That is true. But acknowledging the 3 paths amid any choice is better than not. In any case your partial quote doesn't capture the right context of my meaning. That is why it is better to quote the whole thing and respond to each part. This also is a lack of unity in addressing issues.No. Existence is being in essence, mass, anger. A fear based approach would prefer to categorize things. My inclination is just to refuse, as anger simply stands for itself using mass to make its argument.
— Chet Hawkins
You refuse to categorize things? Are you not categorizing with your fear, anger, desire schema? For example. — Bylaw
Fear is synonymous with order. It regulates and makes 'laws'. It advocates for stability over change and it is rather obvious, is it not that limiting oneself to what is 'possible' by choice is a prison of fear. That is the over-expression of fear. I feel and believe that this eventually leads to death itself. It's more complicated than that, but to say that plainly clearly is more right than wrong.Readiness to change stance is critical. Anger knows this.
— Chet Hawkins
If anything I would say fear is more ready to change stance. — Bylaw
Yes, over-expressed anger and imbalanced overconfidence are possible as well. I am not denying that.In any case we often use anger to bolster our stances rather than feel the fear that we might be wrong and might well need to change (be open to something else or something new). — Art48
I suppose I can begin to outline it shortly, but, really its mostly about that core idea that love is nothing more than fear, anger, and desire maximized and balanced. The perfect maximum of all three in balance is perfection.I don't understand your schema, but perhaps starting with something specific like what I quoted above might help. — Art48
Clearly, that is what I am saying. I am also saying that 'knowing' and using that term is a fear-side order apologist failure in moral awareness.I see both emotions having their place, dependent on context. — Art48
Anger holds its ground against everything. That is the nature of balance. If this is not intuitively obvious, I can go on an on, because every other aspect of reality supports that non-conclusion. — Chet Hawkins
I can see fear leading to order and rage leading to order. The law and order crowd often seems very angry. Fascists and other dictators who enforce extreme order often seem rather angry to me. In any case.Fear is synonymous with order. — Chet Hawkins
Anger can be defensive in this way, but it also can be offensive.Anger holds its ground against everything. — Chet Hawkins
In my experience people who are afraid tend to be less sure and people who are angry tend to express more certainty.Remember that I consider 'knowing' a moral failure, more akin to certainty seeking, expression an imbalance between anger and fear by definition. So defenders of that wording are like to over-express fear, ... is my forecast. — Chet Hawkins
I actually do sympathize. I realize I have not explained the entire model yet. Really though the basis of it is fairly simple. Explaining it thoroughly though is a really a matter for yet another thread.Anger holds its ground against everything. That is the nature of balance. If this is not intuitively obvious, I can go on an on, because every other aspect of reality supports that non-conclusion.
— Chet Hawkins
THis is a neat little microcosm of hte senselessness of most of your writing. Unsure whether that reflects on your positions though, because it's so unclear. — AmadeusD
Remember that I consider 'knowing' a moral failure, more akin to certainty seeking, expression an imbalance between anger and fear by definition. — Chet Hawkins
So, all colloquial definitions for emotions do not really serve in my model. That can be confusing because of habit.Fear is synonymous with order.
— Chet Hawkins
I can see fear leading to order and rage leading to order. The law and order crowd often seems very angry. Fascists and other dictators who enforce extreme order often seem rather angry to me. In any case.
Anger holds its ground against everything.
— Chet Hawkins
Anger can be defensive in this way, but it also can be offensive. — Bylaw
OK, interesting. Let's see where this goes. By the way, I answer posts AS I READ THEM. That means I simply start by quoting your whole post and then begin. I have not read the whole thing before I answer. So I have no idea yet what you will write next in this same post.Remember that I consider 'knowing' a moral failure, more akin to certainty seeking, expression an imbalance between anger and fear by definition.
— Chet Hawkins
First, and I happen to mean this admiringly, your words awaken already hovering suspicions that this forum is creating a very specific form of complex poetry (especially if you modify the comma placements). I'll stop. And yet... — ENOAH
Well if you had read the responses thus far, you would hopefully know (ha ha).Secondly, more, hopefully, to point. My current thoughts align with "certainty seeking," but why "moral failure?" — ENOAH
Anger is not the emotion of certainty-seeking. Anger can support over-expressed fear and add imbalance or it can push back against over-expressed fear to the point of balance and the need for certainty would vanish. If one has sufficient anger, there is no imbalanced need for certainty. Anger allows us to stand up to the mystery of the universe with confidence in that balance.Only because you find fear and anger to be the source/position of certainty seeking? If you could surrender that hypothesis, would certainty seeking still be moral failure? — ENOAH
Honesty about the vagueness is precisely the point.Are you compelled because you find it illogical or unreasonable for Mind to "simply" have evolved such that "knowledge" is seeking "certainty " (and I say they are the "same" mechanism), emerged as a "necessary" "step" in an "autonomous" "mental" process? (the quomarks are necessary to delineate that when vague hypotheses are being worked out in a forum of many "scientists" and "technicians," then, notwithstanding their arguably poetic byproducts, it is best to be honest about the vagueness) — ENOAH
Yes, that is a big part of it. Leaping to a short-cut to assuage fears is common in all walks of life and perhaps none so egregiously as mainstream academia. Get the grant! Be seen doing so. Say complex words! Cast aspersions on others that seem weak. Be seen doing so. Win! But even just the idea that 'Hey, fish or cut bait buddy! Do something (even if it sucks)! Pragmatism (fear) is all efficient short cuts that deny the aim at perfection. Idealism has its equal problems as well. But this thread is about awareness, which is all fear.The intuition which we all share, which makes your hypothesis interesting (presumptious on my part) i.e., that it is "weak," for e.g., or "attached/desiring," and, thus fear/anger based (the intuited organic source of these constructed "movements" "dialectics" or "emotions"), to need to seek reassuring, I.e., to be driven to seek certainty, may have led you to construct such a hypothesis. — ENOAH
Engagement is respect. I appreciate any valid attempt. So far, you do not seem uninterested or simply derogatory as many others have been.And, still, there is on a balance of probabilities, a much greater chance I have misunderstood and am misrepresenting your thoughts. If so, I apologize, but autonomously continue. — ENOAH
No, that is the Pragmatic retreat, order-apology, and it is precisely the immorality of over-expressed fear. The need to be aware is fine until it goes too far, like any virtue. The need for certainty is NOT the same as being as aware as we can be in reasonable time.Plainly, if certainty seeking was evolved, now built-in, it is not a failure, but a "necessity". — ENOAH
Yes, so you have stated the real pattern. But at no point was certainty involved. We should become comfortable with that and speak and write that way to be more harmonious with truth.And from there, I would go on to suggest that "belief" too is an evolved mechanism incorporated into the holy trinity of knowing--seeking, certainty/settlement, belief. That no matter what a person thinks they have done to arrive at the mental state wherein they can claim, "I know," they have passed through that autonomous process and settled at belief. Temporarily! That's the thing! All the fuss about certainty, and most knowing gets modified, if not completely reconstructed by settlement at a "new" belief. — ENOAH
I actually do sympathize. I realize I have not explained the entire model yet. Really though the basis of it is fairly simple. Explaining it thoroughly though is a really a matter for yet another thread.
Even in plain English this sentence is not nearly as bad as you claim though. — Chet Hawkins
...By the way, I answer posts AS I READ THEM. That means — Chet Hawkins
The need for certainty is moral failure because certainty is absurd. — Chet Hawkins
It is NOT certainty we seek, properly, morally, but only ... more ... awareness ... endlessly. THAT is a subtle but required distinction to be moral. — Chet Hawkins
most probably unaware or unwilling even to consider it as a goal. Nevertheless, our entire society would be improved to an alarming degree if we all could develop the discipline to speak and write that way which would then point to us thinking more properly as well. — Chet Hawkins
point is that the word 'know' and its many derivatives like 'knowledge' and even the concept of 'certainty' itself all partake of perfection which is an unattainable state, in general. So, it is BETTER by far to avoid speaking and writing that way. It is better to say instead 'aware of' rather than 'know', in all cases. — Chet Hawkins
Notice the word almost that diffuses the superlative case. That is discipline in writing. — Chet Hawkins
You will notice that many responses to me call my confidence into question, rather than being supportive. — Chet Hawkins
It cannot beat anger on confidence as that is the purpose of anger (in balance). — Chet Hawkins
That is why I demand or argue for such things as changing the word 'conclusion' to the phrase 'non-conclusion'. The former is a lazy and fear driven need for certainty expressed. It DOES, whether THEY admit it or not, imply that we are done, finished. — Chet Hawkins
Cast aspersions on others that seem weak. Be seen doing so. Win! But even just the idea that 'Hey, fish or cut bait buddy! Do something (even if it sucks)! — Chet Hawkins
Plainly, if certainty seeking was evolved, now built-in, it is not a failure, but a "necessity".
— ENOAH
No, that is the Pragmatic retreat, order-apology, and it is precisely the immorality of over-expressed fear. The need to be aware is fine until it goes too far, like any virtue. The need for certainty is NOT the same as being as aware as we can be in reasonable time. — Chet Hawkins
Yes, well you are now proving that it's hard to get people to understand. I am apparently not a great explainer, who knew. Sticking just to the erroneous colloquial definitions of emotions will not aid you in any way.Remember that I consider 'knowing' a moral failure, more akin to certainty seeking, expression an imbalance between anger and fear by definition. So defenders of that wording are like to over-express fear, ... is my forecast.
— Chet Hawkins
In my experience people who are afraid tend to be less sure and people who are angry tend to express more certainty. — Bylaw
I understand everything everyone says to me. They do not return the favor though, in any way, usually.I actually do sympathize. I realize I have not explained the entire model yet. Really though the basis of it is fairly simple. Explaining it thoroughly though is a really a matter for yet another thread.
Even in plain English this sentence is not nearly as bad as you claim though.
— Chet Hawkins
I don't think you're really understanding much of what anyone is saying to you, most of the time.
You certainly haven't understood the vast majority of what I've thrown your direction.
You've not explained anything adequately. — AmadeusD
Yes.By the way, I answer posts AS I READ THEM. That means
— Chet Hawkins
...
Ha. Me too. As we "speak." — ENOAH
I will assume that was genuine. OK, yw, on we go!The need for certainty is moral failure because certainty is absurd.
— Chet Hawkins
First, thank you, in spite of your well deserved dig. — ENOAH
Well your juxtaposition of the absurd and the 'non-absurd' is troublesome. As in I cannot tell if your form of poetry is to make Voltaire's arrival at the NON ABSURD position of declaring certainty (as a pursuit) to be absurd, or to try to flip the script sarcastically and suggest that he arrived at the absurd (which is not the truest point). So your wording confuses me. I suppose I should admit that mine confuses others, and I do, but that was not my intent. What is yours?Second, Ok!
But still, now to satisfy entirely justifiable rules of methodology (dictated by this very specific form of poetry), I should have to read (or re-read, I don't remember) Voltaire on how he arrived at the absurd etc. — ENOAH
Ah, ... well, you seem to be on the side of the angels, so, sure, on we go.But for the thrill of the expedition, and for whatever edifying artifacts we dig up, I'll proceed trusting either way, it's something to learn. And asking your indulgence. — ENOAH
All weakness, all no perfect intent is immoral. That is a tautology. Immorality is ubiquitous, common. But that again is not the point. The point is to be slowly more and more able to discern which position, between any two, is more moral than the other.It is NOT certainty we seek, properly, morally, but only ... more ... awareness ... endlessly. THAT is a subtle but required distinction to be moral.
— Chet Hawkins
Wow! Yes, ok. Sorry. I should have read, and not so boldly entered. But though indefensible, in my indefense, I was looking for a shortcut answer to that specific question "why immoral?" — ENOAH
This is miswording and strikes me as perhaps intentional. How can one misunderstand? Seeking is not absurd, as seeking awareness is wise. Truth seeking is wise. What is not wise is the belief in finding as a final thing. As in 'job done on this, let's pack up the effort and go home to laziness.' No, immoral choice. So, instead of saying 'I know this', say 'My awareness suggests this'. Or instead of saying 'In conclusion we say this', say 'Our added suggested awareness is this'Voltaire, and you, are recognizing that there is never certainty, and only incessant movement, thus seeking is absurd; instead, be watchful of the incessant movement (?) — ENOAH
Yes that.most probably unaware or unwilling even to consider it as a goal. Nevertheless, our entire society would be improved to an alarming degree if we all could develop the discipline to speak and write that way which would then point to us thinking more properly as well.
— Chet Hawkins
Totally! But I'd say, "think," first, speech etc follows suit. But I sense you mean something akin to discipline, like when we insist upon reason or empirical process. I mean "think" first that all knowledge is a thing in constant Flux, and given dozens if not hundreds of factors, my mind will settle every now and again at belief. — ENOAH
We all must care. To not care is immoral. The label is critical as it causes certain effects in its use. That is why 'know', 'knowledge', 'conclusion' and similar words should be called into question. If we realize properly that KNOWLEDGE IS ONLY BELIEF, we are better served by that admission than we are by denying it.Who cares what it's called? — ENOAH
Yes, this 'endlessness' is the endless pursuit of perfection.I need to be endlessly vigilant, watchful of the changes, where I settle, and so on. — ENOAH
Again your backwards wording. It is I that does not settle, they that do. At least the they I am speaking of that use 'know' so flippantly and will not agree that 'knowledge is only belief'.In that sense, speaking and writing are less disciplined, free to explore the endless changes, unrestrained. But You watchful you, not chained by seeking certainty, not chained by seeking anything, you can settle where you believe, in your thinking, it is justified to settle. — ENOAH
I do not understand your use of the word 'third' here. You mean the word 'certainty' in the list? Well, OK. That is not the key point there. The key point is clarity in statements that confer meaning or truth. Knowing is not possible in the final sense, so awareness is all we have and it would be better to speak as if that was the case and not about 'knowing'.point is that the word 'know' and its many derivatives like 'knowledge' and even the concept of 'certainty' itself all partake of perfection which is an unattainable state, in general. So, it is BETTER by far to avoid speaking and writing that way. It is better to say instead 'aware of' rather than 'know', in all cases.
— Chet Hawkins
Oh, yah. Beautiful. I agree. Voltaire and you? If that's what you mean. I see how functional that is for thinking, and why you'd place it third. — ENOAH
Any aspect of art is an expression that either makes sense in some way, resonates truth, or does not seem to, and therefore is indiscernible as art in fact. Beauty is objective, like truth. It is impactful in its relationship to truth. That is to say, true beauty commands attention because it reveals the mystery we align with or even one that we do not. It can be a comfort, but more often it is a challenge by its very resonance.Notice the word almost that diffuses the superlative case. That is discipline in writing.
— Chet Hawkins
I truly respect that! Does it manifest as poetry? Sorry. Yes. But I respect the point. Sincerely. — ENOAH
It is a burden, but no big deal. I am well past the point in life where I let the opinions of others deeply bother me. I do care and very deeply, but it would lessen my delivery if I were too reactionary.You will notice that many responses to me call my confidence into question, rather than being supportive.
— Chet Hawkins
I hear you, neighbor. A pathology in the Dialectic. Nothing's perfect. — ENOAH
Well, I am not sure about the conjecture there, but, Body, mind, and will work together in all things.It cannot beat anger on confidence as that is the purpose of anger (in balance).
— Chet Hawkins
I hear you, brother! Anger. Mind. A beautiful thing, how it constructs Anger, as if out of the blue, just by mixing memory and desire. — ENOAH
Yes, well, settle has its own negative connotation, that of satisfaction or death. That misses the core aspect of the complaint against 'conclusion'. We are NOT done properly. We do not 'settle' properly. Properly, we are agitated and unsatisfied at all times. We engage every fiber of our being in growth and change for the better.That is why I demand or argue for such things as changing the word 'conclusion' to the phrase 'non-conclusion'. The former is a lazy and fear driven need for certainty expressed. It DOES, whether THEY admit it or not, imply that we are done, finished.
— Chet Hawkins
Totally get you. Why not "settlement" "current point of settlement"? You know, it recognizes, not only what you're after, that the speaker hasn't provided Us with the end, that they, the speaker are "aware" (as per you and Voltaire), that they have not provided an end. — ENOAH
No that was like, as if, anyone, the practical speaker speaking TO ME, me saying it in their stead. Practical speakers say things like that to people all the time. 'Do something!' And the funny thing is I am an anger type, a doer. Have no fear! I will do something! Ha ha! Be careful what you ask for.Cast aspersions on others that seem weak. Be seen doing so. Win! But even just the idea that 'Hey, fish or cut bait buddy! Do something (even if it sucks)!
— Chet Hawkins
You're not talking to me anymore, are you? — ENOAH
Cool! Although I have no idea why you said 'Monarch'. What does that mean?Plainly, if certainty seeking was evolved, now built-in, it is not a failure, but a "necessity".
— ENOAH
No, that is the Pragmatic retreat, order-apology, and it is precisely the immorality of over-expressed fear. The need to be aware is fine until it goes too far, like any virtue. The need for certainty is NOT the same as being as aware as we can be in reasonable time.
— Chet Hawkins
Yes. I get how I misunderstood/misplaced previously. And I now understand why you would reply to my comment directly above in that way. I agree! You and V! Certainty seeking is absurd. Of course! And awareness is Monarch. — ENOAH
cannot tell if your form of poetry is to make Voltaire's arrival at the NON ABSURD position of declaring certainty (as a pursuit) to be absurd, or to try to flip the script sarcastically and suggest that he arrived at the absurd (which is not the truest point). — Chet Hawkins
This is miswording and strikes me as perhaps intentional. How can one misunderstand? Seeking is not absurd, as seeking awareness is wise. — Chet Hawkins
We all must care. To not care is immoral. The label is critical as it causes certain effects in its use. — Chet Hawkins
In that sense, speaking and writing are less disciplined, free to explore the endless changes, unrestrained. But You watchful you, not chained by seeking certainty, not chained by seeking anything, you can settle where you believe, in your thinking, it is justified to settle.
— ENOAH
Again your backwards wording. It is I that does not settle, they that do. At least the they I am speaking of that use 'know' so flippantly and will not agree that 'knowledge is only belief'. — Chet Hawkins
I do not understand your use of the word 'third' — Chet Hawkins
settle has its own negative connotation, that of satisfaction or death — Chet Hawkins
If you can link me to where you have other definitions or give me a description here, it would help. Otherwise sure, I'm going to assume colloquial definitions or ones from psychology. You might as well make up words for them, then at least we'll be pretty sure we haven't the slightest idea what you mean.Yes, well you are now proving that it's hard to get people to understand. I am apparently not a great explainer, who knew. Sticking just to the erroneous colloquial definitions of emotions will not aid you in any way. — Chet Hawkins
So, how does one do this?Yes, so you have stated the real pattern. But at no point was certainty involved. We should become comfortable with that and speak and write that way to be more harmonious with truth. — Chet Hawkins
So, I think we can end up just agreeing.I recognize why you are right, as in if we were playing musical instruments. But to make a brief a point on this as possible, 1. I think morality is ultimately what is functional. Think big picture. And, 2. I think that insistence on certain precision in speech serves a limited function. Free speech, even in philosophy can be moral. Just as it can be moral to insist on strict precision of speech in philosophy. It is the usage and context together where morality should be measured. — ENOAH
Fear - the singular emotion responsible for order itself as a concept. Fear is an excited state that arises as a result of matching a pattern from one's past. Fear and order are thus associated with the past in a temporal sense.Yes, well you are now proving that it's hard to get people to understand. I am apparently not a great explainer, who knew. Sticking just to the erroneous colloquial definitions of emotions will not aid you in any way.
— Chet Hawkins
If you can link me to where you have other definitions or give me a description here, it would help. Otherwise sure, I'm going to assume colloquial definitions or ones from psychology. You might as well make up words for them, then at least we'll be pretty sure we haven't the slightest idea what you mean. — Bylaw
1) Admit to the greater truth behind the assertion. It is dangerous to speak in terms of 'knowing'.Yes, so you have stated the real pattern. But at no point was certainty involved. We should become comfortable with that and speak and write that way to be more harmonious with truth.
— Chet Hawkins
So, how does one do this?
I understand that eliminating 'know' is a good idea from your perspective. What other changes are needed? What are the signs or problematic communication? What are the signs of communication that are more harmonious with the truth? — Bylaw
So, these are mainly attitudinal. Which is good information for me. I just want to separate it out from the practical changes to the language itself. Numbers 1 and 3 mentions 'such words and phrases' and 'knowing' and 'know' is clearly on the dangerous list.1) Admit to the greater truth behind the assertion. It is dangerous to speak in terms of 'knowing'.
2) Realize that all of us are guilty of this trouble, when we allow that pattern to continue.
3) Challenge yourself to do better by first recognizing when you are failing morally by using such words and phrases. — Chet Hawkins
And this gives a kind of plan along with the first ones.4) Actually correct the words used in speech and in writing from yourself.
5) Begin to realize when others do this same thing. Note the abundance of the wrong pattern.
6) Challenge the pattern when the mood is right to be a discussion where progress can be made by those thus challenged.
7) Fit all of this into a model of the way you live to make it a consistent part of who you are, your beliefs personified. — Chet Hawkins
For example, in a philosophy forum, we have the words on the screen. The people writing may have similar attitudes - potentially even when they use the word know, not taking this at all to mean it is necessarily infallible. And/or when they avoiding knowing and know, they may be utterly certain that what they say must be correct and never will need to be revised.What other changes are needed? What are the signs or problematic communication? What are the signs of communication that are more harmonious with the truth? — Bylaw
Well, that is an amazing question. Thank you for asking it. It is a 'step beyond' (the standard limitations of interaction) for sure.But I was wondering more about this part:
What other changes are needed? What are the signs or problematic communication? What are the signs of communication that are more harmonious with the truth?
— Bylaw — Bylaw
What says this: 'I like you because you are like me' ?For example, in a philosophy forum, we have the words on the screen. The people writing may have similar attitudes - potentially even when they use the word know, not taking this at all to mean it is necessarily infallible. And/or when they avoiding knowing and know, they may be utterly certain that what they say must be correct and never will need to be revised. — Bylaw
There are many examples in this thread alone and most of them I called out. Look for the concept of the limit in such matters. If there is an end drawn, a destination arrived at, it is a failure in most ways. That is the delusion of fear talking. The authoritative fool: 'You have reached the border of these lands. A wise man will go no further!' Me: 'But there is land a mere foot away! There could be cool things and ... well ... women .. over there. I think I will risk it.' As Jordan Peterson often claims, we must risk offense and being offensive in order to live, to grow. That was not the intent. But we can own the choice. Living in fear is not living at all. Ease and pragmatism is an enemy of sorts.So, what way should people write to be more harmonious with the truth beyond avoiding 'knowing' and 'know'. — Bylaw
Speech is just a signal of belief. Actions other than just speech do the same thing. Disheveled appearance and environs speak to a lack of concern in image, a lack of pursuit of perfection shown by cleanliness and some degree of taste in presentation. That is just one example. Each of the virtues has a set of flags and indicators that show either fear side delusion, desire side delusion, anger-side delusion, or ... a VERY rare and laudable balance aimed at the objective GOOD.I am not denying the importance of the attitudinal shifts, but give the specific danger of 'know' and 'knowing' in your schema, it seems like the actual language use is important.
Are there other things to be avoided or added to avoid the danger? — Bylaw
I see the tree in the yard but do not believe it's there.
— creativesoul
I don't believe it is possible to actively disbelieve in something you see in front of you. Well, I know I can't at least. I also don't see that as supporting the notion that active belief is necessary in those situations. That said, I don't deny that you can talk about believing that the tree you see is there, rather than simply saying you see it there, but I think the former way of speaking is less parsimonious, even redundant... — Janus
I see the tree in the yard but do not believe it's there.
— creativesoul
I don't believe it is possible to actively disbelieve in something you see in front of you. Well, I know I can't at least. I also don't see that as supporting the notion that active belief is necessary in those situations. — Janus
I'm missing a lot of context here because you write so much and your philosophical thinking is rather dense but I feel as if there is really just a thinly veiled Sorites argument getting in the way of all of this. Whether on the part of your opponents or you.You can call it whatever delusional thing you prefer to call it. It still is actually JUST belief. — Chet Hawkins
Yep.I can go on an on... — Chet Hawkins
Presumably, because they are true; not because they are certain.We are still left with the question of why certain beliefs are more privileged compared to others and why? — substantivalism
Well. . . there is a discussion that could perhaps go on without this obfuscation dealing with whether that intuition we call the certain/uncertain distinction (or the true/untrue distinction) with regards to beliefs is coarse or fine grained.Presumably, because they are true; not because they are certain.
Confusing these two is the reason this thread is at page 14. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.