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)

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.

Again. I'm sincererely asking.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Confidence and certainty are NOT the same thing. — Chet Hawkins

I think you give too much power to your particular interpretation of words. 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

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.

The 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.

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.

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.

Just to be clear I feel no certainty except in the most mundane of matters. Beyond that I find it better to accept uncertainty and even cultivate it.

But I find little value in trying to parse the chaos and complexity of human life in terms of simplified concepts like fear, anger and desire. And of all delusions I think free will the most persistent and pernicious, based on the fear-based illusion of autonomy as it seems to me to be.

I cannot prove it because no one can prove anything, really. — Chet Hawkins

I have no problem with the scientific method as long
as we realize that confirmation of a tendency in nature is not proof, finally — Chet Hawkins

Understood and agree.

I'll admit I'm still pondering the role you place on anger. Alhough now your reasoning is clear, I am not as yet persuaded. I'll explain why, though in fairness to you, I (anticipatorily) don't blame you for not liking it. Your reasoning, I don't disparage. I even found it to be profound and interesting. Once again there is also latent, admirable, drama or poetry in your explanations.

But your focus on anger, though impactful, doesn't have a function in my current narrative of thinking. And I also don't blame you for explaining that if your hypotheses are reasonable and moving, then I am compelled to fit them into my narrative; it is otherwise, to sum up, cowardly, immoral.

However, I am leaning on desire, manifesting in a special way as the driving of the movements to belief. Because I agree with you that we can't prove anything and that reality is unknowable (or at least as worded below), I am wondering whether, difficult as it is a pill to swallow, the nearest we get to truth or reality (both, so-called) or "knowledge " (presumably thereof) is how a "conlusion" functions. All the possibilities are driven or "desire" manifesting in experience. And belief is ineluctably tied into that movement too. Whether we care to admit it or not, we weigh (the) things (competing for expression as experience) (sometimes imperceptibly, other times seemingly deliberately) then settle upon a conclusion (believe), based on how that conclusion functions. For e.g, but not limited to, does it satisfy an emotion, a bond, an organic drive, reason, logic, convention, the law, etc.

You are blameless for pointing out to me how your categories, fear, desire, anger, balance, and so on (though we arrive at the same station) stand up to the test of reason etc. But nevertheless. Your protestations, if examined honestly, are based upon the deficiency in the use you have for the categories proposed by me. And I'm not complaining. Good for you.

If you object that your rejection of an illogical position is not based upon the function of its conclusion, but upon the dysfunctional process. I'd say yes, function is the deciding factor all the way through. Nothing else in the end brings a conclusion to belief, not even some central being we call you or I.

Since we do not know what reality is — Chet Hawkins

I agree with you. But tell me, how do we know we don't know what reality is when we don't know what reality is *?
*(to ever discern, or to have accurately discerned in that, now, hypothetical, first place)? But that might be a question beyond the scope of the OP.

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 — Chet Hawkins

Like I said, I now understand, and you presented it with admirable punch. My primary original question, "why link anger with reason," is profoundly answered. Just as for Kant or Heidegger, those who argue in favor of your constructions have found them fitting, and settled for now. And they will go on constructing along side you, varying yours for perfect fit with their own. The others who cannot make a fit will not settle. Some may congratulate you and politely decline, some may politely present their own narrative disguised as a deconstruction of your flawed reasoning, some might find your constructions so unfitting to their own that emotions get the best of them and they demean you and your constructions with a shocking vigor.

I realize for instance how my own proposal here would find few good fits with other Narratives, those whose structures have already closed the door on movements of the plot beyond certain--highly respectable--parameters. Or in plain English, those who can like great Doctors, quickly spot the holes in my logic and reasoning.

But if we cannot know...and we ultimately believe...for a while. Then, who's to say it's only logic and reasoning? I am not saying they ought to be excluded and that we seek truth in one hand clapping. I'm saying that logic and reasoning can only take as to the furthest edge of the abyss between our constructions and reality. And yet WE human animals are the other side of the abyss. So perhaps feelings might have a role...but I'm wondering into another chamber. On our side, function ultimately decides, autonomously too.

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 — Chet Hawkins

Ok, I didn't know that. Interesting. Neither more nor less compelling. But interesting. Are they somehow Jungian? Or is that a myth? Am I confused?

I cannot prove it because no one can prove anything, really.
— Chet Hawkins
I have no problem with the scientific method as long
as we realize that confirmation of a tendency in nature is not proof, finally
— Chet Hawkins


Understood and agree.

I'll admit I'm still pondering the role you place on anger. Alhough now your reasoning is clear, I am not as yet persuaded. I'll explain why, though in fairness to you, I (anticipatorily) don't blame you for not liking it. Your reasoning, I don't disparage. I even found it to be profound and interesting. Once again there is also latent, admirable, drama or poetry in your explanations. — ENOAH

It is the nature of truth and ever increasing proximity to it, that resonance, or drama/poetry will necessarily occur.

But your focus on anger, though impactful, doesn't have a function in my current narrative of thinking. And I also don't blame you for explaining that if your hypotheses are reasonable and moving, then I am compelled to fit them into my narrative; it is otherwise, to sum up, cowardly, immoral. — ENOAH

You have the final bit in sync. But you say you disagree and do not say why here. On we go ...

However, I am leaning on desire, manifesting in a special way as the driving of the movements to belief. Because I agree with you that we can't prove anything and that reality is unknowable (or at least as worded below), I am wondering whether, difficult as it is a pill to swallow, the nearest we get to truth or reality (both, so-called) or "knowledge " (presumably thereof) is how a "conlusion" functions. — ENOAH

So, no. In fact I also choose the word 'conclusion' to be in error. It should literally almost never be used. That is because if we conclude, we pretend that we are done, that the matter is settled, that we 'know'. This is a precise disservice to truth and the pursuit of truth.

So I will dare this statement/assertion: There is only one conclusion in existence and that is love.

In order to be proper morally all papers that end in a block of text should have that block be honestly labelled, 'Non-Conclusion', because that is the truth. This labelling reminds us that we are not properly done seeking truth. It does inform us that for now we are resting our arguments and assertions as is.

But it avoids the egregious assumptions of done work and certainty most commonly associated with order-apology and use of words like 'know' and 'conclusion'.

All the possibilities are driven or "desire" manifesting in experience. And belief is ineluctably tied into that movement too. Whether we care to admit it or not, we weigh (the) things (competing for expression as experience) (sometimes imperceptibly, other times seemingly deliberately) then settle upon a conclusion (believe), based on how that conclusion functions. For e.g, but not limited to, does it satisfy an emotion, a bond, an organic drive, reason, logic, convention, the law, etc. — ENOAH

Well, yes, sort-of. Again the absolute leaning terms like conclusion take away from any gains we think we made. It is in humility that we assert only a non-conclusion instead.

But your core point in that last paragraph I may have missed. I didn't quite follow the desire manifesting in experience or the competing expressions (of what) as experience. I would say fear, anger, and desire are all always being expressed to greater and lesser degrees. Still, in any expression one emotion will tend to dominate. Further, over time, as a personality, we manifest virtue patterns that correspond to each Enneatype. Any modestly capable observer would classify me very quickly as a challenger. It is what I do. That is Enneatype 8. The core of a type 8, their holy source, is innocence. Because of this truth they grow to despise weakness and challenge it. This is related to their own innocence causing them self-betrayal pains early in life. But that is itself a factor based on the light-hearted innocence that is core to the type. Animals and children find 8s MORE approachable than all other types for this reason.

You are blameless for pointing out to me how your categories, fear, desire, anger, balance, and so on (though we arrive at the same station) stand up to the test of reason etc. But nevertheless. Your protestations, if examined honestly, are based upon the deficiency in the use you have for the categories proposed by me. And I'm not complaining. Good for you. — ENOAH

This would normally be the point where you make an argument by explaining again those categories as I admit to not knowing what they are at this point in our back and forth. Saying WHY you disagree to anything simply has not happened yet. On we go ...

If you object that your rejection of an illogical position is not based upon the function of its conclusion, — ENOAH

The function of a conclusion is ONLY to conclude, that is exactly the problem. The real function that should be addressed, the thing itself, the matter the conclusion was about, gets lost. That is similar to the wording here in this sentence which again I cannot quite follow (what you mean).

My rejection of others argument or assertions is always argued. It is explained in detail each and every time. I will reiterate if I have to. It's not a problem. The goal is always just a better understanding. Clarity in word choice and expression is the greatest skill after genuine truth-seeking in these endeavors.

but upon the dysfunctional process. I'd say yes, function is the deciding factor all the way through. Nothing else in the end brings a conclusion to belief, not even some central being we call you or I. — ENOAH

IF and that is a big if, IF I understand you here, then no. Function the way you seem to be using it is almost like a synonym for the word usefulness. That emphasis would be order-apology only, a Pragmatic failure in understanding. It is fear side thinking and prone to that exact conflation. Correct me if I am wrong about what you meant.

Since we do not know what reality is
— Chet Hawkins

I agree with you. But tell me, how do we know we don't know what reality is when we don't know what reality is *? — ENOAH

Well some things are just obvious. Ha ha! It's always safer to assume you do not really know. Certainty is a really big fear side devil. Calming that fear is the coward's balm. Lock the doors! Hang the 'No Trespassing' signs up! Prepare your arguments and your loud chanting when the foe speaks! We are no longer appealing to actual reason. We are Trumping this scenario! Make philosophy great again!

Yeah so all of that is a joke of course. Don't do any of those things and you are better off. That means start from a position of humility and assert not knowing. You know like that yogi I quoted. He gets it.

There are quite a few people saying things like 'Chet is so certain it seems, and he hates certainty.' but they miss that I also say I am wrong in some way about everything and that is fine. Its the RELATIVE correctness that matters in this case. We are both or all absolutely wrong in that any wrong is just wrong , finally. But between two wrong positions, one and only one is always closer to objective moral truth (a long way of saying truth).

*(to ever discern, or to have accurately discerned in that, now, hypothetical, first place)? But that might be a question beyond the scope of the OP. — ENOAH

No, that is the entire point. It is completely and specifically germane to this issue. Keep everything asserted in the realm of the hypothetical where it belongs. Human experience is subjective. Truth is objective. The objective INFORMS the subjective. We can subjectively assert the objective but not ever be sure. The discipline of balance and the humility of genuine doubt and a proper stance of NOT knowing is wise. The alternatives in any way are LESS wise.

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
— Chet Hawkins

Like I said, I now understand, and you presented it with admirable punch. My primary original question, "why link anger with reason," is profoundly answered. Just as for Kant or Heidegger, those who argue in favor of your constructions have found them fitting, and settled for now. And they will go on constructing along side you, varying yours for perfect fit with their own. The others who cannot make a fit will not settle. Some may congratulate you and politely decline, some may politely present their own narrative disguised as a deconstruction of your flawed reasoning, some might find your constructions so unfitting to their own that emotions get the best of them and they demean you and your constructions with a shocking vigor. — ENOAH

Yes indeed and that is glorious! Peace was always only a delusion. And I welcome the times when the trenchers on one side call over to the trenchers on the other and declare a temporary ceasefire for tea and talk. Just watch out for those sneaky sappers that have to 'win' at everything because they will lie about something as innocent as a ceasefire to prove how hard and 'winning' they are. Those Enneatype 3s are some real jerks! Some few of them (like all types) are higher functioning though and they are grand to meet.

I realize for instance how my own proposal here would find few good fits with other Narratives, those whose structures have already closed the door on movements of the plot beyond certain--highly respectable--parameters. Or in plain English, those who can like great Doctors, quickly spot the holes in my logic and reasoning. — ENOAH

Well, not to be a jerk myself, but, there has been no argument yet. I still do not know your objections, if any. You keep alluding to your arguments but none is here.

But if we cannot know...and we ultimately believe...for a while. Then, who's to say it's only logic and reasoning? — ENOAH

I would not say that. Logic and reasoning are fear side. There also needs to be anger and desire side parts to any belief or choice. That is a big part of my position. Most of the 'knowing' types are fear side only or way fear side over-expression. That is not wise.

I am not saying they ought to be excluded and that we seek truth in one hand clapping. — ENOAH

I get what you mean, but, we can seek it there. Truth is unchanging and omnipresent.

I'm saying that logic and reasoning can only take as to the furthest edge of the abyss between our constructions and reality. — ENOAH

Exactly! The math of emotion, limits, asymptotic to truth.

And yet WE human animals are the other side of the abyss. — ENOAH

I cannot fathom what you mean this to mean. If you are saying we are real so we partake of all parts of reality and that means +anger and +desire on top of the reasoning (fear), then I agree. Is that what you meant? If not the 'other side of the abyss' needs a better definition.

So perhaps feelings might have a role...but I'm wondering into another chamber. On our side, function ultimately decides, autonomously too. — ENOAH

You keep using the word 'function'. To me, generically, that means 'proper use'. The only proper use of anything is morally, so for example, a Pragmatic win by any means is not really a win in truth. It's evil. Of course nothing is entirely evil. The win itself is indicative of achievement and that is some good.

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
— Chet Hawkins

Ok, I didn't know that. Interesting. Neither more nor less compelling. But interesting. Are they somehow Jungian? Or is that a myth? Am I confused? — ENOAH

They are so not Jungian, at least to me.

The cognitive Jungian functions really relate best to HOW a person thinks and see the world. The Enneagram is BETTER, as a tool. It speaks to core motivation, the WHY, the wisdom of the chooser. That is far more important.

However, I am leaning on desire, manifesting in a special way as the driving of the movements to belief. Because I agree with you that we can't prove anything and that reality is unknowable (or at least as worded below), I am wondering whether, difficult as it is a pill to swallow, the nearest we get to truth or reality (both, so-called) or "knowledge " (presumably thereof) is how a "conlusion" functions. All the possibilities are driven or "desire" manifesting in experience. And belief is ineluctably tied into that movement too. Whether we care to admit it or not, we weigh (the) things (competing for expression as experience) (sometimes imperceptibly, other times seemingly deliberately) then settle upon a conclusion (believe), based on how that conclusion functions. For e.g, but not limited to, does it satisfy an emotion, a bond, an organic drive, reason, logic, convention, the law, etc. — ENOAH

YES! This implements a great point here (underlined) in your shared thinking...."And belief is ineluctably tied into that movement too. Whether we care to admit it or not, we weigh (the) things (competing for expression as experience) (sometimes imperceptibly, other times seemingly deliberately) then settle upon a conclusion (believe), based on how that conclusion functions." On what grounds??? Is time not a good enough drive to force a belief that was "weighed" (to what degree)? I think the grounds to weigh out the things you bring up, are judged stable or not, in motion. The movement, is time which is constraining in certain moments, like when a decision is needed to move forward in a project. I think intentions change in decision making moments, and can be re-purposed. See my comment here, [url=http://]https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/866500[/url].. im looking at linking goals or desires to ones purpose in life, the one that exists despite knowing it. Though knowable. Morals are justification itself. I propose, "you can have intention without a goal, i say yes..but can you without a desire? i say no..for now at least. Your intent though doesnt need its own purpose, because it doesnt mean you act on it according to how you imagined you would act...Once the act occurs, your purpose could be repurposed successfully... but how much it was planned, thought of or out vs imagined or believed? AND without parameters or constraints OR GOALS, intentions can change in decision making moments through that experience of choosing to act/acting on those intentions and how what you imagined vs what happened in reality played out was very different"

You keep using the word 'function'. To me, generically, that means 'proper use'. The only proper use of anything is morally, so for example, a Pragmatic win by any means is not really a win in truth. It's evil. Of course nothing is entirely evil. The win itself is indicative of achievement and that is some good. — Chet Hawkins

Proper use assumes there is one....are we users, consumers, creators? I believe we are both the creation and creators, the design and the consumers....


Do all good things must come to an END, or do good things just tend to LEAD to the end? Good things eventually can leak into THEE END. That LEADS to a discovery, which doesnt always translate perfectly into knowledge...but how can we speak on anything we claim to be "perfect" what do humans know about perfection?

What ended that is bad? What was bad that shouldnt of ended? When should endings see the bad through to its possible goodness or is it not bad until the worse arrives...what if that chance was never an idea in mind? IS it bad or could it just be better? Tailoring "an end" instead of "the end" to your liking means you may have a new unique vision, but how certain are you that your"ending" is less problematic then the one that was created, and not that easily, cheap, or without some sacrifice from the creator, the builder, the manufactor, the assembler, the consumer, and the consumer feedback considerations and accountability and acknowledging consumer, creator, and device relations....?

Well, probability is an issue. — Chet Hawkins

Its more of a non-issue, for me. I believe I am free from a will to worry about such issues you see that I dont yet. Maybe my view is obstructed on purpose. I'd like to believe. I'd also like to not worry. But trusting the fear is instinctive, letting the worry come and go is me being safe. being, feeling, in that i acknowledge, determine, doubt, value, verify, judge, confirm, care, consist, compare, believe, hope and love...resist, repeat! Yeah for me it is because its telling what we ought to not have to question...its confirmation, its useful, its helpful. Its power is weak though, i believe in the larger scheme of "things" Its issue for me is wondering how important it is to learn as a concept to think its serving its functional purposes to any end that I can do anything about, let alone begin to attempt to care. I can try if its necessary. I doubt it really is for me. I should care, I do when it matters. But overall its value, its own weight holds up but thats just what it is/was/could be. Its a piece, it matters but compared to what? Curious to see how you respond to the last question I proposed above given your similar curious nature to mine surrounding topics of function serving, "purposes". For my view to be obstructed "on purpose" that would mean the functions of probability ought to be known BY ME,for me, to have reason to believe that....and I think I do enough to show its functions are at least as DELUDED as my own beliefs backed by real accounts of my experience in a comparable reality....

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

sniffing this out, ill be back...release the hound dogs! Belief does not have to exist in the purpose on intentions, but the purpose of the individual with intentions linked to beliefs can be traced to a foreseeable outcome but that outcome itself is both cause and effect...the causality is also not grounding enough to be a base alone, perhaps it is when intentions are properly judged and considered along with the causality in a relevant realm of reality. But is this telling of ANY nature of the Universe? I dont think so.....you cant force the awareness you are not bound to obtain, thats your BLOOD...blame your ancestors for that lack or accept self in its own nature. Where do we belong to judge from rightfully?

However, I am leaning on desire, manifesting in a special way as the driving of the movements to belief. Because I agree with you that we can't prove anything and that reality is unknowable (or at least as worded below), I am wondering whether, difficult as it is a pill to swallow, the nearest we get to truth or reality (both, so-called) or "knowledge " (presumably thereof) is how a "conlusion" functions. All the possibilities are driven or "desire" manifesting in experience. And belief is ineluctably tied into that movement too. Whether we care to admit it or not, we weigh (the) things (competing for expression as experience) (sometimes imperceptibly, other times seemingly deliberately) then settle upon a conclusion (believe), based on how that conclusion functions. For e.g, but not limited to, does it satisfy an emotion, a bond, an organic drive, reason, logic, convention, the law, etc.
— ENOAH
YES! This implements a great point here (underlined) in your shared thinking...."And belief is ineluctably tied into that movement too. Whether we care to admit it or not, we weigh (the) things (competing for expression as experience) (sometimes imperceptibly, other times seemingly deliberately) then settle upon a conclusion (believe), based on how that conclusion functions." — Kizzy

To me and so many others, the word conclusion smacks of certainty too much. A function or use of something is ongoing. That is not to say the belief is not ongoing, but to warn that the knowing is complete and static, dead. Belief takes effort and knowing is effortless once accomplished is kind of the assertion. The lack of ongoing effort is a nod to laziness so fear and anger can team up in immoral aims in that way. We have to be careful.

On what grounds??? Is time not a good enough drive to force a belief that was "weighed" (to what degree)? — Kizzy

Yes and no. Time does eventually push things to a head, a fight, one way or another. And that is fine. But the perfect goal is always NOW, living truth in the present tense. So, time itself is only a reminder. If you let time push the process you are BY DEFINITION lazy. You be a godlike being and choose to push the process into the present at all times. That is the real goal, or let's say the BETTER goal.

I think the grounds to weigh out the things you bring up, are judged stable or not, in motion. The movement, is time which is constraining in certain moments, like when a decision is needed to move forward in a project. I think intentions change in decision making moments, and can be re-purposed. See my comment here, [url=http://]https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/866500[/url].. im looking at linking goals or desires to ones purpose in life, the one that exists despite knowing it. Though knowable. — Kizzy

I mean I do agree, but, the goal is to have a framework wherein these types of multi influenced decisions can be mapped and wisdom actually understood better.

So we have to become more aware of why things work the way they do amid choice. A lot of what you allude to in this paragraph relates to anger, intuition, body sense and muscle memory, making changes on the fly. It works similarly with social intuition, not being sniped, not being too much of any extreme way so that the 'loudness' of your approach, or its relative timidity, can be properly socially digested without emerging predatory or dismissive responses in the audience of note. Look at how everything collapses onto the present moment! So all is happening right now! In every now, all happens. It is either moral or not. And each aspect of morality, each virtue is part of the pattern of how and why we choose.

Morals are justification itself. — Kizzy

I kind of agree. There is no other justification besides a moral one. That is why I posted in the Leontiskos thread with his two thesis. He is chasing a delusional separation when he even suggests that humans are different, that there are human acts, and that there are any acts that are not moral. But rather than look past my energetic response he just calls me 'dumb' (hilarious) and puts me on ignore. He will not have the courage to look at that which is the real challenge.

I see so many mostly chaos-apologist thinkers that want so very badly, twisted by immoral desire, to declare that some acts and some beliefs are not impacted by morality. It's so sad and so obvious. They want any excuse to pursue immoral desire. So they pretend that morality is not a thing or a social construct or doesn't apply in certain situations. It's all just cowardly excuses. Morality is a law of nature that predates human existence.

I propose, "you can have intention without a goal, i say yes..but can you without a desire? i say no..for now at least. — Kizzy

So, don't let recursion confuse you. An intent always has a goal by definition. Even if that goal is as simple as 'be good'. That can seem so vague that it seems like you would not want to say its a goal.

But it is a goal, and really the only one. Be as good as you can be. Be better. Be aiming at perfection. Because every other aim is intending to fail.

We get all caught up in short term goals that are just small state changes. In that it is sometimes hard to sense any moral differentiation. 'Should I wear blue today or red'? The path to objective moral truth is objective, not subjective. So there IS a right answer morally. We are just too unaware of all the threads of truth to make that choice properly. So we pretend there is no goal, or that the greater 'quiet' goal of 'be good' is not the goal we are talking about.

But that is the THING. That greater goal MUST morally be what we are talking about. Losing sight of it in intent is critical failure, in any and every way that it happens. Perfecting the pursuit of perfection is the goal of wisdom.

Your intent though doesnt need its own purpose, because it doesnt mean you act on it according to how you imagined you would act...Once the act occurs, your purpose could be repurposed successfully... but how much it was planned, thought of or out vs imagined or believed? — Kizzy

There is NO vs in there. Planned, thought of, imagined, believed ... are all the same things. They carry the same type of weight. The purpose is still unified and MUST be so. That is 'be good'. It sounds a bit lame. But if it's understood the difficulty of it is profound. It's like saying, 'be perfect and pursue perfection perfectly'.

So, I disagree. Each and every intent MUST have a purpose. And that purpose, which is only another intent, either aligns with or is by degrees in misalignment with what is objectively good.

AND without parameters or constraints OR GOALS, intentions can change in decision making moments through that experience of choosing to act/acting on those intentions and how what you imagined vs what happened in reality played out was very different" — Kizzy

All of this tack on things seems to be a nod to desire to me. It is very similar to what I was referring to with Leon, et al. Desire prefers to believe that its all fungible. That any path is an informative or 'good' as any other. But that is not true because morality is objective. Immoral actions and flippant actions are good examples in general, are bad choices that lead to less chance of moral growth because they are already surrendering to indecision and randomness up front. This is just self-indulgence talking.

The good is an infinitely constrained path. It is perfectly constrained. All constraints upon that path are valid. These constraints combine to make a moral choice the single hardest choice in all cases. Perfect effort is required.

You keep using the word 'function'. To me, generically, that means 'proper use'. The only proper use of anything is morally, so for example, a Pragmatic win by any means is not really a win in truth. It's evil. Of course nothing is entirely evil. The win itself is indicative of achievement and that is some good.
— Chet Hawkins
Proper use assumes there is one....are we users, consumers, creators? I believe we are both the creation and creators, the design and the consumers.... — Kizzy

Yes, there is a proper use. It is objective. These doubts are based in subjectivism. They are mostly chaos, self-indulgence.

We are indeed ALL. But that does not mean that the perfect instance of us, God, or perfection, the GOOD, is not ready willing and able to show us the path to the GOOD by letting us punish ourselves via bad choices. That is the definition of free will. Rest assured that perfection is out there calling to us, giving rise in us to desire. That is the pull of evolution.

But it's a deep mistake, perhaps THE deepest mistake, to believe that there is not a proper path. That is the chaos-apologist point of view, subjective morality. The largest fear side order-apologist mistake is the concept of separation, the limiting force itself, giving rise to things like ego, identity, and us vs them thinking.

Do all good things must come to an END, or do good things just tend to LEAD to the end? Good things eventually can leak into THEE END. That LEADS to a discovery, which doesnt always translate perfectly into knowledge...but how can we speak on anything we claim to be "perfect" what do humans know about perfection? — Kizzy

This is a great question. It has already been answered but it's so important that I will answer again and again if I have to. Genuine happiness is the consequence of aligning ones choices closer and closer to perfection. So we DO HAVE a demonstrable way of sensing that perfection both exists and that we are on the right path to it.

We can sense for sure that whatever this 'right' path is, it is damn sure hard to do. So, we can then speak of some far off, almost unreachable point that includes the concept of infinity as a target. This is perfection. That is how perfection is imagined. Then the mathematical limit function as x approaches infinity shows us the climb of difficulty in choice in reaching that aim. It is clearly asymptotic. That totally fits with what we experience in reality. Its just so amazingly hard to be perfect.

We are tempted by self-indulgent immoral desire to validate all paths. But that is not wise. The hard climb is there, taunting us. The origin of desire is perfection itself but the difficulty of the climb to it makes us very quickly seek skewed side directions that are immoral. It's understandable, but error.

The 'leak' you propose is a lazy drip, the minimum path, to perfection. Would it surprise you if that effort is insufficient finally to survive the 'end of the universe'. That is to say, tempus fugit! Get busy. The right time is now. The leak will fail and that fail will be FINAL. Active intent and choice is required of the moral exemplar.

What ended that is bad? What was bad that shouldnt of ended? — Kizzy

The threat of all forms of immorality is many fold.

Cowardice, laziness, and self-indulgence are involved to some degree in every choice. They do not end because they are laws of the universe. The pressure is eternal and constant. Deal with it. Morality is forgiving! How does it do that? The balance of free will is eternally available in any moment. infinite choice is always there for you, for any chooser. That is PERFECTLY fair.

When should endings see the bad through to its possible goodness or is it not bad until the worse arrives...what if that chance was never an idea in mind? — Kizzy

We must explore and discover. We use imagination to go before we go. We test or simulate the worst outcomes to prepare. And then we try. That is all we have. We take the patterns of the past as lessons for probability only and we act in confidence with our beliefs. We are NOT saying we know. We are saying we believe this now. We try and we fail. We do that all over again.

The path to the good is thus beset with many failing choices. But that is no excuse to embrace abject and capricious failure amid that effort. No! Wisdom is not earned that way. We do not look for accidental fallout amid our choices. It can happen and we take that as grace. But that is NOT something we can claim. We must admit that that was our failure still and change.

All the time we give people WAY WAY too much credit for being born beautiful, for example. Or we think someone is themselves amazing for winning the lottery. That is just stupid.

What amazes me is witnessing a person that starts out less than attractive and with no resources and becomes a champion in both and in other realms also. That is wisdom and growth.

Mainstream success is almost something you should morally counter-credit.

'It is no measure of success to be well adjusted to such a profoundly sick society!' - Jiddu Krishnamurti

IS it bad or could it just be better? — Kizzy

Yes to both and that is always true.

You win no points by not realizing the error. 'good enough' is a lie.

Tailoring "an end" instead of "the end" to your liking means you may have a new unique vision, but how certain are you that your"ending" is less problematic then the one that was created, and not that easily, cheap, or without some sacrifice from the creator, the builder, the manufactor, the assembler, the consumer, and the consumer feedback considerations and accountability and acknowledging consumer, creator, and device relations....? — Kizzy

That was an odd aside tirade there at the end. You went from philosophy to marketing. I was like, 'What just happened?'

The 'leaf on the wind' philosophy is lazy and self-indulgent.

Well, probability is an issue.
— Chet Hawkins
Its more of a non-issue, for me. I believe I am free from a will to worry about such issues you see that I dont yet. — Kizzy

I am assuming that is two sentences.

This belief of yours is dangerous. It is the 'leaf on the wind' philosophy, ephemeral and blithe. I do not sense that from you all the time. There is worry in you and maybe your worry is what you are responding to with this dangerous wish.

Maybe my view is obstructed on purpose. — Kizzy

Yes. It's delusional pretense. It CAN work for you, the dancing methodology is replete with 'leaf on the wind' thinking. But when the lithe dancer takes a real hit they are broken and forgotten. That is unless those that care about and for them can pick up the pieces because leaves just rot on the ground if left to their own devices. And the wind is random and sometimes uncompromising.

I'd like to believe. — Kizzy

Believe, yes. But you mean you'd like to believe in that purposely obstructed view, the short-cut truth. That will not help you. There is a valid reason that Sisyphus pushes the rock up the hill EVERY SINGLE DAY. Atlas probably understands. Try holding up the world. The GOOD is well beyond these small labors.

I'd also like to not worry. But trusting the fear is instinctive, letting the worry come and go is me being safe. being, feeling, in that i acknowledge, determine, doubt, value, verify, judge, confirm, care, consist, compare, believe, hope and love...resist, repeat! — Kizzy

And you see, do you not, in this, the subservience to pattern, order-apology?

Wash, rinse, repeat. Roll the rock up the hill!

I agree! trust the fear! Increase it, do not try to erase it. Seeking ease is unwise.

Yeah for me it is because its telling what we ought to not have to question...its confirmation, its useful, its helpful. — Kizzy

This is a great sentence to unpack. Worrying about what you should not question is 'staying in line'. Again with the patterning. But growth lies always in the direction of asking the hardest questions and thinking outside the box and THEN returning to a better box, the real box. Most limits are delusions and fear is partly informing you of delusion. That is what is missed.

Desire knows instinctively, hey there is a rule! Let's break it (and see what happens). In other words, we get the question now, 'is it a rule at all?'. But subtlety is not simple. Sometimes the rule breaking is ok, like when you are young and the torture you inflict on yourselves and others is worth the squeeze past that line. But the DAMAGE still happens. There is no escape from truth.

Its power is weak though, i believe in the larger scheme of "things" Its issue for me is wondering how important it is to learn as a concept to think its serving its functional purposes to any end that I can do anything about, let alone begin to attempt to care. — Kizzy

The power of choice is infinite. Belief in this truth is hard to come by. Fear would have us believe that we are only as good, as powerful, as our past and the patterns we 'know' (ha ha). Desire would have us believe that since we are not perfect, we are worthless. And if we are worthless then our chosen direction doesn't matter does it!? How freeing! How deluded!

Yes, the larger scheme as a goal is wise. Caring is wise.

I can try if its necessary. I doubt it really is for me. I should care, I do when it matters. But overall its value, its own weight holds up but thats just what it is/was/could be. Its a piece, it matters but compared to what? — Kizzy

This 'not caring' pretense, or even actual, is dangerous. Each part of morality is critical. No single part can be left out. The perfection of each virtue is required. What is perfect caring? It is caring about EVERY SINGLE DETAIL, ALL THE TIME. To not care in any way, is immoral.

Comparison is a trap. Be the best you can be. Yes comparison has a purpose. It's to see past your limits when another nexus of choice, another human being or even animal, or tree, does something you sense is both worthy and beyond your scope. You then become aware of (not know) that the possibility exists that you can grow in a way you were not previously aware of. That is the only real use of comparison. Adaptation to greater resonance with truth is wise.

Curious to see how you respond to the last question I proposed above ↪ENOAH given your similar curious nature to mine surrounding topics of function serving, "purposes". — Kizzy

For me the word function, as mentioned, is a red flag for order-apology. It means the person is Pragmatically attached to usability. They are willing to 'let go' of the ideals in order to 'get er done'. That is not wise.

For my view to be obstructed "on purpose" that would mean the functions of probability ought to be known BY ME,for me, to have reason to believe that....and I think I do enough to show its functions are at least as DELUDED as my own beliefs backed by real accounts of my experience in a comparable reality.... — Kizzy

No, there is that word again, confusing the issue. You said, 'known'. You cannot know. So you are instead aware of things as a set of beliefs. This awareness is flawed and that is ok. It is ok because amid effort and comparison to others' efforts you sense the amount of happiness or balance. We all have this moral sense. Much is made about sociopaths and their supposedly missing moral compass. But I disagree. A blind person still 'sees' the world via other senses. Eventually, if everyone was blinded, and the new children were born blind, as in the series 'See', sight would evolve again in record time. Awareness is a will of the universe, as a natural law.

So, you do 'see' some. Some probability is intuited. When you make ANY and EVERY choice probability is crucial. All aspects of reason partake of probability, by definition. All aspects of justification partake of probability by definition.

Things only really seem to 'break' when we talk about infinity and perfection. But that is only because we are unaware of the way that math works, the limits, and that that applies to all emotive acts, all choices.

The pursuit of the impossible is actually the pursuit of the highly improbable. That is wise. To seek the probable is not wise. That is the problem with order-apology. They would rather 'get er done' with cheap efforts at low hanging fruit than face the difficulty of the real task of wisdom.

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
sniffing this out, ill be back...release the hound dogs! Belief does not have to exist in the purpose on intentions, but the purpose of the individual with intentions linked to beliefs can be traced to a foreseeable outcome but that outcome itself is both cause and effect...the causality is also not grounding enough to be a base alone, perhaps it is when intentions are properly judged and considered along with the causality in a relevant realm of reality. — Kizzy

This is getting to be word salad to me, I admit.

Reality is only one thing, and it is relevant. There are no other relevant realms. Imagination and all of its devices and objects are WITHIN reality, not, as most poor thinkers might think, outside of it.

Belief DOES have to exist in any choice, any act, any purpose. Either that or the definition of belief is wrong/not-what-I-mean-by-belief.

The outcome IS NOT EVER the cause and effect. That is because there is error in the choice. The objective nature of a consequence leave it surprisingly unrelated to the belief or intent. Your statements here are part of consequentialism, a deadly lie.

The cause is a belief, only and always. The belief is partly in error, always. But the belief side is informed by the ideal of perfection, sensed erroneously, but still sensed. Over time this process narrows towards perfection and that again is evolution. But the sensors and the choosers other inputs to choice, other beliefs, all causal, are all flawed and by degrees. They fail to care enough, to be aware enough, to be in harmony enough (beauty), and in being accurate enough. That is not a complete list of the virtues. It is only a set of examples. So the consequential outcomes IS NOT as predicted. If it is as predicted the prediction itself was flawed. It (the prediction) was too vague, too undemanding, too wrong.

But is this telling of ANY nature of the Universe? I dont think so.....you cant force the awareness you are not bound to obtain, thats your BLOOD...blame your ancestors for that lack or accept self in its own nature. Where do we belong to judge from rightfully? — Kizzy

Being in the universe you assert that your experience shows nothing of it? That is comically wrong.

Just by chance you will get some things right. Granted that is no credit to you. But over time, you intuit those bits and then in humility you step forward with awareness that was always there anyway. Just living, the rote force contained in the body, with its patterns of effort well known and unconscious to you, is still a very large portion of good baked in.

You can disrespect that effort of millions of years and people do it every second of their lives. Instead of investing by choice in what evolution and the call of perfection shows us, we work in the other direction with self-indulgence, cowardice, and laziness; in general. We do it intentionally and often. And still, the unconscious parts of us accept the limits of reality. They try to breath when we eat so much our own bodies are choking our lungs. The cells are still working, making their less scoped choices. If they had any sense at all they would let us die, right? But they 'know' (ha ha) that it takes time for the greater moral scope chooser to earn the wisdom not to make such stupid choices. Caring is an earned activity. Awareness is an earned activity. 'Knowing' is just lazy cowardice. If you knew that alcohol would dehydrate you, why the hell did you keep drinking it? Crossed virtues! Over-expression of some. Under-expression of others.

We are instead REQUIRED to judge everything. All intents and actions/choices of ourselves and others and in that judgment (belief) we form new intents that are hopefully better than those we have made up until now. THAT is growth.

Like you, I usually read your response and answer immediately as soon as I "feel" the drive to answer. This time, sensing I had blind folded you early on, I collected a few related points to respond to at once. This time, too, I added this preface, written as an afterward.

Given I have afforded my self the breather of a preface. I'd also like to note how intriguing it is to me that we can share one principle concept, e.g. that we cannot hold to conclusions, that knowing is (or at least necessarily includes) belief etc. and yet express it so differently.

And as you justifiably pondered what my expression of that was, you overlooked one of its most "prominent" features. I.e., that it is inevitable that we will express differently, and that, in the end, it is not that one of us is correct (though as to presentation, I might readily defer to you as by far the "best"), it is that we are both ultimately "incorrect."

And no worries, I already know you don't adopt that statement.

I've also answered below since there are intersections of thoughts.

So, no. In fact I also choose the word 'conclusion' to be in error. It should literally almost never be used — Chet Hawkins

I agree with you regarding the word (hence I placed it in quotes, and often mix in "temporary." However I'm not meticulous. Perhaps I should be, at least, more meticulous).

This would normally be the point where you make an argument by explaining again those categories as I admit to not knowing what they are at this point in our back and forth. — Chet Hawkins

to ever discern, or to have accurately discerned in that, now, hypothetical, first place)? But that might be a question beyond the scope of the OP.
— ENOAH
No, that is the entire point. It is completely and specifically germane to this issue. Keep everything asserted in the realm of the hypothetical where it belongs. Human experience is subjective. Truth is objective. The objective INFORMS the subjective. We can subjectively assert the objective but not ever be sure. — Chet Hawkins

First, kindly NOTE whenever I write "misunderstood me" I fully acknowledge that it is because of my reckless use of Language. I've wondered half seriously if maybe I have a cognitive "condition" which causes me to think people can read my mind.

So, I think you misunderstood me here. And this will illustrate how I must think you can read my mind. Because now I won't be so lazy, and I'll explain it. That was a foot note to the puzzle, how can we know we don't know what's real if we don't in the first place? I'm suggesting that there was a hypothetical first time the root "word" (I.e. "concept") now called "reality" emerged. And that in order for that hypothetical root to have emerged, it must have represented a thing "known" to its hypothetical first speaker. Did she know reality, and its been lost? Or is there no reality? ... but now you see why I added "this is beyond our scope here." But, the point is you can now see, I already agree. Truth can only, as you very nicely put it, inform subjectivity. So even that hypothetical first speaker of the hypothetical root for "reality" was already speaking a "lie"*

*I am being deliberately hyperbolic. Not lie per se, just "uncertainty."

I'm saying that logic and reasoning can only take as to the furthest edge of the abyss between our constructions and reality.
— ENOAH
Exactly! The math of emotion, limits, asymptotic to truth.

And yet WE human animals are the other side of the abyss.
— ENOAH
I cannot fathom what you mean this to mean. If you are saying we are real so we partake of all parts of reality and that means +anger and +desire on top of the reasoning (fear), then I agree. Is that what you meant? If not the 'other side of the abyss' needs a better definition. — Chet Hawkins

Here I have definitely assumed you can read my mind. Here is what I was saying, now attempting to use plain English and where applicable your (better) language.

1. Reasoning is great. But assuming it is the "best" path to "truth" it cannot get you to truth. It can only get you to the furthest reach of "subjectivity". You will be at the edge of the cliff where there is an abysmal gap between you and actual truth, reality. It is a gap you cannot traverse.

2. Yet--and here you will not agree. It does not fit**. We human animals, meaning, the Organism, the conceited ape (not the minds where constructions are processed and moved only so far before it reaches an abyss), are already on the other side of that abyss. We are reality and truth. It's just that our organic consciousness our real aware-ing, has been hijacked by the Subject, the "one" who knows and believes, who concludes because it is functional and never because it is true. All the while the Real Being cares not for anything else but being. And that is truth.


**fit is what I mean by functional, and I will explain below.

You keep using the word 'function'. To me, generically, that means 'proper use'. — Chet Hawkins

What I mean by Functional is a long and detailed thing. I feel hoggish using up too much space, and prefer to engage simply to see how my thinking might develop. But here goes something concise and thus necessarily vague. Best to paint a picture for now.

1. Our experiences are not of this real natural world, they are written, in Narrative form, by Signifiers operating autonomously and according to evolved Laws and mechanics or dynamics.

2. These Signifiers--primevally, images constructed by the brain to trigger organic response (feeling and action) evolved a "desire" to surface, as they "compete" they move by a dialectical process until finally "one" is temporarily settled upon, belief.

3. Functional is the mechanism which triggers the settlement upon. It doesnt mean usefull though it can. It means "fit for surfacing." So when I say I do not believe the "anger" portion of your hypothesis, it is ultimately because it was not fit for surfacing as belief in my current locus in History (all minds together as one) following a dialectical process of weighing the Signifiers competing to surface in my narrative.

That's why truth is only what is fitting. For all we know there is a remote Amazonian tribe who "know" stuff that would be easily
be adopted by us. But it's not in the local Narrative so it's not true here.

On what grounds??? Is time not a good enough drive to force a belief that was "weighed" (to what degree)? I think the grounds to weigh out the things you bring up, are judged stable or not, in motion. — Kizzy

Is it just me, or do you see the uncanniness? I answered Chet first. Look above.

Yes! Exactly. Motion. Time. Becoming. In movement our Narratives only become, and we mistake them for being. Belief are those temporary settlements in the movement of fleeting becoming.

What do you say? Inspired by Chet, I'll read on.

The movement, is time which is constraining in certain moments, like when a decision is needed to move forward in a project — Kizzy

Ok. That might just be what I think of as temporary settlements based on what is the most fitting to surface or "move the project forward."

Note, part of the movement is that individuality is there and not there. We move as one in the big picture of history. Hence the excitement when we agree. We love to agree.

I'll read that link you directed me to and get back to you.

Like you, I usually read your response and answer immediately as soon as I "feel" the drive to answer. This time, sensing I had blind folded you early on, I collected a few related points to respond to at once. This time, too, I added this preface, written as an afterward.

Given I have afforded my self the breather of a preface. I'd also like to note how intriguing it is to me that we can share one principle concept, e.g. that we cannot hold to conclusions, that knowing is (or at least necessarily includes) belief etc. and yet express it so differently. — ENOAH

Vive la difference! Like you, I have to 'feel' the motivation, the welling up of the answer, to vomit it forth upon those expecting or otherwise.

By the way, did you know that poetry and drama are elongated, disrespectful, sporadic, intellectually lazy, and unsubstantive? You learn something new every day! (That is only for a laugh. No public commiseration needed)

And as you justifiably pondered what my expression of that was, you overlooked one of its most "prominent" features. I.e., that it is inevitable that we will express differently, and that, in the end, it is not that one of us is correct (though as to presentation, I might readily defer to you as by far the "best"), it is that we are both ultimately "incorrect." — ENOAH

Damn! I sinned again. I cannot say I am surprised but I am mustering remorse, steadily if ambivalently.

And no worries, I already know you don't adopt that statement. — ENOAH

Hilarious because you know very well that I do. No claim to be the best, but we agree entirely without knowing for sure that we are both incorrect. I stand corrected! Wait I'm sitting! See, wrong again!

I've also answered ↪Kizzy below since there are intersections of thoughts.

So, no. In fact I also choose the word 'conclusion' to be in error. It should literally almost never be used
— Chet Hawkins

I agree with you regarding the word (hence I placed it in quotes, and often mix in "temporary." However I'm not meticulous. Perhaps I should be, at least, more meticulous). — ENOAH

Shame on you. I am Meticulon, fourth of his name, protector of The incomparable Deteriorata! All objections will be noted in triplicate. Invalid in Puerto Rico and Wisconsin (of course).

This would normally be the point where you make an argument by explaining again those categories as I admit to not knowing what they are at this point in our back and forth.
— Chet Hawkins

to ever discern, or to have accurately discerned in that, now, hypothetical, first place)? But that might be a question beyond the scope of the OP.
— ENOAH
No, that is the entire point. It is completely and specifically germane to this issue. Keep everything asserted in the realm of the hypothetical where it belongs. Human experience is subjective. Truth is objective. The objective INFORMS the subjective. We can subjectively assert the objective but not ever be sure.
— Chet Hawkins

First, kindly NOTE whenever I write "misunderstood me" I fully acknowledge that it is because of my reckless use of Language. I've wondered half seriously if maybe I have a cognitive "condition" which causes me to think people can read my mind. — ENOAH

There are other such conditions to be observed in the self. My own is a natural ability to irritate everyone in some specific grating way. I now attribute that, of course, to wisdom. Wisdom has the unique quality that when we (anyone) sees it they are shamed and reminded of some weakness. So whether everyone admits it or not, philosophy is not a mainstream thing, not really. Happy strength promotion virtues are lauded without fail. But critical admonishments and warnings, well, lets table that for the year now+2011 years. You know make it the next Koyaanisquatsi! Wait! Cultural appropriation! Immoral failure! Release subconscious! (Drool)

I can read your mind and I invented pants!

So, I think you misunderstood me here. — ENOAH

That is at least my ninth sin so far. Meticulon will now move to the final form and finish him!

And this will illustrate how I must think you can read my mind. Because now I won't be so lazy, and I'll explain it. That was a foot note to the puzzle, how can we know we don't know what's real if we don't in the first place? I'm suggesting that there was a hypothetical first time the root "word" (I.e. "concept") now called "reality" emerged. And that in order for that hypothetical root to have emerged, it must have represented a thing "known" to its hypothetical first speaker. Did she know reality, and its been lost? Or is there no reality? ... but now you see why I added "this is beyond our scope here." But, the point is you can now see, I already agree. Truth can only, as you very nicely put it, inform subjectivity. So even that hypothetical first speaker of the hypothetical root for "reality" was already speaking a "lie"*

*I am being deliberately hyperbolic. Not lie per se, just "uncertainty." — ENOAH

That was a terrifying journey into your inner mind. Please refrain from sharing in the future!

Totally kidding! Loved it! 'Bat country!' (waves arms and looks skyward where there are indeed no bats)

I'm saying that logic and reasoning can only take as to the furthest edge of the abyss between our constructions and reality.
— ENOAH
Exactly! The math of emotion, limits, asymptotic to truth.

And yet WE human animals are the other side of the abyss.
— ENOAH
I cannot fathom what you mean this to mean. If you are saying we are real so we partake of all parts of reality and that means +anger and +desire on top of the reasoning (fear), then I agree. Is that what you meant? If not the 'other side of the abyss' needs a better definition.
— Chet Hawkins

Here I have definitely assumed you can read my mind. Here is what I was saying, now attempting to use plain English and where applicable your (better) language.

1. Reasoning is great. But assuming it is the "best" path to "truth" it cannot get you to truth. It can only get you to the furthest reach of "subjectivity". You will be at the edge of the cliff where there is an abysmal gap between you and actual truth, reality. It is a gap you cannot traverse.

2. Yet--and here you will not agree. It does not fit**. We human animals, meaning, the Organism, the conceited ape (not the minds where constructions are processed and moved only so far before it reaches an abyss), are already on the other side of that abyss. We are reality and truth. It's just that our organic consciousness our real aware-ing, has been hijacked by the Subject, the "one" who knows and believes, who concludes because it is functional and never because it is true. All the while the Real Being cares not for anything else but being. And that is truth.

**fit is what I mean by functional, and I will explain below. — ENOAH

I get it. The interaction is 'real'. The consequences are 'real'. But our intents are subjective, so we do not really know (ha ha) even our own selves. We clearly simply agree here in almost every way so not even really that different in approaches to truth. You make a mess of the presentation and I of proper decorum in the forum. But we can still both take a chalice to the palace and have a good drink and a laugh, all the while both being and yet knowing nothing.

You keep using the word 'function'. To me, generically, that means 'proper use'.
— Chet Hawkins

What I mean by Functional is a long and detailed thing. I feel hoggish using up too much space, and prefer to engage simply to see how my thinking might develop. But here goes something concise and thus necessarily vague. Best to paint a picture for now.

1. Our experiences are not of this real natural world, they are written, in Narrative form, by Signifiers operating autonomously and according to evolved Laws and mechanics or dynamics.

2. These Signifiers--primevally, images constructed by the brain to trigger organic response (feeling and action) evolved a "desire" to surface, as they "compete" they move by a dialectical process until finally "one" is temporarily settled upon, belief.

3. Functional is the mechanism which triggers the settlement upon. It doesnt mean usefull though it can. It means "fit for surfacing." So when I say I do not believe the "anger" portion of your hypothesis, it is ultimately because it was not fit for surfacing as belief in my current locus in History (all minds together as one) following a dialectical process of weighing the Signifiers competing to surface in my narrative.

That's why truth is only what is fitting. For all we know there is a remote Amazonian tribe who "know" stuff that would be easily
be adopted by us. But it's not in the local Narrative so it's not true here. — ENOAH

Well, the Amazons have something, that's for sure. I do want some of what they have, if they'll have me in return. But the nature of truth suggests as I am sure you are well AWARE that they to cannot really know. It's a good thing to because the thoughts in my head right now ... ugh!

On what grounds??? Is time not a good enough drive to force a belief that was "weighed" (to what degree)? I think the grounds to weigh out the things you bring up, are judged stable or not, in motion.
— Kizzy

Is it just me, or do you see the uncanniness? I answered Chet first. Look above.

Yes! Exactly. Motion. Time. Becoming. In movement our Narratives only become, and we mistake them for being. Belief are those temporary settlements in the movement of fleeting becoming. — ENOAH

I have to add in here for no reason other than it struck me at this point, DESIRE, is the emotive source of any and all becoming. The moving target seems like an excuse. Everything narrows in the temporal sense to the only non-delusional time, NOW. So, you can forgive (barely) the fear tendency to short cut everything to 'get er done'. But that approach alone, as we both believe, is insufficient.

Wanting to become the right thing is so damn hard. But all the approaches, desire included, have that same asymptotic climb to truth, the abyss. When we get all three approaches right at the same time, the great bridge will magically appear. And it will not be magic at that time. It will be just the truth that was always there.

ENOAH
Hilarious because you know very well that I do — Chet Hawkins

You're killing me! :up:

Wisdom has the unique quality that when we (anyone) sees it they are shamed and reminded of some weakness. — Chet Hawkins

Very Nice

You make a mess of the presentation and I of proper decorum in the forum. But we can still both take a chalice to the palace and have a good drink and a laugh, all the while both being and yet knowing nothing. — Chet Hawkins

Maybe, in the end, the only (fitting) truth. Thank [god] there's always that!

But the nature of truth suggests as I am sure you are well AWARE that they to cannot really know. — Chet Hawkins

alas

DESIRE, is the emotive source of any and all becoming — Chet Hawkins

Yes!

And it will not be magic at that time. It will be just the truth that was always there. — Chet Hawkins

Which means
It's there now.

Unfortunately, this thread has degenerated into a wankfest. It was to be expected, though.

So were the expectations flawed or just overly optimistic?

As I said, it is as I expected it would be. So, the expectations were neither flawed nor optimistic.

:sweat:

Hmm. When "they" were expectations, were they "belief." And now that your expectations have been affirmed, are they knowledge?

Sorry, I regret any part I may have had in meeting your expectations. That was my lame attempt at returning to the root.

The thing is, I still believe knowledge is given its "breath of life" only when the mind makes the final (temporary) movement of belief. Even your last statement can be prefaced with "I believe." It doesn't make grammatical or conventional sense to our ears for nothing. It states a necessary mechanism for a thing to be known. "I believe" is the Signifier structure which is necessarily implied in I know.

Like if I say "give it to me," and "You" are the implied subject addressed. In the implied subject e.g. it's necessity manifests more obviously as grammatical. The implied "believe" is not as obviously necessary in the grammar, but remains just as factually necessary as in the implied subject. However, its latency in grammar has accustomed us to affirming knowledge without the implied belief.

But it is there. We know this intuitively. I'm really not understanding the resistance. And someone more competent and industrious might take the time to demonstrate. But never mind we cannot know with 100% certainty. That reveals another eerie fact about our experience. We cannot know truth period. Knowledge and truth are alien to one another (spoken from the knowledge side of the gap). Thus, after completing a process (and there are many variations of the process, some simple, others complex, slow, fast, etc) and one knows something, it is because they have settled upon it. Sure, with reason. But still, they have believed.

What about truth? If you know truth you know it, belief might be a mechanism. But it wasnt necessary. This might be an objection which hooks us into knowledge doesn't need belief. But worded better I admit by its proponents.

Knowledge takes place without truth. Knowledge is constructed out of the available data. It's not that we don't know whether or not belief was needed. It's always needed to ordain the settlement as knowledge; even if very silently. But it's that we cannot know truth. And I don't mean we can't know if we happen to have stumbled upon it. I mean can't know truth because "know" is constructing a point of temporary settlement.

Lazy e.g.s: this topic deserves much more elegant, microscopic ones, but in 1100 CE they "knew" the earth was central etc. After Newton and before Einstein we "knew" what gravity was.

"Unfortunately, this thread has degenerated into a wankfest. It was to be expected, though."

Oh so the "unfortunately" was sarcasm? Unfortunate but AND expected? Yeah actually that does add up! You were the OP right? Were the expectations based on reality? Sometimes when things turn out as expected, the one with those expectations are let down (sarcastic or not) BECAUSE it turned/s out as expected.....wank on!

Edit: i define or MEAN when I said "expected" as expecting an outcome to happen that turns out different (negatively or positively) then what actually did...an expectation shouldnt but does happen after an act AND before..the before is preventative (fine) the after is realization and acclimating/accepting in order to proceed HAPPILY

Lazy e.g.s: this topic deserves much more elegant, microscopic ones, but in 1100 CE they "knew" the earth was central etc. After Newton and before Einstein we "knew" what gravity was. — ENOAH

NO literally! edit: NO literally! I am glad you tied this example in

Thank you. But it just seems too obvious. Clearly this concept has been considered and reconsidered a thousand times by those who do not think belief is (at least a necessary movement in) knowledge. (?)

You'd think the act would get better though, a pleasure nonetheless! BRAVO!!!! :flower: :party: :chin:

:up:

:point:

To understand an idea, look at how the word is used. — fdrake

This is exactly where we need to begin because we get our meanings from how we, as a group (not as individuals but as a group) of language users, use our words or concepts. How we use words precedes our definitions. The evolution of using words correctly, started with use, not definitions. I say this to point out the importance of what @fdrake is saying.

If you start with a particular use and use that as your overarching definition, then you're not getting the full picture (at least generally). For example, if we use the word know as an expression of a conviction (which is just an expression of how we feel about a belief), then we're not using it in an epistemological sense. If we're talking about epistemology, then we're necessarily talking about some form of justification; and even where we are referring to justification there are different uses. For example, using reason (logic), using testimonial evidence, and using sensory experiences, to name a few ways we justify our beliefs. Our tendency is to conflate these uses (uses outside epistemological uses) as if we're referring to the same thing, and we're not. Throughout this thread people are conflating the many uses of know as if they're all referring to the same thing, and they're definitely not the same (hence, conflation).

Knowledge in the epistemological sense is at its core, a belief, but it's a particular kind of belief. It's a belief that achieves its goal, that of being justified and true. If it's not justified and true, then necessarily it's not knowledge. If you're using the word know, for example, to express some feeling about a belief, then you're not using it epistemologically, you're just conflating your meanings and adding to the confusion.

Thanks for the reference. I'd highlight, in another context, that there's room for revising an understanding in ordinary language for some purpose. Like "know" could mean something different in the context of a mathematical proof, a scientific experiment, or a history book. But it's not particularly relevant. Even if those understandings may even be better in context than the pretheoretical one which we all engage with.