e irony is that in trying to neatly encapsulate and work it all out in terms of the enneagram typologies and fear, anger, desire and free will, you are behaving exactly as you would characterize a fear type who cannot cope with uncertainty. You apparently need your tidy little system to cope with the messiness of life. — Janus

I do not eschew fear. Far from it. I encourage fear. It is awareness, preparedness, and joy; all three.

But the point you miss is that they must be in balance. That means the certainty must go away and things that make us feel too much comfort via certainty are immediately and eternally suspect. Increasing discomfort is wise, because it means we are more humbly aware of the need to be strong in all ways.

I also do not shrink from the messiness of life. I walk into mystery with confidence, many strategies in place to tackle unexpected things, like having what someone 'knows' be wrong. like it always is. It's not a struggle to prove I am right. It is a struggle to explain that we all are always wrong to some degree. We should not delude ourselves or others in this process into any sort of fear calming show for certainties' sake.

Then you are thinking about things wrongly, is my assertion. And that false confidence born of fear and not anger properly, WILL cost you.
— Chet Hawkins
Merely labeling it (so far at least) as thinking wrong and telling me I will suffer doesn't really interact with the ideas or move things forward — Bylaw

I agree. But that is because that cost is not yet apparent nor will be, necessarily. After all it's actually there already in past uses between the two emotions. But, usually, in these matters I do not have to be the one to say, 'I told you so'.

Anger does not really need to be right until it gets too far into enneatype 1; and even that is just an overexpression of that type. The certainty thing is fear talking, fear talk.

It's ok though. I do not know how to move the bar forward between us because we are both mostly on the same page and only disagree about 'only'.

Incorrect. As a volleyball coach I know that my players are being trained as well as might be. But my knowledge is flawed. Their knowledge is flawed. The game is a flawed construction. Being sure via fear is delusional and will cause great troubles. Instead I coach confidence. You have trained. You have listened. You have practiced. You have played many times. Resolve within yourself to take on all challengers and see what you can do. Certainty is a dread enemy. It is the player who thinks they know. It is the coach who thinks they know. It is the game that pretends to be the best. Self-delusional lies are not wisdom.
— Chet Hawkins
But I wasn't advocating certainty. Doubting vs. Certainty is a false dichotomy. — Bylaw

If it is not the certainty part of knowing that you are advocating for, and instead only that this 'knowledge' thing is 'special' in some way, then what way is it special? To me the idea that we (anyone) should credit anyone's knowing with something more impressive than only any other belief is dangerous and so prone to error that I almost can't believe I am having to defend the notion.

There are indeed sources I trust more than others. But with ALL of them, my discipline is to replace their word 'know' in all its forms with 'believe' or 'claim to be aware of this as likely'. It has served me so well in terms of efficient tracking of problems in almost all cases that I had decided and maintain that it is useful for others to adopt that strategy as a part of general wisdom.

The trouble is that when most people say 'know' most others that have not already come to doubt their knowledge incorrectly assume that matter is settled. So, the mere assertion that knowledge is something other than belief is dangerous and almost always wrong at least in some particular way. The trouble IS NOT that Pragmatism correctly identifies a merely useful short-cut that is a 70-85% solution for the trouble at hand. The trouble is that most people stop caring or thinking when that word is used and they forgo the other 30-15% that is where the real value is. Not knowing as an assertion is clearly a superior paradigm to live by. The use of proper language to express that awareness is also a superior paradigm to live by.

Instead, stand. Decide to face the unknown. You must push back fear that you are not enough, that you do not belong. You did the things. You mean it. Now fight. Show the universe that you are not afraid, that you are not so foolish as to 'know'.
— Chet Hawkins
So, I should, for example, when in the shower and I've seen (or is it merely that I thought I saw) the soap where it usually is, not simply reach out to grab it, but question myself and focus on the possibility that I might be wrong this time about the soap. Or is it OK to just continue letting the water hit my face, and with confidence reach out to where I saw (or thought I saw the soap)? — Bylaw

This does not involve language. So it misses the troublesome point.

But to not avoid the specificity of the question I would answer, 'there is always a better way to do anything than what has been tried before.' Therefore although confidence is still in place, especially in a familiar environment like your own shower, the truth is more subtle and wonderful both. That is that 'no plan survives contact with the enemy (reality as ever-changing in states, not in truths). So, the correct doubt comes in remaining confident BY always optimizing your actions. This means confidence IS NOT properly blithely assuming your senses/memory/expectations are ever right, but including a mitigating balance to every action AS IF any assumptions are wrong. And knowledge is mostly just an assumption.

Because if my hand finds not soap there I can pull my head from the water and check. Or must I always be treating every situation as completely up in the air? Or does the specific situation affect how much I consider things up in the air? — Bylaw

No. There is no 'understood scenario'. Each time your woman complains the last thing you should do is use certainty/knowing to unravel the current state. In fact, history will often serve you not at all in solving the situation, and neither will appeals to logic. There are exceptions, of course. But 'everything is a minefield' as an attitude will work best. Anger kind of 'knows' (ha ha) that its you against the universe, especially with your 'best' friends and family.

Exactly! You speak of fear unbridled or desire unbridled. Only anger brings the balance. Natural athletes are usually anger types. They are balanced. I see this all the time. The fear types are in their heads and some form of old school smack has to happen to get them out of there. If they do not get out of their heads, they WILL fail. Trust to the body's memory.
— Chet Hawkins
Exactly. So, I get to trust. I get to act as if it is knowledge in many situations. Of course it might not be correct. And I am a natural athlete, while we're on the topic. In practice I may focus on a habit, a kind of physical assumption and tweak it, but in a game, I trust my body. I act as if I know. — Bylaw

Ugh. That is not 'knowing'. That is the inertia of intuition. You are giving fear credit for anger's value. It is not uncommon.

I know (ha ha). So you already agree with my point, really.
— Chet Hawkins
Sure. I agree with the point but the prescription.
But nothing in the statement 'knowledge is only belief' is wrong.
— Chet Hawkins
I think 'only' is wrong. I think its a poor heuristic. I do fine without that word. I remain unconvinced that changing my words the way you think I should is necessary or an improvement. — Bylaw

Whereas I think it's addition to the statement is rather precisely the point. Unless I know (ha ha) the justification of the other, their knowledge is best treated only as belief. I do not even have to have experienced them for a long time to understand that as true. It's always true.

You're right. Its also a container for deception/delusion. Will you now defend that?
— Chet Hawkins
Of course it's also that. But it's not just a container for truth or assertions or beliefs, it is something else often also and someone only these other things/functions — Bylaw

This is another strange wording that I cannot quite follow. Yes, that is MY point. Knowledge is not a container for truth. It is a belief (only) and that means without awareness of every aspect of the other party's justification, it is best only treated as such. It really is not too hard at all to pick apart what someone thinks they 'know', usually. And that picking apart process should not be so easy, if knowledge meant something past belief. Truth cannot be destroyed.

Yes and all are beliefs and choices, some of them to delude; and some to promote more resonance with wisdom and truth.
— Chet Hawkins
No, language is not always a conveying of beliefs. It can be also or only an act. An eliciting. — Bylaw

That is wildly incorrect to me. Language, even being, is nothing but a set of beliefs, choices. Any act is a conveying of beliefs ONLY. That is to say all aspects of that act, any act, are reducible to beliefs.

Confidence and certainty are NOT the same thing.
— Chet Hawkins
I think you give too much power to your particular interpretation of words. — Bylaw

Yes, perhaps, because power in this sentence only means belief. But it is not for lack of attempted best efforts towards justification.

Our minds are not all the same. You are acting as if you know what happens when everyone uses those words. You are acting like those words mean one think and you know what it is and you know what happens in other minds than your own when they use those words. I think language and minds are vastly more complicated and varied — Bylaw

This is all wrong. Truth is objective, not subjective. It matters not what opinions are offered, truth does not change. Knowledge changes, so it is not truth. We agree on that I think.

But the goal here is to approach truth more properly. That is not best accomplished by ever presuming to know. In humility alone we demur. In language we should show that acquiescence to belief only, and although we may add the words to describe our justification of belief(s) the short cut statements of knowing are ill advised. The false confidence this inspires in many is too dangerous to have the use of the word 'know' to be wise.

Inept teachers make wrong adjustments all the time. They should do better.
— Chet Hawkins
But I feel they were making the same cosmetic mistake that you are. — Bylaw

Cosmetic? Hilarious! Well, I have tried to convey the importance of this issue. There are many others in language and action that also share in this perfection assumed stance that is always wrong. And it does not matter if they say 'we know (ha ha) it's not perfection' OK, then, SPEAK that way.

↪Chet Hawkins I can prove that if you have one banana and you eat it, you won't have a banana left. There are trillions of such things that I can prove. So, it's incorrect to say that there is no proof. — Truth Seeker

The banana is still there, inside you. You are partially wrong.
Someone may give you another banana. You are partially wrong.

Your examples are too limited to have much use. Experience is not limited in that way, or let's say experience is LESS limited.

Your proofs leave much to be desired. They are in fact not proofs at all.

↪Chet Hawkins Thank you for sharing your beliefs about this. Can you prove your claims? — Truth Seeker

I realize that there is no proof. Apparently you do not. To prove something is to know it, objectively. That is not possible.

We must live based on a well of beliefs, faith. This is not religious. It is nonetheless informed by experience, by being in reality.

Proof is a delusional need. It will not serve you to ask for it. You DO properly take on awareness as a burden. The wiser we are the more of a burden we have to do good, to choose the good, amid free will.

This thread already contains many of my arguments towards truth. Since proof is impossible, it is incoherent to expect it. It is not incoherent to seek truth and awareness though. Fear is useful and parts of it are good.

You call yourself truth-seeker and that is a fine name. Truth arriver, they who have proof, would only be delusion. That name would not be good.

What if I exist as an immaterial soul that is experiencing the illusion of being in physical body on a physical planet in a physical universe? — Truth Seeker

In one sense, that IS the case.

Reality is nothing but consciousness. Anger pushing back against fear and desire, and itself, causes mass to exist. The tension of anger is mass itself.

The 'immaterial soul' is just a phrase used to describe the awareness of the illusory nature of physical reality by itself. In other words reality is more than just physical reality. It includes the mind and all fear constructs, as well as desire and perfection as a guide.

The only thing in existence that is not an illusion is the truth of perfection. That is why we are compelled via desire to approach it.

Exactly! I would say that I rest my case, but you are still not getting it.

Confidence IS NOT knowing. Firstly, it cannot be, because one cannot actually know. One only believes. So, confidence is exhibited as 'They who do not know, but believe strongly anyway'. Of course immoral fear types will chafe and call that incoherent. They are not really right, but this is the hubris of relatively high awareness or let's say a facility with awareness.
— Chet Hawkins

Perhaps we are just keep missing each other's point. It is understandable that it can happen. After all we have different ways looking at things in the world, and I am not aware of the contents in your mind what is going on, and you must be the same. — Corvus

Up to here, we are fine. I respect your temerity and your clear need to find some balance.

Confidence in the linguistic expression is based on the empirical experience and evidence from the real world events and observations, hence it can be said with most certainty. — Corvus

No it is not. This is wrong. Confidence is informed by fear, yes. And fear is the patterns you are referring to as experience. But it also includes BEING in those situations. So, it can be hard to speak of single emotions rather than all together in experience.

But fear does realize that reductionism is useful. So, we reduce emotions properly to understand the root of any motivation.

Confidence is rooted in anger, not fear. Real confidence is sourced in belonging and being inseparable from all of reality. Because nothing can be created nor destroyed, death is delusional. Ultimately, that is the source of balance and confidence. 'Everything will be fine' (even if we all die screaming).

Fear cannot track that. Fear is, more than anything else, enervated and aware. It is aware of death most poignantly. Courage and confidence deny the fear of death.

Fear is the source of the need for certainty, a limit that is delusion in ALL cases. So the patterns of awareness are NOT related to confidence directly. The awareness that is related to confidence is the awareness that the certainty of fear must be put down and the awareness that death is acceptable and normal. Of course we do not want to go too far with this. Every emotion can be over-expressed.

Anyway, hopefully that was useful.

I always get assigned the tasks no one else can solve, because what they know is not correct, and I do not assume what they know is. So I, often alone, can solve it. I have been ordered off tasks where that method was being used by me and then called back and that with me having to tell the CEO or interested parties that I would be assuming what they know was not true and if they wanted me to work on it they would have to allow for that. In almost every case my original assessment was correct. What they knew was the problem and was not true. It was not all the time, but by far most of the time. So, even the practical implications for what I am suggesting are wise.
— Chet Hawkins
This deals with a situation where professionals have failed to solve something and it arrives on your desk. In such a situation I would be on high alert (so to speak) that conventional approaches are probably not working and something new, lateral, unexpected is going on or is needed. I would be in a more exploratory state than when I reach for the soap on the soap holder in the shower. Or when I see the back of the head of a blond woman - my wife - sitting in her chair in the living room. I'll just reach out: I'll just start talking to my wife before walking around to see if another blond woman broke into my apartment. I happen not to use the word 'know' a lot in my communication. I'd be more likely to say I'm sure. Which does not mean to me that I can't possibly be mistaken, but it means that I consider it extremely likely that X is the case. I have degrees of certainty and for practical purposes I am not questioning a lot of things, each day. I choose to question in response to indications something is interesting, not what it seems, failing to be accurate and so on. Then also there is a range of issues, I keep exploring. But a lot of things every day, I assume are the case. This doesn't mean I think I couldn't possibly be wrong. — Bylaw

Then you are thinking about things wrongly, is my assertion. And that false confidence born of fear and not anger properly, WILL cost you.

One reason to not fussing with many things each day is because they are very much like taking a jump shot in basketball. I am rising up in the air, my opponent is trying to block me....and I don't start reassessing things 'perhaps my right hand should be placed more towards the top of the ball, perhaps I should draw the ball further behind my head. Those are issues that could come up in practice, when being coached, if something has gotten worse in my %ages, if I have decided to improve and want to retrain and so on. Or, heck, not being a pro player and just wanted to enjoy a weekly pick up game, I'll be exploring other things that are more important for me to improve outside that game.

Enforcing a kind of 'not knowing, not being sure' in a lot of my daily moments would actually reduce my skills. — Bylaw

Incorrect. As a volleyball coach I know that my players are being trained as well as might be. But my knowledge is flawed. Their knowledge is flawed. The game is a flawed construction. Being sure via fear is delusional and will cause great troubles. Instead I coach confidence. You have trained. You have listened. You have practiced. You have played many times. Resolve within yourself to take on all challengers and see what you can do. Certainty is a dread enemy. It is the player who thinks they know. It is the coach who thinks they know. It is the game that pretends to be the best. Self-delusional lies are not wisdom.

Instead, stand. Decide to face the unknown. You must push back fear that you are not enough, that you do not belong. You did the things. You mean it. Now fight. Show the universe that you are not afraid, that you are not so foolish as to 'know'. You are open to new things, new awareness. You are not decided, because that would be stupidity.

I'd also want to avoid infinite regresses: is this the right moment to try to improve my shot; do I have the right information to make that evaluation; am I actually playing basketball; what are the phenomenological differences between fantasizing, dreaming and actually playing basketball and how certain am I which one this is: is my sense of the % of moments/actions a good heuristic: should I develop a logically arrived at heuristic or base my choices to explore on intuition or some combination; was that the right question to ask.....and so on until they are closing the gym and ask the b-player lying on his side ratiocinating on the court to go home. — Bylaw

Exactly! You speak of fear unbridled or desire unbridled. Only anger brings the balance. Natural athletes are usually anger types. They are balanced. I see this all the time. The fear types are in their heads and some form of old school smack has to happen to get them out of there. If they do not get out of their heads, they WILL fail. Trust to the body's memory. Practice. Stand to the foe. Engage with confidence in your training. The pattern of fear was there, in the past, in the practices. It was either better or worse for your team than the other. The pattern of the day and the location matter. The pattern of the player's decisions to retain lessons matters greatly. But if they are certain, then they will lose. I've seen it hundreds of times. A great team can lose to someone willing to stand no matter what. The fierceness of anger will destroy fear until fear cheats. That is why there are rules to games. But life's rules are laws of nature only. And nature allows deception as a path towards perfection. The fake it til you make it step. It is supposed to be brief. And anger balances the desire such that finally one is no longer faking it either.

We can learn amid doing, but, for sports and other imminent actions, like war, there is less of this and more of only confidently, despite all odds, acting as your patterns of training have prepared you.

Different beliefs on my part get categorized differently. Some I consider knowledge, but I do not consider knowledge infallible. — Bylaw

I know (ha ha). So you already agree with my point, really. Why waste more time. Knowledge is only belief. It is belief that we have decided is true because 1) we are afraid that it is true, 2) we want it to be true, or 3) sensory and memory data within reality (being, experience) seems to show it to be true.

But nothing in the statement 'knowledge is only belief' is wrong. Knowledge partakes of an objective character. It is at least mistaken as meaning that by most. Thus such terms are ill advised in general.

I don't consider language just a container for truth. — Bylaw

You're right. Its also a container for deception/delusion. Will you now defend that?

Now that's categorized as knowledge so I cannot notice counterexamples, must defend that belief the to death, must never listen to someone who is questioning it - of course in some instances I will not want to discuss whether I exist. — Bylaw

I admit that sentence was too ... something ... for me to understand.

That's not something I will allow a toll booth operator to question with my participation. Going to work, find a philosophy forum guy, gotta go. If the toll booth operator thinks there is small fire in the back undercarriage of my car and I think he's wrong, I'll probably still get out to check. — Bylaw

Operating on belief is wise. Operating amid certainty is not. Operating within confidence is wise. Confidence and certainty are NOT the same thing. They arise from different emotions,

Language is also eliciting things, prioritizing, instigating....... — Bylaw

Yes and all are beliefs and choices, some of them to delude; and some to promote more resonance with wisdom and truth.

I've been around people who qualify what they say, avoid stating things with certainty...and they are so damn sure it oozes out of their pores. Or they don't come off like that, but for all their supposed open mind, and their ability to entertain alternate ideas, they never change their minds. They would easily admit they can't be sure, or they don't know. They can say those words and even mean them honestly. But it doesn't really matter. Nothing really gets at the beliefs they have except perhaps when catastrophic events slam them out of their beliefs. — Bylaw

Even then you cannot tell. Catastrophe comes with damage. So it is unfair to judge so much after that at least for a space in time.

And yes, anger confidence holds its truths more aggressively than fear certainty does. Fear crumbles in the face of anger. It must cheat usually to win. That is a matter of numbers or skill or some structure that denies being in essence. Fear almost always places a false separation in the equation. Country borders. Identity as an ego. Rules of man. These barriers do not really exist. But fear has CUT OFF its awareness with knowing. And hell is always the result. The same value is had by awareness alone without the Pragmatic cut off.

I know people who do use the words knowledge and know who have changed their beliefs about what they consider knowledge. Because they don't think those word indicate absolute perfection and infallibility. And many of these people don't have to go through catastrophic failures to move off positions. — Bylaw

Neither do I. As long as knowledge is assumed to only be belief, I am good. But, I caution against the use of the word, because so many others ARE NOT GOOD. They don't get it. And thus, the word knowledge is like a bad drug, convincing people that having it is good, and that if you have it, you are done, you are good, that there is no more work needed.

I remember working in an alternative preschool that did not like negative words. So, if a child did something 'wrong' they would say to the child that their action wasn't in harmony with the other children or some such.

Well, lack of harmony judgments went into children's bodies and did that same thing as the words the school was supposedly avoiding. Words just being sounds, and the children picking up with dynamic regardless. Now a different sound meant what they did was wrong. — Bylaw

Inept teachers make wrong adjustments all the time. They should do better. My mother and father told me that if I stepped in poison ivy I would 'break out'. It sounded awful and I was an extremely careful child in the woods until I figured out that they were foolishly exaggerating. They did not know. They were aware that sometimes contact with that plant's resins can cause a skin itch that spreads. If they had said that and not some idiomatic nonsense it would have helped.

You also make my point for me. It is VERY IMPORTANT that all advice and learning be balanced. Wisdom must be used to include fear, anger, and desire; all in balance with EVERY communication. Earning greater awareness is always a better expression than knowing is. That is all.

Intent does not always reflect belief. Stated belief does not always reflect belief. Choice or action and consequences do not always reflect belief. So belief remains an implausible interpretation from every angle that it is viewed or considered. We all understand, unless we are being intentionally obtuse, that belief is something you fear is true, desire to be true, or that you reason is true based on sensory data and experience. These are the three paths of wisdom, fear, desire, and anger (being). It is more useful to approach belief that way than in any of the ways I read about on that link.
— Chet Hawkins

Virtually total respect. But
One question. I am compelled by your presentation. And not just above. But why is "anger" the 3rd? presumably corresponding to reason and being, the latter of which you anointed with parentheses, or suspended. (I know you've explained it. I'm inviting you to abandon it or express any new openings since you began this dialectic journey) — ENOAH

So, I could never abandon anger. It all starts in balance and only we (and all choosers) disrupt that balance with delusions. In the context of this thread belief is only one form of choice.

So, there is not real first, and that may seem to undo what I said last paragraph. Since we do not know what reality is, we can only each add conjecture and then try to test if that matches with all empirical data. My model does, is my opinion. I cannot prove it because no one can prove anything, really. But it matches even more what reality is than so-called science does to date. That is to say, I have no problem with the scientific method as long as we realize that confirmation of a tendency in nature is not proof, finally. It is pattern matching. And sure, pattern reliability. But that reliability never goes to 100 percent.

So, on with the explanation.

Anger is not the 3rd. None of the emotions are ordered, as they are in balance. There is never really a point in time that does not contain all three emotions, and only those three. I think I did explain earlier, but, in case I did not, Fear is properly defined as a excitable state that arises as a result of matching a pattern from one's past. This energy can be something that is in need of being calmed or it can be something that, due to the comfort of the match and what it means, our awareness of certain patterns as 'safe' (delusional) we actually stoke that feeling of excitement. In all cases thus, fear is associated with the temporal dimension we refer to as the past.

The patterns can only be matched if we are aware of them. So, this seeking awareness is fear in action. It is the first rung of the fear action/reaction. We become aware, It is obvious that the state of being must already be present to seek awareness. But fear is involved in a more intimate way than that. If we picture a physical blob of tissue or matter of any kind it is impacted by its environment. A layer forms of interaction between substances. That layer will itself differentiate into hard pack or toughness, sensor stuff, and interactive stuff. These are always the three splits and the correspond to anger, fear, and desire respectively.

The sensor route is the route we are taking now. That is the path of fear. Eventually the blob becomes aware of the pressure or pain or whatever stimulus is acting on it. A good example in the human case is sitting on a chair with a weave. That weave is transferred to the blob of tissue and whether we move or don't that pattern is shown there for a time. Of course humans find it funny or annoying and BOTH of these responses are fear, an excitable state arising from matching a pattern from one's past. If we we such a blob that we sat on chairs like that so often that it became a sovereign pattern to us, we would indeed evolve to be tougher and or sculpt our bodies to interact in some premium way with the chair. It is inevitable.

The second rung of fear's actions, fear's virtue set, is preparedness. We reduce our excitement to becalm ourselves by adding patterns to the first pattern that reduce the danger to being. We put down a buffering towel to reduce the effect, the pattern impact, of the chair on our essence. This is preparedness. It is also a loyalty thing, a connection. We have connected with the idea of an identity to protect at this time. Our awareness has congealed upon the self. Fear is the origin of identity. It establishes the delusional border between the us and the them. So fear is of course the source of all bigotry. That line is delusional. But it is useful to protect the self, so it is both delusional and useful. We are not gaining awareness and preparing AFTER we encounter patterns in case we meet them again. So now we have this thing, the pattern and its recurrence. We 'realize' in being that patterns repeat because of memory. Memory is pattern storage. Memory is a construct made from fear. The mechanisms that match memories to sensory input are fear path mechanisms. Eventually, everything we call 'thought' and then of course all logic, is only fear manifested.

The third and final rung is the pattern we prefer to continue without alarm. Such a pattern resonates with something not quite beyond the awareness of the essence, our emerging thought. So that is the call of perfection, extant, from all of reality. This is desire. And since it is preferred when such a pattern emerges we relish it, we wallow in it, as it is wanted. This is the cause of the singular consequence emotion known as joy. It is NOT full genuine happiness. But it is a type of fear, yes fear. It loops and engages instead of trying to becalm itself. It is important to understand each of these three responses of fear.

Now let's re-examine fear. If we fold anger, which is being in essence back into fear and combine them, we get the blob trying to sense and remember patterns. That is awareness, the first fear reaction. If we add more fear to that fear, the memory or the sensory data as it happens, that is fear-fear or the second fear reaction, preparedness. If we add desire to fear we then can have the third fear reaction of joy or even something as banal as excitement, just in general. And look at what that does. Rather than just being, just reacting, we now might seek action, instead of reaction.

Action is the realm of anger.

Our joy filled blob has advanced. It is now 'leaping' into situations, remaining aware, preparing, but, finding favorites and pursuing them. The first action of anger is to challenge the self to overcome this fear at every opportunity. The fear is seen, perhaps rightly so, as weakness. It must overcome. But fear is also appreciated. It recognizes the patterns and orders our lives. Categories are formed from fear. We have structure. But the blob needs to become aware of all, prepare for all, and find joy in all. So the blob must become tough. The truth becomes manifest. More patterns, more toughness, and more joy also. So this desire infusion of fear, joy leads to desire infusion of anger, challenge. Innocent exploration of all leads to weaknesses discovered and addressed. We throw ourselves at everything.

But then anger comes in a second wave. Anger at desire. We have become reckless. Perhaps some of what we identify with, other individuals, are lost. That pattern is something we become aware of slowly but it has seeped in. Now anger pushes back against desire. And the result is a balance. It is not the balance of fear, as that was observation and awareness, anger infused fear. This is anger infused anger. And just like anger was an inaction push into fear by way of observation, as opposed to participation, now anger is against anger. So we have peace, calm, and a very balanced point of view. This is also where laziness comes from, as we can go too far with this effect.

Finally we realize that the call of something is still out there. That something is perfection. It makes us restless and the power of desire is calling. But having gotten to a peaceful balance we are afraid of this call now. So this last step for anger is the fear infusion. We begin to choose more properly. We go back to leaping in, but only after more than simple observation. The prospective patterns are now placed more thoroughly into categories of right for us or wrong for us. This is judgment. This is fear infused anger. It prepares us like nothing else for the future.

And now we must face the future. We must 'give in' to the call of perfection as we realize via judgment that anger should not just squelch desire. It should use judgement to determine when to leap in. At first our identity helps us achieve the mass needed to overwhelm fear and we again leap in. But we realize that something can be done in most cases. Action can be taken to encourage us to jump in correctly or to repair damage when it happens. We have begun to admit in others the call of desire and we sympathize. We understand that the pattern called them to do the things that might have hurt or slowed them. So we help. We support. We want to do it, so that we can all arrive. This is patterned. We have to know what to do. We must separate support from its opposite patterns. So this is fear infused desire.

We have the basis now for much faster success. More of us can leap in because some of us will show the support pattern. We have memory and judgment, perspective. From this we determine there is an image we wish to show. That image is not us, but we can show it some. We want to. Its fairly close to this perfection thing that calls us. We feel some matches in our showing. But there are many non matchings in this showing. Who cares! Keep showing what we can. And thus deception is born in the pursuit of image showing, or achievement. Fake it until you make it! It's a law of reality itself. This is desire infused desire. We have realized that too much desire makes you only supportive and not exultant. Some of us prefer not being the martyr but showing off as if we were nearer to perfection than we really are. This is wanted so badly that deception is common. And amid that truth is a deeper truth, self-deception. Such types must pretend not to see that they are only showing. They realize if they act as if they are not just showing, but that they acting as if they are fully realized, others will have a better chance to pattern match them with perfection. And it works. It works so well that they begin to believe it of themselves. These are the winners of the world, that show success and work like hell to do anything to deceptively show.

Finally, we come to the last permutation of fear, anger, and desire. No longer is desire overwhelming the self to show false images. Now, authenticity is demanded. This is more balance, Anger has come back. Anger is demanding that pretense is erased. This has many effects. Anger infused desire puts off desire but the effect is we must dig to know the real authentic path to perfection. We must BE right in the show. So this type will wallow in its showing of perfection. This is art. This is beauty. But this wallowing shows such types over and over again that they can glimpse perfection, but they demand of themselves to be authentic and they are not perfection. So that truth is underscored to them again and again amid their wallowing. They are the most likely to commit suicide.

These are the 9 types of the Enneagram. They start properly at type 5 and proceed all the way around to type 4.

Notice the strange gap between 5 and 4. We have the past of fear stretching all the way through the permutations of emotion to the final extent of the future types. This is the 'open circle' part of my model, not recognized in the enneagram itself. Further the Enneagram does not claim that fear, anger, and desire are the basis of reality. I do. But as a model the Enneagram IS INDEED the basis of reality. There is none better (so far).

The Enneagram was conceived from a search amid meaning taking all the best examples of wisdom throughout the world and combining them. There was the way of the monks, the yogis, and the fakirs. These were taken loosely to be fear, anger, and desire. And George Gurdijeff then started what is best described as a cult called the fourth way. He realized that combining all of these into one was the real wisdom.

My model is a multi-dimensional extension of the model of Claudio Naranjo and ultimately Gurdijeff's but it is so different as to be merely informed by them, rather than truly an extension.

I have found that this model answer to every single aspect of reality in every way. That is my model and not JUST the Enneagram or its assumptions/assertions. Compared to the wisdom of the Enneagram the Big 5 personality system is a colossal fear-sided joke. I can critique every aspect of its solidity as just certainty seeking fear-side failure precisely similar to the attitudes most prevalent against me in this thread.

For instance why not just two? In addition to your e.g.s, Desire covers "convention" "belonging" Fear covers "revelation" "authority". Maybe Reason falls under one or the other. Maybe reason is a category of belief. Rather than anger. — ENOAH

No. You miss the essence.

Fear is the past, is order, is the limiting force in all of reality erecting delusional barriers where none exist.
Desire is the future, chaos, the limitless force of perfection's call. This is evolution's source. It is delusional in the sense that desire seems to run in all directions at once and yet morality and the GOOD, perfection are objective. This means there is really only one path. From any location in intent space we see a differing path to perfection, a single point. This deludes us into the belief that morality is subjective.
But anger is the cause of physical reality. It pushes back against fear and desire both to achieve balance. This balance is being in essence. It combines the limiting force of fear with the limitless force of desire into the single eternal moment we call NOW. Anger is being, is essence, is mass itself.

Again. I'm sincererely asking. — ENOAH

Hopefully that answer helps.

Or, if anger is a legitimate 3rd, and not a (poetic) attachment (the preceding parentheses were definitely a detainment), then how does reason (and being) correspond to that category? And why not a 4th for reason? — ENOAH

It is a delusion, of course.

Fear constructs, all thought, is delusional. But anger pushes them back into balance. Re-read this thread in that context. ;)

Of course all three emotions interact with each other. But the physical realm, ALL OF IT, is the realm of now and therefore the realm of anger (being-in-essence). You are trying, struggling, to conflate the fear inclusions so that you can reason it all out. Only your past and your memory allow this. Fear is an artifact of order and always the past. If your fear informs your being that this pattern sensed by the sensors embodied in anger are bad and to be feared, you may run. But that run is finally a desire of what to do from now and into the near future. The impetus is many fold. But fear was the basis. All three emotions act in concert to create the opportunity of choice, the enactment of free will.

Free will is REQUIRED of any sensible model of reality. The balance needed is such that even a tiny iota of will is all that is required to move you. If it were too much off of that pure balance free will or choice and action could not exist. It is a 'proof' of sorts for free will.

Anger and the present are the motivational basis of this balance. Anger is thus closer to truth than fear or desire are. But anger is prone to its sin, laziness, as discussed above.

My point being however that I don't think removing the words know and knowledge is either necessary or effective.
— Bylaw

I agree. Confusion results when knowing and believing are conflated. We might not always in practice know the difference, that is we may not always know which we are doing, but they remain conceptually distinct, and losing that distinction is not going to help. — Janus

Incorrect and obviously so. Confusion results when people claim to know and they really do not (which is every time they make that claim).

Your use of 'in practice' shows your clear nod to Pragmatism, immoral fear side failing. The conceptual distinction disappears until each chooser is allowed or required to understand the justifying evidence. But these choosers CANNOT understand all such evidence. So you are setting them up for yet another faith based let down. Granted, over time the practical, pragmatic approach has yielded some fine results and I am not denying that. The discipline of not saying we know is wise, even for these pragmatists. They can still speak in terms of greater awareness and then WHY that is so, in other words show your work.

You can look at every script ever written and see the mistake easily. In every single one it's what someone 'knows' that is untrue that is the problem. It would greatly behoove them all to erase this false level of certainty from their beliefs. In my own real life the first thing I do when I am solving a software or hardware issue is to disregard what I think I know in the most immediate sense. As in not all the base awarenesses, but the specific bits or assertions of awareness that I would write down as probable. I always get assigned the tasks no one else can solve, because what they know is not correct, and I do not assume what they know is. So I, often alone, can solve it. I have been ordered off tasks where that method was being used by me and then called back and that with me having to tell the CEO or interested parties that I would be assuming what they know was not true and if they wanted me to work on it they would have to allow for that. In almost every case my original assessment was correct. What they knew was the problem and was not true. It was not all the time, but by far most of the time. So, even the practical implications for what I am suggesting are wise. They are wiser than leaving things as they are, unless people begin to have MUCH MORE diligence about what they say they 'know'. foolishly and or what the word 'know' means.

Abuse is acceptable as a risk and then must be confronted by challenge.

Just because abuse exists is no reason to crawl under a rock and pretend to half-truths (your little t truth).

The big T truth is the only thing in life that really matters.
— Chet Hawkins

Abuse might be acceptable as a risk according to your personal belief—but there is nothing in the fact that you believe that that gives me any warrant or motivation for believing it. — Janus

Well that sounds horrible! It's as if my acumen is deemed to be chopped liver! I like chopped liver actually. So yummy! But that is the expression.

I also added that abuse 'must be confronted by challenge'. That's what I am doing here. The word 'know' and all its derivatives are abused regularly to mean 'certainty', which is absurd.

Little-t truths are not half-truths, they are truths relative to contexts, not absolute truths. There are no absolute truths, or at least none that are determinable by us. — Janus

Actually we agree on the last sentence. That means that the first sentence is just wrong. A truth relative to a context is a state and not a truth at all. States are effectively meaningless although awareness of them is not. They cannot be known. The flux of reality does not advise knowing in any case. It advises constant vigil, constant effort towards awareness. That is my point.

The idea that big T-truth is all that matters is a dangerous idea—the very foundation of fundamentalism. — Janus

Yes, truth is dangerous. I like it. But you are flipping the script there, without realizing it. It is I that am counseling to avoid the certainty of fundamentalism, not you. I in fact am so cautious about approaching fundamentalism that I advise we presume to know nothing, and only accept statements of increasing awareness of something. That is much wiser and so your point was backwards.

So, I reject your beliefs on ethical grounds, apart from the fact that there is no empirical or logical support for them. They cannot even be cited as inferences to any kind of best explanation. To me they are nothing more than rhetoric. — Janus

You rejection is based on your backwards assessment of my proximity vs yours to fundamentalism. But since you do not agree we end up rejecting each other's beliefs on ethical grounds. War it is. I am ok with that. Down with the infidels!

Yes, well, what we call reality is not reality. Physical reality is a shortsighted version of the actual reality, the capital T True reality.

We are embedded within the capital T reality. Its awareness and union is the only real goal of existence.

So metaphysics is a greater effort, and thus more worthy than physics is or could ever be. This truth does not diminish physics in any way. It shows it proper placement in actual value.
— Chet Hawkins

I get that you believe that. I have some sympathy for those ideas, but I am not confident that it is anything more than a fantasy. — Janus

And you never will be, because knowing is impossible, and unwise.

Some fantasies are BETTER than what we think we know. But I am not advocating abandonment of plausible and probable tests. These are still just based on awareness and some awareness is better than others and we should judge that. But in no case is it certain as in 'knowledge'. It is only a state of awareness and states are not truth, not objective.

So, let's say you believe those things, and I don't. If you don't know anything more than I do, or if I don't know anything more than you do—if it is all just different beliefs then there is nothing to argue about, and no being right or wrong about it. — Janus

Yes, there is because I say so. If I am willing to argue, you have no choice but to or concede the point. I am not saying that to be aggressive or bullying. I am saying that because aggressive bullies exist. Might might not make right, but as intuition says, there is a certain rightness to might. It partakes of SOME rightness, by definition, competence on a certain level, mass effect.

Further, and much more importantly, genuine happiness is an extant and demonstrable measure of right vs wrong. It is in fact the only real one in the universe. So we DO have a means of measuring your beliefs vs mine.

That there is no determinable right or wrong when it comes to metaphysics is the situation as I see it. No amount of high-falutin' talk is going to change that. — Janus

Well, yes, this is the stance of the incoherent champions of coherence. They do not believe that anger and desire offer as much truth as fear does. I get it. It's hard to see or feel past what you are. But each of us is capable of all three paths and then the fourth path that is an integration of all three others. So we can indeed be deluded into assertions and beliefs that partake too heavily of one path or another and that is infinitely more common than not. But wisdom also exists and it means not devaluing any of the three paths, but instead supporting higher instantiations of all paths by admitting to all of them. And that admittance denies the need for determination -> certainty.

As usual, you, an order-apologist demand certainty or 'determinable' right and wrong. Too bad that that is not the way reality works. You are allowed to demand these things but you will never be realized in that demand. You have to take truth in part on faith.

This is demonstrated quite well by the multiply by zero effect. You are always safer saying a thing is unlikely than you are to say it is impossible.
— Chet Hawkins

Not making sense at all. "It is unlikely that" sounds you are lacking confidence on what you are saying, or just being evasive. "It is impossible that" sounds far more declarative and certain of what you are saying. — Corvus

Exactly! I would say that I rest my case, but you are still not getting it.

Confidence IS NOT knowing. Firstly, it cannot be, because one cannot actually know. One only believes. So, confidence is exhibited as 'They who do not know, but believe strongly anyway'. Of course immoral fear types will chafe and call that incoherent. They are not really right, but this is the hubris of relatively high awareness or let's say a facility with awareness.

Confidence is anger. It stands up to fear (all thought, all logic) and to desire (all needs) and basically says, 'Nope! I choose not to be afraid of not being certain, and not to want, at least right now.'

Would you say the most confident people in the world are also the most aware? No. Yet they possess a trait that is useful despite the UNAVOIDABLE position of being unable to know. And that is wise, despite the objections of fear-side certainty seeking cowards.

Well, your answer is the kind I would typically dread. I do not feel the need to engage in deeply academic issues related to philosophy as I find their machinations to be largely unnecessary and far too uselessly detailed, in general. However, I do not want to alienate them from understanding my position(s) which obliges me to at least entertain their various insanities.

As such, I at least gave a cursory examination into each of these academic issues you put forth here by way of a pittance of due diligence.

My assertion is that as far as what defines belief, knowledge is indeed fully included. That is all. Knowledge is only belief. It is fully included in that set.
— Chet Hawkins
Which does depend on your definition of a what a belief even is. A cursory look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists a number of predictable positions such as highly reductive ones no different than behaviorism or functionalism as well as the ever popular cousin positions of instrumentalism/fictionalism/eliminativism. The more constructive ones build beliefs out of mental states or mental representations regardless of the metaphor used which has us thinking about stored information similar to a computer, representations as propositions, and literal mental maps. — substantivalism

So, when we discuss the mechanism of a behavior or choice, we lose sight of the actually relevant parts of it, the dedication to meaning. Getting all bent out of shape about the physical aspects of belief is precisely the sort of failure in reasoning that I am trying to warn and take a stance against. I am not saying some aspects of that secondary effort are not worthy. They are.

But action and choice are related and often guided by belief. Belief is only just another choice. And belief has the nature of states and not truth. It can change and the breadth of its change is not really something to worry overmuch about. Effectively the degree or breadth of change is infinite, and probability is not involved. In other words, yes, if you want to create an algorithm to predict what choice will be made then probability is relevant to such a discussion. But I am only or stating that I am only concerned about what is in any way possible. And a default belief I have for that is that choice is infinitely powerful, despite the lessening probabilities of some extreme choice examples.

After reading your linked pages or skimming them to some extent, I believe my definition for belief is most closely shown by Interpretationism. That is to say, the mechanisms by which the behavioral patterns is accomplished DO NOT matter effectively to my understanding of belief.

And none of these belief definitions change IN ANY WAY the point that I am making about belief and knowledge. That is to say that such an issue only relates to the probability of awareness being true, as in a 1:1 correspondence with objective truth. Since we cannot actually know what is objective, i.e. the probability of a belief is never 100%, that means all knowledge, all beliefs, are partially in error. They are limits approaching 100% certainty, but never properly arriving at that probability.

So, no, it does not matter which definition amid these that I choose, as I understand it.

We cannot be certain of any justification applied to a belief that 'makes' it or transforms it into knowledge. So this is where we are working with the mathematical concept of limits. It would seem that that effect is one way to cause the Sorites paradox. Since the definition of a category is weak, not specific enough, the paradox appears. But there is a difference. When for example we feel the need to define a heap of sand as containing a finite number of grains in order to escape the Paradox, we CAN do that. Assuming we were willing to take the time, we COULD possible count. And yet the Sorites Paradox is still deemed present simple because users of the 'heap' term refuse to do so.
— Chet Hawkins
They also may refuse to define the terms as such BECAUSE it wouldn't do justice to the difference between a few grains and a heap. Not a decision of laziness or failure to assuage the troubling ambiguity bubbling within our accuser but rather to emphasize that something deeper is going on. Something that a mere precisification of terms will not solve. — substantivalism

I mean I love the term precisification. It kind of underscores what I am talking about. What I am saying effectively is this: It does not matter how precise you make the guess at 'knowing' something, you cannot make it 100%. So the effort of precision is worthy, yes, but NOT RELEVANT to the claim I am making. The claim I am making can ONLY be wrong if the probability of 'knowing' can reach 100%, and it cannot.

So there is a conflation here that is typical of order-apology, too much fear. That is too much respect for precisification as a concept and not enough respect for the precision of the over-arching truth that truth itself is approachable but not arrivable. It is THAT distinction that is the one that matters.

If this makes me flamingmonkyism, I am fine with that.

Intent does not always reflect belief. Stated belief does not always reflect belief. Choice or action and consequences do not always reflect belief. So belief remains an implausible interpretation from every angle that it is viewed or considered. We all understand, unless we are being intentionally obtuse, that belief is something you fear is true, desire to be true, or that you reason is true based on sensory data and experience. These are the three paths of wisdom, fear, desire, and anger (being). It is more useful to approach belief that way than in any of the ways I read about on that link.

But the limit is different. Limits are special in that nothing is being said about the content of either the axis or the asymptote. It is their relationship that is the point. The asymptotic relationship defines the characteristics of the limit.

So, no, this is not the same thing.

It is the 'fact' or 'knowledge' or better as I mentioned, let's say it is the awareness of something that approaches objective knowing, BUT NEVER GETS THERE, that is the point. And it cannot get there. That is critical to understand. One is tempted to say or add, '... in finite time'

So before we continue I wanted to address that part of the issue. It is not clearly just Sorites.
— Chet Hawkins
However, similar to a Sorities it will have the same solutions or attempts at one. Whether this is along esoteric mystical routes, semantic ones, or in adopting new novel forms of logical grammar/syntax. — substantivalism

And my response to that would be 'who cares?'. The reason I am left with or prone to this response is that you made no argument as to why that is a 'bad' thing, but, presumably you would not have mentioned it unless it is a 'bad' thing. What about Sorities solutions is 'bad'?

Second, the idea of a limit seems to underwrite part of your thought process on 'knowledge' and such an analogy is what allows for or is inferred from holding knowledge as the greatest unreachable but one with which we can in principle. . . approach. Despite the intuitiveness of this, that I admit to, I can't help but feel that all an opponent would need to attack is the coherency of 'getting closer to the truth'. Even in ignorance of such a journey. — substantivalism

And I sympathize with this problem you mention. But, I offer that we are not as powerless or lost in this process as you imply. In fact, this is a response indicative to me of a defensiveness that is not advisable.

The fact is that although perfection seems unreachable and may be, we can indeed detect and measure progress towards it. The means of that demonstrable testing is a concept that like belief will not be easy for anyone to agree on. The fear types especially, and most people that call themselves openly philosophers are academic fear types, are prone to this mistake, this error. That error is not realizing that happiness is indeed the consequence of alignment with objective moral truth and by degrees. Therefore if we begin to get better at measuring genuine happiness we will solve a lot of this issue, assuming the certainty needers can back off realizing that certainty is delusional and therefore not a goal per say.

Notice I say genuine happiness because joy is often conflated with happiness and Hedonism with the GOOD, when that is not accurate in any sense.

Each virtue in the list of discrete virtues does offer a happiness component to total genuine happiness, but, these often become detrimental to the chooser. That is because the pursuit of a single or a few virtues still offers positive discreet feedback for those virtues only. That then is the only happiness some people know of. They confuse that with genuine happiness perhaps understandably. They have simply never known better. The sample case for this revelation is seen in many stories where the dyed-in-the-wool cynic or dark intended anti-hero slowly accepts the more vulnerable good oriented culture they are in. Specific examples include Philipa Georgio of Discovery and Negan of The Walking Dead. Real life examples also abound.

When you say an opponent would only need to attack the coherency of this idea or assertion set, I disagree. All arguments that talk overmuch about coherency are based in order-apology, fear side thinking only. As such they run into the limit I refer to in all cases. Therefore, effectively, no argument can be coherent. All arguments are delusional. All arguments are beliefs, only. If THEY think they have found a coherent one, that is even more certainly a delusion than if they remain in doubt.

Anger has the intuition that logic will yield to it and to desire in certain ways. The thing is, a dedicated logic or fear path person will never admit to the coherency of such anger and desire side arguments. But the Truth is that reality is constructed such that its structure, its Truth, is split into these three approaches. Therefore finally, it IS logical for logic itself to give way to the final union with anger and desire. As such, indeed, fear side approaches do intersect anger and desire at precisely one point in intent space, perfection. That is where each of these three asymptotes actually merge.

So, these arguments you suggest, and I realize you sympathize with the other paths, are themselves indicative of a fear-side failure. When I see the word 'coherent' or any variation on it. or the word 'knowledge', or the word 'fact' on THAT side of the argument, I know I am dealing with an order-apologist, someone who does not properly value anger and desire. Further, since most such types do not realize that logic and thought is only fear, they do not realize or admit that fear is what is causing their failure.

There are two approaches that come to mind with one being rather esoteric and the other that probably has semantic/psychological positions in greater philosophical literature ->

Meaning Equivalency: Basically, this position denies that any of the assertions you are making which 'seemed' to be distinctly different claims/descriptions/beliefs of the world were in fact not so. Specifically regarding ones which resist any or all attempts at justification and truth assessment even in principle. I have a feeling that one of the methodological methods, lingo, that would be used to get at this point would be to split up assertions into falsifiable and unfalsifiable. However, that may have its limitations and therefore I leave open what such a criterion even is. Suffice as to say once such a split is made between claims/beliefs which can be assessed versus those which are impossible allows us to then use this positions' patented semantic translator to render all such inaccessible beliefs as vacuously true/false about the world. Instead of allowing for each belief to independently be possible of being true or false this person's intention is to figure out how it is that huge swaths, if not all, such types of beliefs are all equally as vacuously true or false. Basically, its to give you your point about beliefs being closer to this objective thing as more true or false but only in the most vacuous sense possible so almost all such similar beliefs are similarly true/false. In the same manner as tautologies or contradictions, they don't say much but they are true/false strictly speaking. — substantivalism

This position is the classical fear oriented order apologist failure in understanding as related above.

Mental Reductivism: This position is simply to assert the meaninglessness of assertions regarding the outside world and our language as having any coherent connection to begin with. In principle, then, such a position would survive off of re-translating everything into purely observable/experiential language or throw it in the garbage bin of meaninglessness if it cannot be. Could such a position dissolve into Berkleyian subjective idealism of a sort or external world skepticism? Yes, but perhaps this is a cost worth being subjected to if it removes us from some unhealthy dichotomies. Basically, it doesn't even let your idea of 'getting closer to the truth' or this objective thing off the ground and denies that assertions about the external world have any meaning at all let alone truth values. — substantivalism

And this position is even worse. It is just Nihilism effectively. Even a cursory examination of meaning shows a fairly grand 'wisdom of the masses' effect. That is not just a throw away. It means that although all of THEM are partially wrong, they are partially right as well, at the core, in some way. This is the intuition of mass, of anger. It is understandable that fear types would not be comfortable with this assessment or assertion and yet it will stand based on mass appeal. So, the something that 'wins' must at least not deny this set of intuitions at its core. I am hiding in the term 'core' the eventual belief set that will indeed be married up with 'getting closer to the truth' by other less denying fear types. That is what we would have when, in the fullness of time, such a matter is ... better ... resolved by all three paths, as it must be.

In others words the one DOES lead to the other, and you think it does not.
— Chet Hawkins
I do not think it does not. It is, indeed, a matter of degree. A spectrum. Your dogs are a good example. Even different breeds of dog, though all are the same species, able to mate and produce fertile offspring, can vary noticably in their degree of awareness.

But the area of the spectrum a tree is on does not come with the capacity to be amazed by card tricks. That is not suggesting their awareness is zero. It is suggesting a matter of degree in a specific area. If your dogs are far beyond other dogs, is it not possible that other dogs are likewise far beyond trees? Le Guin mentions "the wisdom in a tree's root." A phrase I am very fond of. With regard to a tree's life, and needs, and being, a tree's root is certainly far wiser than we are. But we are far wiser than trees are in other ways. — Patterner

Excellent. I think we can agree to agree then. What an unusual situation! Yay!

↪Bylaw Well yes, there are many different usages and contexts of usage of the word.

Adding to what you say we could equally fail to cosmetically remove the word 'know' from our lexicon while continuing to tread the spiritual path Chet Hawkins seems primarily concerned with.

To me the main area the word know, in its propositional sense at least, seems inappropriate is the metaphysical. — Janus

Yes, well, what we call reality is not reality. Physical reality is a shortsighted version of the actual reality, the capital T True reality.

We are embedded within the capital T reality. Its awareness and union is the only real goal of existence.

So metaphysics is a greater effort, and thus more worthy than physics is or could ever be. This truth does not diminish physics in any way. It shows it proper placement in actual value.

I get it. I understand the (your) position, Thank you for starting this thread as, to me, it has been fun and good work and clearly something people are willing to engage on. That's what such a forum is about!
— Chet Hawkins

I agree that exchange of and argument about the different ideas we may have are fun and also worthwhile for the endless task of clarification. I don't share your notion of "capital T Truth" because I think the idea has been egregiously abused throughout history, and also, I think that if we have no knowledge we cannot even begin to approach 'small-t truth" let alone the Capital-T chimera. — Janus

Abuse is acceptable as a risk and then must be confronted by challenge.

Just because abuse exists is no reason to crawl under a rock and pretend to half-truths (your little t truth).

The big T truth is the only thing in life that really matters.

It is the right thing to do, and KNOWING how to become aware of our place in the world only requires selfless self awareness. — Kizzy

ONLY that? Well then why are we all not in the Federation already? Free medical and career path investment for all! Where's my replicator?
— Chet Hawkins

Yeah I think I got scrambled. It isnt only that, but only that as a stand alone attribute is not effortless in itself. So ONLY that does imply that work is within that. What is required of selfless self awareness? Its takes more or less, depends. — Kizzy

Exactly! As pointed out to me before this word only can get misused easily and sometimes it is incorrectly taken as derogatory.

Awareness requires more than just or only selfless self-awareness. In fact, selflessness is a delusion. I know I am overfond of that word, 'delusion'. But it is accurate on so many aspects of human behavior and belief that I am well justified in its continual use.

Still, colloquially, the way the word knowledge is used, it is only belief.

That is because THEY, others, as opposed to me, do not view the word 'knowledge' in a trying to be objective way, as partaking of perfection. But that causes a red flag in me.

That is because in social settings the word 'know' IS, whether THEY do it or not, whether THEY admit it or not, used to imply certainty, a known (ha ha) delusion. Many and most people love it when someone says they know something because that means they are then accountable, for instance.

There are those of us, the wise, that are accountable, even if we do not know. That is moral duty. But the unwise that believe themselves unaccountable because of a lack of awareness are just making excuses to suck as a person. Confidence allows us to approach mystery with responsibility rather than laziness.

So, as meant colloquially, knowledge is indeed ONLY belief.
It (knowledge) is wholly contained in the superset(beliefs) as an element.

I take it now that you are kind of a push-me pull-you of openness. You are open to the idea that ideas are real or let's say at least impactful. But you are not open to the idea that all the seeds of awareness (any level of awareness) are present in all things since the dawn of time as a law of nature. Is that correct?
— Chet Hawkins
That is not correct. We could not be conscious if the possibility of consciousness was not present in all things, and from the beginning. We are, after all, made of the same particles everything else is made of. My guess is that all particles have the mental property of proto-consciousness, in addition to the physical properties like mass and charge. I think proto-consciousness is simple experience, which, when matter is arranged in certain ways, combines to form consciousness. — Patterner

Awesome! My first guess was not wrong then. I am ... relieved.

But that doesn't mean a rock or tree knows what can normally be done with cards, and is surprised when someone skilled at sleight of hand does something that makes it look like a card is floating in the air without any means of support, reforms after being torn into tiny pieces, or passes through a solid wall. They do not know such things, do not have the sensory apparatus to perceive things visually (necessary for visual illusions), and I'm not aware of any reason to believe they have the intellectual capacity to experience such illusions even if they did have eyes. Dogs have eyes, but they don't seem impressed by David Copperfield or Penn & Teller. — Patterner

Ah, I understand now. This is would say, the way you think of it, is wrong.

In others words the one DOES lead to the other, and you think it does not. There is the disconnect. Of course what we are both really discussing at this point is something akin to matter of degree.

For example there are things that make noises that dogs give that side head turn to, but otherwise as you mention they cannot relate to them. However, the seed is there and the reaction is non-zero even to the higher states and aims embedded in the pattern.

Further, my dogs, border collies, are beyond other dogs by such a distance that they will totally freak humans out, some humans. It is hilarious to me that to notice this about border collies is a filtering trait for the awareness of humans in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that that action which provokes the strange and aware response in border collies is amid dogs.

So, you are not properly allowed to suggest the awareness is zero. And that is where our difference of opinions lies here to me.

It also underscores the central question of this thread. That is to say, knowledge is only belief. Final knowledge is beyond even the awareness of what to do with the card trick. It includes everything about how the cards were made, what time of year it is in which the trick was shown, the life history of the magician in question, and perhaps more importantly the objective nature of the question, 'Should that trick have been shown at that time, in that way'. To know all these things objectively is required by me to 'know'. Otherwise we are only discussing something as relatively unimpressive as ever-increasing awareness. Yet and still that has great value if its PROPER position is understood and adhered to. We do not 'win' the final game by pretending to 'know'. The practical short-cut is compelling and ... wrong.

But awareness and increasing amounts of it are wise as goals. They are generally correct and generally in evidence. There is a faith in this, that the tree 'gets it' on some level and is learning to 'get it' more. I refuse to disallow that truth in my wording and in what I say directly. If the universe is alive and all seeds of awareness are there, it DOES behoove us to act that way.

"It is possible that " is based on guessing, illusion, unfounded optimisms of low probability of the cases manifesting in reality. "It is impossible that " is based the empirical experience on the cases backed by the highest probability of something not happening in reality.

They are at the opposite end of the scale in the statements. The point was that "It is impossible that" has far more plausibility than "It is possible that". — Corvus

No it does not.

To partake of the infinite nature of impossible, is a lower chance in all cases than to partake of some small chance.

This is demonstrated quite well by the multiply by zero effect. You are always safer saying a thing is unlikely than you are to say it is impossible.

Second, an illusion needs a viewer.
— Patterner
No, it does not.
— Chet Hawkins
If I am alone practicing a card trick, there is no illusion. I know and see exactly what is happening with the cards. The illusion only exists when there is an audience who does not see the way the card gets from A to B, and sees it seemingly do the impossible. The table and walls don't see the illusion.

Trees along the road do not see the heat waves coming off the road on a hot day and think it looks like water. The car I'm driving does not think it looks like water. You need a person to see the illusion of water. (Possibly other animals can see it. I don't know.) — Patterner

Well that is interesting. You draw the line on this oddly (to me) especially when you also said:

First, just because something does not have physical properties that can be touched, measured, weighed, does not mean it is not real. We are literally reshaping our planet because of our ideas. We want things to be other than they are, and act on the idea of what we think they should be. I don't know how we can view the ideas that are transforming our world as not real. — Patterner

So, this statement would tend to show that you value and view the realm of ideas as meaningful and that means (to me) that the standard (boring) and traditional barriers to understanding that come into play with having only physical things be 'real' would include such standard (colloquial and boring) interpretations that seem to separate humanity in its various abilities from lower life forms first and then not even living, otherwise accepted as 'inanimate' objects.

I take it now that you are kind of a push-me pull-you of openness. You are open to the idea that ideas are real or let's say at least impactful. But you are not open to the idea that all the seeds of awareness (any level of awareness) are present in all things since the dawn of time as a law of nature. Is that correct?

I will say two things about the idea that it is an illusion, both of which I've said in the past, here and there. I realize I may not be addressing the word in the sense that you mean it. — Patterner

And in that one sentence you just described the accurate definition for the term, 'illusion'. Not addressing some perception in the sense that it was meant ... is the definition for illusion.

If you wish to speak on the physical phenomena that cause an illusory perception in others, THAT THING IS NOT the illusion. The illusion is the mistaken perception.

First, just because something does not have physical properties that can be touched, measured, weighed, does not mean it is not real. We are literally reshaping our planet because of our ideas. We want things to be other than they are, and act on the idea of what we think they should be. I don't know how we can view the ideas that are transforming our world as not real. — Patterner

I completely agree. The imagination produces images that are real. They are in the world. They are not physically instantiated in the world. But that IS NOT RELEVANT to the proper use of the word, 'real'. In many cases therefore, the word 'real' is itself too ambiguous to be used. In each case we should make it clear what is being discussed.

Or we can instead discuss any concept as real merely because it is a concept. It has meaning. That is fine with me and it seems that is fine to some extent with you also.

Second, an illusion needs a viewer. — Patterner

No, it does not.

The unity principle states that perfection is ALL. The unity of all things is a perspective, and perhaps the only accurate one, perfection. As such, the thing observed and the thing observing are the same thing. Therefore, your assertion is wrong.

At any point in the scope of examination, there can be and arguably should be an assumed observer that is the same as ALL or as 'the thing being observed' as self-aware.

Truth is unchanging. Self-awareness is thus an intrinsic part of the universe. It's realization may take some time depending on how much granularity we use to define it. That is not relevant. The relevant point is that self-awareness is a property of all reality.

When a magician does a card trick, the cards and hands do not view what is going on as an illusion. The audience watches, and is delightfully surprised to see something happen that cannot have happened. The audience, of course, needs to be able to recognize an illusion. A tree doesn't recognize illusions. — Patterner

So, speaking to the awareness of certain limited scopes of reality IS NOT the same thing as cannot. In others choice is infinite. The standing awareness that a tree is not self-aware is ... wrong. It is (self aware). And therefore it CAN detect illusion, but, due to its current state, that choice is super hard for a tree. It is so hard for that tree, that it is represented by the mathematical impossibility of the limit as x approaches infinity with infinity being the possibility.

Yes, this is a radically different interpretation of reality than most. Animism is effectively true and has always been true. Nothing we 'know' denies that possibility.

If consciousness is an illusion, where is the viewer of the illusion? How can a consciousness be the viewer of its own illusory nature, fooled into thinking itself actually conscious? — Patterner

That is trivially easy. Consciousness is ALL. So it is both the observer and the observed. It also is that which allows for the confusion via poor choice. Delusional choice based on fears or desires or even anger is what causes the belief in the separation of the observer and the observed.

Now we move on to a separate matter:
Second assertion: We cannot be certain of any justification applied to a belief that 'makes' it or transforms it into knowledge.
— Chet Hawkins
I like this — Kizzy

Yay!

It is the 'fact' or 'knowledge' or better as I mentioned, let's say it is the awareness of something that approaches objective knowing, BUT NEVER GETS THERE, that is the point. And it cannot get there. That is critical to understand. One is tempted to say or add, '... in finite time'
— Chet Hawkins
:up:
The warning I am putting forth is to call into question the Pragmatic nonsense of soothing fools with lies about certainty. We all need to become more amenable to the idea of not knowing. Clearly the Yogi mentioned agrees with my general aim. It's a matter of respectful wise humility.
— Chet Hawkins
great point and i feel drawn to point out how that initiative "to soothe" when it comes to the means of that situation. Its not just about the soothing others, the fools that are actually being soothed are themselves. — Kizzy

That is precisely the point. And in general then, on that issue, the person is revealed as an order-apologist acting from a place of imbalanced fear. It is a listening skill to be aware of this.

The 'know' word is thus a red flag for fear side errors, order apology.

Such a person is likely to conflate order and the GOOD. They are also likely to denigrate desire and anger as opposed to fear. The classical and huge example of this is claiming something like, 'Let's not be emotional! Let's use logic.' Logic is only fear and fear is an emotion. So, this one revelation and people's reaction to it is actually rather germane to the overall effect.

The need for order is the need for clear rules and delusional boundaries WHERE NONE EXIST.

I can admit I am a self soother and I like to believe I can justify my reasons to no end. It may be true, but it is not what is RIGHT. — Kizzy

Exactly so. We take the low hanging fruit amid self-soothing, for practical reasons. And it can intersect what is right but the pattern itself is not safe as right. And THEY think it is, more or less.

I take warnings seriously and I think some folk might miss the heart of the AND IN the message because they take your style as they can. — Kizzy

Lol, well yes. Like taking life advice from Gene Simmons. Wait ... sign me up!

"Thanks for the warning, big guy...i think ill be alright" but its not about that (even though that impression I assume is just that, an assumption but i believe it is not 100% incorrect, NOW WHAT?) Its just true, some times....in some cases dealing with some specific individual experience and all that comes with. — Kizzy

And yes, Pragmatism can HIDE behind that process. The probability is their 'bet'. They are not worried really about something so pesky as truth. They are more concerned about something as obvious as efficiency of day to day progress. I suppose they can be forgiven, but only just. Each time such a premise is accepted on its efficiency, we create a society wide delusional plateau that will take a whole lot more activation energy to overcome that .. .lie. It's very dangerous and the next standard of wisdom needs to disinclude that inclination.

Anyways, it's now obvious to me reading your last reply in full that it's understandable to be to the point of brute honesty. — Kizzy

Sadly, that could be said of me in general. Still, most of my thuggish friends consider me elegant and noble to a fault so, what does that mean? I am an anti-Zelig. I do not become you, I become the you-foil. The quintessential challenger. Touche!

You're feelings and beliefs about these fools are valid, I get that. I am looking past the personal zest in your tone, and the MEAT of your assertions will help correct this behavior. — Kizzy

Well that's the intent anyway. It's true, I will not be holding my breath. Wisdom is not a very popular thing finally. The touchy-feeling warm snuggly wisdom is well received, but the get off your ass and set your house straight wisdom is rarely offered anything but 'line on the left, one cross each', or public stoning. 'Are there any women with us here today?' - Life of Brian

Will it take some time and WORK, absolutely. Will others pick up that slack regardless? I have no doubt. — Kizzy

Well I have my doubts. THEY simply rarely do the right thing.

It is the right thing to do, and KNOWING how to become aware of our place in the world only requires selfless self awareness. — Kizzy

ONLY that? Well then why are we all not in the Federation already? Free medical and career path investment for all! Where's my replicator?

Just by, like you go on to say, it can start with doing the work to write better. — Kizzy

Well yes, and I am only admonishing a community that should sympathize in theory with an aim towards perfection and truth. But even here it is seen this tendency, as a law of nature, order apology. And of course the occasional bought of chaos apology. And these are not even admitted tendencies within reality. How far indeed do we have to go from ... here?!

I definitely need to get moving in this department, but sometimes I slack off. But being better at communication using the right language and proper format DOES give my words better reach. — Kizzy

In the fullness of time, for sure. It can also get you banned by order-apologist moderators. Likewise the feel good chaos-apologist moderators will ban you for their reasons. But both reasons are fundamentally immoral. It's quite tricky to thread that needle and not get ostracized.

But what do we know about any kind of separation? It's an immoral aim, finally.

Categorization and separation by way of reductionism is useful only as a temporary device amid discussion. Everything MUST be properly unified back to ALL before any non-conclusion is drawn.

When I post a discussion one of these days, it will be nothing shy of my best! — Kizzy

Ha ha! 'One of these days!', the procrastinator's oath! I relate to that!

I will do that for me, and more importantly it benefits all. I dont do it for others, — Kizzy

I like that. It's the same for me. I own my choices as for me, even if it is me trying to help others that is still for me.

that would be a white lie but not incorrect. I do things for ME and when I am better, I do things for others. — Kizzy

Well due to the Unity Principle they are finally the same thing. That IS NOT to excuse Hedonism and self-indulgence. That is the lie the subjective moralists push. It is only because morality is objective that helping yourself is helping others. That is to say you must ACTUALLY help yourself in an objectively GOOD way and not a delusional self-indulgent way. Eating a box of sugar cookies is not objectively helpful to you.

So again, this concept of objective use of words and concepts helps us, for real, all of us, to understand what truth is, where it lies in relation to other assertions, and how to navigate in a world of false limits (order apology) and false unities (chaos apology).

Things I may never know, the impact the impression the inspiration (the frustration, even too lol). We all do that for each other. I like to call those moments out! — Kizzy

I do as well. Feedback, your cue to quality interaction!

I consider the last few points knowledge, self-knowledge is a knowing but its changing. I definitely believe in my self, but I have no system of belief that filters or limits my knowledge when it comes to admitting I am wrong, or taking corrections with stride and implementing the new information only helps my awareness. My belief is not linked to my doubts, and boy do I have them. I question myself when I am doubting, and waste time which is unfortunate. Beliefs can become your enemy if they are not growing and uplifting you, i feel. — Kizzy

Well that bit is maybe you working out how it is for you. As mentioned, I do not believe that people have knowledge except in the colloquially meant sense of 'beliefs that are strongly believed' and that really says NOTHING about any credible attempt to justify that knowledge as such, as more than JUST belief.

My belief is NOTHING BUT linked to my doubts. In other words there is no belief I have that is not doubted somewhat. I think that is healthy and that the alternative is not.

Doubt and questioning are not wastes of time. They are healthy. They are more a part of truth and wisdom than 'knowing' is at any stage. The delusion of 'knowing' without doubt is precisely the point I am speaking against.

Finally, although I agree that what DOES grow us objectively is GOOD, what we believe grows us is subjective and always partially wrong and therefore not 'known'. We are left only with belief (and of course doubt). That is healthy. So, many people will judge that this or that belief will grow them and that this or that belief is too much an impediment to growth and these same people are very often wrong on BOTH counts.

Still, amid the effort to have society mirror love as a functioning thing, we prefer properly that free will be 'allowed' within the law (order) as much as we can. That is to say, we respect each person enough to allow them and encourage them to experience and reject or justify any and all beliefs. This is why a wise parent or leader MUST wisely inflict suffering on their charges. This is done in a controlled way to facilitate the earning of wisdom. It is in this way that belief becomes stronger. It can NEVER become knowledge.

The balance is always earned and never given. — Kizzy

Exactly and that is very well said. It is a fight to get to balance and an ongoing fight to maintain balance. The peace seekers are delusional. War is the only constant. And it is morally correct.

The choices are given, and we figure it out from there. Navigate. I believe in my capabilities and self enough to be more than willing to be better, for my own sake at least. BUT on my time, of course :wink: — Kizzy

I like it. Delve into the free will thing. Seek each path in experimentation and have the strength to pull back from the bad ones. Some are so obviously bad that a full delving is not needed, only a cautious approach.

I know people and I believe in building awareness with NO LIMITS. Limitless knowledge, we can't literally know EVERYTHING. Can our brains handle it one day? Maybe. I would 100% donate my body to science to experience futuristic body mods. Thats just me though. But you'd think we could know now more then ever ALL types of things. But do we know the relationship we have with knowledge and how we obtain, use, share, interoperate etc it? How can we be better there? How good is knowledge really if lets say a person has bad memory? How does knowledge differ from thing to thing, person to person? How do we see knowledge. Our beliefs shine no matter what. Truth revealed. — Kizzy

Well truth shown about a thing is not truth. That is a status, a state. So we get confused all the time into calling personal states or states of anything truth. If it can change it is a state. Truth does not change.

I agree that awareness has no seeming limit. It extends out into infinity and that is my point that kind of started this thread to some extent. The limit as x approaches infinity in math is a way to describe this relationship. We get the impression that arrival at knowledge is impossible, but that we can indeed always do better, as in earn more awareness.

It's just that you use the same word and words 'know', 'knowledge', and 'knowing' where I would ask for aware of, awareness, and being aware of; instead.

You can even say something more indirect and be right for me as in. 'try to know' or 'almost know'. But to just say 'know' partakes of the error.

I to want to contribute to our awareness. Part of that is the discipline to make words and their colloquial use less ambiguous.

It's interesting what sticks and what doesnt and WHY certain knowings come easy, NATURAL to certain people. The how isnt important, its a question of WHY are certain people picking up some things better than others (like concepts, sports, puzzles, music, charisma, math, logic, reading etc whatever) — Kizzy

Exactly! Again, why people hold information as belief, why they justify it, speaks MORE, not less clearly to reality than does HOW they hold or justify it.

Why in fact is the central question of all questions. Why encompasses everything. No other reason is not subservient to why. All wisdom, all meaning is contained in the one word, 'why'.

Everyone ought to question themselves into knowing, BELIEVING they have a place and do the best they can to position themselves to set the self up for success. I think foreseeable outcomes for individuals can be predicted easily if you observe with detail. Sometimes it doesnt take too long and sometimes YOU are right. Give credit where it's due, to self, to others. — Kizzy

Well, probability is an issue. It is what blinds Pragamtists. They will say things like, 'How is that working out for you?' when you maintain that a small probability thing is possible. You are correct but they are ... something. We are tempted to fill in that blank the way THEY want us to, by saying they are ... more correct. But that is a lie. They are not more correct. They are less correct. But they are betting on a more highly probable outcome which makes them SEEM more correct. That is order-apology.

I love it that people TRY to be objective. I love it that people try to justify their beliefs. But that is NOT the issue here. The issue is when any of us say we 'know' or that we are 'being objective' they are actually just simply wrong. We cannot know and we cannot be objective. We can believe and we can try to be objective and let's speak and write about that correctly, please.
— Chet Hawkins
Since you asked nicely! Ha...its interesting how some people only respond to those requests when they are asked politely. The "good manners" and respect THEY DESERVE seems to hit them in that way without thinking deeper, the good manners WORKS in persuasion. A lot of things are verifible, like you mention with the grain of sand paradox, its the refusal and the tolerance I am also beyond frustrated seeing being repeated and regurgitated in the WRONG ways. The way that is right and true is knowable, I believe. Not for all though, thats up to the TIME! — Kizzy

Well suffering is hard and wisdom reflects an increase in suffering, not an increase in ease. So I sympathize with the rejection of these 'truths' as people are only seeking their ease. Bu tin order to be a servant of truth, to speak real wisdom, I cannot counsel them to 'know' or to pretend to 'know'. I can only counsel that they instead say they are aware of something and then they can qualify that by explaining what they believe they know. In all cases they will discover that what they know is only belief.

It means the OP is under some sort of suppositional or imaginary scenario rather than based on the fact. When you say "It is possible that", it must have some degree of plausibility with the factual evidence for being real life cases. Without it, "It is impossible that" has the same plausibility too. — Corvus

I disagree. No matter how implausible something is, it is nowhere near the same thing as saying something is objectively impossible. That again partakes of a dangerous misunderstanding of what perfection is. Perfectly impossible is probably just that, as in do not talk about it at all because (re-read this sentence until you get it).

But even immeasurably small chances are nowhere near impossible, finally. In fact, saying they are slightly plausible is infinitely more plausible than objectively impossible.

Just had to jump in and steer that one back on the rails.

↪Chet Hawkins You are misattributing the words to me. I said "Quoting the description of the book". I don't know who wrote the description - maybe it was the author of the book or maybe it was someone else. The description was quoted from the Amazon website.

If all particles in the universe are possessed of free will (and they are) then there is nothing else that need be explained or extrapolated. It is simple and persistent, like all truth. Matter, energy, and emotion; all three are never created nor destroyed. State changes like death are NOT RELEVANT. To believe that they are is the height of conceit and delusion.

How do you know that your claims are true? — Truth Seeker

We cannot possess knowledge or truth at all. We can only believe or not.

I am NOT saying that one belief cannot be better justified than another.

There are thousands of reasons why I believe THAT belief. Together they collectively inform my belief as stated.

A short justification for the belief that is summary in nature is this:
Because emotional balance has the characteristics it does, and because I have reason to believe that reality is only consciousness, I then believe that what works in the emotional realm shows clearly that nature itself, and colloquial physical reality, is only possible because that balance between emotions is profound.

What is the result of that balance? The result is that an infinitesimally small amount of the motivating force of will, that which we might call 'choice', is all that is ever needed to do something. Of course we all complain about this so immorally that it is ridiculous because we are so lazy. That stupidity notwithstanding, the balance points to one core truth of the whole universe, free will is the only thing happening.

It's much more profound and well thought out than that, but, that is a good start with it.

It is the elusive and unattainable aspect of perfection, the objective GOOD, that cause Pragmatists to throw their hands up in frustration. They are first afraid they cannot attain perfection (easily), and that is correct. Then they start making short cuts to justify 'knowing' AS IF, which is delusional and wrong. In realizing they cannot attain perfection they cut bait, instead of fishing. That is the Pragmatic failure. The other paths have their failures which are less in evidence in this thread as the subject matter being discussed.

↪substantivalism Well, generally speaking, on realist accounts, statements are either true or false. What admits to degree is not truth value, but belief. And what we know, we also believe.

So if one denies that there is a difference between knowledge and belief, one also drops realism. — Banno

I suppose it could be the case that formal Realism is something I would deny.

As I understand it in brief. there are arguments about existence which are largely just sense based assertions. 'I can feel this rock so it exists.' But that to me is also just an awareness and not knowledge at all. Even to say something as general as 'Rocks exist' would also be just awareness or belief and never knowledge.

But I object to the loaded term realism then. Realism is a tacit assertion of a delusional thing as real. It's somewhat the same argument as between knowledge and belief. We as moral agents do not experience reality as it is, objectively. We are not capable of that because we are not perfect. Likewise what we can sense is debatable. So, what is being done is a fear based short-cut as usual, some part of Pragmatism. Because most people are aware of what they mean when they say 'rocks exist' or 'I can feel this rock so it exists' is widely accepted. So is Jesus as more than just a man. I could rest my case there. So let's all first agree that what is widely accepted and deemed true is not relevant in any way to actual truth, to even something so vague as 'reality'.

To me reality includes unicorns. I am not saying that to be facetious. Something that has meaning is very real. So in that sense is seems more plausible to say 'Jesus was real', for example. It does not even matter if he was real in the colloquial sense of he did EXIST. It matters then only that he has meaning to many. That makes it real. If we want to say that is fantasy only, then we begin to realize that imagination is real. It exists. Therefore its objects kind of exist.

So, we need our terminology to be cleaned up, more clear. If we mean to say that something was instantiated into physical reality, then we should say that. Because to many people real meaning is 'real'. And I sympathize because it is my belief that reality is only consciousness. The well of meaning is MORE, not less important, than physical mass instantiation.

Regardless, the core debate is a three way, not a two way one. That is there is a perspective that prefers fear based orderly Pragmatic viewpoints on everything. There is a perspective that prefers desire based chaotic Idealistic viewpoints on everything. And there is a little admitted and less understood third perspective that advocates balance between them, sometimes immorally to quickly or too lazily (which is why it is misunderstood and not admitted as extant in many cases).

The 4th path of wisdom is all three of those combined and maximized.

So what I am trying to do is hone the arguments, the argument set, that acknowledges the idea that all of these emotional relationships within intent space are asymptotic to truth. The big one is the know/belief issue. It has ramifications into many perspectives like it that are ONLY in error currently.

Presumably, because they are true; not because they are certain.

Confusing these two is the reason this thread is at page 14.
— Banno
Well. . . there is a discussion that could perhaps go on without this obfuscation dealing with whether that intuition we call the certain/uncertain distinction (or the true/untrue distinction) with regards to beliefs is coarse or fine grained.

I don't want to put words in Chet Hawkins mouth, I may sadly have already and I apologize, but that he may consider it more fine grained.

While people such as yourself with regards to statements being strictly either true or not true and nothing greater, lesser, or in between yields a coarse grained reading. In fact, a strict dichotomy. The greatest coarse-ness possible. — substantivalism

Truth and certainty are the same thing.
Anything that is not 100% true is false.
If you want to instead speak of truth value, then again STOP using the wrong words. Truth is objective and perfect.

I love this because this is the same problem with chaos-apologist thought. They believe that perspective is ok and that morals are fungible in many cases, basic subjectivism. But that is a delusional self-indulgent lie.

Perspective is always only the degree of error you have to the objective truth, so perspective is just error.

That DOES NOT mean that one perspective is not closer to objective truth than another one is. That would be just more failed logic on top of something as ridiculous as believing that truth is fungible.

You can call it whatever delusional thing you prefer to call it. It still is actually JUST belief.
— Chet Hawkins
I'm missing a lot of context here because you write so much and your philosophical thinking is rather dense but I feel as if there is really just a thinly veiled Sorites argument getting in the way of all of this. Whether on the part of your opponents or you. — substantivalism

Now you are speaking to my point, and since you said it could be my opponents and not me, then ok. Yes, impossible or unknown proof of any 'knowledge'. is a sliding scale, vague where it begins, how much effect it has.

But that issue is also one that I would say is typical of order-apologists. As in bringing up that issue is not precisely the point.

My assertion is that as far as what defines belief, knowledge is indeed fully included. That is all. Knowledge is only belief. It is fully included in that set.

Now we move on to a separate matter:
Second assertion: We cannot be certain of any justification applied to a belief that 'makes' it or transforms it into knowledge. So this is where we are working with the mathematical concept of limits. It would seem that that effect is one way to cause the Sorites paradox. Since the definition of a category is weak, not specific enough, the paradox appears. But there is a difference. When for example we feel the need to define a heap of sand as containing a finite number of grains in order to escape the Paradox, we CAN do that. Assuming we were willing to take the time, we COULD possible count. And yet the Sorites Paradox is still deemed present simple because users of the 'heap' term refuse to do so.

But the limit is different. Limits are special in that nothing is being said about the content of either the axis or the asymptote. It is their relationship that is the point. The asymptotic relationship defines the characteristics of the limit.

So, no, this is not the same thing.

It is the 'fact' or 'knowledge' or better as I mentioned, let's say it is the awareness of something that approaches objective knowing, BUT NEVER GETS THERE, that is the point. And it cannot get there. That is critical to understand. One is tempted to say or add, '... in finite time'

So before we continue I wanted to address that part of the issue. It is not clearly just Sorites.

How your opponents see it is that perhaps you'd make the horrible jump of thinking. . . that because there is vagueness in some categories, whatever they may be, they can be abandoned along with their intuitions for new intuitions both familiar and peculiar for only one of the categories in consideration. — substantivalism

Far from it. They can carry on with delusions all they want (clearly they prefer that). I am taking the eyes wide open approach. We cannot know, so why speak of it? I am NOT saying that one belief is not more properly held than another.

I am saying that we use the word know and its derivatives too freely to mean 'certain'. And frankly, its a no contest argument, really. We do that. All the time. I've had so many arguments based on the other person saying I should know a thing and with me honestly saying I cannot know. I can only be aware of something more and more and never know. I've had them order me to say that I know. Ridiculous!

The warning I am putting forth is to call into question the Pragmatic nonsense of soothing fools with lies about certainty. We all need to become more amenable to the idea of not knowing. Clearly the Yogi mentioned agrees with my general aim. It's a matter of respectful wise humility.

I.E. if statement 'A' of strong intellectual support is a belief, expression of scientific confidence 'B' is a belief, and irrational nonsense postulate 'C' is a belief then it would seem they are all the same in kind as they are also in value. When in reality its obviously the case that various beliefs entertain certain hierarchies of certainty. . . intuitiveness. . . truth-likeness. . . knowledge status. . . etc. Regardless of what word we give to that doxastic attitude. — substantivalism

Yes, with respect to doxastic attitudes, it is better to treat everything as withholding, suspension of disbelief, rather than to simply believe or disbelieve. That is a tautology.

And the thing is that tautology comes first. So we do not speak of knowing already. We know (ha ha) or we are properly aware of the fact that that is impossible, so done.

Now, there is no problem (the problem of this thread). We didn't foolishly speak of knowing. Now, let's hear the argument you say supports your belief. That is entirely different than whether the idea is indeed belief or knowledge. Knowledge is impossible. So, duh, it's belief. Now, why do you think so?

And you are free. You are free to justify the belief in any way you can. So please do. But it is not and never was knowledge.

Language is such that we all cannot agree on some vague percentage of awareness that constitutes the cutoff between general belief and the sub-category candidate, 'knowledge'. So for me, knowledge is only a single point of perfection at the top of belief. Knowledge would be an objective belief. And people will stupidly say that as well. They will say, 'Let's be objective!' You cannot. We are incapable of being objective. We can only TRY to be objective. So that is another example of the same problem. You see, you understand, the NEED for certainty inherent to the delusional method of speech. It's cooked in. And its wrong.

I love it that people TRY to be objective. I love it that people try to justify their beliefs. But that is NOT the issue here. The issue is when any of us say we 'know' or that we are 'being objective' they are actually just simply wrong. We cannot know and we cannot be objective. We can believe and we can try to be objective and let's speak and write about that correctly, please.

To state it another way, even if you say 'knowledge is merely belief' the hidden illusory specter of knowledge doesn't leave us but rather returns with a vengeance as you attempted to remove from reality a stubborn aspect of our psychology or a rigid part of the world. Except you don't call it knowledge but certainty. — substantivalism

Exactly, well said! Stubborn and you could have said also stupid and been correct. You are now switching into the defensive posture that rather proves my point. People start to get angry instead of reason at this point. But that is anger led by fear, and not in balance.

Fools always defend untruth with stubborn fear clinging to the past. 'That's how it's done! That is the way it is done!' Yeah, ok, bozo, and it's wrong, and it always was wrong.

Boy do I love philosophy. . . the great pointless semantic game we all play it seems. "We aren't talking about knowledgeable beliefs and unknowledgeable beliefs. . . but certain beliefs and uncertain beliefs!" — substantivalism

Know = certain in colloquial terms. It doesn't even matter if you deny it. It is true for many people so that alone makes you wrong. I am asking that we clear things up and make sure that THOSE PEOPLE are aware (because they cannot know) that ... they cannot know. Knowing objectively is impossible.

We have to change the COMMON usage of the word by slow choice, to represent a more proper awareness of reality. Eventually when the 50somethingth percentage of the human herd turns their head to the right idea, we will all spring off in that direction and be the better for it. Let's be a part of the correct subset of the herd leading the way to a better understanding.

Analogously, as I beat a dead horse, to talk about change you need that which doesn't and if you made change fundamental to the world you have to do a whole lot of heavy lifting to resurrect the term, permanence, that you thought you killed. — substantivalism

Yes well, as mentioned, the more moral choice is always the harder one.

I read The Self Illusion: Why There is No 'You' Inside Your Head. Have you read it? If so, would you like to discuss it with me? If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. — Truth Seeker

Interesting and I added it to my next up set of books.

Most of us believe that we possess a self - an internal individual who resides inside our bodies, making decisions, authoring actions and possessing free will. — Truth Seeker

I do not believe that.

Instead, to me, the self simply is. That is to say there is no 'possession' and writing of it that way seems wrong to me in the gut. The individual is certainly not 'external' either so all the wording is wrong.

The feeling that a single, unified, enduring self inhabits the body - the 'me' inside me - is compelling and inescapable. — Truth Seeker

It is neither compelling nor inescapable. That is a new fallacy you are applying to many of us that do not feel that way. So, back off, just in general. Your experience is not mine.

The assumption that others feel the same way we do is compelling, but we are supposed to get past that light compulsion around age 2 or so. You know it's about the time you realize peek-a-boo doesn't make the person disappear, really.

This is how we interact as a social animal and judge each other's actions and deeds. — Truth Seeker

Also not true for me. Very early on I had a sense of right and wrong. The indoctrination for the Christian church only put into words what I already felt. Of course, it went to far and then my indoctrination failed because I could not follow the rank silliness of religious dogma. Still, the sense of right and wrong was at least compelling, if not resonant. I prefer the latter word in every way. I did when I was a child even though at that time the word was not a word but a feeling.

But that sovereignty of the self is increasingly under threat from science as our understanding of the brain advances. Rather than a single entity, the self is really a constellation of mechanisms and experiences that create the illusion of the internal you. — Truth Seeker

There is no difference between a unity of things and the thing as singular. That is the delusion. So this assault is just the giving way of one delusion towards another. And yes, I am claiming that this new revelation is only JUST another delusion. It is uninspired, unremarkable, and in fact dangerous as a belief.

We only emerge as a product of those around us as part of the different storylines we inhabit from the cot to the grave. It is an ever changing character, created by the brain to provide a coherent interface between the multitude of internal processes and the external world demands that require different selves.
— Quoting the description of the book — Truth Seeker

This is chaos-apologist nonsense. The patterns that define the body and give rise in an emergent sense to the mind are linked and not easily changed at all, if ever. The persistence of personality as tendency is profound. Nature is much more determinant than nurture. Still, choice is superior to all of that as choice was what defined the prison of the body up until now. That is state and state changes. Truth does not.

Although choice is infinite in power finally, it is harder to choose well from certain states. Almost nothing is created by the brain. Integration is not finally creation. It is discovery and management, more properly stated.

I do like the idea of multiple mechanisms working together as that matches my feelings regarding the scope of moral agency. But such scopes are all delusional, finally. That is to say, there is only ALL, and delusional sub scopes within all. Identity of any kind is then just delusional. Inasmuch as we are made of cells and then down to atoms and perhaps sub-atomic quanta, and they are doing their thing, which to me is STILL .. JUST ... free will, we then are 'cells' or 'units' of ALL. There is no real difference excepting only the moral agency sum at that level of scope.

I am sentient but I can't prove to you or anyone else that I am sentient. You could call me a Philosophical Zombie and I won't be able to prove that I am not a Philosophical Zombie. — Truth Seeker

Indeed, proof and certainty are delusional and not relevant. Pursuit of greater awareness is not the same thing as certainty. Casting off the foolish need, the timid need, for comfort and certainty is wise. Awareness is ... good enough. Self aware is a vastly debatable topic. The critical issue is already well in place, that is free will, the only truth in the universe. It exists at all levels, even in sub-atomic quanta. It is no surprise at all that this same phenomenon is then emergent to the greatest moral agents of which we are aware, us, human beings.

Many people believe that humans have immortal souls which leave when the body dies and is either resurrected by God or reincarnated according to karma. I am not convinced that souls exist but I am open to examining any new evidence for the existence of souls. — Truth Seeker

There is no purpose to the God delusion or the soul delusion.

If all particles in the universe are possessed of free will (and they are) then there is nothing else that need be explained or extrapolated. It is simple and persistent, like all truth. Matter, energy, and emotion; all three are never created nor destroyed. State changes like death are NOT RELEVANT. To believe that they are is the height of conceit and delusion.

What is the true nature of the self? — Truth Seeker

The nature of the self is truth, is ALL, is belonging. All separation is delusional.

"In the yogic culture we evolved a method. We always identify with our ignorance, never with our knowledge." - Sadhguru

But I was wondering more about this part:
What other changes are needed? What are the signs or problematic communication? What are the signs of communication that are more harmonious with the truth?
— Bylaw — Bylaw

Well, that is an amazing question. Thank you for asking it. It is a 'step beyond' (the standard limitations of interaction) for sure.

So, would you agree with the assertion that the more truth you ascribe to, believe in, retain amid the humility of not 'knowing', the more genuine happiness you experience?

I do believe that. It was kind of the first thread I posted here. It was not at all well received. Eh ...

Anyway, belief in truth is like a house, not easy to maintain. And more to the point, as time goes by, and the house becomes more complicated, reflecting all of reality more and more properly, it is harder and harder to maintain. We realize this and horror begins to creep in.

We realize as horror overtakes us that we are unequal to this task, the only task we really have, to live and pursue wisdom and morality. So the system is terrifying. That is not the system of men and choice, that is the system of truth and living actually within it. But this again is just fear talking. The horrid terror.

So what happens then when we look out and experience a kind soul or a wise one? We see them maybe from a distance and it seems they are magical. They brush off discomforts. They do not wallow in pain. They smile and we have the impression that the smile is genuine. It may be.

What is it that allows us to 'know' the unknowable or to believe in it with humility which as this thread discusses, is even better as a pattern?

It is courage, anger, confidence in truth as truth. This balancing force accepts the pain as required. It does not turn from suffering, but happily turns INTO IT. The wise suffer by choice, exquisitely. They understand so much more of the imbalanced and self-inflicted suffering, the limiting prisons, that we all put ourselves into. Courage and confidence, born of anger, is rarer than order-apology or its desire based cousin, self-indulgence. Anger is closer to truth.

This is why anger is responsible and accountable ... for the single eternal moment of now only. Fear has the endless past. Desire has the perhaps infinite future. But anger is limited. Its limit in this pattern of reality is to essence, to being, and the only time in which being is 'certain' is now.

So when we experience life the balanced perception must be on the lookout for one thing above all others. That thing is ease. Ease is the great enemy. Ease has many forms. Comfort is one. Certainty is one. Giddiness is one. I could go on and on. Basically, the truth is that 'doing your best' is never easy. Moral choice is the single hardest choice in existence.

Do you feel that these many posts and answers and baring up under the examination of well schooled and interested people is easy? Is any aspect of such a capability easy? Amid the turmoil of daily life, and the many pressures others and our society places upon us, is any of THIS likely? Are we privileged in some way to have this? No, we are not. The order that built this was an intent that has resulted in THIS. But maintenance is required. Suffering is required. And the price paid to get here is trivial compared to the detailed and ongoing price of maintaining it. Unless balance is properly understood, this scenario will crash to an unhappy end. And then it must all be built again, anew.

Grow or die is a real dynamic. Only just doing what was done so far is never enough. We have had this. We want more. Desire is endless and its purpose is clear, even if it is misinterpreted by everyone. Singer tells us mankind is base and effectively evil. He is wrong. Consequentialism is a dread lie. It only seems that way because there are so many ways to fail and objectively only one path upon which to resonate the GOOD and enjoy/make the consequence of genuine happiness. The effort required for deontological intent to grow is immense.

When you listen, listen with an ear for someone trying to make things easier on themselves. Who does that ever help? The answer is NO ONE. It is a tautology.

"Out of love of humankind, out of despair over my awkward predicament of having achieved nothing and of being unable to make anything easier than it had already been made, out of genuine interest in those who make everything easy, I comprehended that it was my task: to make difficulties everywhere." - Soren Kierkegaard

This sentiment is aligned with but contra opposite to the philosophers real aim, to make the difficult easier to understand so that it can be accepted. There is a middle ground to these efforts. That is what wisdom is, the middle way. So Soren was just angry and lamenting his fate. As such he was getting revenge in a way, intending immorally to 'make things harder' but not in pure spite. He wanted to show the truth for its real self, a hard climb, a hard growing season. And he was right more than he was wrong.

For example, in a philosophy forum, we have the words on the screen. The people writing may have similar attitudes - potentially even when they use the word know, not taking this at all to mean it is necessarily infallible. And/or when they avoiding knowing and know, they may be utterly certain that what they say must be correct and never will need to be revised. — Bylaw

What says this: 'I like you because you are like me' ?
What says this: 'Look I don't need you to research this, I need you to know it!'
What says this: 'Brevity is the soul of wit?'
What says this: '... utterly certain ...'

Am I advocating for becoming certain by not using 'know' and 'certain'? No! I am not. The depth of belief in the idea that 'knowing' is poisonous is key to any belief or wisdom. If you only pay the idea lip service then that is what you shall receive as resonant happiness. in other words disingenuously following a trend in the local environment.

If when this same user or writer is confronted by someone that says, 'knowledge is only belief', then if they realize the fallibility of their 'knowing' they should just say, 'right on brother, I was not claiming ... utter certainty', no agreed, far from it!' But there is image to consider. These other esteemed colleagues, site-mates will think less of me if I resonate with not knowing. That seems ... scary? This new confident charlatan is bothering about something so pointless. Easier to dismiss it. And what an easy target! He keeps redefining words we all ... KNOW. Yup! No internal consistency at all, right? Just a jester, really!

Listen with an ear to understanding when someone is trying to make things easier on themselves.

Is knowing or doubt easier? Is being aware of something and actively trying to maintain a belief easier or harder than making a firm decision and 'knowing'? Is speech infectious? Is there some comfort in the delusion of 'knowing'?

So, what way should people write to be more harmonious with the truth beyond avoiding 'knowing' and 'know'. — Bylaw

There are many examples in this thread alone and most of them I called out. Look for the concept of the limit in such matters. If there is an end drawn, a destination arrived at, it is a failure in most ways. That is the delusion of fear talking. The authoritative fool: 'You have reached the border of these lands. A wise man will go no further!' Me: 'But there is land a mere foot away! There could be cool things and ... well ... women .. over there. I think I will risk it.' As Jordan Peterson often claims, we must risk offense and being offensive in order to live, to grow. That was not the intent. But we can own the choice. Living in fear is not living at all. Ease and pragmatism is an enemy of sorts.

I am not denying the importance of the attitudinal shifts, but give the specific danger of 'know' and 'knowing' in your schema, it seems like the actual language use is important.

Are there other things to be avoided or added to avoid the danger? — Bylaw

Speech is just a signal of belief. Actions other than just speech do the same thing. Disheveled appearance and environs speak to a lack of concern in image, a lack of pursuit of perfection shown by cleanliness and some degree of taste in presentation. That is just one example. Each of the virtues has a set of flags and indicators that show either fear side delusion, desire side delusion, anger-side delusion, or ... a VERY rare and laudable balance aimed at the objective GOOD.

Yes, so you have stated the real pattern. But at no point was certainty involved. We should become comfortable with that and speak and write that way to be more harmonious with truth.
— Chet Hawkins
So, how does one do this?
I understand that eliminating 'know' is a good idea from your perspective. What other changes are needed? What are the signs or problematic communication? What are the signs of communication that are more harmonious with the truth? — Bylaw

1) Admit to the greater truth behind the assertion. It is dangerous to speak in terms of 'knowing'.
2) Realize that all of us are guilty of this trouble, when we allow that pattern to continue.
3) Challenge yourself to do better by first recognizing when you are failing morally by using such words and phrases.
4) Actually correct the words used in speech and in writing from yourself.
5) Begin to realize when others do this same thing. Note the abundance of the wrong pattern.
6) Challenge the pattern when the mood is right to be a discussion where progress can be made by those thus challenged.
7) Fit all of this into a model of the way you live to make it a consistent part of who you are, your beliefs personified.

Yes, well you are now proving that it's hard to get people to understand. I am apparently not a great explainer, who knew. Sticking just to the erroneous colloquial definitions of emotions will not aid you in any way.
— Chet Hawkins
If you can link me to where you have other definitions or give me a description here, it would help. Otherwise sure, I'm going to assume colloquial definitions or ones from psychology. You might as well make up words for them, then at least we'll be pretty sure we haven't the slightest idea what you mean. — Bylaw

Fear - the singular emotion responsible for order itself as a concept. Fear is an excited state that arises as a result of matching a pattern from one's past. Fear and order are thus associated with the past in a temporal sense.

Any and all pattern matching is just fear. Thought is fear. Logic is fear. The pattern that is the structure of something is itself fear, although that something in essence is not fear. The pattern is the fear part.

Ken Wilber refers to the Noosphere in his book 'The Theory of Everything'. He does not link this to fear. To me, it is all fear and nothing but fear.

Fear is a function of limits. This is exactly the same as in math. The limit function is always towards some end but the relationship is asymptotic. That is to say the aim never quite reaches the actual.

The limiting force in emotive space, intent space, is fear. It cuts off awareness of truth and this cheap cut off is noticed by the wise in every way. Fear is the limit where everything is incorrectly separated from all. Fear is the force that causes this separation.

In this act of separation, a spiritual or wise failure, fear then must try to calm itself. Note that some excitement is drummed up and not in need of becalming. The fervor of nerds in a room all discussing some highbrow or technical issue, full of imagined limits where none exist, is all just fear. The author looks around with an expression of sympathy at these environs.

So fear seeks comfort in like minded others, like patterned environments. The word 'like' is a fear word. The love of friendship or comfortable love is the part of love based entirely in the emotion of fear. 'I like you because you are like me!'

Fear is the great divider. It limits interaction. It encloses and imprisons. It is cold and judgmental in nature. The pattern either matches or it is relegated to the unattainable status of 'other'.

Fear is always entirely delusional. The pattern IS NOT known. The pattern is not therefore understood. The pattern is incomplete. The pattern is not the pattern.

Fear is asymptotic to truth. It is never arriving there.

Socially, anger and desire types will tend to shun fear types. That is because this separation is felt more painfully by non fear types. The panic spreads fast. THEY 'know' this and so THEY shun. This is also a fair response to the shunning involved as originating in the fear person separating themselves and perhaps judging others with delusional limits. It all makes great sense, but it's deeply tragic.

That is just my belief concerning one emotion, fear. It is a tiny bit of truth adjacent issues related to order and fear.

I recognize why you are right, as in if we were playing musical instruments. But to make a brief a point on this as possible, 1. I think morality is ultimately what is functional. Think big picture. And, 2. I think that insistence on certain precision in speech serves a limited function. Free speech, even in philosophy can be moral. Just as it can be moral to insist on strict precision of speech in philosophy. It is the usage and context together where morality should be measured. — ENOAH

So, I think we can end up just agreeing.

The sense that you describe here is order apology. But it is less egregious if and only if the ideal is still admitted to as the aim.

The fail is when the order-apologist stands hard on the stance of 'let's just get er done!' That is to say dismissive entirely of any idea of ideals and perfection aiming. The new cult belief is 'Just do it!' and whereas I am a fact of trying to do some good rather than none; it's that throw your whole heart into the short cut way that is repugnant. The short cut should be taken as a moral FAILURE. It should be a sorrowful act. The person should understand and mean the sorrow, at least briefly. And then get on with the joy, the music of the day.

By the way, I answer posts AS I READ THEM. That means
— Chet Hawkins
...
Ha. Me too. As we "speak." — ENOAH

Yes.

The need for certainty is moral failure because certainty is absurd.
— Chet Hawkins

First, thank you, in spite of your well deserved dig. — ENOAH

I will assume that was genuine. OK, yw, on we go!

Second, Ok!

But still, now to satisfy entirely justifiable rules of methodology (dictated by this very specific form of poetry), I should have to read (or re-read, I don't remember) Voltaire on how he arrived at the absurd etc. — ENOAH

Well your juxtaposition of the absurd and the 'non-absurd' is troublesome. As in I cannot tell if your form of poetry is to make Voltaire's arrival at the NON ABSURD position of declaring certainty (as a pursuit) to be absurd, or to try to flip the script sarcastically and suggest that he arrived at the absurd (which is not the truest point). So your wording confuses me. I suppose I should admit that mine confuses others, and I do, but that was not my intent. What is yours?

But for the thrill of the expedition, and for whatever edifying artifacts we dig up, I'll proceed trusting either way, it's something to learn. And asking your indulgence. — ENOAH

Ah, ... well, you seem to be on the side of the angels, so, sure, on we go.

It is NOT certainty we seek, properly, morally, but only ... more ... awareness ... endlessly. THAT is a subtle but required distinction to be moral.
— Chet Hawkins

Wow! Yes, ok. Sorry. I should have read, and not so boldly entered. But though indefensible, in my indefense, I was looking for a shortcut answer to that specific question "why immoral?" — ENOAH

All weakness, all no perfect intent is immoral. That is a tautology. Immorality is ubiquitous, common. But that again is not the point. The point is to be slowly more and more able to discern which position, between any two, is more moral than the other.

There are better ways and better models to use and rely on than what we now have. When we formulate them and use them to make progress they will fade into obscurity because they are also not perfect. That is not the point. The point is that AT THE TIME they were better than ... anything else going on.

Voltaire, and you, are recognizing that there is never certainty, and only incessant movement, thus seeking is absurd; instead, be watchful of the incessant movement (?) — ENOAH

This is miswording and strikes me as perhaps intentional. How can one misunderstand? Seeking is not absurd, as seeking awareness is wise. Truth seeking is wise. What is not wise is the belief in finding as a final thing. As in 'job done on this, let's pack up the effort and go home to laziness.' No, immoral choice. So, instead of saying 'I know this', say 'My awareness suggests this'. Or instead of saying 'In conclusion we say this', say 'Our added suggested awareness is this'

In such a way, with such a discipline, we avoid not seeking, which is wise, but the false perception of arrival. 'Motion' is maintained.

most probably unaware or unwilling even to consider it as a goal. Nevertheless, our entire society would be improved to an alarming degree if we all could develop the discipline to speak and write that way which would then point to us thinking more properly as well.
— Chet Hawkins

Totally! But I'd say, "think," first, speech etc follows suit. But I sense you mean something akin to discipline, like when we insist upon reason or empirical process. I mean "think" first that all knowledge is a thing in constant Flux, and given dozens if not hundreds of factors, my mind will settle every now and again at belief. — ENOAH

Yes that.

Who cares what it's called? — ENOAH

We all must care. To not care is immoral. The label is critical as it causes certain effects in its use. That is why 'know', 'knowledge', 'conclusion' and similar words should be called into question. If we realize properly that KNOWLEDGE IS ONLY BELIEF, we are better served by that admission than we are by denying it.

I need to be endlessly vigilant, watchful of the changes, where I settle, and so on. — ENOAH

Yes, this 'endlessness' is the endless pursuit of perfection.

In that sense, speaking and writing are less disciplined, free to explore the endless changes, unrestrained. But You watchful you, not chained by seeking certainty, not chained by seeking anything, you can settle where you believe, in your thinking, it is justified to settle. — ENOAH

Again your backwards wording. It is I that does not settle, they that do. At least the they I am speaking of that use 'know' so flippantly and will not agree that 'knowledge is only belief'.

There is never a justification to settle. Settling is a form of certainty, satisfaction. It is a quote from me by all my friends that have heard me say it a thousand times, 'Satisfaction equals death'. No settling. We are not done. There is work to be done.

Watchful me, yes, Changing the paradigm is required. Real change. What shall it be?

point is that the word 'know' and its many derivatives like 'knowledge' and even the concept of 'certainty' itself all partake of perfection which is an unattainable state, in general. So, it is BETTER by far to avoid speaking and writing that way. It is better to say instead 'aware of' rather than 'know', in all cases.
— Chet Hawkins

Oh, yah. Beautiful. I agree. Voltaire and you? If that's what you mean. I see how functional that is for thinking, and why you'd place it third. — ENOAH

I do not understand your use of the word 'third' here. You mean the word 'certainty' in the list? Well, OK. That is not the key point there. The key point is clarity in statements that confer meaning or truth. Knowing is not possible in the final sense, so awareness is all we have and it would be better to speak as if that was the case and not about 'knowing'.

Notice the word almost that diffuses the superlative case. That is discipline in writing.
— Chet Hawkins

I truly respect that! Does it manifest as poetry? Sorry. Yes. But I respect the point. Sincerely. — ENOAH

Any aspect of art is an expression that either makes sense in some way, resonates truth, or does not seem to, and therefore is indiscernible as art in fact. Beauty is objective, like truth. It is impactful in its relationship to truth. That is to say, true beauty commands attention because it reveals the mystery we align with or even one that we do not. It can be a comfort, but more often it is a challenge by its very resonance.

You will notice that many responses to me call my confidence into question, rather than being supportive.
— Chet Hawkins

I hear you, neighbor. A pathology in the Dialectic. Nothing's perfect. — ENOAH

It is a burden, but no big deal. I am well past the point in life where I let the opinions of others deeply bother me. I do care and very deeply, but it would lessen my delivery if I were too reactionary.

It cannot beat anger on confidence as that is the purpose of anger (in balance).
— Chet Hawkins

I hear you, brother! Anger. Mind. A beautiful thing, how it constructs Anger, as if out of the blue, just by mixing memory and desire. — ENOAH

Well, I am not sure about the conjecture there, but, Body, mind, and will work together in all things.

That is why I demand or argue for such things as changing the word 'conclusion' to the phrase 'non-conclusion'. The former is a lazy and fear driven need for certainty expressed. It DOES, whether THEY admit it or not, imply that we are done, finished.
— Chet Hawkins

Totally get you. Why not "settlement" "current point of settlement"? You know, it recognizes, not only what you're after, that the speaker hasn't provided Us with the end, that they, the speaker are "aware" (as per you and Voltaire), that they have not provided an end. — ENOAH

Yes, well, settle has its own negative connotation, that of satisfaction or death. That misses the core aspect of the complaint against 'conclusion'. We are NOT done properly. We do not 'settle' properly. Properly, we are agitated and unsatisfied at all times. We engage every fiber of our being in growth and change for the better.

Cast aspersions on others that seem weak. Be seen doing so. Win! But even just the idea that 'Hey, fish or cut bait buddy! Do something (even if it sucks)!
— Chet Hawkins

You're not talking to me anymore, are you? — ENOAH

No that was like, as if, anyone, the practical speaker speaking TO ME, me saying it in their stead. Practical speakers say things like that to people all the time. 'Do something!' And the funny thing is I am an anger type, a doer. Have no fear! I will do something! Ha ha! Be careful what you ask for.

So I was speaking to you to reveal the pragmatic play out. In most situations people prefer or expect the baseline practical (order apology) effort. They do not mesh well with idealism. Even idealists do not.

They (both types) lower their expectations based on practical matters. But they do worse than that. They aim for less than perfect. That is INTENTIONAL FAILURE. It is deeply immoral.

Perfection-aiming IS NOT perfection-expectation!

Plainly, if certainty seeking was evolved, now built-in, it is not a failure, but a "necessity".
— ENOAH
No, that is the Pragmatic retreat, order-apology, and it is precisely the immorality of over-expressed fear. The need to be aware is fine until it goes too far, like any virtue. The need for certainty is NOT the same as being as aware as we can be in reasonable time.
— Chet Hawkins

Yes. I get how I misunderstood/misplaced previously. And I now understand why you would reply to my comment directly above in that way. I agree! You and V! Certainty seeking is absurd. Of course! And awareness is Monarch. — ENOAH

Cool! Although I have no idea why you said 'Monarch'. What does that mean?

I actually do sympathize. I realize I have not explained the entire model yet. Really though the basis of it is fairly simple. Explaining it thoroughly though is a really a matter for yet another thread.

Even in plain English this sentence is not nearly as bad as you claim though.
— Chet Hawkins

I don't think you're really understanding much of what anyone is saying to you, most of the time.
You certainly haven't understood the vast majority of what I've thrown your direction.

You've not explained anything adequately. — AmadeusD

I understand everything everyone says to me. They do not return the favor though, in any way, usually.

You conflate understanding with agreement.

Remember that I consider 'knowing' a moral failure, more akin to certainty seeking, expression an imbalance between anger and fear by definition. So defenders of that wording are like to over-express fear, ... is my forecast.
— Chet Hawkins
In my experience people who are afraid tend to be less sure and people who are angry tend to express more certainty. — Bylaw

Yes, well you are now proving that it's hard to get people to understand. I am apparently not a great explainer, who knew. Sticking just to the erroneous colloquial definitions of emotions will not aid you in any way.

Remember that I consider 'knowing' a moral failure, more akin to certainty seeking, expression an imbalance between anger and fear by definition.
— Chet Hawkins

First, and I happen to mean this admiringly, your words awaken already hovering suspicions that this forum is creating a very specific form of complex poetry (especially if you modify the comma placements). I'll stop. And yet... — ENOAH

OK, interesting. Let's see where this goes. By the way, I answer posts AS I READ THEM. That means I simply start by quoting your whole post and then begin. I have not read the whole thing before I answer. So I have no idea yet what you will write next in this same post.

Secondly, more, hopefully, to point. My current thoughts align with "certainty seeking," but why "moral failure?" — ENOAH

Well if you had read the responses thus far, you would hopefully know (ha ha).

The need for certainty is moral failure because certainty is absurd. The Voltaire quote is correct. 'Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but, certainty is absurd.' - Voltaire So, I agree with him. It is NOT certainty we seek, properly, morally, but only ... more ... awareness ... endlessly. THAT is a subtle but required distinction to be moral.

It is my contention that many and most people FAIL rather spectacularly at this endeavor, most probably unaware or unwilling even to consider it as a goal. Nevertheless, our entire society would be improved to an alarming degree if we all could develop the discipline to speak and write that way which would then point to us thinking more properly as well. Effectively, we would FINALLY (about time) be giving Voltaire's wisdom in making that statement its due. My model agrees.

Fear is characterized in general by a need for certainty or more and more near certainty to calm it down. That need is partially immoral. Anger is the strength to stand and face the unknown and force fear into balance with courage. This can be and often is over-expressed and immoral anger such as foolhardiness. But that IS NOT the point. The point is that the word 'know' and its many derivatives like 'knowledge' and even the concept of 'certainty' itself all partake of perfection which is an unattainable state, in general. So, it is BETTER by far to avoid speaking and writing that way. It is better to say instead 'aware of' rather than 'know', in all cases.

That is because as the thread title says, 'Knowing is only belief'. True.

Only because you find fear and anger to be the source/position of certainty seeking? If you could surrender that hypothesis, would certainty seeking still be moral failure? — ENOAH

Anger is not the emotion of certainty-seeking. Anger can support over-expressed fear and add imbalance or it can push back against over-expressed fear to the point of balance and the need for certainty would vanish. If one has sufficient anger, there is no imbalanced need for certainty. Anger allows us to stand up to the mystery of the universe with confidence in that balance.

Why would I surrender the better hypothesis? That hypothesis is my challenge to existing cultural wisdom (or lack thereof more correctly). Certainty seeking is almost always moral failure. Notice the word almost that diffuses the superlative case. That is discipline in writing.

You will notice that many responses to me call my confidence into question, rather than being supportive. They do not then actually critique the substance of the model in the small ways it was delivered. No, they just rail against the confidence. That is improper fear attacking proper anger. If fear wants to make a point, it has to get into the details and substance where its order can show its truth. It cannot beat anger on confidence as that is the purpose of anger (in balance).

Are you compelled because you find it illogical or unreasonable for Mind to "simply" have evolved such that "knowledge" is seeking "certainty " (and I say they are the "same" mechanism), emerged as a "necessary" "step" in an "autonomous" "mental" process? (the quomarks are necessary to delineate that when vague hypotheses are being worked out in a forum of many "scientists" and "technicians," then, notwithstanding their arguably poetic byproducts, it is best to be honest about the vagueness) — ENOAH

Honesty about the vagueness is precisely the point.

That is why I demand or argue for such things as changing the word 'conclusion' to the phrase 'non-conclusion'. The former is a lazy and fear driven need for certainty expressed. It DOES, whether THEY admit it or not, imply that we are done, finished. No more work is needed. Granted, the better able among the readers and writers are well aware that they are not done. They 'know' ha ha, that this conclusion is ANYTHING BUT a final conclusion. But how much more honest would it be to say something like 'non-conclusion' or 'awareness suspected as gained'? These phrases are BETTER fundamentally because they clearly indicate we are not done and more work is required. That is a tautology so, let's start speaking and writing more in alignment with what is true and with LESS embellishments and short cuts designed to deliver false assurance.

The intuition which we all share, which makes your hypothesis interesting (presumptious on my part) i.e., that it is "weak," for e.g., or "attached/desiring," and, thus fear/anger based (the intuited organic source of these constructed "movements" "dialectics" or "emotions"), to need to seek reassuring, I.e., to be driven to seek certainty, may have led you to construct such a hypothesis. — ENOAH

Yes, that is a big part of it. Leaping to a short-cut to assuage fears is common in all walks of life and perhaps none so egregiously as mainstream academia. Get the grant! Be seen doing so. Say complex words! Cast aspersions on others that seem weak. Be seen doing so. Win! But even just the idea that 'Hey, fish or cut bait buddy! Do something (even if it sucks)! Pragmatism (fear) is all efficient short cuts that deny the aim at perfection. Idealism has its equal problems as well. But this thread is about awareness, which is all fear.

And, still, there is on a balance of probabilities, a much greater chance I have misunderstood and am misrepresenting your thoughts. If so, I apologize, but autonomously continue. — ENOAH

Engagement is respect. I appreciate any valid attempt. So far, you do not seem uninterested or simply derogatory as many others have been.

And you are right about probabilities but being reasonably educated, most of us here, I assume, we should expect all of this philosophy to be several standard deviations away from normal discussion. It is rare air. And I find this fun so I am clearly odd. I believe or I am aware of the fact that most of us here can sympathize. Most of my friends are aware that if they let me I will get on the morality soapbox anytime. I offer warnings and make them formally ask a second time before I begin my ... tirade or lecture or discussion (choose the form of the destroyer).

Plainly, if certainty seeking was evolved, now built-in, it is not a failure, but a "necessity". — ENOAH

No, that is the Pragmatic retreat, order-apology, and it is precisely the immorality of over-expressed fear. The need to be aware is fine until it goes too far, like any virtue. The need for certainty is NOT the same as being as aware as we can be in reasonable time.

The foolish expectation of the masses that what people say and do should be exacting is ridiculous. It should instead be understood and accepted that a 'try' was in the offing only. Yoda was wrong, and ridiculously so. The jedi quotes are full of anti-wisdom. Most past aphorisms are anti-wisdom, not wisdom. Fear is just as moral as it is immoral. It is much denigrated in our culture. But fear is responsible for awareness, preparation, all structure, all thought, logic, and anything involving its patterns, order. Imagine how foolish Data and other such characters appear to me when they say something as stupid as 'I run on logic not emotions'. Logic is ONLY emotion, only fear.

And from there, I would go on to suggest that "belief" too is an evolved mechanism incorporated into the holy trinity of knowing--seeking, certainty/settlement, belief. That no matter what a person thinks they have done to arrive at the mental state wherein they can claim, "I know," they have passed through that autonomous process and settled at belief. Temporarily! That's the thing! All the fuss about certainty, and most knowing gets modified, if not completely reconstructed by settlement at a "new" belief. — ENOAH

Yes, so you have stated the real pattern. But at no point was certainty involved. We should become comfortable with that and speak and write that way to be more harmonious with truth.

Fear is synonymous with order.
— Chet Hawkins
I can see fear leading to order and rage leading to order. The law and order crowd often seems very angry. Fascists and other dictators who enforce extreme order often seem rather angry to me. In any case.
Anger holds its ground against everything.
— Chet Hawkins
Anger can be defensive in this way, but it also can be offensive. — Bylaw

So, all colloquial definitions for emotions do not really serve in my model. That can be confusing because of habit.

But I insist that these words are more properly used non-colloquially and my model is one of a number of theories or strategies, models for the universe that asserts some aspect of this 'better' way of dealing with these emotions and the general idea of consciousness.

So, I am not saying 'forget what you know' but only 'be careful, what you know is the tip of the iceberg a nd mostly wrong'.

So, this is really another thread. This one is on knowledge is only belief. True. I guess we can discuss my terrifying or nonsensical model in another thread.

Base idea to respond to this one though is:
Over-expressed fear is what is colloquially called fear, e.g. an imbalanced fear reaction (fear seems to be a reaction) to what is.
Over-expressed anger is what is colloquially called anger, e.g. an imbalanced or triggered anger based on the need to support or overwhelm fears or desires.

The goal IS NOT immoral over-expression (or immoral under-expression) of emotions. The goal is wisdom, which, at any stage, is only and always balanced and maximized emotion. The GOOD is the single point of perfection in intent space. That means any given scope of chooser (for example one human) intends with all possible might towards the GOOD with maximal fear, anger, and desire and all that in balance.

A balanced and maximized presentation of emotions is what wisdom is. It would seem infinitely calm and it is anything but that. The effort required to maintain that state is infinite. So that is why that state is damn near ... might as well be ... impossible. But it is still the only proper moral goal.

To get back down into the 'real' world where practical human examples can be discussed is fine. But the model's assertions make it clear that this balance as an aim is commendable. We then begin to suspect and accept that imbalances are trouble. They can offer us growth space but that is when there are by definition over-expressions of one or more emotions and corresponding under-expressions of other emotions. So, the critique of ANY and EVERY choice is done by feeling out the balance of emotions within that choice.

For example if someone was busy readying for an attack on their fort, and they kept re-arranging things or discussing them they would be experiencing an order immorality, a fear side failure of analysis paralysis. They could become quite angry if confronted and insist that they were not ready. The anger is serving the fear though. The fear is the issue in that example.

A desire side failure is often easy to show with something so simple as over indulgence in any choice. That is the emptiness of addiction, rather than a wise desire for balance. Note that increasing desire can enable increasing wisdom though, so, wanting more is not necessarily bad, but what is wanted must be GOOD, and that is objective, not subjective. So addictions that are empty abound!

Anger holds its ground against everything. That is the nature of balance. If this is not intuitively obvious, I can go on an on, because every other aspect of reality supports that non-conclusion.
— Chet Hawkins

THis is a neat little microcosm of hte senselessness of most of your writing. Unsure whether that reflects on your positions though, because it's so unclear. — AmadeusD

I actually do sympathize. I realize I have not explained the entire model yet. Really though the basis of it is fairly simple. Explaining it thoroughly though is a really a matter for yet another thread.

Even in plain English this sentence is not nearly as bad as you claim though.

Readiness to change stance is critical. Anger knows this.
— Chet Hawkins
If anything I would say fear is more ready to change stance. — Bylaw

Fear is synonymous with order. It regulates and makes 'laws'. It advocates for stability over change and it is rather obvious, is it not that limiting oneself to what is 'possible' by choice is a prison of fear. That is the over-expression of fear. I feel and believe that this eventually leads to death itself. It's more complicated than that, but to say that plainly clearly is more right than wrong.

Anger holds its ground against everything. That is the nature of balance. If this is not intuitively obvious, I can go on an on, because every other aspect of reality supports that non-conclusion.

In any case we often use anger to bolster our stances rather than feel the fear that we might be wrong and might well need to change (be open to something else or something new). — Art48

Yes, over-expressed anger and imbalanced overconfidence are possible as well. I am not denying that.

That is not what this thread is about though. This one is about the fear-side failure of 'knowing' as opposed to merely being aware of or believing, which are better ways to express that choice.

I don't understand your schema, but perhaps starting with something specific like what I quoted above might help. — Art48

I suppose I can begin to outline it shortly, but, really its mostly about that core idea that love is nothing more than fear, anger, and desire maximized and balanced. The perfect maximum of all three in balance is perfection.

I see both emotions having their place, dependent on context. — Art48

Clearly, that is what I am saying. I am also saying that 'knowing' and using that term is a fear-side order apologist failure in moral awareness.

No. Existence is being in essence, mass, anger. A fear based approach would prefer to categorize things. My inclination is just to refuse, as anger simply stands for itself using mass to make its argument.
— Chet Hawkins
You refuse to categorize things? Are you not categorizing with your fear, anger, desire schema? For example. — Bylaw

That is true. But acknowledging the 3 paths amid any choice is better than not. In any case your partial quote doesn't capture the right context of my meaning. That is why it is better to quote the whole thing and respond to each part. This also is a lack of unity in addressing issues.

Remember that I consider 'knowing' a moral failure, more akin to certainty seeking, expression an imbalance between anger and fear by definition. So defenders of that wording are like to over-express fear, ... is my forecast. None of that means a more balanced person does not use fear to categorize all the while standing more appropriately to that fear with anger by admitting only to 'awareness of' the matter rather than the indicated as likely delusion of 'knowing'.

The goal is maximized balance. I am not saying I do not properly use fear. I am only advocating challenge to its over-expression.

What do we mean by the word “sin”? — Art48

We mean an immoral act. Of course, then we must decide how is morality founded and found. Religions would have you believe in the 'sky daddy' or the 'earth mother', both of which are useful and insane by roughly equal measures. Anyway, on we go.

A common definition is sin is some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God. — Art48

This is, even on the surface of it, nonsensical. If we are known by the strength of our enemies then your choosing to do battle with incoherence is both terrifyingly brave and foolhardy beyond all estimation. Your foe is illusory as defined. What sort of contest is that?! For your next trick will you punch your way out of a wet paper bag? Will you accidentally offend a liberal? Set the bar higher!

Using that definition, I can say with complete honesty and assurance that I have never knowingly sinned. — Art48

I define evil as wearing pink underpants. I have never knowingly sinned!

Why? Because God has never revealed his will to me. As a consequence, I am unable to knowingly violate his will. I am unable to knowingly sin. — Art48

If you can pretend to fight imaginary foes, you can at least arm them properly with imaginary truths.

God's will is known to you by intuition, by existence, by thought, imagination, and more. Even amid something as precarious as religions are, they still explain it that way, the better explainers among them. That means even such a dyed in the wool heathen as you must be is STILL informed by your own presence in the world and the world's effects on you and vice versa. You have a moral sense. Even sociopaths have the rudiments of moral understanding.

Religion is window-dressing, and not strictly necessary for discussions on morality and the moral sense.

So you are pitching a very one-sided set piece battle here. I predict inclement weather and a resounding upset.

Of course, there is no shortage of people who CLAIM to know God’s will. — Art48

What if they are just saying they are aware of the moral sense, really? They just do not know how to be honest and clear. It's as if they set up some illusionary battle and weighed all the lack of evidence (and the real evidence) in their favor. Then they spoke 'to the people' in a public place and played out that little charade in good faith with NO ONE, including themselves. Does that sound familiar? It should.

There are priests and pastors who CLAIM to know what God wishes and what God does not wish. — Art48

Are they simplifying what their moral sense tells them and then also aggrandizing it with embellishments for entertainment purposes? <Brzzzt> "Please insert additional coins to continue ..."

If I become a Catholic, I’ll be told God wishes me to go to Mass every Sunday. — Art48

Yes, so that you can continue to be indoctrinated and insert coins to continue.

If I become a Jehovah’s Witness, I’ll be told God does not allow blood transfusions. — Art48

Well, at least not without consent. Fluid transfer is some nasty ... stuff. "The Blood of Christ compels you, though!' I guess SOME blood is better than others. Lilu, my love, where are you? Supreme Being!

If I become Hindu, I’ll be told God doesn’t want me to eat beef. — Art48

What do they say about crickets? Aren't plants people to? We need the elven point of view!

If I become a Muslim, I’ll be told God doesn’t want me to eat pork. Etc. Etc. Etc. — Art48

Clearly, the dumbest religion on the planet. Bacon is manna from heaven.

But being told by some human being what God wishes and God does not wish is a very, very different thing than being told by God. — Art48

No, it isn't. Not really. In some Eastern faiths and more recently entertained in Western ones, is the notion that we are all one. This oneness idea, that I call the Unity Principle, is really the best way to approach such matters.

In oneness the delusional barrier of the ego is ignored or consciously denied so that unity may be more easily experienced. It is much harder to relegate any aspect of reality to 'other' status if you are them and they are you. And there is a feel to that, a sense, that is part of the moral sense. It rings true for some people. And those people would be those that many of us consider wise, oh except for academic philosophers who have real trouble with recognizing wisdom apparently. Who knew?

It’s difficult to imagine two things more different: one is a work of man, the other a work of God. — Art48

Man is god is you.

What do YOU consider a sin or 'bad' as an action? Now let's put the lie detector up or why not the sword of Damocles. Speak truth now. Have you ever committed a sin in your own estimation?

It's a MUCH BETTER question, don't you think?

Of course, there are things that religions mostly agree on, simply because most human societies have found it advantageous not to allow murder, thief, and other things commonly labeled as “sin.” And I believe it’s a good idea to try to be an upright, honest, and charitable person. I believe there are things we should generally do and things we should generally avoid. — Art48

This paragraph really is touching on the rather boring concept of conflating order and the good. That is not wise. Order is NOT the good. The good does contain some order.

Religion is not relevant. But morality is the only thing there is, let alone the only thing that's relevant.

Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin. — Art48

No it is not. You are just playing games with yourself and (ha ha) your immortal soul.

Beyond this point there be dragons!