomplete. Context juxtaposition or "metaphor" is proof of the non locality of knowledge. Within a unitary knowledge space metaphor cannot exist. Therefore the concept of omniscience in any form seems unlikely. The function of metaphor is to translate a set of interconnections from one context space to another, thereby preserving the functional relationships. This reflects the structure of awareness and translates (self/not self) superpositions across knowledge space. With this in mind lets us be aware of the medium of context.
Thoughts are the waves on the ocean of Language. Though we may define each as separate entities, they are acausally and intimately linked. What makes language unique is its ability to convey and manipulate thought through the use of generalized symbols as opposed to concrete representations. An example of this would be in giving road directions to someone. You might, perhaps simply give them a map and assume they know how to read it, or more likely you would use words, whose generalized definitions would become rigidly defined within the context space of the directions. To take this idea a little further, lets look at music. To accurately communicate emotions, music must also exist within a context. It's unlikely that reading a musical score would produce a sympathetic response. Further, music from other cultures requires context to be appreciated as intended. Rhythm, melody and harmony as the defining relationships of time, frequency and superposition are the physical and measurable boundaries of this non-linguistic form of communication. However, the context space within which any musical form exists is independent of mathematical permutation. Therefore a melody can only exist within a context space defined by other melodies of similar form. In this sense, the knowledge encoded through music depends entirely on the shared context space of the musicians(sender) and listeners(receiver). This demonstrates the acausal relationship between language and knowledge.
The fundamental basis of knowledge is accessible within the present. Context spaces are not created in a unitary form, but are an emergent property of language. In this sense individual (creation/discovery) is an illusion and the concept of unconscious assertion could not be contained within the individual self. So, to maintain a dynamic model of knowledge we must either remove the limits of self, or the notion of containment of knowledge, or both. This suggests a reasonable basis to meaningful coincidence or "synchronicity" as proposed by C.G. Jung. Knowledge is bounded by metaphor. Our understanding of the universe is synonymous with our understanding of ourselves. There is no distinction between our experience and who we are."
Ken Bell March 20 2000

Response 29:

We agree that the concepts of "context juxtaposition" and "metaphor" are proof of the non-locality of knowledge. Though it is unclear why a unitary knowledge space cannot include all possible knowledge spaces, with who we are as the basis of it.
We agree that there appears to be an acausal relationship between language and knowledge. Though we assert further that because the basis(s) for knowledge and language appear to be beyond our minds, and that we cannot have knowledge without language, and language without knowledge, and that language is a form of knowledge, and knowledge is a form of language, there appears to be only a fabricated difference between language and knowledge.
We agree with the claim that "context spaces are emergent properties of language". However, the claim begs the question, what is beyond language? We come to thought process--> unconscious sensory--> who we are--> inexpressible. So the conclusion that "the individual, in terms of creation and discovery, is an illusion," is limited. We don’t know what the basis to language or the individual are.
Moreover, the conclusion that the "fundamental basis to knowledge is accessible within the present" is limited by what we really can know, not to mention the illusory concept of "present", since everything appears to be in constant flux.
How can we remove the limits of self, when we have no conception of what they are?
If knowledge is bounded by metaphor, what bounds metaphor? Also, since metaphor is a form of knowledge, how can knowledge bound itself?
We agree that our understanding of the universe is synonymous with ourselves, in the sense that all knowledge appears to derive from ourselves. However, this claim is not the same as us really understanding the universe through really understanding ourselves.
We agree that our experience itself appears to be same as who we are. Though at the same time, it appears that our knowledge of our experience is distinct from who we are, or in other words, what we are experiencing, at least in terms of our thoughts themselves, appears distinct from who we are.

We assert, in continuation from Response 28, that because we cannot know what is outside of our minds, and that what we know itself appears to be an empty form, our only means to rationalize knowledge is in relation to who we are, without imagining anything outside of our minds. To assert knowledge beyond our minds, like "human culture", "universe", or "proto-knowledge", is to rationalize what we have no way of rationalizing. It is to imagine without having a basis to do so, except that we imagine. So our only rational understanding, from our perspective, can come from using concepts that pertain to within our minds.
Premise (1): we cannot know anything about knowledge itself, except through us the perceiver.
Conclusion (a): we can only know knowedge itself in relation to who we are.
Premise (2): we cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are.
Conclusion (b): we cannot rationalize anything outside of our minds, except who we are in a limited, indirect, relational sense.
Premise (3): we cannot know knowledge solely through itself.
Conclusion (c): knowledge is an empty form.
Premise (4): we cannot have language without knowledge, and knowledge without language.
Premise (5): language is a form of knowledge, and knowledge is a form of language.
Conclusion (d): language and knowledge are indistinguishable except through invention.
Premise (6): we cannot know something without intrinsic separation from it.
Conclusion (e): we ourselves are intrinsically different from knowledge itself. (ie. we are not an empty form).
Premise (7): knowledge itself cannot exist as an empty form, without something external asserting meaning onto it, and even though knowledge itself does not exist.
Conclusion (f): we ourselves imagine knowledge.
From Conclusion (c), Conclusion (g): we imagine knowledge from an unconscious assertion (ie. a state of not knowing or assuming anything).

Reply 30:

What is beyond language indeed? Since we have demonstrated the unity of the Thought and the Word, and we agree that the basis of (knowledge/language) is beyond the individual mind as we perceive it, we are left with the question of "who we are" being defined in terms of "we" and not "us ourselves". The implication is that of a necessary social definition of our being. However, the deep underlying connection that exists between our individual bodies and everything else implies "self", that is, an individual being whose behaviors are environmentally determined. We have no way, at present to prove pre linguistic consciousness, but it seems reasonable to posit language as a logical limit. From these basis' one may conclude consciousness itself as a "collective" function, whose expression is found through our individual bodies. Every word that we speak is a thing which exists through us ourselves and not of us ourselves. In a sense, each of us is like an actor, playing a part as Shakespeare so eloquently noted. To carry the metaphor further, each of us, through the memory of our own personal experience, gives life to the part, and through this "giving" in a small way helps to write the script. This is who we are, both player and audience, so take a bow and applaud "yourself".
Metaphor is a function of (knowledge/language). More than a type of knowledge, it is a way of knowing, or transposing from one context domain to another. Metaphor is bounded only by its use.
It is agreed that "present" is a relative term. Therefore the basis of (knowledge/language) is a personal matter.
I agree that the (creation/discovery) of knowledge involves our bodies, but the "we" to which you refer is certainly not confined to these bodies. The continuum of consciousness that manifests throughout the world is the creator, and the discoverer of newness. As individuals each of us participates with the whole throughout our daily being. Through multiple channels, and in an acausal way, our perceptions and actions exist as superpositions of the whole through the node. As discussed earlier a node is defined as an area of state space where one or more dimensions has collapsed within the interference of out of phase attractors thereby allowing energy to "leak" along the fractal enthalpic path. From the model, we see that "who we are" is dynamic and causally irreducible, further localization of individual consciousness within being, is nothing more than an illusion. One conclusion being that so long as we think, we are never alone.
In Response 18 you stated "In the superposition part of the model, it is not stated whether the nodes are independent of each other, or are inherently the same, thereby from a single object." We are now prepared to address this specific issue. In terms of our recent discussion a node can be termed as a metaphor of itself, or to put it another way, a non-object through which energy is encoded and transmitted throughout a system. Within the category "exists", node remains unbounded by the class "object" since node can only be logically examined through negation. Like metaphor, node represents the collapse of (self/not self) within a set of domains so as to decrease potential energy within a system.

Some observations:
Intrinsic separation as a necessary pre-condition to knowledge implies a causally determined link between "Us", and the rest of the universe. Further the implied duality would extend to us ourselves through "Conclusion (f)". Once again we are faced with a logical inconsistency. It would seem that the binary nature of logical arguments is ill-equipped to resolve questions involving origination.
In regards to understanding. Why do you modify the word understanding with "really"?
If experience is distinct from knowledge, then I am unclear as to how you define experience.
When you state that "we ourselves are intrinsically different from knowledge itself," who is speaking?
Ken Bell March 27 2000

Response 30:

Yes, consciousness appears to have a "collective function whose expression is through individual bodies". But what is behind the collective function? Is there a single basis behind our existence, so that every individual regardless of space and time has the same intrinsic source of all knowledge? Interesting, but we are in our imagination due to the limit of what we can know.
We agree wholeheartedly with your statement that "every word that we speak, [or think] is a thing which exists through us ourselves and not of us ourselves." We have been asserting this concept since the beginning of the discussion, and it appears confirming in terms of its soundness that such a great mind as Shakespeare asserted the concept as well.
We agree with your view of nodes; though it is unclear why you assert that the purpose of nodes is to "decrease potential energy within a system." Surely, nodes have more purpose than decreasing energy?! This deficiency of purpose appears attributed to theoretical limitation. However, the basic concept of node, whereby energy behind a non-object is "encoded and transmitted throughout a system," appears to correlate to the non-object of light reflecting energy of the sun behind it, the non-object of sound reflecting the energy of life-form(s) or the energy of two or more objects making contact behind it, and the non-object of our thoughts reflecting the energy of who we are. The profound difference, unlike the energy of the sun or the energy source(s) of sounds, is that we exist through the non-objects of our thoughts. Though it is unclear why the "energy" has to be "encoded and transmitted" as though it is implanted with knowledge. In our view, this point is unreasonably bias to conscious knowledge, because we are discussing something we cannot rationalize. So, even though we agree that there appears to be purpose behind energy, it does not follow that the purpose can be expressed in conscious form. In our view, we must avoid unnecessary assumptions, especially when they are biased to our own existence, and by avoiding them, we may attain a clarity of thought that will allow us to see things that we would not have seen otherwise.
On that point of attaining greater clarity, your argument that conclusion (f) from Response 29 is limited because it does not include the "causal link between us and the universe", is not consistent with conclusion (b), which states that "we cannot rationalize anything outside of our minds, except who we are in a limited, indirect, relational sense." So it appears that logical arguments are equipped to resolve questions concerning origin as long as they stay within the limits of what we can rationalize.
In response 29, we modified the word "understanding" with "really" to emphasize the apparent limit of knowledge, thereby help keep the clarity and soundness of our perspective.
We define experience as an unconscious interaction between who we are, as individuals, with other life-forms and objects. Knowledge of experience refers to conscious non-objects reflecting the "energy" of our intrinsic interactions. In other words, knowledge is a limited means for us to express our experience, and yet at the same time, we can experience through knowledge. However, knowledge itself cannot be our experience, because there would be no way to experience. We can’t have experience and express it at the same time. Experience entails interaction, and expression entails extension of interaction. Though our expression is an experience. So our experience appears constant, which means that we can experience and express at the same time. Though, as mentioned, we cannot have a particular experience and express it at the same time.
When we state that "we ourselves are intrinsically different from knowledge itself", we ourselves are speaking through the non-object of our fabricated conscious selves.

Further rationalizations of knowledge from Response 29:
Premise (8): knowledge is progressive in nature.
Premise (9): at some past point, we did not have knowledge.
From Conclusion (e), "we ourselves are intrinsically different from knowledge itself", Conclusion (h): knowledge is not inherently part of us ourselves.
Conclusion (i): the origin of knowledge is after our own existence.
Conclusion (j): we have evolved to a state of having knowledge and existing through it.
Premise (10): we do not create knowledge.
Premise (11): we imagine conscious meaning, thereby knowledge, from a position complete ignorance.
Premise (12): we do not really imagine conscious meaning.
Premise (13): conscious meaning is implied in our imaginary attachment to knowledge.
Conclusion (k): conscious meaning is an unintended result of our imaginary attachment (ie. we did not first think conscious meaning and then imagine we attach to our thoughts).
Conclusion (l): we imagined we attached to knowledge just because we imagined we attached to it (ie. we unconsciously imagined we attached to our minds).
Premise (14): we exist through knowledge.
Premise (15): we imagined knowledge, and thereby attached to its illusion, as a means for us to exist.
Conclusion (m): we needed help existing.
From Conclusion (c), "knowledge is an empty form", Conclusion (n): by existing through the emptiness of knowledge, we are absorbing us ourselves into its emptiness.
Conclusion (o): the more we exist through the illusion of knowledge, the more we suppress ourselves.

Reply 31:

"We cannot separate any aspect of ourselves from the observable universe and it's inherent interrelations. We are an extension of principals which have as their basis matter and energy, or more subtly inherent geometry. Therefore in terms of self organizing systems, the potential energy between system S(p1) and S(p2) whose union is bounded by a fuzzy set C, decreases, as C approaches K. Obviously it would be impossible to consciously include all members of C as well as unnecessary. The superposition itself provides the necessary context juxtaposition enabling metaphor to serve as the conduit of decreasing potential. Since, in this instance we can equate metaphor = node and therefore include the node's fractal properties, it becomes clear that an "instance" of metaphor i.e.. word, may within a local context space, actually increase potential energy between S(p1) and S(p2). We therefore show a connection between the creation of form and potential energy. "Form" being defined as the relative correspondence of matched data sets or "properties" within a context space. As to the nature of potential energy itself, we must wait for some cohesiveness in string theories or perhaps some M theory. In regard to the term "purpose", I regret having to resort to such a projection, as it implies causal determinism. However for the "purpose" of discussion I would wish to forgo any extrinsic interpretation and instead rely on good old pragmatism.
It is agreed that we cannot have a particular experience and express it at the same time. Since "who we are" is acausal there is no particular indicator or instance of who we are that can represent us directly in a causal manner. However we can attribute the universe as the basis of our bodies and physical laws as the basis of our understanding of the universe. Within the framework of the study of system dynamics we can create models which match and give a numerical (thus predictable) description to observed phenomenon. The way mathematics is able to do this will certainly require the efforts of future study. In lieu we must rely on the premise that "phenomenon are in and of themselves inexpressible through language", and be content with theories. . As stated earlier, self knowledge need not have a particular basis and may be gained from "any" context space. Since it has been shown that the boundary set C between the knowable(K) and the unknowable(U) is fuzzy, quantitative descriptions don't apply. Relative descriptors such as "more" or "less" are the only way to represent the direct knowledge of ourselves. Since it is agreed that our experience is shaped (at least in part) by our knowledge then the distinction between knowledge and experience equates to {for all(K) there exists some(E)} and {for some(E) there exists not(K) Therefore the proposition {within(E) there exists all(K)} we can deduce that knowledge is a form of experience. Any knowledge beyond direct experience can only be collective. Any expression of experience also becomes collective. We are once again faced with the remainder of unexpressed experience which I have labeled proto-knowledge for lack of a better term. In relation to collective knowledge our individual bodies serve as "experience buffers" through which information may be encoded and transmitted. Of course the necessary constraint of what information actually "is" has lead to the concept of encoding relative potential energy through the use of self similarity.
All of this aside, our individual beings are non computable, but the functions which generate these beings are. To live life is to know life, theory is a poor substitute.
On the simple point of expression, all concepts expressed are inherently self referential and cannot imply any basis beyond the set to which they belong. The concept of unconscious assertion has, as it's basis the conscious, and is therefore exposed to the full light of conscious computation. With this in mind, is it possible to frame Premises'{P7, P9, P10, P13, P14, P15} objectively? Is it possible that the "we ourselves" which speaks "through the non-object of our fabricated conscious selves", is in itself a fabrication?"
Ken Bell April 5 2000

Response 31:

If we can’t separate any aspect of ourselves from the observable universe, it follows, assuming that the observable universe and what comprises it, both known and unknown, is all there is, that we have no way of understanding ourselves. Yet, it does not follow how we could know that we are inseparable from the observable universe without separating ourselves from it! Though if we are inseparable from the universe, it means what we know is illusion, including our view on our inseparation. Moreover, since "ourselves" is an acausal concept, it does not follow how we could objectively claim that we ourselves are inseparable from the universe. The same argument applies to the limited nature of observation (ie. we don’t really know what is beyond our observations or even what our observations are, except for what is in our minds).
How can we be extensions of principals of inherent geometry, when "principals" are conscious, and we ourselves appear to be beyond conscious? We assert that all principals of our minds, including inherent geometry, are extensions of who we are.
Is it rational for us to wait for some cohesiveness in string theories or perhaps the M theory, or predictableness in mathematical models of observed phenomenon, when we know that we appear to have no conceivable way of knowing the inherent nature of anything?
How can we rely on "good old pragmatism" when it is clear that through the apparent uncertainty of all knowledge, we have no objective way of knowing anything?
It does not follow how "self-knowledge need not have a particular basis", when from our perspective, we as individuals view knowledge in our own way, so that no knowledge is identical from one individual perspective to another. Hence, the notion of "collective knowledge" appears to be a crude concept, which pertains only in a general way to the similarity of knowledge between individuals. In other words, it does not make sense how we can know knowledge beyond direct, individual experience, when all there appears to be is direct, individual experience. For instance, while standing at an intersection, someone witnesses a car accident, and then goes home and tells a friend, and thereby the friend has a direct experience of the knowledge about the accident. The point being that we can only have knowledge through direct experience and that knowledge itself must be both direct and indirect at the same time. For example, the person who witnessed the accident at the intersection did so directly because he was watching when it happened, and yet at the same time, he witnessed the accident indirectly because he did not know, and could not ever know, the full circumstances that led up to the accident.
We are confused by you equating "unexpressed experience" with "proto-knowledge" because it implies that our experience is preordained. Surely, experience itself is separate from both knowledge in terms of who we are, and certain experiences, like a surprised encounter which leaves us speechless.
If we can’t separate our individual beings from the "functions" of them, and still have a living being, it does not follow how the functions of beings generate them. It appears that our functions alone generate nothing, just as our beings alone generate nothing. So by knowing the functions of individual beings, we do not fully know how to generate life.
From our perspective, your statement, "To live life is to know life, theory is a poor substitute", stands out in your reply as crystal of truth. Why? You appear to be implying that by living life and learning through it, that there is a "being" aspect which is missing in a theoretical study of life. If we take your point further, it appears that there is an intrinsic difference between our thoughts themselves and who we are, which would account for this difference between knowing life through living versus knowing life through theorizing it. The missing element in the latter appears to be "living" or who we are.

Other issues:
Premises {P7, P9, P10, P13, P14, P15} follow objectively from Conclusion (c), which states that "thoughts themselves are empty forms". Though we concede that there is no such thing as absolute objectivity. Rather, there are different levels of subjectivity. However, we think that our list of premises and conclusions from Responses 29 and 30 are the least subjective, because they are formed from intuition, and by referring to in our minds in relation to who we are, rather than to the apparent unknowable outside of our minds.
Yes, "we ourselves" is a fabrication. Though we claim that it represents something "inexpressible", which exists through our fabricated conscious selves. The basis for our claim stems from our view that our individual beings are not non-existent nor are they everything. Though we concede that the fundamental basis behind us as individual beings, and all other life-forms, appears to be from the same source (ie. it does not make sense that there would be more than one life itself). If we follow this argument through, it means that our thoughts themselves must be intrinsically different from who we are, otherwise with everything themselves being from the same source, we would have no way of knowing anything. (Premise (6) from Response 29 states, "we cannot know something without intrinsic separation from it".)
We claim that we can’t rationalize whatever is outside of our minds because what we imagine we are rationalizing is beyond our minds. In other words, we can‘t rationalize what we can never know. The reason we think we can’t know whatever is outside of our minds is because we can't get outside of our minds and know that we are, and our thoughts themselves appear to be empty forms, which in our view does not correlate to whatever is outside of our minds. Also, we can’t rationalize what we can’t even imagine. There is no basis to know or imagine whatever itself is outside of our minds. So as rational beings, we are confined to reasoning what pertains to in our minds and in relation to us ourselves, the perceivers. To reason whatever is outside of our minds, like the concepts of "universe" and "proto-knowledge", is non-rational. It follows that theoretical study is limited to knowledge pertaining to in our minds and in relation to who we are.

Dispute 9 (26-28) Dispute 9 (32-36)
http://www.inexpressible.com/d9(29-31.html

Challenge the Philosophy - Dispute 9 (32-36)

Reply 32:

"We are not our thoughts, but we would not be who we are without them. We are not trapped within our minds, we are the cage and the bird. Is the song of the free bird any different from that of the caged bird?
From our cultural context, our perceptions of the world are formed, and within that context new perceptions are added, forever changing the context space. Within the creation of meaning we become truth.
Since we have dealt with the issues of containment (Reply 17 P1(c), Reply 29 P3), the knowledge that we claim remains unbounded within the dynamic. Therefore the notion of a thing which exists outside of ourselves seems more an intrinsic motive than an actual object. Further, the concept of intrinsic separation as a prerequisite to knowledge classifies the unknown as an object separate from self and therefore posits a paradox as it's basis. Simply put, if we can't get outside of our minds' then the intrinsic separation of (self/not self) is an illusion. It may perhaps be more reasonable to conclude that the simple notions of "inside" and "outside" cannot, in a global way, be applied to epistemology (not to mention the difficulties in handling self referential functions). To refer back to the analogy of the klein bottle, the location of any point on it's surface can be linked to any other point through a simple transformation, however the extrapolation of the entire closed surface through a subset of points remains undefined. In a similar way, reference to that which exists "outside" of ourselves is a misnomer. In other words, knowledge is based on transformation (or in linguistic terms context juxtaposition). The experience of newness can therefore be perceived as a function of a dynamic.
To bridge the apparent gap between perception and cognition, I have decided to take a bottom up approach and base extrapolation on consistent data. It is my belief that a psychological (or top down) approach should be able to derive, what we perceive as physical laws and therefore define a complete manifold.
I certainly don't mean to imply that any particular experience is pre ordinate. However experience itself, whether conscious or unconscious, to be examined reasonably, must be given a self consistent basis. Within the superposition model we exist as icebergs in a sea of experience. Both composed of water and yet separate from it. The only difference between us and our surroundings is that of form, not of substance."
Ken Bell May 15 2000

Response 32:

If we are not our thoughts, how can we be the bird in the cage?
We agree that the song of the free bird may not be any different from the song of the caged bird. Though there appears to be a profound difference between us existing as the free bird versus us existing through the caged bird. Both birds appear empty of who we are, except we exist through the empty song of the caged bird.
Why is it a paradox to assert that knowledge itself is intrinsically different from who we are, when we apparently cannot get outside of our minds, and we cannot know something (ie. knowledge) solely through itself? Further, if we are the creators of knowledge, and we cannot create who we are through who we are, how could there not be an intrinsic difference between who we are and knowledge?
Just because we cannot get outside of our minds, does not mean that the intrinsic separation between who we are and knowledge is an illusion. The concept of not getting outside of our minds refers to our knowledge, and since we ourselves are not our knowledge, or thoughts, we deduct that we ourselves are intrinsically different from knowledge.
We agree that the concepts of "inside" and "outside" have epistemic limits, and therefore may not be applicable to epistemology or self-referential functions. Though if we accept their inapplicability, to be consistent in our reasoning we would have to accept the inapplicability of all concepts including epistemology, klein bottle, and independent living systems.
From our perspective, as reasoning beings, we must accept all dichotomies and comparisons, including their epistemic limitations, and use our reason to decide amongst them, or detach from thought. In other words, we do not accept "oneness" as a valid epistemological argument, because it is self-contradictory.
If form is the only difference between us and our surroundings, how can we know anything?
We contend that thoughts themselves, being different in substance from us and our surroundings, give us a limited ability to know.

Reply 33:

"Consider a diamond, a lump of coal, and a piece of graphite. Each of these objects is mainly composed of carbon atoms arranged in various ways. Each object has properties that are distinct from one another that may be equal to or greater than the comparative properties of differing substances. When we compare these three different forms to one another using our senses, they appear to be very different things. Yet we know, through conscious analysis, that all three objects are manifestations of a single basic substance.
Intrinsically the three forms remain undifferentiated and exist only in relation to the knowable. If we consider that "we" (as classifier through superposition, create differentiation of form, then an implied history, filtered through our awareness), define what is observed. The way that we define and process matter is in a fundamental way, no different from the way any life form or living system does. A tree for example makes a distinction between CO2 and H2O in that one is taken in primarily from the atmosphere and the other exclusively from the soil. The encoded information regarding the relative abundance, phase and circulation of the two substances is what we see when we observe a tree. Of course it doesn't stop there, the encoding of gravitational pull, relative sunlight, seasonal variation and all other factors within the tree phenotype and the defining functions of our phenotype are what makes the reality of a tree to us possible.
A primary difference between living and non-living forms is that living forms of matter possess phylogenic plasticity as an emergent property. Living matter can, within limits, change form in response to the environment and still retain basic properties such as reproduction, and variation. However, the genotype doesn't necessarily reflect the history of immediate predecessors. In non-living matter, every change in form is reflected in structure, or in other words non-living matter possesses low phylogenic plasticity. From a simple point of view complex systems are defined by their emergent properties and we can therefore posit a boundary space between living and non-living constrained by the level of complexity. Living systems increase algorithmic complexity by encoding (self/not self) superpositions within a dynamic structure. As complex systems settle on attractors, the degree of strangeness can be considered a measure of plasticity. Since energy pathways are fractal, changes in scale as well as form can take place.
Consider our symbolic interaction with the environment.
The actions of berry picking and clear cut foresting are in essence the same thing. Aside from the obvious difference in scale they both serve as a means, through which we maintain our bodies Of course, through symbolic interaction we imbue one form with the encoded information of another. In this way we can short circuit fractal enthalpic paths, and increase our "footprint" if you will. The cost is that symbolic interaction itself is a dynamic structure, whose attractor remains unbounded. From this view it can be seen that the relative information encoded in price structures has as one source the price structure itself. It certainly has no relation to what could be called, biological necessity, from our point of view. This property of self-reference has not been proven to exist in natural non-living systems. We may therefore conclude that symbolic interaction falls within the definition of a living system. If symbolic interaction or culture can in some respect be considered a living system, then the proportion of phylogenic plasticity, when considered from within the system will always be 100%. What this does for us is to provide an artificial fitness advantage through which symbolic interaction is maintained. In a very real way we become links in our own food web. Of course today, with system models we can see that this particular set of interactions is causing rapid change to the environment. To facilitate increased symbolic interaction (ie. trade, conquest, etc) various power structures have developed which position us within emergent environments The problem is that centralized (ideologically or otherwise) power structures can't in a robust way, interact with the natural environment. For example, the relative demand of a commodity such as aluminum is a product of the utility and the availability. If availability becomes so low as push the price beyond means then the utility will be redistributed to other commodities. This, fairly sudden change translates to adding noise to our symbolic interaction, in that a change of state becomes encoded within the system by modifying the price structure. As we can see in this instance, price structure creates a level of abstraction (aluminum based technology transferred to non-aluminum resources) which supersedes any barriers between phylogeny and ontogeny. So it would seem that this system exhibits living and non-living properties. Could it be perhaps, that (knowledge / language) also exhibits living and non-living properties? Perhaps a fundamental reexamination of the concept "tool" is in order."
Ken Bell July 28 2000

Response 33:

What do you mean by (self and non self) superpositions in terms of living systems?
How can an unconscious living system encode?
How can the system of abstraction via price structure not exhibit both living and non-living properties, when both we ourselves (living systems), and price and its structure (non-living systems) are behind the system? Moreover, since the non-living system (ie. price) is guiding the living system (us), it should not be surprising that the system is causing “rapid change to the environment”. (ie. collection of living systems) The same result can be derived from knowledge / language, the conscious basis for price system, which exhibits the living property of us ourselves (high plasticity relative to non-living system) the creators of knowledge / language, and knowledge / language itself being a non-living system.
Apparently the only living property of knowledge / language themselves is that they have existence in the form of appearances in our minds; though we can attribute this form to us ourselves exerting, and thereby creating, the existence of knowledge / language.
Could it be that by the human species using tools (ie. use of material extensions of thought to assist its means to exist), it is gradually diminuting itself and the environment, or "short circuiting entropy at the expense of [most] living systems", through accelerated abstraction and expansion of symbolic interaction?

Reply 34:

"From our point of view, living systems can only be considered an extension of ourselves and therefore any definition of self or not self with regards to such systems must necessarily be a function of a rational projection or "model". With this in mind, (self and non self) superpositions in terms of living systems can only be defined retroactively (since we cannot predict the precise form,{or state space location} only the general shape of the orbit) in terms of a given set of measurable parameters. So, for example within a stable ecosystem(defined as one within which we can make fairly accurate predictions of population cycles, energy pathways, etc...) an introduced genotype will precipitate changes to all phenotypes(including itself) and thus perminately encode the superposition as a function of complexity (often with the effect of increasing the total system entropy for a period of time, until the system settles to an area of state space of lower intrinsic potential energy). The key to understanding how algorithmic complexity can increase is by measuring system response (time) in terms of energy differentials. Plainly put, we can't rush things. Also, in terms of the universe, there are no unitary phenomenon, only unitary perceptions.(A tree is not a tree. It is only a tree because we say that it is.).
Consciousness is not prerequisite to encode, however it seems that it "is" to decode. In this way matter speaks, and we listen. On the other hand, since we have no clear definition of consciousness(and thus unconsciousness), your question extends an undefined attribute to a category.
In regards to your last question, I regret that I must begin by asking:
Do you believe that there is a definable boundary between a living thing and a non living thing?
If so, can you demonstrate (living/non living) interactions in terms of absolutes?
If you would be so kind, please indulge me in a small demonstration. After reading this sentence, please pick up the nearest non living object and consider what has just happened, in terms of a single event. Put aside notions of causality and time for a moment. We, that is, you and I are separated by almost two thousand miles and several hours and yet in terms of this small system a measurable change of energy has occurred.
Once again, it seems, we're led to a reexamination of what a "tool" actually is.
Could it be perhaps that our ability to make tools far exceeds our ability to use them wisely? Perhaps the simple awareness of this recursive cycle will be enough to reverse some of the suffering that we've inflicted upon the environment and ourselves."
Ken Bell September 18 2000

Response 34:

In terms of your living system, it does not follow that it is necessary that the living system contain (self and non self) superpositions. By asserting this point, we do not question the notion of self and non self; rather, we question the notion of superposition which is scientifically unverifiable, and it can only be theorized within a self-contained system of thought, rather than in the open realm of reason. We would like to know why superposition is a necessary feature of your notion of a living system.
Could it be that your notion of a living system, and not living system itself, is dependent on superposition?
Also, it is unclear why you do not incorporate being or "ourselves" directly into your notion of a living system, instead of using energy as the central component.
If consciousness is not a prerequisite to encode, it follows that there are other forms of knowledge that are beyond consciousness. Though could it be that there is no other encoding than through consciousness, so that a life-form’s sensory unconsciously gives birth to unconscious information? In other words, could it not be that sensory does not encode information from outside of it, since its information is in relation to itself and whatever is outside of it, but that sensory is information?
No, we do not believe that there is a definable boundary between a living thing and a non-existent thing. Though our assertion does not mean that a living thing is the same as a non-existent thing. It means that there is a connection between a living thing and non-existent thing, which prevents us from making a concrete boundary between them. In other words, any boundary we define between a living thing and a non-existent thing will be overshadowed by a connection between the living thing and non-existent thing. (ie. apparently, there is no non-existent thing without a living thing. Hence, if there is any definable boundary that could reasonably be set, it is that a non-existent thing is dependent on a living thing; whereas, a living thing, depending on the case, is not dependent on a non-existent thing. For example, non-thinking animals apparently exist without a need for a non-existent thing like thought. (We have left out consideration of the definable boundary between a living thing and non-living thing, because they appear dependent on each other, like a life-form needing to feed off a dead life-form, and a dead life-form needing prior living existence in order to be a dead life-form.))
We agree that things, living and non-living, are influenced by changes in energy. Though it appears that a non-existent thing does not measure energy, and through for instance our use of thought, a non-existent thing can help bring about changes in energy in living and non-living things.
We agree with your point that by being aware of our ability to make tools exceeds our ability to use them wisely, we may be able to reverse some of the suffering that we have inflicted on the environment and ourselves. But we need to answer in what ways do we use tools unwisely? Could it be that the use of tools themselves, or material extensions of thought, is inherently unreasonable in terms of our preservation? What are the effects of using tools on us ourselves? What is the nature of ourselves and the nature of tools themselves? What is the nature of us ourselves and the nature of thoughts themselves? Could Garvey be right that beneath the benefits of using tools, the human species is gradually diminuting itself and most other life-forms through its use of tools?

Reply 35:

Reply to Entry 146 and its response.
Explanation of the concept, "2 are parts of One" from the Reply:
One and Two
Within the set of positive integers there exists a member (1) whose value is considered indivisible, that is it has no real factors. As such, 1 represents the fundamental integer(ness) of all members of the set. In this way 1 stands as a concept in the same way that an apple’s appleness, represents a general class composed of sensory data and associative functions. Though these generalizations, when examined through their components (in the case of "apple", shape, color, texture etc.) would necessitate further divisions into subclasses (macintosh, sparta, granny smith....) and further, our rule of thumb is to limit the definition to the context and extend properties to similar things. In this way we create a oneness to which we can apply logical operators.
I wish to point out the disconnect, between the reality of the apple (or any other single thing) to our senses, and the operators by which we manipulate the unitary models.
A simple example may clarify.
Suppose, walking through the autumn forest you suddenly find yourself surrounded by a grove of beech trees. You see a few large trees surrounded by a number of younger trees. You may notice that this particular grove is denser than the surrounding forest and seems composed of only beech trees. Looking down you also notice a number of small scruffy looking shrubs devoid of any leaves. Taking the time to investigate you may notice a pattern in the densities of larger and smaller trees. You will also see that if you dig under the leaf litter and into the soil, an extensive network of large roots connects all of the trees. In fact what seemed like a grove of trees and shrubs is in fact, a single organism. Now, you could count all of the trees, but that number would be restricted to your previous assumption and you would have to relabel trees as trunks. This definition will hold only as long as you don't investigate the nature of "trunks".
Within the single parameter space of integers, 1+1=2 only when viewed as an alienated construct, as a logical reality that exists independently. If however, we include our own perceptions of oneness, we find a fundamental bifurcation of the unitary "integer" into components that satisfy integer(ness). Viewed as a whole the equation 1+1=2 can be redefined as a system whose elements are unitary.
Reply:
"What do we really know?
After all information is just a word we use to describe the change of state of a system from A to B. Certainly this conforms to our definition of entropy. Can knowledge, or more precisely the "state of knowing", be restricted to our information/entropy consensus? Within the Aristotelian world 1+1=2 is always true. However it can also be concluded that 2 are parts of One if we include our own perception in the equation.
The idea of "who we are" is nothing more that a unitary concept and therefore falls within the limits of perception. By this definition, one could say that we are as we perceive ourselves to be. Since our perception exists only as a superposition of our present internal state and the state of our sensory environment (self/not self), self awareness can only exist in flux. The monolithic "Who We Are" can only be replaced by a more subtle and dynamic present awareness. We are the universe in action. There can be no other.
Models we create can add greatly to our understanding of the workings of the universe, but they cannot provide us with that which we desperately seek. They are tools, creations, and have no knowledge of themselves. We provide the basis of implementation and it is Us ourselves that provide the reason behind their creation. It is also Us ourselves that provide meaning to that which we discover.
Is it reasonable to posit a goal within the unknown?
It seems to me that knowledge of ourselves would more aptly be described as a process. In this sense self knowledge is inherently irrational. Further, since we have demonstrated the non locality of mind (as a function of context domains ; see Reply 29-30) that, which "we perceive ourselves to be" can only exist as a member of some set of larger contexts. I suggest that the term "being" in the context of our discussion represents a metonymy of something inexpressible yet comprehensible.
To reverse the question I ask :
"Can we know anything other than ourselves? Can we be anything other than ourselves?".
Ken Bell January 11 2001

Response 35:

Just as it can be reasoned that the equation, (1+1=2) is an interconnected whole made up of "logical operators", it can be reasoned that (1+1) does not equal 2, because in terms of time and space, there is no such thing as identical things (e.g. 1 and 1), so (1+1) must be either less or more than 2, with never the same result.
More interesting is that Aristotle justifies the equation (1+1=2) as always true, on the grounds that reason equates to "soul" or who we are, and yet in your example and in our own, we are using reason, which means that if we accept Aristotle’s concept of reason as "soul", we face the task of determining which of three of assertions about (1+1=2) is more reasonable, instead of just accepting Aristotle’s claim (1+1=2) is always true.
Further, and more important, the notion of reason as "soul" is antagonistic to the challenge proposition, which says that reason is not "soul" or who we are, and in fact is empty of "soul". (Aristotle’s claim that reason equates to "soul" stems from his belief that the "soul" is made up of irrational or unconscious side and a rational or conscious side, so that being and knowing are in oneness. ("Ethics", I, xiii, 8) Several problems with his perspective of "soul" will be addressed in the conclusion of this response.)
Yes, the notion of "who we are" falls within the limits of our perception, and yet the notion as used in the competition refers to a reasoned entity beyond our perception.
Can "who we are" as non-label entity be replaced by "we are the universe in action" as you contend? What is behind the universe and its action? What is the origin of the universe? We contend that "who we are" could be the basis behind the "universe in action".
We agree that "being" represents a "metonymy of something inexpressible yet comprehensible", just as the notion of who we are does. (Note, we equate "metonymy of something inexpressible yet comprehensible" to our limited perspective of things we reason to be beyond or outside of our minds.) Hence, in terms of the competition, we are not positing a goal within the unknown, but the positing a goal within the known by trying to determine a more reasonable perspective than the apparent intrinsic separation between being and knowing. (However, we contend that even if we posited competition’s goal within the unknown, it would still be reasonable due to the self-referent nature of knowledge, and yet less reasonable than positing the goal within the known as we have done.)
We disagree that self-knowledge, or any knowledge, is "inherently irrational", because of the self-referent nature of knowledge, whereby we cannot be fully certain of anything we know or believe. For instance, you cannot be absolutely certain that your premise, "knowledge of ourselves is a process", and your conclusion, "self-knowledge is inherently irrational", no matter how reasonable they may appear to you. So the assertion itself, "self-knowledge is inherently rational", is reasonable. (i.e. the assertion itself is reasonably possible.)
Can we know anything other than ourselves?
We contend that it is possible that we could know something other than ourselves. Though the more reasonable response is that we cannot, because we cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are, so everything we know is our individual perspective, and yet the content of our perspective derives partly from sensory of whatever is outside of us and may also be from the minds of other people (past and present), which takes us to the notion that self-knowledge appears limited.
Can we be anything other than ourselves?
To rephrase your question, can we be anything other than the knowledge of ourselves? We contend that the question’s premise that we are the knowledge of ourselves (Aristotle’s position of the oneness of being and knowing) is incorrect for the following reasons:
1. In order to know, we need intrinsic separation from what we know and ourselves, otherwise we would be in oneness with what we know.
2. We are apparently the creators of our knowledge. So it does not follow how we can create who we are through who we are.
3. If our thoughts are who we are, it does not follow how we can still be who we are, when we are not thinking, and yet some how when we do think, our thoughts are who we are? (i.e. since we are who we are when we are not thinking, how can our thoughts be who we are when we are thinking? What is the connection between our being and our thoughts, when they are apparently not the same? For instance, an individual acts without thinking, and yet when he thinks, he is using thoughts he already knows, so where is the connection between his being and his thoughts? The answer to this question is that no perspective or thought is identical. It is not that thoughts as form are not the same, but our perspective of thoughts change. Though the form or basis of thoughts could change with our being. How? We create thoughts, and yet they as form some how change on their own??)
4. If thoughts as form are who we are, there is no separation between thoughts and who we are, and yet there is when we are not thinking and we are thinking.

Reply 36:

"I agree that we are not our thoughts and have stated so ( Reply 23, Reply 32 above). It is an error to combine the two questions "Can we know anything other than ourselves? " and "Can we be anything other than ourselves? " into a single question that assumes being is derived from knowledge. Being cannot be abstracted by reason. The only shape reason can give to being is through negation.
Nor can being be separate from mind. Mind and Being are forever coupled in a dance of creation and destruction. Though, when examined through a subset of mind (reason), one may assert precedence of one over the other, the duality created by such an endeavour ultimately leads to the erroneous conclusion that we are "not who we are", (i.e. that knowledge of ourselves is somehow intrinsically separate from our being).
To assert that "who we are" is the basis of the "universe in action" is essentially cognocentric in that it presupposes nothing beyond perception. Just as the stream sinks into the earth only to emerge from the cliff face miles away, so we see seemingly discontinuous events as somehow relating to a whole. Certainly, one may investigate any set of data to reveal correlations and propose a hypothesis to explain them, but this doesn't form the basis of any direct statement of the phenomenon in question. With this in mind, it is understood that we must in some way actually experience a thing to have any direct knowledge of it. Since the nature of experience is unknowable (in that "newness" is the word we give to the "moment to moment" unfolding of reality), that which we consider "reasonable" must constantly be challenged by our perceptions.
As in the old aphorism "hindsight is 20/20" we can rationalize every bend and turn along a trodden path, but this doesn't tell us what’s ahead. Any path is the interplay of an organism’s movement and the relative non-movement of an environment. The path is not a function of the organism OR the environment, it is a function of the organism AND the environment, and as such represents a superposition of each. Further, since the path is likely to be referenced again, we may consider it (from the organism’s perspective) as part of the environment, and (from the environment’s perspective) as an extension of organisms. Therefore a degree of self-reference is required to come to a more complete understanding of what a path actually is.
Through this reasoning, its easy to see that the dichotomy between subject and object is in fact an illusion of causality, and no single perspective can give a complete description. We are not our thoughts, just as we are not our actions. I agree that in saying "we are the universe in action", I have taken a somewhat biased view, but after all, I'm only human."
Ken Bell January 19 2001

Response 36:

The problem with your ‘interconnected’ position, "being and knowing cannot be divided into separate entities, because they are ‘coupled in a dance of creation and destruction’", is that you can take that position for any asserted division or separation, so that if we consistently follow your position through, we would not be able to know anything, including oneness and nothingness (or "negation") because they too cannot be separated according to the interconnected position. Moreover, if we examine the interconnected position itself, the position succumbs to inconsistency, by being dependent on the basis for interconnectedness and its negation. Therefore, we assert that our conclusion that ‘knowledge as form is intrinsically separate from who we are as non-label entity’ is a necessity of reason. (i.e. it is a necessity of reason for all thought to have conscious distinctions or separations.)
We agree that the conception of "who we are" as non-label entity is cognocentric, and yet similarly, your notion of experience as in direct knowledge is also cognocentric, unless you can more reasonably show how we can get outside of our minds through experience and know that we are, than not doing so. We do not think you or anyone can.
We agree that apparently no single perspective can give a complete description of reality. Though we contend that due to the self-referent nature of knowledge, it is possible that a single perspective could give a complete description.
It is our contention that to partially relieve the apparent incompleteness, imperfectness of knowledge, we must determine what is the most reasonable knowledge (Garvey, "The Critique of Reasonableness"), and as you say, continue to challenge what is the most reasonable through our new perspectives.

Dispute 9 (29-31)

END.

*****************************************************************
After rereading Ken Bell's entries regarding the proposition "we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time," it occurred to me that the following formal logic expression may capture what Ken is saying:

If x = myself
b = being
c = consciousness

then the expression:

[E(x) (b(x) = c(x))] = 1

This could be written out in ordinary language as:

"I (myself) am who I am (being) while I know who I am (conscious), in whole to myself (certainty = 1), at the same time."

Or, if expressed in terms of "we", then substitute "I/myself" with "we".

However, if said by someone other than oneself, the formal equation changes to:

[E(x) (b(x) = c(x))] = 0

...which means that the result is total uncertainty = 0.

This is so because for another person, this "self knowledge" is impossible to know directly.

However, given the nature of human beings that we have the ability of language and of communicating our "being" into the consciousness of another, then fuzzy logic takes over, and the result of the formal logic above will equal some probabilistic value between 0 and 1; the closer they are in agreement, the closer they get to 'one', whereas if there total disagreement, or miscommunications, the closer they get to 'zero'. (I.e., killing another human being has a zero value, whereas loving another has a closer to one value.)

Therefore, the only way for the proposition to be true would be from a self-referential perspective, where it equals one, and it is fuzzy at best from any one else's perspective, or of zero value.

--Ivan Alexander

Ivan, Everyone,

Steve Garvey ran the same old trap by tying the propositon in a knot by using, "at the same time."

Because all knowledge is a historical artifact (you cannot know anything until after the fact), change occurs from the "time" you begin to respond, and when you finish; therefore, the challenge cannot be overcome unless Garvey removes the "Time" clause.

Claude

ENTRIES & RESPONSES ON "CHALLENGE THE PHILOSOPHY", that we cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time:

(FOR THE RECORD: 321, 323, 326)

321. Entry: http://www.inexpressible.com/e320-321.html

"After rereading Ken Bell's entries regarding the proposition ‘we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time,’ it occurred to me that the following formal logic expression may capture what Ken is saying (Ken Bell’entries (1-36) start at Replies 1-5):

If x = myself
b = being
c = consciousness
then the expression:
[E(x) (b(x) = c(x))] = 1

This could be written out in ordinary language as:

‘I (myself) am who I am (being) while I know who I am (conscious), in whole to myself (certainty = 1), at the same time.’

Or, if expressed in terms of ‘we’, then substitute ‘I/myself’ with ‘we’.

However, if said by someone other than oneself, the formal equation changes to:

[E(x) (b(x) = c(x)]) = 0

...which means that the result is total uncertainty = 0.

This is so because for another person, this ‘self-knowledge’ is impossible to know directly.

However, given the nature of human beings that we have the ability of language and of communicating our ‘being’ into the consciousness of another, then fuzzy logic takes over, and the result of the formal logic above will equal some probabilistic value between 0 and 1; the closer they are in agreement, the closer they get to 'one', whereas if there total disagreement, or miscommunications, the closer they get to 'zero'. (I.e., killing another human being has a zero value, whereas loving another has a closer to one value.)

Therefore, the only way for the proposition above to be true would be from a self-referential perspective, where it equals one, and it is fuzzy at best from any one else's persopective, or of zero value."

Ivan Alexander February 11 2002

Response:

In regard to Ken Bell’s 36 entries, we do not think he is looking at the individual as a whole onto itself, but as part of an incomplete interconnected whole viz., we cannot know one thing without knowing its interconnected relation to another thing ad infinitum, as Ken Bell says in Reply 36,

... Just as the stream sinks into the earth only to emerge from the cliff face miles away, so we see seemingly discontinuous events as somehow relating to a whole. Certainly, one may investigate any set of data to reveal correlations and propose a hypothesis to explain them, but this doesn't form the basis of any direct statement of the phenomenon in question. With this in mind, it is understood that we must in some way actually experience a thing to have any direct knowledge of it. Since the nature of experience is unknowable (in that "newness" is the word we give to the "moment to moment" unfolding of reality), that which we consider "reasonable" must constantly be challenged by our perceptions.

As in the old aphorism "hindsight is 20/20" we can rationalize every bend and turn along a trodden path, but this doesn't tell us what’s ahead. Any path is the interplay of an organism’s movement and the relative non-movement of an environment. The path is not a function of the organism OR the environment, it is a function of the organism AND the environment, and as such represents a superposition of each. Further, since the path is likely to be referenced again, we may consider it (from the organism’s perspective) as part of the environment, and (from the environment’s perspective) as an extension of organisms. Therefore a degree of self-reference is required to come to a more complete understanding of what a path actually is.

Through this reasoning, its easy to see that the dichotomy between subject and object is in fact an illusion of causality, and no single perspective can give a complete description. We are not our thoughts, just as we are not our actions. I agree that in saying 'we are the universe in action'... (From Reply 36)

What Ken Bell assumes is that the things we know are part of a greater interconnected whole which we apparently can never know. Yet it does not make sense how we can know something with "complete understanding" without knowing it as a complete interconnected whole, because the interconnections determine the thing we want to completely understand. So according to Ken Bell’s position on interconnectedness, we are left with no complete knowledge of things themselves or their interconnections. Rather, we are left with epistemically limited knowledge of all things. Therefore, we do not think Ken Bell would make the individual a whole onto itself viz., being and knowing in whole to the individual itself, and with a certainty value of "1". (Bell would make the individual an incomplete whole with a certainty value of less than "0".)

To justify the definition of individual as whole with a certainty value of "1", you claim that the individual has "direct" knowledge of itself. But how is the knowledge direct, when the individual as part of interconnected relations cannot truly be known? Sure a healthy individual has access to its inner consciousness, but how does that access result in direct knowledge viz., knowledge devoid representation? You turn to the individual as a whole onto itself, but what grounds do you have to view the individual as a whole onto itself, especially in consideration of the interconnectedness and interdependency of things, and the law of causality which defines what we know?

In consideration of Arthur Schopenhauer (Entries 317, 320) viz., the will or thing-in-itself as an all-encompassing whole made up of dimensional forms including consciousness, you could establish the individual as a whole onto itself, and consciousness as a dimensional form, but you face the problem as Schopenhauer does of more reasonably showing how the individual or thing-in-itself can truly know itself without contradicting itself ("being-known of itself contradicts being-in-itself" (The World as Will and Representation, Volume 2 (1958, The Falcon’s Wing Press) p. 198)), and as mentioned, you face the problem of establishing the individual as a thing-in-itself.

323. Entry: http://www.inexpressible.com/e322-324.html

In reply to the response to Entry 321

"I would agree with your assessment, that we cannot know in its entirety all the 'interconnections' that simultaneously define our being, or as you say: "Yet it does not make sense how we can know something with 'complete understanding' without knowing it as a complete interconnected whole, because the interconnections determine the thing we want to completely understand."

I agree with this in principle, except that the issue, as I see it, is the "reasonable" knowledge that we have of ourselves, as it applies to knowing 'who we are', our inner consciousness. It is my view that none can have this inner consciousness for us, except ourselves, so that it then becomes a matter of definition: either we accept that only ourselves have the ability to know ourselves, or we do not. And that, I suspect, comes down to making a choice, a conscious choice, that no one is able to know 'who we are' other than ourselves, within the interconnected reality within which this 'who' exists. This is why I worded by response as I did, that only for ourselves can the formal statement of:

[E(x) (b(x) = c(x))] = 1; or as close to '1' as anyone can get, given our 'imperfect' minds.

From an ontological point of view, however, this 'who' can be known through the 'interconnections' if taken as an infinite Totality, but then this would necessitate that this Totality is 'conscious' of who we are, which for us, we who have imperfect knowledge, is of necessity an unknown. On the other hand, there is a way to think of our 'being' as a definition from that interrelated Totality, that our being is embodied in our body and mind, and that this 'consciousness' we experience is an expression of that being. If this is so, then we in our self awareness, however faulty it may be, is the best expression of our being's identity, of who we are. This is especially defined if one considers that the subatomic activity in our brain, that which renders us conscious, is somehow interrelated to all of physical existence 'out there' as the interrelated forces of the universe, through interacting subatomic activity in both the micro and macro format, which Paul Davies in "The Mind of God" calls the universe as its own 'simulator'; then our physical existence as expressed through our being is also connected to the activities in our brain. If so, then this is how we arrive at the 'who we are', that the activity in our brain is also connected to the activity of a self simulating universe, as it specifically applies to us in our body, in our personal state of being. That we are conscious of this then is, even if incompletely so, the definition of 'who we are' in our 'being'. Or, is this not another way of saying that we are who we are while knowing who we are, at the same time? Well, it would appear to be so, if this is a definition we choose, one that is acceptable to us as an extension of our being conscious in a universe that is 'conscious' of itself, at the point of our being. Of course, I can also appreciate Schopenhauer's dilemma, "being-known of itself contradicts being-in- itself", except that this is negated by the universe being totally true to the 'principle of non-contradiction', even if we are not; and thus it is our universal definition, our identity in terms of an interrelated infinite Totality as it defines us in our body, that we are of necessity who we are. The trick then is to raise our consciousness, our understanding, high enough to make this a reality in us. Can we achieve this? Maybe not yet, not at the present level of our mind's evolution. But if this is correct, then we either wait until our brains evolve highly enough to capture this Totality consciousness, or accept it as a 'definition' by choice, that 'who we experience' in ourselves, in our being, is 'who we are'.

Is this reasonable?"

Ivan Alexander February 20 2002

326. Entry: http://www.inexpressible.com/e325-326.html

"In Entry 322, Roger McEvilly writes:

‘I would also say that 'knowledge' is not as you say. It is a combination of many things, which are always changing.’

The above, in my opinion, encapsulates the 'deficiency' McEvilly refers to as it applies to the Proposition, that the question presupposes a static state of being. We can accept by definition that ‘who we are’ is a function of our being, that it is the product of a contextual universal continuum within which we exist; but we cannot accept by definition our ‘knowledge’ as a priori, since this is the value of our being that is contextual to our existence and changes continually. If we were to consider our knowledge as being more than what we consciously identify as what we know, then there would be room to incorporate into this 'knowledge' what the mind knows through its 'being', which may not be available to our consciousness, to our reason, and is relegated into some dark shadow of what we think we know. But because we identify our 'knowledge' with our rational thoughts, then we are per force always deficient in a complete knowledge of ourselves. So, this leaves us only one avenue to reconcile our 'being' of who we are with our 'knowledge' of who we are, at the same time, that our minds do have that knowledge, but that we are at the same time forever barred from knowing it completely rationally, through our reason, because of the non-static nature of both our being and knowledge. In effect, the two fail to match up exactly at any moment of time, though this does not negate a 'feeling' of who we are as a self knowledge, which is our self consciousness, and which may be considered to be 'matched' correctly. So, what does this leave us? In effect, as I understand it, it means that our 'knowledge' incorporates all the variables of existence, of our interconnectedness of that existence, in the subatomic electromagnetic impulses that our existence registers in the brain, in all the impulses that are registered in us as being us; or, to put it another way, we are what we feel we are, even if we are deficient in our understanding of who we are. In conclusion, this means that unless we incorporate our feelings and subrational mental processes into our definition of 'knowledge', then the Proposition is unanswerable. Or, to be who we are and know who we are at the same time, we have to allow for our 'feeling' of our consciousness, of ‘who we are’, as being true.

So the question remains: Is 'knowledge' allowed, under your rules, to incorporate our 'self-consciousness feeling' as part of itself? If so, then we 'know' who we are. If not, then there is no match, and what we think of as a knowledge of who we are is merely a self delusive rational image of 'who we are'. Or, as McEvilly writes: ‘What is 'knowledge'? From the perspective of consciousness as an emergent property, knowledge can only ever be defined arbitrarily, as can 'who we are'.’

So... which do we choose? 'Knowledge' as a definition of itself, inclusive of our feelings and other non-rational mental processes; or is it merely as rational thought? There, I think, lies the crux of the matter. So, in the end, it is our choice.

Of course, I choose the prior, that I 'know' who I am. Your choice?"

Ivan Alexander March 1 2002

Response:

We disagree that the proposition is presupposing a static state of being. All the proposition is presupposing, within limits, is that we ourselves exist at some level and form, whether it be a static or dynamic state of being or neither of them, and that we cannot truly know who we are. However, the ‘question’ of who we are refers to a fixed entity viz., can we know ‘who we are’? So the deficiency is not with the proposition, but with antagonistic propositions, because by proposing to know who we are, antagonistic propositions are contradicted by the apparent "continual change" of existence.

To deal with the non-static nature of existence, you recognize the non-static nature of being and knowledge, and that in order to overcome the proposition, the non-static nature of being and knowledge must more reasonably be shown to be in sync. It is here you refer to "feeling" as a moment in which being and knowledge are in sync. You define feeling as our self-conscious and as an occurrence of true self-knowledge, whereby the variables of existence are registered in "us as being us", which leads you to conclude that "we are what we feel".
In our view, your position runs aground on a couple of key issues. To begin with, you refer to "all of existence" when defining interconnections, thereby you are referring to a "whole" of existence, which begs the question, what is behind the whole of existence? We come to Schopenhauer’s thing-in-itself, and the problem of how a being-in-itself can also be a being-known itself. If you side-step the "whole" issue, and refer to existence as infinity, then you face the problem of how you can truly know yourself through what you feel, because there is no "all of existence".

The other key issue is that feeling on a conscious level is based on both experience and conscious awareness of experience (two step process), so that there is a "block" between what you experience, and what you know about the experience. (Entries 308, 310) So you are left with assuming that you think you can truly know yourself through an experience of feeling from a position of complete ignorance viz., you can only know your experience of feeling after it has occurred through what you interpret it as, and without truly knowing the experience. If you turn to all infinite interconnections of existence, as pertains to your being, centering in your consciousness, how can you truly know yourself, because you can only truly know yourself by truly knowing all the interconnections which determine your existence, and since we have established they are infinite you have no way of truly knowing them. The only way around this point is to assume that your being is created ex nihilo, because then the interconnections would not define your existence. But since ex nihilo is contradicted by your causal perspectives, we think you have no where to turn than to believe that you can truly know yourself based on an assumption about something you cannot truly know viz., you believe through blindly assuming that your experience of feeling is true knowledge of who you are, and yet based on interconnectedness, your knowledge of your experience is in an indirect relationship to your experience.

We think that you have no more reasonable choice than to accept that self-conscious feeling, a conscious phenomenon, is part of our conscious mental process viz., there is no self-conscious feeling from our perspective unless we are consciously aware of it. So the choice you face at this stage of the competition, is to either accept that we cannot truly know who we are on more reasonable grounds, or to reject that we cannot truly know who we are on grounds of faith in an assumption about something we cannot truly know. To turn to the notion of interconnectedness centering on our consciousness and defining it as being is to overlook that knowledge of something based on interconnectedness does not center on one point viz., all the interconnections define the point, and therefore they all need to be known to truly know the point.

In summary, in either a whole existence or infinite existence, your position faces the problem of establishing knowledge with absolute truth-value, especially considering the interconnected relationship between things viz., the interactive nature of existence, thereby the interactive nature of knowledge as well which translates into representational knowledge. On another front, your position faces the problems of showing that self-conscious feeling, a conscious phenomenon, is non-conscious, and that you can more reasonably know that your knowledge of your experience of feeling is true self-knowledge, when what you know about any experience is based on interaction, and thereby representation.

*******************************************************************************
(Not in Inexpressible page)

Ps: This is essentially all I have to say on this subject, since the next step would be to challenge the meaning of the word 'Who'; how do we define this 'who'? ..in the same way I questioned their definition of 'knowledge'. But this Challenge is merely a word game, so I tire, without expectations of getting closer to the truth since, like a mobius strip, there is none.

Ivan

While the knowledge '...in whole...' makes coherent sense, the '...in part...' seems lacking. That the being of self means flux; and that the 'who' can never be a 'what' in toto...need not preclude the possibility that a 'who' is also a 'what' to a large extent. This is actually akin to an M.C. Escher-like exercise of self-portraiture, where self as subject becomes (via self-reflection) a self-object, aka a 'sobject.' It's fun to make up new words:)G-man

Hi G-man, All,

Call me silly, but here is my latest reply to Inexpressible's response:

"Dear Inexpressible Committee,

Always enjoyable to read your inscrutable responses. But there is something you said, in your response to #326, which I think needs a deeper examination:

"If you turn to all infinite interconnections of existence, as pertains to your being, centering in your consciousness, how can you truly know yourself, because you can only truly know yourself by truly knowing all the interconnections which determine your existence, and since we have established they are infinite you have no way of truly knowing them. The only way around this point is to assume that your being is created ex nihilo, because then the interconnections would not define your existence. But since ex nihilo is contradicted by your causal perspectives, we think you have no where to turn than to believe that you can truly know yourself based on an assumption about something you cannot truly know viz., you believe through blindly assuming that your experience of feeling is true knowledge of who you are, and yet based on interconnectedness, your knowledge of your experience is in an indirect relationship to your experience."

The operative sentence here is: "because you can only truly know yourself by truly knowing all the interconnections which determine your existence," as you say above. Then you go on to say that this is impossible, which necessitates 'being' as being created 'ex nihilo', which contradicts these interconnections as determining 'existence'. However, this ignores the point I wish to make, that a totality of interconnections, or interrelationships as they exist around us (to infinity, wherever that is), in fact 'are' our identity, which is then registered both in our body and mind, which in toto become a definition of 'who' we are. The access to this knowledge, imperfect that it may be, is then available to us in a holistic sense, as expressed by our reasonable consciousness, and our 'feelings', as a self knowing expressing of our being. Is this a good enough 'knowledge' to qualify for overcoming your proposition? That I cannot answer, since the choice (of your answer) is not mine to make. Then you go on to say: "To turn to the notion of interconnectedness centering on our consciousness and defining it as being is to overlook that knowledge of something based on interconnectedness does not center on one point viz., all the interconnections define the point, and therefore they all need to be known to truly know the point." Well, call me silly, but that is exactly the point, one on which we disagree, since in my way of seeing things, it is exactly this point on which converge all the interconnect relationships of existence that the whole is defined, because it is how the 'pressure of everything' has allowed it to be. In terms of a total interrelationship, that point is its identity, the 'who' (as a self conscious life force) of who it is in terms of all existence. Then, though we cannot know all the interconnections to some infinite totality, they nevertheless are, of necessity, what defines that point.

Further, this also begs the question: What do you mean by 'who'? Is your sense of 'whoness' defined by some absolute-truth value, or some relative value of who we are, or by some mechanism of mind that renders us a definition of ourselves, something each human being feels in his or her breast? I think that 'identity', human or otherwise, is defined by how the interrelated totality has defined it within itself; and that same 'identity' is then felt, consciously or not, by the being who occupies it.

I realize this will not fit within your framework of how you define conscious 'knowledge' and existential 'being' of our 'whoness', but it is a fun exercise in how we separately see our being in reality, and then how we are aware of this. I do not entirely disagree with your point of view, merely that I find it less rich than mine. But then again, that too is a matter of choice.

Thank you again for a stimulating exercise in the existential experience of mind."

Silly me, Ivan

Hi Ivan, all!

Here's something I posted recently:

How can I know the truth about myself? I submit, that one can't fully know thyself. For instance, say you are doing or thinking about something and you have a moment of resolution and enlightenment (about an unresolved something or other)and you say...boy I wish I could feel like this forever, I uncovered the solution!

Through that very act of experience (experiencing the feeling of a percieved truth), you ironically felt at peace with one sense of 'truth' (whatever that may be). But, you are limited in your ability to know all truth's that might be possible from that same world of sense experience. You will not get to personally experience the feeling of knowing everything, and/or all truth's that might exist. Therefore, you cannot say that you know yourself because the potential to experience every truth is not possible.

Further, one only knows the microcosm of all possible experiences. And that micrososm, being somewhat subjective, may not represent an absolute truth because each individual processes the perception of an experience [truth] differently. What's more, the same experience will not be percieved by the same mind exactly the same way twice (the sciences of the mind teaches us that as well). Think about the notion of or the mental phenomena of when 'things wear-off'. Or think about why you can't 'be' or 'do' what you want to do. If you could 'be' in an absolute way, you would know yourself in a 'different' way.

One thing we can say for sure, is that we know of this human finitude. Some call it the human condition, other's call it something else... .

Walrus

Well, the good news is, I'm not charging for my psychotherapy sessions with y'all here. The bad news is...generalized psychosis is not good:) Thinking out loud (or even writing off the cuff) can be a positive, but not always. So...let's all get back to what we know to be the case...then rebuild again from there. Here's a suggestion about a few good ways to start. Clarify terms (i.e. self, experience, etc...); and incline toward generally fixed rules and principles (i.e., individual/society = part/whole). Afterall, it makes approaching/accessing ultra-abstractions so much easier, more sane:) G-man

Hi Gman!

As always it is good to read your posts. I never get much chance to tell you that because I'm usually focused on the matters at hand;). (...as the case may be.) Anyway, I'm not really a comsmologist so I'll stay silent and let you guys proceed with your original thoughts. 'Didn't mean to interrupt the train of thought!

One thing I think I can say with some degree of certainty, with regard to one of your questions-Self, is that truth is Subjectivity. We know we exist as a subject and a perceiver of certain physical matter. Beyond that, I may want to attack this one [ultimately-consciousness]as perhaps George Berkley would;).

Peace my Brother(s),

Walrus

WJ: I guess my reason for posing various questions
in certain ways is to suggest that while it may be
objectively the case that 'truth' is subjective,
but, since we are unable to get outside in order
to be two places at once, it's hard to know for
sure:) G-man This

RE above March 4, 2002, entry #328 at Inexpressible's Challenge the Philosophy, they responded:

Response:

We agree that we can attain knowledge of ourselves through our interaction with the external world which together are defined as a totality or infinity of interconnections viz., we can identify our place in the totality or infinity of interconnections through our interaction with the external world. However, we disagree with your assertion that this self-knowledge "may not be perfect". We contend that this self-knowledge, based on interaction with the external world within the totality or infinity of interconnections, is more reasonably imperfect, because it is contingent on interconnections, in the form of interaction with ourselves, being registered in our body and mind, and therefore what we know is representational of our interaction with the external world. The totality or infinity interconnections does not overcome this representational aspect of our knowledge.

To argue that all interconnections converge on our being, does not answer how our knowledge of those interconnections can be anything but representational. Also, it appears that you are overlooking that there has to be something behind interconnections, in order for there to be interconnections viz., they cannot simply exist out of nothing, which means that the whole of interconnections is prior to the interconnections rather than after as you contend. Moreover, how can all the interconnections converge on a point which exists outside of the interconnections? Where does the point come from? If the point is part of the interconnections, then we are no closer to true self-knowledge, because the self-knowledge is based on interaction. Though you would add that the interactional based self-knowledge is within an "interrelated totality". Does interrelated totality make a difference? We come to the problem of what is behind the interrelated totality, and the question of how interaction with the totality from within it can lead to true self-knowledge?

If the interrelated totality defines everything, and there must be something behind the interrelated totality to be consistent with our causal perspective, then what defines everything is something like Schopenhauer’s thing-in-itself. We then face the problem of how something can be a thing-in-itself while being-known itself, and the inconsistency of the concept of thing-in-itself with our causal perspective. (Something from something else ad infinitum is more reasonable than something from nothing.)

If you contend that there is simply an interrelated totality, in which interrelations themselves define the totality or point, then as mentioned it does not follow that anything from our causal perspective, including interrelated totality, can exist from nothing. Also, interrelation alone does not lead to a point. Rather, interrelation leads to interrelation which leads to interrelation which leads to interrelation ad infinitum.

We are left wondering how you go from interrelated [infinity] to true self-knowledge from within the infinity? Just because our knowledge appears interconnected to the infinity of existence, does not mean that what we know has absolute truth-value. What it means is that we have representational knowledge of our interaction with external and internal interconnections. To claim that the infinity of interconnections is who we are, and that they are registered in our mind and body, and therefore we can truly know who we are by accessing the registered information, ignores that the interconnections themselves are not registered in our body and mind. The information derived from our interaction with the interconnections is registered. Although there is a connection between what is registered in our mind and body, and the infinity of interconnections, the connection is indirect.

To say that our knowledge is a product of the infinity of interconnections, does not establish knowledge with absolute truth-value. All it establishes is a connection between our knowledge and the infinity of interconnections.

Other issue:

We agree that one’s belief is a "matter of choice". But in our view the more reasonableness of two antagonistic positions is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of determination.
******************************************************

Of course, they missed the point (see below), but not surprised. --Ivan

I wrote back to them:

Dear Gentlemen (and Ladies?) of the Committee,

RE your last #328: "Also, interrelation alone does not lead to a point. Rather, interrelation leads to interrelation which leads to interrelation which leads to interrelation ad infinitum."

I think it is exactly the 'point' of our disagreement, that we see differently how a total interrelationship affects its internal parts. But, though I would love to debate this point with you, I do not feel it is central to the Proposition, and thus must let it rest. Should you wish to read more of how a point is defined within a whole of interrelationship, you might look at the first four chapters of Habeas Mentem, on line, at: http://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm , where this idea is developed further.

It is always a pleasure to dialogue with you, and I hope to have something worthwhile to say again at a later date.

Cheers! Ivan

Hi Ivan,

Personally, I don't see how you can bother wasting your time with people who are looking for people to "establish knowledge with absolute truth-value". After all they could 'say anything' and predicate it with 'we don't see how this establishes knowledge with absolute truth value-value' and they can happily keep their little game running indefinitely, which would no doubt please their sponsors.

In a way it's a variation on the pragmatist attack on the ethical argument for 'absolute value'.

I think you are quite justified in settling for a "connection between our knowledge and the infinity of interconnections" (at least at this point in human development). Establishing knowledge with 'absolute truth value' within this generation wouldn't leave much for the next 100 million or so generations of humans to do now would it?

One may propose that 'somewhere ' between absolute truth and absolute value lies a group of beings called 'humanity' looking to overcome their absolute fears (through interconnective communication and understanding?) .

Keep the flag flying!!

Dave.

WHO WE ARE

Dear Committee,

There is something I would like to examine in greater detail, as it applies to your response to my #326. You had said:

"If you turn to all infinite interconnections of existence, as pertains to your being, centering in your consciousness, how can you truly know yourself, because you can only truly know yourself by truly knowing all the interconnections which determine your existence, and since we have established they are infinite you have no way of truly knowing them. The only way around this point is to assume that your being is created ex nihilo, because then the interconnections would not define your existence."

The item in question is "your being is created 'ex nihilo'", which I may not understand fully what you mean. You then further stated:

"Also, it appears that you are overlooking that there has to be something behind interconnections, in order for there to be interconnections viz., they cannot simply exist out of nothing, which means that the whole of interconnections is prior to the interconnections rather than after as you contend. Moreover, how can all the interconnections converge on a point which exists outside of the interconnections? Where does the point come from?" Or, as you said: "(Something from something else ad infinitum is more reasonable than something from nothing.)"

How can we understand this 'something from nothing', or ex nihilo, definition of a point? Is this somehow related to what the 'Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy' describes, regarding Nihilism: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm#Existential Nihilism :

"Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated"?

If so, then indeed 'something from something' is more reasonable than the 'ex nihilo', of something from nothing. But instead of 'being created ex nihilo', I would see it the other way around, that being, or a point of being as represented by a body, is created from all that is related to it, ad infinitum. This seems more reasonable to me, and it fits into a concept where the interrelationship of all elements of the material universe, including the energy therein, are what defines in toto any element within itself. What that 'point of being' then looks like is how the existence of everything else around it, through time and its spatial relations, then allows it to be as it is. Or, another way of seeing this is that each point, or being, is how the universal 'pressure' of interrelations have caused it to be. (This was my point in Habeas Mentem.) This means per force that no two points in space can be identified the same way, since both would have different historicals, and both would be positioned separately from each other (no two points can occupy the same space at the same time), and thus are never the same. However, this is not the same as saying that the mind and body are different, though they are two distinct values within a particular being, and instead they are two different values of the same within one being. So, not 'ex nihilo', but rather 'in toto', is the way I would characterize a being's identity within its existence in the material universe. It is then a characteristic of how the interconnections that, over time, had caused this being to be what, or who, it is that defines the features, both physical and mental, that characterize it as it is.

Now, how does this apply to the Proposition? I think it then becomes a matter of how well these two features of being fit. Is the body, which had been created over time, (also keep in mind that our birth from live parents connects us through a continuum of living matter to the early universe), also the body that then somehow reflects all those connections that had materialized it into what it is? And if so, then is also the case for the mind that inhabits that body. So, can this be allowed, that the mind and body of a being are identical, or as close to identical as we can observe conceptually from outside ourselves? And if this is allowed, then can the inner consciousness we possess of ourselves, the 'who I am' characteristic of our self consciousness, also be the same as our body, which is our 'being'? And you answer 'yes', then of necessity the Proposition is satisfied, that we can 'be' who we are and 'know' who we are, as this is represented by both the body, in its time-spatial relations, and the mind, as it is aware of itself. The two are the same, at the same time. The only fault I can find here, given this line of reasoning, is that our awareness of the self is itself incomplete as it assesses itself with reason. It is for this that I had earlier said that we are then forced to fall back upon our 'feelings' of ourselves, even when these are not always expressed rationally. Would, by default, then poetry rather than logic be in order here, as to 'who' we are?

Getting back to 'ex nihilo', I think that if we assume that the universe's origins are not from nothing, but from something that predates the current state of affairs, though this is mysterious to us, then the creation of our being within existence is likewise not ex nihilo, though as to what is the origin of all life remains undoubtedly a mystery as well, except.. well... here we are!.

I am, to be, but who is me?
Who in my own, can it be known,
That we, as one with cosmic light,
Declare "I am!"... so erudite?

ADDENDUM to above.

Dear Committee,

I truly appreciate your last response to my #330, as it applies to Habeas Mentem. Thank you. It seems we are now almost speaking the same 'language'. I should preface this by saying that the manner of thinking using 'interrelationship' is still new to me also, so it is difficult at times to see this from the point of view of a 'totality of interconnectedness' as a determinant of 'identity'. Yet, this is the thrust of where I think this idea is going. However, there are points on which we disagree.

You had said: "In an interconnected existence, how can something like our minds be completely autonomous? How can we through our minds detach from existence outside of ourselves?"

My answer to this would be "I don't know." I do not know how we can detach our minds from existence and be outside ourselves. I also think this is not material, since our minds are 'autonomous' only as they perceive themselves to be, to themselves, not in terms of the whole interrelated reality that defines their being, except to say that this is a characteristic of how our minds are, that we can perceive ourselves as autonomous.

You had also said in the same paragraph: "We are not autonomous of external existence." This is totally correct, as I understand it, that we are completely surrounded by our existence, so that though perceiving ourselves as autonomous, in actuality we are not. However, this does not mean that we cannot 'interact' with that existence by how we think and do 'autonomously'. So, by being conscious of ourselves in existence, we then feedback into reality (its interconnected existence) our being in it through how we are in it, consciously or not. What this means to me is that we are independent of existence 'only' at the level of our consciousness, for otherwise we would think and do only what that existence had 'predetermined' for us. However, if it is a condition of this interrelationship generated existence to have some degree of autonomy, by how conscious we are in it, then that is the 'who' we are in our identity.

This is the novelty of seeing existence through the philosophical lens of 'interrelationship', that 'identity' is not the accepted Aristotelian A=A, but rather it becomes that A=(infinity minus A); where infinity is used for lack of a better word that means everything that stretches from A to the totality of what is interrelated around it, to some distant totality that is unknown to us, ad infinitum, hence 'infinity'; A is because of everything else around it, ad infinitum. It is that 'other' A (what is the totally encompassing interrelationship around it), both spatially and in terms of time (what had happened throughout the history of its existence), that then defines the 'A' we seek to identify. And if so, then the interrelated value of 'infinity - A' is then its identity as 'A'. Therefore, the interrelated totality around any one thing in existence 'is' its identity, since this is how that totality had allowed it to be. In essence, an infinite interrelationship defines each thing within itself to give it its identity.

Now, this opens very exiting prospects, since now we have a mechanism that can translate how things interact with one another both at point A, as well as at the 'totality' that makes this A possible. As it applies to our minds, we are unique from other things in existence in that in us are evident properties that render us conscious. This is a condition of our being. All living things probably share in some form of 'consciousness', I suspect (unlike inert matter), but it is only in us that this consciousness is able to express itself in terms of itself. Or, to put it another way, it is only we who are able to 'be' who we are, as interrelationship has made us, and 'know' who we are, as we are conscious of this in our minds. And if this is so, then another dimension opens to us that we are also in our minds who we are 'out there', at the values that define this totality that surrounds us, and defines out being, the who we are in our identity.

Or, as you said: "Though we agree that we as individual life-forces are a product of the infinity of interrelations, it does not follow that what we know can be equated with the infinity of interrelationships viz., though what we know may be known through knowledge of the infinity of interrelationships, it does not follow what we know is the infinity of interrelationships." ... Well... No. We do not 'know' it from its own infinite perspective, which is a truly monumental task of knowledge, and hence a mystery to us; but we do know it from what that totality of 'knowledge' had become in us, the who we are in our 'identity'. That is all that is knowable to us, that we are ourselves conscious, through the definition of an infinity of interrelationship defining itself in us. And that, once understood as such, is truly a paradigm shift of how we view our identity.

(I might add an aside here, that this also opens exciting prospects for a new kind of thinking about a 'theory of everything', since now exists a mechanism of interrelationship that can be defined mathematically as self defining large sets, which cancel out at some totality value into the individual parts within the set. But that is another topic, still too theoretical and illusive for me to explain.)

So this is the 'language' I am working with, where A=A, but from a very different point of view. Of course we cannot from within our minds know all the interrelationship values that had manifest in us, that we are conscious of those infinite values, but rather we can know with some level of confidence that we are as we had been made to be, and that one of the characteristics of this being is that we are also conscious of it. And that is what is meant by "we are who we are": A=A, because A=(infinity-A). Then to 'know' this is to align ourselves more closely with 'who' that existence 'is'. Is this a "true self knowledge" of our identity? One hopes. There is always room to 'grow' with our self knowledge through a greater consciousness, which I believe in time we will, to become more our true selves. It is for this reason I claim that "who we are in our minds is who we are". Does this satisfy "the Schopenhauer problem of how a being-in-itself can also be being-known-itself"? One hopes that the above is one such way to the truth of who we are.

*****
Ps: there was a minor typo in your response #330, the title of Ch. 3 is "What is the Form of Interrelationship?"
*****************************************************
(above was in response to Inexpressible's response below, orginal included)
330. Entry:

Regarding your response to Entry 328, you write: "Also, interrelation alone does not lead to a point. Rather, interrelation leads to interrelation which leads to interrelation which leads to interrelation ad infinitum."

I think it is exactly the 'point' of our disagreement, that we see differently how a total interrelationship affects its internal parts...."

Ivan Alexander 17 2002


Further elaboration of position:

"... it is exactly this point on which converge all the interconnect relationships of existence that the whole is defined, because it is how the 'pressure of everything' has allowed it to be. In terms of a total interrelationship, that point is its identity, the 'who' (as a self conscious life force) of who it is in terms of all existence. Then, though we cannot know all the interconnections to some infinite totality, they nevertheless are, of necessity, what defines that point." (From Entry 328)

"The mind defines our identity, and the soul is entirely locked within this new, aware, sophisticated modern mind. It creates; it controls; it is progressive and thus it is confident in its position in reality. It is itself, an autonomous, cognizant and organized entity in a disorderly, probabilistic universe. The mind is a closed system, a sealed bubble within a chaotic and pententially hostile universe. It observes, it controls, but it is nevertheless autonomous." ("Habeas Mentem", Is there a natural order (ch. 1), p. 3)

"... each point has only the definition of itself in terms of itself: a point... because of interrelationship, each point also has a definition that is relative to its position in terms of the other [] points, in terms of their interrelationship." ("Habeas Mentem", Let us create an idea (ch. 2), p. 2)

"... From the vast infinity of universal interrelationships now flows a new definition of an idea, that can think itself: It is defining for us a single point in space." ("Habeas Mentem", What is the form of interrelationship? (ch. 3), p. 3)

"... Until our mind became conscious, our history was still simply the effect of a universe forming itself; when we gained thought, we joined in with its development and it became a universe forming itself with us." ("Habeas Mentem", Each one of us (ch. 4), p. 3)

"... Depending upon how each thought and deed is received at infinity will result [in] how reality will materialize in our environment in response to the self. Thus, the mind materializes its own reality, from birth, and the environment of its existence is always a reflection of itself... As we create the universe creates us in its image. Untouched, each one of us is an image that is being created by the universe, our there. In that image is the consciousness of our new identity. In our being, in our mind, from the dawn of our creation to now, at each moment of time, are the mechanisms that are compatible with our identity out there." ("Habeas Mentem", Each one of us (ch. 4), p. 4-5)


Response:
In an interconnected existence, how can something like our minds be completely autonomous? How can we through our minds detach from the existence outside of ourselves? Just because we can think ourselves, does not mean that the causes for our thinking, and our thinking itself, are independent of the existence outside of ourselves. In fact, because our thoughts are dependent on some level and form of interaction with the existence outside of ourselves, it follows that through our minds we are not autonomous of external existence.

Though we agree that we as individual life-forces are a product of the infinity of interrelations, it does not follow that what we know can be equated with the infinity of interrelationships viz., though what we know may be known through knowledge of the infinity of interrelationships, it does not follow what we know is the infinity of interrelationships. Also, if what we know is the infinity of interrelationships, then we cannot be a product of the infinity of interrelationships viz., we cannot be the creation of product, and the product at the same time without succumbing to nonsensicality, just as we cannot be the product of creation and the creation of product at the same time...

You go on to claim that there are mechanisms in our minds that are "compatible with our identity of the infinity of existence", which means that there are mechanisms in our minds which are not compatible as well. How can the notion of compatibility and non-compatibility be the case, when everything about ourselves is a product of interrelationships?! It appears that we cannot help from being what we are, whatever it may be.

In summary, we agree that what we are is representative of the infinity of interrelationships on ourselves, so that through ourselves there is a connection to everything else. However, we do not understand what grounds you have to assert that through our minds ("self conscious life-force"), or the act of thinking ourselves, that we can detach ourselves from interrelationships that produce ourselves. Also, if we examine how we think, we see that it is based on interaction, and therefore, what we know is representational through interaction, thus knowledge without absolute truth-value. To turn to the connection between ourselves as point and the infinity of interrelationships, and our ability to think ourselves, as a gateway to absolute truth-value, does not explain how what we know at our point is true knowledge of ourselves, thereby true knowledge of the infinity of interrelationships viz., just because there is connection between ourselves as point and the infinity of interrelations, does not mean what we know at our point is true knowledge of the infinity of interrelations, nor does thinking ourselves necessarily translate into true self-knowledge. The only way forward for you is to establish ourselves through our minds as a completely autonomous entity, but that would contradict our causal perspective and the apparent interconnected nature of existence, and lead to the Schopenhauer problem of how a being-in-itself can also be being-known-itself.
************************************************************

My above Addendum in response to #330 was entered as #335 on the Inexpressible page, May 4, 2002, to which the Committe responded: http://www.inexpressible.com/e331-335.html

"Response to 335:

If autonomy is an illusion of the human mind (as you allude to by saying, "we are not autonomous of external existence"), how can we interact with existence through our illusion of autonomy? Where does autonomous interaction fit into an interrelated existence whereby everything is part of an interconnected infinity? How does our self-consciousness give us autonomy, when even our self-consciousness is interconnected with existence? From our causal perspective, the basis for conscious "feedback" (or interaction) is not separate from external existence, but interconnected with external existence.
We agree that there may be degrees of autonomy, but from our causal perspective, we contend further that there is no absolute autonomy we can know that we know.
The identity of something appears to be not just its interrelation with the infinity around it, but the thing itself and the interrelated infinity which helps define it. Though we still do not know the basis for the interrelated infinity, and therefore, we do not know how things interact and the identities of things formed through interaction.
In summary, we agree with you that by realizing the basic role of interconnection in the identity of things, we are more reasonably closer to truly knowing of who we are, but we argue that we are actually further from truly knowing who we are because knowing who we are requires knowing not only who we are as points in existence, but all the interconnections behind ourselves, including the basis for the interconnections. You turn to human consciousness, a means to express ourselves in terms of ourselves, as a gateway to true knowledge of ourselves. Yet we question how we can truly express ourselves in terms of ourselves when our consciousness is interconnected to external existence, so that we do not attain true autonomy over our existence viz., what we express in terms of ourselves is an interconnected extension of the external world. For your argument to work you need to establish our consciousness as a thing-in-itself, and thereby through it we attain control over our existence, and the more we attain control over our existence, the more we truly know our existence and ourselves. However, the problems with this position are more reasonably establishing consciousness as a thing-in-itself, especially in consideration of our causal perspective, and dealing with Schopenhauer’s dilemma of how a being-in-itself can also be a being-known-itself."

---------------------------------------------------------
To which I then responded, submitted May 12, 2002:

Dear Inexpressible Committee,

You say in your Response to my Entry#335:

"If autonomy is an illusion of the human mind (as you allude to by saying, "we are not autonomous of external existence"), how can we interact with existence through our illusion of autonomy? Where does autonomous interaction fit into an interrelated existence whereby everything is part of an interconnected infinity? How does our self-consciousness give us autonomy, when even our self-consciousness is interconnected with existence? From our causal perspective, the basis for conscious "feedback" (or interaction) is not separate from external existence, but interconnected with external existence...

"In summary, we agree with you that by realizing the basic role of interconnection in the identity of things, we are more reasonably closer to truly knowing of who we are, but we argue that we are actually further from truly knowing who we are because knowing who we are requires knowing not only who we are as points in existence, but all the interconnections behind ourselves, including the basis for the interconnections."

Taking these two together, we must not forget, as I believe you have failed to consider, that in terms of space and time, no two things can occupy the same space at the same time.

Therefore, the "isness" of any one identity, as defined by the state of being of an interrelated totality redefining its parts, then can only be "itself". By default, the same holds true for the "knowing" of that identity, since none is better suited to knowing oneself than the knower, since none other can occupy the space and time definition of that personal identity.

The question then falls back upon whether or not that "knowledge" of oneself is complete or not. Indeed, for that there is no simple answer, except to remind one that we "know" at many levels of which we are not aware. It may seem unreasonable that the reasoning mind cannot influence how the cells of our body form, or how we grow from an egg into an adult, or how the heart beats, or how the stomach digests breakfast. Yet, we accept these phenomena of our being's identity, that we "know" them, though we do not "know" them. It is the same, that though we are not totally aware in our reason of who we are, we do know this, though we may only think (through the illusion of our autonomy from our identity) that we know this. We "know" this as "I am".

By default, through the universal mechanism of interrelationship, being and knowing oneself, even when we do not know this, are the same.

All the best, Ivan

(This essentially completes my argument. --IA)

Aloha Ivan,

I wanted to thank you for pointimg me in the direction of this Challenge. I came across it from your site. You will find my Entry #351 & the ensuing disputes are still in progress.

Also, I would like to point out, that you should NOT have given up. You were on the right track.

At the same time I have to admit that I am unable to deal with the indiscrepancies in your argument, as I am awaiting the resolution of my own entry.

Thanx all the same - protomutant

Thanks protomutant!

I'll have to go and revisit the Inexpressible, and see your entry #351. I haven't given up, just taking a break while I work on a novel. Will check it out, though, if I may confess, I'd hate to see the riddle solved.

Cheers! Ivan

Aloha again Ivan,

Just passing thru again. "I" must confess you would love to see it resolved.

I believe "Garvey" has either wittingly or unwittingly devised what I refer to in 1 of my responses as:

"The Philosophic Theory of Relativity"

If you look at the latest COMMENT you will see how highly I regard this Competition. I believe it will catapult "Ontology" to the forefront of education & ensure that it will soon become THE most spoken about subject on the planet.

The evolution of "Consciousness" is on the verge of a Giant Leap into Sanity & I sincerely believe this Challenge is THE Key.

...but the relationship between Einstein's - Scientific "Theory of Relativity" & "Garvey's" Philosophic "Theory of Relativity" will only be perceptible by many, in hindsight.

All The Best - protomutant

Hi Proromutant,

Here is what I sent in to the Inexpressible people, in support of your efforts. I hope it helps, and good luck with solving their riddle!

Ivan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Inexpressible Committee,

This is in support of Entry #351, though not its judgment, as to your Response asking for clarification of what is Total Being.

I think Total Being can be equated with Identity in three easy steps:

Total Being = Identity

Step 1: Interconnectedness.
All things are part of interconnectedness, everywhere and all the time, which is an ontological connecting of the dots, if you will.

Step 2: Interrelationship.
The patterns created by interconnectedness, the connecting of the dots, create interrelationships that define the dots in terms of there positioning within these patterns. So, interconnectedness is the first order of things, but their interrelationships are the second order of things, so that all parts are defined by how they are within the patterns within which they are positioned.

Step 3: Identity.
Identity is what the dots are, their being, in terms of the totality of the interrelated patterns. As the patterns of interrelationship grow in dimensions, so that greater sets defined greater patterns, then the definition of the singular dots increases in proportion to those dimensions. When tending towards infinity, if we could use a philosophical kind of calculus, then the definitions of the dots likewise tend towards infinity, so that at infinity, they are exactly as the patterns of the totality of interrelationship patterns have defined them to be. They are what they are, in terms of the whole. Therefore, Total Being, as defined by an infinity of interrelated patterns connecting all the dots of being, is exactly what those dots are in terms of their Totality within that Whole. Or, to put it simply, Total Being equals each thing's Identity.

Is this always at the Same Time? Of necessity, it is always at the same time, for patterns defining the dots of being have no time dimensions to them.

Is this Reasonable? If the definition of Total Being = Identity lends itself to infinite regress, then it is reasonable.(*)

Is Identity who we are in our consciousness? All living things are conscious at some level, if they can learn, exhibit locomotion, and have the ability to choose. By the three steps above, we are also defined in our being. This does not mean that we have to know, in our consciousness, all the interrelated patterns that define our identity to be conscious of them. What lends itself to the simplicity calculus of interrelationship is that those infinite patterns are ingrained that that identity's definition, whether or not it is conscious of that, though it displays consciousness at some level. We as human beings have taken that consciousness to a new order, where we are conscious of it, and have given it a name, consciousness. Is this same consciousness that we are now aware of the same as our identity? The two, identity and consciousness, are inextricably linked in terms of how both have been defined by Total Being.

Does this solve the Proposition? The Proposition, can we know who we are and be who we are at the same time, or its expression in the negative, is a mystery of paradox that cannot be answered here. However, since I think of God as the infinite regress of mysteries, I am happy to leave it at that, with one caveat: As long as I retain the right to be who I am, which is my identity.(**)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

*(Please note that this thinking, of identity and total being as equal, lends itself to infinite regress, so we can take it back to the beginning of the formation of the first atom in the universe as a result of whatever forces collided to produce it, or to the formation of the first thing we can define as being alive, however the universe created life within itself, or the first signs of consciousness, as defined above. This self defining interrelationship had been at work from that first moment of creation. It had been active long before we became conscious of our consciousness.)

**(But this is only the first order of things. Next comes agreement and coercion, and whether my right to be who I am is violated, or violates it for another, so that perhaps I no longer am who I am in my identity, etc...)

Thanx Ivan,

You have an interesting way of looking at things.

From a truly Ontological Viewpoint Infinite Regress is a myth.

It all depends on the way in which we translate Eternity & Infinity.

A simple Ontological Definition would read:

ETERNITY = "Always NOW"

INFINITY = "Always HERE"

Thanx for the support - protomutant

Freedom or Politic?

From Inexpressible's Response to Entry #359: http://inexpressible.com/e359.html

"In our view, there is no difference between the propositions, "we cannot truly know who we are" and "we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time", except the former is more concise and the latter is more clear. We choose the latter proposition because we think it is more important to establish clarity over conciseness in this context.
Also, as you appear to be aware, the competition is not just about establishing the more reasonable truth-value within the limits of what we know of our self-knowledge, but establishing a more reasonable framework for our decision-making. Does this satisfy you as a context for the competition/discussion? Since our identity is the center of our consciousness, and decision-making is fundamental to the content of our consciousness, we think we are focused on some very important issues. We are hoping to establish a viable, alternative political framework partly out of the competition."

Please note the last two sentences. This is very telling of why this competition is important, but also potentially dangerous if the price extolled is human freedom, the right to be Who we are.

Ivan

Aloha Ivan,

Yes, I agree with you fully, this is extremely important.

I have included a brief response to their mention of an "alternative political framework" in my forthcoming 'Comment' - as of now, yet to be posted.

I also have a new entry on the way.

May I add, that "True Freedom" is never endangered within the species Homo-Sapiens, for it is 'Intrinsic'.

Having said that, I certainly believe we are about to incarnate its manifestation through the realisation of Real Consciousness, as opposed to Relative Consciousness.

Indications are already evident, that the inadequacies of our current political systems, are being relentlessly exposed.

The evolution of Consciousness is exposing the relativity of relativity itself, & we should be excited - never scared.

Your site & others like it are to be commended for being in the forefront of this very exposition. Keep up the good work !

protomutant

Ivan, Everyone,

Follows is my submission to The Philosophy Challenge.

------------------
The Philosophy Challenge

Challenge: “We cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time.”

© Copyright 2002 by Jimmy L. White - All rights reserved

Consciousness encompasses three unique properties; thus, consciousness is a complete (whole) unique substance in its own right, and of its own volition. Consciousness is the substance of life; moreover, the three properties of consciousness are constituted as one substance, which comprises our being.

Three Essential Properties of Consciousness

Awareness
Self-Identity
Free Will

Consciousness arises of its own volition, meaning a conscious entity is the possessor of free will, which gives rise to volition; therefore, it is by the combination of consciousness and free will that self-identity occurs.

“We cannot truly know who we are … “

Self-identity occurs through the volition of free will and conscious awareness

“In part or in whole …”

The properties of consciousness are inseparable; therefore, consciousness is whole

“And be who we are at the same time …”

It is inconceivable to think we are not who we are, for there is no spatial separation of the three properties of consciousness, the substance of life.

The first clause, would demand that our identity resides outside of our consciousness-

The second clause, demands the three properties of consciousness are spatially separated-

The third clause, demands spatial separation and a time lapse between the three properties of consciousness-

Conclusion: The proposition as framed is problematic in that, the demanding of the three properties of consciousness to be treated as separate entities i.e., each part separated from each of the other parts; however, to fathom such a process as potentially giving rise to the knowledge as stated is incomprehensible, and illogical. If we properly understand what it means to be conscious, the associative problems disappear for the conclusion as rendered here is based on objective participation, not subjective thought. Thereof, the knowledge of self-identity is a complete whole, and it is undeniably true in every respect regardless of time, for the complete function of consciousness occurs simultaneously, which cannot be spatially or dimensionally separated from the experience of consciousness itself.

Addressing only the first three arguments as stated-

1. Representational knowledge

Your supporting arguments do not logically follow; i.e., “we do not know directly from the external world in a Aristotelian fashion, whereby external knowledge somehow enters directly into our minds.”

Direct information is absorbed by our consciousness for our consciousness permeates the space surrounding us, which therefore, encompasses every object within proximity of our being. If that were not true, we would not be able to make decisions of judgment such as the involuntary reactions required to avoid accidents. A speeding car that pulls in front of your car when traveling at fifty miles per hour requires such reaction to avoid a collision; therefore, the “knowledge” of that car pulling out in front of you is not - representational, it is direct knowledge as absorbed by our consciousness.

2. Epistemology of knowledge (human invention)

“Conscious knowledge is apparently derived from human invention. (i.e. we invent conscious knowledge from interactional based information.)”
“Since we are the ones behind the invention of conscious knowledge, we cannot invent true knowledge of ourselves and be ourselves. In other words, we cannot be the basis for invention and at the same time the product of invention.”

I reject the first statement for the use of word, “apparently.” It is not readily apparent that humans invent direct information as absorbed; moreover, humans “discover” knowledge.

Do humans invent - conscious knowledge? I would greatly appreciate a proof of such an invention.

Knowledge of self is a priori, as demonstrated next.

I am- demands that free will make a choice; thereby, two options are available to what is our “awareness.” Free will can choose I, or not I. In the absence of I, no choice can be; therefore, free will only has one choice to make - I am, which is the guarantor of truth.

Here, I believe it imperative to clarify some conceptual errors in your hypothesis, for it is most certainly evident to me your platform of argumentation is rather weak and unsound. Because the vast majority of human beings have no memory prior to two years of age, an identity is firmly established, before cognizant memory functions occur; therefore, it can be assuredly stated that for whatever reasons such historicity is fact, the establishment of an identity is the primary function of consciousness during the first two years of life, and it can be categorically proven the human brain does not mature until around the age of 18 - 19 years. By that, through modern diagnostic methodologies, we can prove humans do in fact Build an Identity; therefore, we have no need to discover - or - invent an identity.

3. Internalism and externalism

I addressed the issue of internal and external in my response to the First Premise.

Conclusion: After reviewing the remaining supporting arguments, there is no further point to continue since the remaining arguments are logically insurmountable. What has been so cleverly woven into the challenge is – what we are – not who we are. By using the word “apparently” there are very few hard factual statements, the type of statement that can be validated. For me to understand who I am does not require knowledge of what I consist of, in the same sense I do not require knowledge of what an apple consists of to identify an apple; therefore, your challenge shall remain forever unanswered for it is meaningless, and an endeavor in futility.

End © Copyright information -

Respectfully Submitted,

Jimmy L. White – July 13, 2002

Ivan, Everyone,

Follows is the Appended concluding arguments 4 through 9 as required to complete the Philosophy Challenge. After some thought, I decided to try and win the competition by attempting to refute, or overcome the remaining arguments- Jim White
-------------------------------

© Copyright 2002 by Jimmy L. White

Appended – to Formally Complete the Philosophy Challenge – July 13, 2002

After thinking about the arguments that at first I did not think could be overcome using normal methodology I read through arguments 4 through 9 and of them, only the eighth argument seemed to be a sound argument that could not be dealt with or overcome. The difficult triple negative caused difficulty because I could not eliminate any of them using every methodology I could think of. What follows should reveal the problem of dealing with argument 8.

4. Temporal lag

“Conscious knowledge is apparently defined by temporality, and therefore as soon as we think we know who we are, we cease to know who we are because what we know is past knowledge of who we are. (If we deny the notion of time, we also deny the notion of thought, which then self-defeats the denial of time.)”

Time - the age old problem rears its ugly head; however, for a thing to exist, it obviously must consist of something. Here, I invoke the PNC, for it proves Time is not logically plausible.

Time if it exists, exists as three distinct disconnected parts

1. Future
2. Present
3. Past

It is impossible for a thing not to be accessible to itself; thereof, demands time does not exist, for the Present cannot access the Future, neither can the Present access the Past. Thereof the PNC denies Time is a necessity, which negates the premise, time exists. There can be no such thing as an arbitrary necessity; hence, for time to exist, the claimant suffers burden of proof, which demands that time must be proven as a logical necessity. Logical necessities always serve specific purposes; therefore, defining a logical purpose for the Future, and the Past is the only method that will prove that time exists. It is impossible to define a purpose for either Future or Past. The present definition of Time was arbitrarily established by using the decay rate of the Cesium Atom; therefore, there is no potential for time to exist for it is an abstract constructed entity without properties, and nothing can/will exist without properties. The past is spatially separated from both Present and Future; the Future is spatially separated from both Past and Present; the Present is spatially separated from both Past and Future. No thing can/will exist if separated from any of its parts. Exists means to have real being, and time does not possess real being, for a real being consists of a substance; therefore, the Past does not consist of a substance, neither does the Future consist of substance.

Lag means - to follow or trail behind; however, time cannot lag behind itself, for the three parts are spatially separated by Dimension. Obviously, the Future cannot lag the Present; the Future cannot lag the Past; the Present cannot lag the Past, which denies every potential for "time lag" to exist.

The problem of Time is, it is not a universal attribute that can be ascribed to the universe; therefore, it is on this occasion that I remove time and the associated time lag from the argument as presented, which proves to be a logically fallacy that can be absolutely proven as such by a simple experiment.

Experiment: Place three volunteer human beings inside an enclosure without access to the outside world of reality. To insure no suffering occurs, the enclosure must be fitted accordingly, and then provide every creature comfort necessary to sustain life for 14 days. No source of any external to internal communications is allowed, but communications to the external world is paramount for a consideration of safety. Ideally the enclosure should be adequately large, fully equipped with good lighting and all accommodations requisite for normal living, excepting television, radio, and every type of device that is capable of measuring duration. All food must be passed upon demand to any volunteer whenever requested, and an adequate amount of beverages, refreshments and snacks shall be in storage inside the enclosure. None of the volunteers will know the total of elapsed duration to ensue before they will be tested for their ability to know what time it is prior to their reentry into the world of Reality. The period of duration for confinement shall be no less than eight days, and no more than 13 days.

The results are predictable - No volunteer will have a concept of what time it is, after the conditions for length of stay in confinement are met.

5. Comparative nature of reason (reliance on past knowledge)

"Reason is apparently defined by comparison of conscious meaning, and therefore what we reason and thereby knowledge is based on what previously know, which means that we can only know in the context of past knowledge."

Reason is not apparently defined by anything; therefore, to categorically prove facts, the clauses of the statement must be iterated as three separate clauses enabling logic to function, as logic should.

1. “Reason is defined by comparison of conscious meaning.”

2. “and therefore what we reason and thereby knowledge is based on what previously know,

3. “which means that we can only know in the context of past knowledge."

Knowledge of pain is my choice for refuting the argument, for the knowledge of pain is an inherent (innate) or embedded necessity for all mammals. You must understand pain is a necessity, and that a necessity always serves a specific purpose. The purpose of pain is to warn the sufferers of it as it is experienced to notify them something associated with their being is abnormal. It does not matter when, if, how, or why, pain occurs, for the sufferer of it will react accordingly. That proves the first clause of the argument is false, and that at least some knowledge is innate; thereby, adjudicates and nullifies the claim that, ”and therefore what we reason and thereby knowledge is based on what we previously know," which effectively renders, “we can only know in the context of past knowledge," as a false notion not established by facts.

6. Incomplete empirical knowledge

"Empirical knowledge of who we are whether of our biological or conscious make-up, cannot completely capture ourselves in entirety due to the complexity of our make-up."

Empirical knowledge of biological composition is an odd form of question begging; therefore, it is not relevant for proof of anything, specifically the knowledge of my self-identity. The reason being for that is, I exist; therefore, I do consist of a substance; that substance is my being, and my being is my essence. Previously the issues of being, and its associated consciousness were fully addressed; therefore, there is no complexity to my conscious make-up. This is where you crossed the bounds of logic using an assumption, and sublime crossover (and a direct contradiction I might add) of the meanings of - who we are - and - what we are. Who = that person, a person, or the interrogative of another person - what = interrogative of an object, or matter. Who, and what, are both pronouns; therefore, extreme caution is necessary for challenges such as this, which insures that there is no misunderstanding of a specific word possible. That proves use of vague, and abstruse language, which is totally unacceptable and is not honest for debate, or discussion. Yes I know what I am, but what I am, is not what the proposition specifies.

7. Recursive reflexivity (infinite regress)

"Apparently all conscious knowledge if it is asserted with absolute truth-value succumbs to infinite regress, whereby we reach an end link in our chain of reasoning which infinitely repeats because we never come to an absolute endpoint. Or, we face "recursive reflexivity" whereby each addition of knowledge of who we are changes who we are so that we never attain true knowledge of who we are."

An infinite regress is possible only when dealing with abstract entities or concepts; therefore, your argument as presented is invalid and unsound. An infinite regress will never occur in reality of the worlds of which, are the private and mutually exclusive domains of our existence. Prediction: My body will die, and will convert to other forms of matter, or energy; by that, my body will disappear from experiential reality. That is an absolute prediction, with an absolute truth-value. I defy logic to disprove the truth in that prediction. There is no other condition, nor further point to find or prove, for that is the essence of absolutism - guaranteed truth value, and guaranteed result in reality as we, human beings experience it. By that, prove to me the truth of the prediction is not self-evident, as specifically phrased.

8. Precedence of possibility

"Since possibility is necessary for the existence of impossibility, and impossibility is not necessary for the existence of possibility, it follows that possibility precedes impossibility. This axiom defends the competition from the standpoint that it cannot be claimed with validity that it is impossible to truly know who we are, and therefore, the proposition is impossible to overcome.

Also, since the proposition is asserted from a limited perspective, it is consistent with the precedence of possibility, and in particular the possibility of truly knowing who we are."

All things, concepts, entities, or abstract constructed whatever’s the human mind can conceive of are impossible to make manifest in reality; thereof, we can say, it is impossible for all possibilities to occur. Possible can be both causal and contingent; impossible is not contingent, and cannot be caused.

The argument as presented is based on devious wording as phrased, of which, by using what is a triple negative obfuscates every potential result. That statement follows with the explanatory and superfluous clauses omitted, and then divided into the three relevant clauses required to prove the truth-value of each particular clause.

"it cannot be claimed with validity that"

"it is impossible to truly know who we are,"

"the proposition is impossible to overcome."

There is no possible rebuttal to argument 8, until after argument 9 is refuted. In other words, every potential to refute argument 8 does not exist, until after argument 9 is refuted, which will determine the truth-value of each of the cited clauses.

Final argument-

"it cannot be claimed with validity that" - This clause is true.

"it is impossible to truly know who we are," - This clause is false, PNC wins!

"the proposition is impossible to overcome." - This clause is false, I win!

9. Limited perspective

By asserting the proposition with limited truth-value, we avoid the skeptical contradiction of claiming to not know anything from a position of knowing, or in the context of the proposition, claiming to not truly know who we are from a position of truly knowing who we are. Also, we do not diminish the significance of the proposition by limiting its truth-value, because apparently all propositions from our perspective are subject to limited truth-value, and as mentioned, if we did not limit the proposition’s truth-value, it would result in contradiction.

Here again, it is not apparent that all propositions are subject to limited truth-value. That is an assertion without supporting argument; however, I will accept the assertion.

Argument 9 is clearly obfuscating and ambiguous.

Argument 9 includes a direct contradiction that is clearly elucidated. It follows as was written.

"we do not diminish the significance of the proposition by limiting its truth-value."

The contradicting statement immediately follows the above statement.

"because apparently all propositions from our perspective are subject to limited truth-value,"

The following statement compounds the contradiction with a hilariously funny extra warning about - what contradiction?

"and as mentioned, if we did not limit the proposition’s truth-value, it would result in contradiction."

In view of the "noted" and properly "identified" direct contradiction, I claim victory with argument 9, for it conclusively proves the results for argument 8!
End © Copyright information -

Respectfully Submitted as Appended,
Jimmy L. White – July 13, 2002

Hi Jim,

Great reasoning. But remember, in time we all
die. Reality does have time, whether or not we
are cognizant of it, though most of the time, we
are. I would probably not go through the great
lengths you have to refute the proposition, since
then I would be giving it power I do not believe
it has. Still, always interesting to see the
mechanics of thought. Good luck!

Thanks for sharing your ideas.

Ivan

Aloha Everyone,

Just came across this after posting an Inquiry to the Competition which has not been posted yet & which I will reproduce hereunder.

Jim the interesting point is, I believe you are tackling the issue from the right angle. This is precisely the point I made with my Inquiry to Response of Inquiry #6, based on their revelation of the Original proposition, which I cornered them into.

My argument was based upon the non-existence of Absolute Truth-Value in the Original proposition, and is directly related to yours, although subtly different. I believe the 'Contradiction' lies in the fact, that the Original proposition itself has no Absolute Truth-Value.

My Inquiry(reproduced below, but not posted by Inexpressible yet), will explain my point...meanwhile, Good Luck with your Entry Jim, I believe the enigma is about to be exposed.
*************************************************
Aloha,

Posted in Entry form as well
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1) - You claim the Original Proposition is:

“We cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time”

2) - The proposition has been always asserted with limited truth-value.

My Inquiry is:

How was Garvey able to ‘assert’ the proposition with limited truth-value, unless he knew with Absolute Truth-Value that the proposition was “True” with limited truth-value ?

The Committee admits that he didn’t, in that both he & they agree that although they don’t know for sure, they believe it is impossible to overcome the proposition.

The proposition is therefore a personal belief based on impossibility & as you yourselves admit has no Absolute Truth-Value. Do you agree that personal belief, has no Absolute Truth-Value ?

If so, why do you find it necessary for someone else to overcome the proposition (which has no Absolute Truth-Value) with Absolute Truth-Value.

It is only ‘impossible’ to overcome a proposition if it has Absolute Truth-Value.

Therefore, Garveys belief of ‘impossibilty’ accepted by the Committee is necessarily based on personal belief, as it has no Absolute Truth-Value.

Is it ‘more reasonable’ that you expect someone elses belief, albeit based on ‘possibilty’ to include Absolute Truth-Value, when yours does not ?

NO – it is pure dogmatism of the highest order !

Therefore, I assert, that ‘mere possibilty’ without Absolute Truth-Value overcomes the proposition.

This is precisely why I introduced Absolute Truth-Value into the equation in the first place…I.E. – “Absolute Being either exists or it does not”

You deny that you are required to prove that Absolute Being exists, yet I AM required to prove that it does. WHY ?…what are the grounds based on Absolute Truth-Value for your belief that it is impossible that it can exist ? You do not have any grounds with Absolute Truth-Value, other than the fact that you limited the unproved Truth-Value of an unproved proposition. I.E. – your grounds are based entirely on personal belief.

Unless you can agree that the proposition is overcome by merely showing the ‘possibilty’ that it can be overcome, the Competition becomes an unreasonable & preposterous exercise in Philosophical dialogue doomed to go round in circles forever. To deny this is to cling dogmatically to the assumption that the personally held belief of the ‘impossibilty’, of something with No Truth-Value, has Absolute Truth-Value. This is obviously contradictory, ridiculous & simply laughable.
To conclude therefore – if you deny the latter, the Competiton must be declared ‘null & void’.

Friends to delay the issue would merely substantiate Garveys mental torment, in as much as he would have to admit defeat, by labelling his final publication for ‘Inexpressible Publications’ – ‘ Critique of Unreasonable Consciousness’: Why I was wrong.

The ‘inexpressible’ has no Absolute Truth-Value whatsoever & will always remain unable to serve any useful purpose. Only that which has been expressed (and/or is capable of expression) is capable of embodying the Absolute Truth-Value of existence. Inability to express knowledge will always remain un-representational, whereas expression of knowledge allows for education & therefore includes representational potentiality.

protomutant

Ivan, Protomutant, Everyone,

Follows is another amendment to those as already posted, and I have at least one more argument that needs refutation in order for everyone else's response to the challenge becomes as relevant, or even moreso than that as the Original Challenges was written. I will endeavor to prove the remaining argument quickly.

Please see my previous posts of Friday, July 12, 2002 - 05:15 am, and Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 09:55 am in order to correlate this amendment accordingly. Thank you, -Jim White
-------------------

What follows is appended July 13, 2002 and © Copyright by Jimmy L. White

To fully establish the validity of my arguments there were seven more arguments made to support the Original Philosophy Challenge. By that, in order to refute every known type of argument the Committee will present to me, I will continually update this paper when and if required for it to be as compiled a complete absolute refutation to the Challenge as was presented.

The Philosophy Challenge- Continued Refutations-

"We cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time."

Response to the three Premises + Four Arguments (C) Copyright 2002 Jimmy L. White

The proof for the proposition comes down to three premises:

1. We exist. - True Statement

2. There is a basis behind our existence. - True Statement

3. Our conscious knowledge is representational. - False Statement

Four Arguments

1. there is no evidence showing a direct continuum of knowledge from the external world. - False Statement

2. we appear to derive/create knowledge from past knowledge or reflecting/reasoning. - False Statement

3. it does not follow how knowledge as conscious phenomenon could exist as a static, conscious form in objects which are devoid of consciousness. False Statement.

4. it does not follow why objects would contain absolute conscious knowledge of themselves that is directly transferred to conscious life-forms. False Statement
-----------------

Opening Statements

Premises 1 and 2 stand on merit as defined. Premise 3 is invalid, and cannot be proven to be true; thereby, proving the Philosophy Challenge can be overcome.

The four arguments are invalid, and, or, are false, thereby, proving that someone can or will overcome the Philosophy Challenge as it was originally written.
-----------------
Premise 3

Our conscious knowledge is representational-

This premise is central to validating the proposition because the premise shows from our limited perspective that we cannot truly know something. So if the premise stands, assuming that the other premises also stand, it follows that the proposition stands as well.

The defense of this premise is as follows: We consciously know in an interactional or representational way through sensorial, biochemical, neurological, and conscious responses, and any other responses, to interactions internal to us as human beings, so that what we consciously know, from our limited perspective, is not truly what is.
-----------------
Response to Premise 3

I agree that "some" types of knowledge are in fact representational, but not all knowledge is based on, or is representational of any whatever. The common problem among framers of the Challenge is, their dependency on a language as iterated to imply, tell, inform, and or constitute an idea, concept or notion into a statement that is self-evident – true or false. The problem is firmly rooted in the logical apparatus known as the human brain, since the human brain does not rely upon, or depend upon the language as spoken and written such to solve some logic problems. Undoubtedly, the human brain apparatus utilizes a precise methodology inclusive of a regimented process, which is fully analog in function that can be used to incorporate polynomial exponential algorithms of specific types that cannot be duplicated by any known digital methodology. It is from that aspect of which I approach problem solution. In some instances that rules out the commonplace formal logic systems that have been designed by science, and philosophers to prove, and disprove propositions, verify premises, and formulate formal arguments.

Yes, I strongly believe in and use the Principle of Non Contradiction (PNC), the Principle of Excluded Middle (PEM), and as a last resort the Principle of Exclusive Disjunction for Contradictories (PEDC). When each of them is properly used, they allow us to eliminate superfluous language, which becomes a formidable tool that often annihilates insufficient or invalid, nonsensical arguments and components of a proposition or premise. Yes, that is reductionism, which is another tool often bypassed by logicians and philosophers.

Follows is my direct argument to defeat the premise-

Direct information is absorbed by our consciousness for our consciousness permeates the space surrounding us, which therefore, encompasses every object within proximity of our being. If that were not true, we would not be able to make decisions of judgment such as the involuntary reactions required to avoid accidents. A speeding car that pulls in front of your car when traveling at fifty miles per hour requires such reaction to avoid a collision; therefore, the “knowledge” of that car pulling out in front of you is not - representational, it is direct knowledge as absorbed by our consciousness.

Continuation and Explanation of the Argument-

It was Heidegger who had great difficulty in expressing an in here, out there realization of being. Yes, I studied Heidegger, but only to learn where his philosophy failed; by that, I mostly reject Heideggerian Philosophy for that one reason for he trapped himself in the vicious circle some people identify as an infinite regress; thereby, he could never form a complete argument that resulted with a valid concept that could be validated as being true within context as absolute, and irrefutable.

Consciousness, is not limited or restricted to the in here (interior) of being, for if it were, we could not rationalize (destroy-examine-probe-test) the reality of other objects, things, or entities that exist external to our being. Fact: Objects do not exist in reality. Instead, objects exist as the reality of their being. In other words, it is the reality of our being is the method used to precisely and concisely project the image of our being to others who observe us. It is in that sense, everything that is external to our being is projected by the reality of those whatever that appear to us. That is how and why that you see your own body as it appears to you - our own being allows us to view self, not only from the inside of our being, but as we appear to others. In essence, our consciousness is projected into the infinity of space whereas, it absorbs everything of interest, and allows us to examine it as it appears to us; by that, the external appearance of whatever can be examined upon whim and at leisure if, and, or, required. The absorption of knowledge is an autonomic integral brain function, which will be ultimately comprehensible and understandable. At this stage of my life, and my reasoning ability, I am not sure that an adequate method of expression is available to accomplish fact.
------------------

Refutation of the Four Arguments-

1. there is no evidence showing a direct continuum of knowledge from the external world.

The statement is false.

A direct continuum is constantly available to us if and when we are in a conscious state of awareness; moreover, we exist within such a continuum. As human consciousness is projected into our individual worlds (realms) that we exist within the flow of knowledge is never-ending, and allows continual examination of our world. Obviously some types of knowledge never before known or apprehended by us, evades by our never coming in direct contact (through our consciousness) with its specific knowledge. We will never be able to know the absolute being of everything that appears to us. For us to be able to do that, so we could learn or know what another being is, as it is, requires us to destroy the being as it exists, which would defeat the very purpose of such destruction – that is only true for other living creatures, of which, should never be forgotten and omitted from our cognizant realization of what it truly means to live (enter morality or ethics).

2. we appear to derive/create knowledge from past knowledge or reflecting/reasoning.

The statement is false.

Appearances are everything, but amount to nothing, if that appearance does not exist as the reality it must appear as, in order for us to "know" anything about whatever appears. Convoluted expression of abstract concepts or notions is the major culprit of necessarily we must attempt to apprehend. Here it can be categorically stated, the human enterprise will not "create" anything, for creation has provided every necessary thing for us, which proves that creation has no beginning or end; therefore, creation is eternal, and infinite in every respect. The human enterprise only assembles, builds (constructs with), establishes and modifies whatever creation provide[s][d] for us; therefore, it is not humanly possible to create any thing, entity, idea, concept, universal be it material or immaterial, nor a true necessity (whatever it is that is necessary to support life). Creation supplied every human enterprise with "imagination," and it is the improper use of human imagination that tries to "create," but always fails in every such endeavor. For example, we can conceptualize that known as a "square circle," but it is humanly impossible to make, cause, build and or construct such an abstracted concept or notion whereas, it will materialize as a reality, for it does not consist of a necessary substance. (enter noumenon and phenomenon)

3. it does not follow how knowledge as conscious phenomenon could exist as a static, conscious form in objects which are devoid of consciousness.

The Statement is false.

Contrary to the conceptualized statement as rendered, it is the substance of an object that manifests as the reality of objects as they appears before us, which is totally independent, and is not dependent on the object's being, being in a conscious state. Consciousness is a distinct attribute of and belongs exclusively to animate beings; however, unconsciousness is an attribute of every being, animate, or inanimate, and belongs to all beings. Using the example of the "cup," I will attempt to explain why knowledge is discovered, and cannot be created by using a thought experiment that anyone can use to explain that some types of knowledge is inherent (innate) to the human enterprise.

I am totally ignorant - I exist alone in the world of my appearance, and I have never seen a cup before. Think, I am thirsty: As I walk along on my daily travels in search of food, I see a cup for the first time. Not knowing what a cup is, I pick it up, and examine it. I like the cup for I had never seen one before so I decide to keep the cup. Remember, I am now thirsty, so I decide to visit a favorite spring to quench my thirst. Before when I never had a cup, I used my hand to dip water to partake of it, but I had always had to dip my cupped hand several times to quench my thirst. I now had a cup, but I only needed to dip the cup a couple of times to quench my thirst. The question is, how did I know that I could make a cup of my hand in order to dip water? The answer is, I "discovered the knowledge," but I never "created any knowledge"; all knowledge existed prior to my life, and being. (enter eternal and infinite knowledge)

4. it does not follow why objects would contain absolute conscious knowledge of themselves that is directly transferred to conscious life-forms.

The statement is false.

Consciousness or unconsciousness of whatever appears to us, has nothing to do with, and is wholly independent of the appearance (manifestation) of the individual reality of things or whatever it is that appears to us. It is the substance of being that manifests itself to our conscious recognition of it. The human enterprise accumulates knowledge as it was, and is discovered; therefore, we are equipped with a nearly infinite memory system, complete with the necessary attributes and properties required for survival. If the being of an object cannot project what it is to us despite being animate or inanimate how are we supposed to apprehend the object? The object projects itself into our "consciousness" the same as our consciousness projects our appearance to the object. The projection of or manifestation of a being's image as the reality that it is can only be an autonomic function of being, which denies that our consciousness is limited and or restricted to our innermost self. (enter the essence of being)

Thank you,
Jim White

Promutant, Ivan, Everyone,

If it is impossible to establish the truth-value of a proposition, premise, or statement, there is no potential for the reality of objects, entities, abstract concepts, notions, ideas, be they matrerial, or immaterial, to manifest for the human enterprise to examine, study, and then use to further human progress. By that, the conceptual notion of not being able to know an absolute truth is one of what I openly identify as a form of absurd skepticism. Science is capable of, and has established hundreds of absolute truths, and perhaps that should be revised to state, thousands or millions of absolute truths. It only takes one absolutely proven absolute true fact to defeat Mr. Garvey' false assumption concering the truth-value of a proposition, premise or statement, which in essence renders Mr. Garvey's, and the Philosophy Challenge Committee Challenge - absurd.

The Earth Rotates About its Pivotal Axis-

That statement is absolutely true, in every respect; therefore, the Philosophy Challenge is defeated with one statement consisting of seven words, that is gramatically "perfect" and in full accord with the acknowledged Linguistic Standard of modern English. That standard is, The Oxford Dictionary, which can be accessed online at the following URL.

The Oxford Dictionary

No matter the outcome of everyone's entry and attempt to defeat the challenge, I will continue to refute Mr. Garvey and his false assumption at every opportunity, for the world of human enterprise must change; otherwise, what has been earned this far in history of earth, will eventually diminish, for atrophy will not relent of its absolute controlling function that no living mortal will ever overcome.

Jim White

Challenge the Philosophy - Inquiry 1 - Garvey and Yates

Discourse quoted as taken from the Inquiry

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.

The crux of Mr. Garvey’s commentary is, if we were to abide by his philosophy, human enterprise would be reduced to basic unconscious instinctual autonomic function, which is a very problematic position to rationally defend. Think- you are living in the world, as Mr. Garvey proposes would be better than the one we live in today.

You accidentally break your arm.

In Mr. Garvey’s world, instinct alone would “fix or repair” the arm, naturally.

In the world of my existence, I simply have a Doctor set the arm using modern tools as designed to accomplish fact.

At the end of 1 year, who would be in the best physical condition?

The person living in Mr. Garvey’s world?

The person living in the world of today?

No further assessment of Mr. Garvey’s thoughts required.

Jim White

Ivan,

I was at first going to quit after responding to the 3rd argument; however, after reading a few of the inquiries, it is apparent that Mr. Garvey has an ulterior motive that could be a serious problem, if for some insignificant reason the philosophy as espoused by Garvey would catch, and establish a foothold among dissidents of every sort. His philosophy is not dissimilar to that of Nietzsche (Superman/Overman), yet promotes a utilitarian edge designed to cut, slice, and dice existing cultures and civilization into itty-bitty shreds, so “nature” will eventually overcome the mistakes of human enterprise.

The logic of Garvey is…?

Because the universe is the way it is, and functions according to the universe needs of necessity, there is not one act that humanity can commit, which will save earth from an inevitable, and ultimate demise through pure and sure atrophy, which is irreversible if previous history of the universe that we can discern and prove as being true, motion of earth alone is adequate to destroy the ecosystems that now support life.

My logic says, the human enterprise better get off its duff, begin amassing the greatest resources available as quickly as can be done, and get busy with locating another place within our vast universe that can support life, as we human beings, know of it. If that cannot be accomplished within the next ten generations … I will not even hazard one guess as to what the state of Civilization people of earth will be in, but I am sure that earth and her people would be much better off if Mr. Garvey’s philosophy never was written to paper.

Claude

Everyone,

Follows is my final arugment to refute the Philosophy Challenge - It contains my original argument to refute Representationlism, which is the First Argument as iterated by the Challenge - and upon which, so much credence was placed, it is almost hysterically funny. Thanks! Jim White
--------------------------------

The Philosophy Challenge- Argument Against Representationalism

© Copyright 2002 by Jimmy L. White

Merriam Webster

Representationalism 1 : the doctrine that the immediate object of knowledge is an idea in the mind distinct from the external object which is the occasion of perception.

The Original Argument-

1. Representational knowledge

Conscious knowledge is apparently based on interaction at sensorial, biochemical, and neurological levels, or any other levels, and therefore we can only know via representation. (i.e. we do not know directly from the external world in a Aristotelian fashion, whereby external knowledge somehow enters directly into our minds. We know through representation based on interaction, whether it be the interaction of neuron cells or the interaction of sensory receptors with external stimulus. One way around this position is to assert that some conscious knowledge is created ex nihilo ("out of nothing"). However, the concept of ex nihilo is less reasonable than something coming from something else (causality), because we can only know by imputing causality onto things.

The representative nature of conscious knowledge is important, in the context of the competition, because it refutes the notion of true knowledge viz., representative knowledge cannot truly be what it represents, because then it would not be representational.

1st Refutation- as written July 12, 2002

Your supporting arguments do not logically follow; i.e., “we do not know directly from the external world in a Aristotelian fashion, whereby external knowledge somehow enters directly into our minds.”

Direct information is absorbed by our consciousness for our consciousness permeates the space surrounding us, which therefore, encompasses every object within proximity of our being. If that were not true, we would not be able to make decisions of judgment such as the involuntary reactions required to avoid accidents. A speeding car that pulls in front of your car when traveling at fifty miles per hour requires such reaction to avoid a collision; therefore, the “knowledge” of that car pulling out in front of you is not - representational, it is direct knowledge as absorbed by our consciousness.

Continuation of Refutation – Further Explanation-

I cannot rationalize a connection between the word, representational, and its correlation to knowledge in the argument as stated whereas, the question: What is it that supposedly is representative of what according to the argument? Here, the only solution is to break the individual sentences and or clauses to establish a truth-value for each of them as stand alone fact revealing components for obviously, the argument is verbose, ambiguous and it is rather abstruse.

1. Conscious knowledge is apparently based on interaction at sensorial, biochemical, and neurological levels, or any other levels, and therefore we can only know via representation.

2. (i.e. we do not know directly from the external world in a Aristotelian fashion, whereby external knowledge somehow enters directly into our minds.)

3. We know through representation based on interaction, whether it be the interaction of neuron cells or the interaction of sensory receptors with external stimulus.

4. One way around this position is to assert that some conscious knowledge is created ex nihilo ("out of nothing").

5. However, the concept of ex nihilo is less reasonable than something coming from something else (causality), because we can only know by imputing causality onto things

Refutation 1st Statement-

Clearly the first four clauses of Statement 1, begs the question: What is it that supposedly is represented by the various actions/reactions at the various levels? Surely if something represents something else, that something else must be physically identifiable i.e., entity, being, concept, or whatever; otherwise, there is no substantive information that we can or will be able to rationalize or consider successfully to establish the truth-value. Moreover, it is certainly evident there is no truth-value at all within the context as presented; thereof, proving the fifth clause reveals nothing evident; thereby, conclusively proving there is no ascertainable truth-value whatsoever.

Refutation 2nd Statement (in parentheses)-

The Second was completely refuted and explained by my original refutation.

Refutation 3rd Statement-

The first clause is a clear case of question begging: What is it that – we know – from the interaction – that is representational of what? The “what” or “it” has not been elucidated or even referenced as of this stage of argument, but I presume that the identify of such a preponderant mystery is evident or clear in the minds of the committee; hopefully, they will eventually identify the “it,” or “what.”

The second clause continues the ambiguity of the first; however, there is not even some type of question that can be formulated; thereby, rendering the 3rd Statement as idiotic, and wholly worthless, for it is nonsensical.

Refutation 4th Statement-

Statement 4 is nothing more than superfluous obfuscation, and hyperbole, without any potential whatsoever to prove or know, what it is the committee is attempting to iterate.

Refutation 5th Statement-

Statement 5 is the only statement in the argument that reveals some reasonable logic as being present in the sense, I agree with the inference of inputting causality.

The second paragraph of the original argument does not warrant more than a cursory read to learn contents, of which, is nothing but a plea of authority, in order to place importance on a “something, “it,” or “what,” that is never identified within the argument.

Conclusion: On the surface, many people will perceive the argument as sound; however, by reducing the argument to individual clauses and statements, the argument contains no substantial factual evidence upon which, the argument was based upon. Instead, it seems as if the argument was formulated on a superior (Superman – Overman?) concept, which only the authors of the Challenge are privy to. Here I may I ask, who is it so privileged?

Jimmy L. White – July 14, 2002

Hi All!

I will KILL this thread, and pick it up again on
"Challenge the Philosopy -2", starting with the
entry for July 2, 2002. Please refer to that
thread, for the entries from that date have been
duplicated there.

Many thanks for All your fine thoughts.

Ivan

Ivan: 10 generations isn't enough time. Fact is, the Manhattanizing of America is merely Phase I of Global Calcuttacization:) G-man