I'm not talking about some sort of Truth as in divine...

Ideal of truth.
If something is... A word for instance... A bird... What is the truth of a bird?
Abstraction.
Truth is therefore abstraction?
And therefore knowledge is abstraction?

But it must be something specific, for it is itself something...
Are you saying it is fragmented? Then what would knowledge be then?
Knowledge would be thus nonspecific... And therefore incapable of delivering any specification at all.
Knowledge would be de trop. — Blue Lux

I'm just attempting to pave the way for a better method of understanding truth, by virtue of acknowledging that the word has several different uses.

Do you recognize that that is the case?

It doesn't matter if it has several different uses. I am using it in an easily understandable sense.

"A method of understanding truth," is knowledge. And thus there must be a truth of knowledge. If this truth of knowledge is absolutely incapable of being apprehended (by means of knowledge itself) then what does this imply?
Knowledge is absolutely devoid of meaning?
But what characterizes thought other than meaning?
Is knowledge not limited to thought?
Then how could we even ask the question?
How could we ask the question if there will never be an answer?

I have been led to think that one can not know by virtue of knowledge alone... And therefore knowledge has absolutely no primacy over being... Being is unknowable.

You ask a question such as "What is Truth?"...

I answer by telling you that "truth" is a word that has several different accepted uses.

You say that doesn't matter. What else would?

We must first acknowledge that there are different uses, then we can set them out as a means to see which one, if any, are applicable to the discussion... and how.

This particular topic is about rudimentary thought and belief. Have you read the thread in it's entirety?

I've read your introduction.

What does 'existentially dependent' on 'us' mean? Who is us? Is this idle talk?

Physiological sensations... These things are only metaphorically correlated with the experience of colors, sounds, etc... It might as well be non-sequitur to assert that there is a relationship between the experience of something and the nerve impulse. That gap has never been bridged.

These things must be discovered?
Discovered by whom?
What is it that discovers? Are you sure that that which discovers could ever be represented so to be known?

And there we have the problem of knowledge I have been speaking about.

Origin of truth:

Old English trīewth, trēowth ‘faithfulness, constancy’

That is the definition I am referring to.

Re-read the first page of the thread...

Pay closer attention to the words I'm actually using.

Knowledge is not dependent on thought... And language is akin to a technology. There is a mechanism of thought for those whom have never learned language. It is not specific... But the specificity of thought has been shown to be nonexistent. Nothing is finite without an infinite reference point.

Knowledge is not dependent on thought... — Blue Lux

Knowledge of thought and belief is.

Knowledge of thought and belief... Is that possible?

Of course it's possible. Why wouldn't it be?

We're both discussing what we think and believe, respectively, right here and right now.

The thread is about thought and belief prior to language(rudimentary thought and belief), and thus, I'm setting out that which is prior to thinking about thought and belief. Thinking about thought and belief requires language. Knowledge of thought and belief requires thinking about it. Knowledge of thought and belief requires language. Not all thought and belief requires language. Some does.

All thought and belief is meaningful to the creature forming and/or 'holding' it. All thought, belief, and statements thereof presupposes it's own truth(as correspondence).

Rudimentary thought and belief presupposes correspondence to fact; reality; events; the way things are or were; etc. It is only this sense of "truth" that helps to correctly set out what thought and belief is. Correspondence to fact/reality does not require language.

What would a knowledge of thought and belief be?

Thinking about thought and belief requires nothing other than consciousness. Language could be whatever a person defines it to be. Furthermore, language will always say more affectually than what is analytically ascertainable.

Why would a knowledge of thought and belief require language?

What about counting? Counting is thought. Knowledge of counting would be consciousness of counting. In order to count there must be a faculty that counts and does not reflect. If one asked the question... One could say "I am counting", but only then, after it was reflected upon, would that counting become counting. Language is representation, not reflection. One can reflect on something and thus have a knowledge in thought of thought or of something that was believed to be without using words or having any reference to language. Fantasies, too...

All language acquisition requires learning
All learning requires thought and belief
All language acquisition requires thought and belief
All language acquisition requires correctly attributing meaning
Correctly attributing meaning requires drawing the same correlation(s) that has/have already been drawn between things by the other speakers of that language
All correlation presupposes the existence of it's own content(truth as correspondence)
All meaningful attribution requires the presupposition of truth(as correspondence)
All language acquisition requires the presupposition of truth(as correspondence)

Seems legit.

But does belief not require learning?

Correctly attributing meaning requires drawing the same correlation(s) that has/have already been drawn between things by the other speakers of that language — creativesoul

Hmmmm.

But what about neologisms? If I create a word, I am attributing meaning correctly but not with reference to any correlation previously drawn before by both myself and others. But... Then again... In order to understand that neologism... I would have to correctly attribute the meaning of my understanding to correlations already drawn between things.

But what of a new philosophy? Or of a new understanding? Or of a new meaning? Say... A new meaning of a friendship or a relationship, a meaning that is with reference to nothing anyone else has ever understood before, something incomparably personal and unique.

Ahh... And back to my problem of language. Meaning is never authentically communicated in language is it?
All that is in language is abstraction. A structure of glimpses and metaphor.

But does belief not require learning? — Blue Lux

Well, on my view some belief is virtually indistinguishable from learning. Particularly, rudimentary(nonlinguistic) belief such as the attribution/recognition of causality.

I agree with regard to novelty. New(original) correlations cannot be rightfully called "correct".

Your use of "seems legit" reminds me of apokrisis...

:wink:

p1 When something is existentially dependent upon something else, the latter always exists prior to the former
p2 All thinking about thought and belief(metacognition henceforth) is existentially dependent upon(requires henceforth) pre-existing thought and belief
C1 Some thought and belief exists prior to metacognition(from p1, p2)
p3 All metacognition requires the ability to identify, isolate, and subsequently consider pre-existing thought and belief as it's own subject matter
p4 The ability to identify, isolate, and subsequently consider pre-existing thought and belief as it's own subject matter requires complex written language
C2 All metacognition requires complex written language(from p3, p4)
C3 Complex written language is prior to metacognition(from C2, p1)
p5 Some thought and belief is existentially prior to complex written language
p6 That which is existentially prior to complex written language cannot consist of it
C4 Some thought and belief cannot consist of complex written language

When something is existentially dependent upon something else, the latter always exists prior to the former — creativesoul

What do you mean?

Something that is existentially dependent on another thing exists prior to that which it is existentially dependent on? How is that the case?

I have it right. Not sure how you've arrived at the opposite of what was claimed...

"The latter" refers to "something else". "The former" refers to "something".

When something is existentially dependent upon something else, the latter always exists prior to the former

Change "something" to X and "something else" to Y.

When X is existentially dependent upon Y, Y always exists prior to X.

Change X to apple strudel. Change Y to apples.

I read it wrong.

Nah. It was a bit confusing. "Former" and "latter" refer to temporal sequence. Self-referential claims ought be improved.

:wink:

But then again is anything really existentially dependent on anything else? One could surely object to causality or aetiology.

One can object to whatever they wish. Doesn't make the objection worth listening and/or assenting to.