The Writers' Circle

-Why can we not comprehend the possibility of the existence of that which we cannot perceive?
-Because we are crazy enough to think that we are able to know that what we do perceive is truth and exists because of it's very perceptibility!
-And how so that we are unable to conceive of that which goes beyond this perceived existence
-Well, it undermines our very principles of existence! 
-And such means.? 
-That, if we base our principles of existence on what we perceive in daily life, then a concept of the existence of something beyond this perception intends to undermine our own initial principle.
	-Why?
-Because it both juxtaposes and refutes it!
	-So, if I see that prisoner, he is a physical thing, watch as I hit him .You see he is physical as is the butt of my rifle! So, if I think then that there is another prisoner directly opposite him, and I strike at him: oh surprise, no bitter reaction. Am I now though to believe that because I have implied the existence of this un-beatable prisoner, that the other one no longer exists? We shall see.
-No do not strike him again he deserves less but we will be reprimanded for issuing such justice! 
-Even in the process of proving a valuable theory?
-I am afraid so! Now, I will refute your cynicism thus. If the first prisoner is perceived, as by the means of our established structure of perception, our senses, then we can say for the arguments sake that he represents this institution of attaining knowledge. 
	-I see but what of the invisible prisoner?
-If only you had patience you would not be such a bore to converse with. Now, if you were to imply that there were another prisoner that existed beyond the reach of our senses then you are suggesting that there is potentially existence beyond our perceptions. As such, our perceptions are necessarily limited and thus flawed. The invisible prisoner also offers up the potential of there being a higher truth and as such, our knowledge, as gained through our means of perception is flawed and potentially false. So to juxtapose: the invisible prisoner provides the inconceivable in contradiction to the conceivable, and to refute, undermines our foundation of knowledge by implying flaws in our perception. There can be no invisible prisoner so long as you are incapable of truly convincing yourself that the beatable prisoner does not exist. And I believe we would lose our jobs if we were to attempt a quantifiable proof experiment do you not think
-Quite!