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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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)


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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honesty about the vagueness is precisely the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

By the way, I answer posts AS I READ THEM. That means — Chet Hawkins

...
Ha. Me too. As we "speak."

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

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

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. 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.

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?"

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 (?)

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. Who cares what it's called? I need to be endlessly vigilant, watchful of the changes, where I settle, and so on. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

You've not explained anything adequately. — AmadeusD

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

You conflate understanding with agreement.

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

Yes.

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

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

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

Second, Ok!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes that.

Who cares what it's called? — ENOAH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perfection-aiming IS NOT perfection-expectation!

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

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

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

I certainly do not. But this is not a surprising response, at all. Aligns with my understanding of you entirely :)

I like you, though.

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

Hah. This stands as a good example of how I need to communicate more precisely. It's hard when you follow this technique. I read a sentence, it triggers a response, I text the response. What I meant was simply this, "OK, I should read Voltaire before I speak but, here I go anyway."

This is miswording and strikes me as perhaps intentional. How can one misunderstand? Seeking is not absurd, as seeking awareness is wise. — Chet Hawkins

Not intentional. I know what I mean. I'll work on it. Anyway, I should have specified, "seeking certainty, as if there is a final end

We all must care. To not care is immoral. The label is critical as it causes certain effects in its use. — Chet Hawkins

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.

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

We agree completely in principle. We're on 2 different pages. To you "settle" means think there is an end, you are always moving and aware that you are moving. To me settle is that same thing, temporarily adopting a position as it serves a function, yet aware that we are moving nonetheless.

I do not understand your use of the word 'third' — Chet Hawkins

Not as important as you thought. A thought I expressed earlier then corrected.

settle has its own negative connotation, that of satisfaction or death — Chet Hawkins

Ok, I read it more in the connotation of a traveller's temporarily settling, weather temporarily settling, and so on.

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.

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?

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

So, I think we can end up just agreeing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

And this gives a kind of plan along with the first ones.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Redundant" is n interesting choice of terms. So, do we agree that belief is necessary for seeing the tree in the front yard?? It goes without saying that seeing a tree in the yard includes believing that something is there, doesn't it? That necessary presupposition is what makes the terminological use redundant, right?

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

Waddaya mean "actively"? If you do not actively disbelieve, then by default, you believe something is there, even before learning the name of it. We need not say "I believe a tree is there" to ourselves in order to believe we're looking at a tree. Unless we're one of those people who say they believe that they're not looking at a tree, but rather looking at a representation of one.

We agree that one need not formulate propositional belief to themselves at every moment throughout one's life in order to see trees. I'm attempting to point out that propositional belief are not the only kind. Although, any and all of our candidates will take propositional form in our report of them.

It's all about the necessary elemental constituents. That is determined and facilitated by biological machinery. Physiological sensory perception. Words are not always part of the content, despite being part of the content for each and every report thereof.

The way you're using the term "belief" cannot take all this into account.

By the way, my apologies for how the "shallow" comment came off earlier. "Inadequate" is more in line. Sometimes things do boil down to a matter of how we're using words, and there's no relevant fact of the matter to compare/contrast differing opinions with/to. It doesn't follow that all frameworks are on equal footing. Sometimes there is not a fact of the matter, but rather an abundance of them. All of them are germane. One's notions cannot - ought not anyway - conflict with such facts.

You can call it whatever delusional thing you prefer to call it. It still is actually JUST belief. — Chet Hawkins

I'm missing a lot of context here because you write so much and your philosophical thinking is rather dense but I feel as if there is really just a thinly veiled Sorites argument getting in the way of all of this. Whether on the part of your opponents or you.

How your opponents see it is that perhaps you'd make the horrible jump of thinking. . . that because there is vagueness in some categories, whatever they may be, they can be abandoned along with their intuitions for new intuitions both familiar and peculiar for only one of the categories in consideration. I.E. if statement 'A' of strong intellectual support is a belief, expression of scientific confidence 'B' is a belief, and irrational nonsense postulate 'C' is a belief then it would seem they are all the same in kind as they are also in value. When in reality its obviously the case that various beliefs entertain certain hierarchies of certainty. . . intuitiveness. . . truth-likeness. . . knowledge status. . . etc. Regardless of what word we give to that doxastic attitude.

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

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

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

I don't think saying 'knowledge is mere belief' solves the conundrum we all started with or what was the entire point of making up the 'knowledge' concept to begin with.

We are still left with the question of why certain beliefs are more privileged compared to others and why? I.E. we are back where we started.

Except, as I stated in a reply above. Its as to the correct methodology of determining the entry status of beliefs into the 'certain' category rather than talking about whether a particular belief counts as 'knowledge'. Its seems merely semantic.

Am I going insane here?!

@Janus has consistently taken a more restricted view of "belief" than that which I think more typically found in philosophical discussion. I'd characterise it using propositional attitudes, roughly, as follows: I take "Adam believes P" as simply that Adam holds P to be true. Janus takes "Adam believes P" as both that Adam holds P to be true and has consciously assented to its being true.

That's what seems to sit behind his notion of "active" belief. It seems this leads Janus to being unable to deny what is before his eyes; that being before one's eyes somehow amounts to the sort of conscious assented he requires.

At least, that's how I have understood some of his comments.

I can go on an on... — Chet Hawkins

Yep.

We are still left with the question of why certain beliefs are more privileged compared to others and why? — substantivalism

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

Confusing these two is the reason this thread is at page 14.

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

Confusing these two is the reason this thread is at page 14. — Banno

Well. . . there is a discussion that could perhaps go on without this obfuscation dealing with whether that intuition we call the certain/uncertain distinction (or the true/untrue distinction) with regards to beliefs is coarse or fine grained.

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

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

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

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