I view each of your examples as different ways to justify a belief, and each of these justifications, it seems to me, falls under the subject of epistemology. Mathematical proofs are very similar to logical proofs in that they start with certain assumptions or premises and proceed systematically to a conclusion. Scientific experiments may use a combination of justifications, such as sensory justification (what we observe), logic (deductive and inductive reasoning), and expert testimonial evidence. A history book may use, as a justification for a particular conclusion, testimonial evidence from other writings (past and present). Archaeology may also be used to justify certain historical claims, again mostly testimonials along with artifacts.

Most justifications can be categorized under the following methods, which are simply different categories of use.

1. Reason (inductive and deductive)
2. Testimony (books and lectures from experts, for e.g.)
3. Sensory experiences (often used in experiments)
4. Linguistic training
5. Mathematical proofs
6. Etc

These are a few uses of justification that fall within the subject of epistemology.

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

But you are prioritizing assertions. You choose a set of assertions that you send to me. You even called some of it wisdom. You may not label that group, but you have a group. You consider that group of assertions more likely than others that you or someone else might assert.

It has served me so well in terms of efficient tracking of problems in almost all cases that I had decided and maintain that it is useful for others to adopt that strategy as a part of general wisdom. — Chet Hawkins

In my world 'wisdom' is at least as loaded a term as 'knowledge'. I use that one also, but I notice a lot of people have a hierarchy belief, knowledge, wisdom. With the last term being the best. Of course this is not necessarily a spectum of certainty and an indicate type. But It seems to me allowing oneself to categorize 'my beliefs X and Y are wisdom' is as easily misused as doing that with the category knowledge.

The trouble is that when most people say 'know' most others that have not already come to doubt their knowledge incorrectly assume that matter is settled.

I'm not close to anyone who does this. Assume it is settled, period, shall not be questioned. There are many situations where I just move forward with what they've said as the case. And I like having, for example, my wife using think and know - or some other similar categories. I don't assume when she says know that she cannot be wrong, but I work with it in a different way from 'think'. I think I shut off the stove. I know I shut off the stove. Yes, she might have hallucinated or shut off something else and been confused. But she's got a great record when sure and I find the distinction useful. I certainly don't want her walking around saying I believe regardless of her certainty. If she says she knows, but I am aware of things that put this in doubt, well, I may well go back up and check. She just got terrible news. She's had a couple of shots - she doesn't drink, but just showing some obvious examples of things that might affect me - and also might keep her from saying she knows also, given her self-awareness.

The trouble is that most people stop caring or thinking when that word is used and they forgo the other 30-15% that is where the real value is

I don't find it useful to follow rules that might good for most people to follow. Also I think if most people stopped using those words, they wouldn't stop thinking they knew, nor would they stop conveying that they are right and you go against their belief at your own danger.

I mean, you responded to me by saying that in the future I will suffer if I don't do as you believe we all should here, advice you categorize as wisdom.

So, while adhering to your own guideline you spoke without qualification what you classify as wisdom and predicted that I would suffer in the future.

I mean, honestly. I'd rather someone said 'I know.' I don't assume either one of you is correct, but in a sense of I feel like the other person is being more honest even if they are incorrect about being right and infallible.

Oh yes absolutely. I have in mind Austin's comment that while word use should be the first word on a topic, it need not be the final one!

If it is not the certainty part of knowing that you are advocating for, and instead only that this 'knowledge' thing is 'special' in some way, then what way is it special? To me the idea that we (anyone) should credit anyone's knowing with something more impressive than only any other belief is dangerous and so prone to error that I almost can't believe I am having to defend the notion.
— Chet Hawkins
But you are prioritizing assertions. You choose a set of assertions that you send to me. You even called some of it wisdom. You may not label that group, but you have a group. You consider that group of assertions more likely than others that you or someone else might assert. — Bylaw

Yes indeed. And I understand why you think/believe that is a relevant response to my statement.

My choices are informed equally by anger and desire; relative to fear, because my model and beliefs show that to be more proper, more GOOD. So, the point I am making underscores that while fear and logic are useful, their very usefulness is often used as an immoral excuse, when other emotions and approaches to truth SHOULD be informing you that this need for certainty is leading you astray of truth and wisdom. This balance is actually logical, but only finally. Until that final step is realized, logic seems to fight against the truth of balance.

The label I used and I already DID use it, is the GOOD. Wisdom has resonance and equal resonance for all three approaches to truth. If any of my emotions is not ringing a low hanging bell of alert, but instead is ringing a highly hung bell, then I must attend that ringing.

An example of a low hanging bell is the need for certainty. A higher hanging bell that answers the same general problem domain within reality is the increasing awareness bell. This is why increasing awareness is BETTER than certainty.

It has served me so well in terms of efficient tracking of problems in almost all cases that I had decided and maintain that it is useful for others to adopt that strategy as a part of general wisdom.
— Chet Hawkins
In my world 'wisdom' is at least as loaded a term as 'knowledge'. — Bylaw

I simply agree and in fact, one is well advised that wisdom, being far trickier than knowledge alone, is something handled in far worse ways than only knowledge is. I admit that up front. This is the first such accusation levelled and I simply acquiesce.

But we cannot immorally throw our hands up and start just cutting bait. Fishing is the real task. The 'throw your hands up' and cut bait approach is only fear side Pragmatism. "get er done' usefulness IS NOT the way. The word way of course, is the root of the word wisdom. The range or domain of ways (that are right) is way dom, wisdom. Otherwise just means other ways, of course. Other wisdom.

I use that one also, but I notice a lot of people have a hierarchy belief, knowledge, wisdom. With the last term being the best. — Bylaw

Do you understand how that hierarchy is wrong? It is only really desire, fear, anger; as additive. That is the behind the scenes wrongness of that model. That is a fear-centric model. That fear admits to desire and places it lowly. Then it sees itself in the middle. It does not even acknowledge that anger is what finally causes wisdom in that progression. And keep in mind the error structure of that progression is still including all the elements in my model, just incorrectly juxtaposed.

Of course this is not necessarily a spectum of certainty and an indicate type. But It seems to me allowing oneself to categorize 'my beliefs X and Y are wisdom' is as easily misused as doing that with the category knowledge. — Bylaw

I agree.

But to say that some statements purported as wisdom are less correct, less wise, than others is agreed upon. So, great. Now, in with the real game. Are my statements of wisdom more or less wise than .. yours ... or the prevailing wisdom, and why?

You should not morally conflate the general case with this specific case. That is chaos-apology. From the order side that is over-expressed humility then broadcast back to the universe. It is the immoral assumption that because we are quintessentially equal our assumptions and beliefs are equal as well. That is the fungibility error of the left wing, of subjective morality. It is a anti-wisdom.

So the conundrum is solved by anger. We must do ... SOMETHING. Risk must be taken. The foolish believe that because power corrupts, all power is evil. The wise realize that power has only a tendency, a strong one, an exponentially strong one, to corrupt. And the trait least likely to succumb to that corruption is wisdom. Anger demands being. And there is no escape from it. You cannot actually be made to un-belong to reality. Time passes. A choice must be made with any assertion or set of assertions. Is this wisdom, or not?

We are guaranteed within humility and probability alike that we are wrong. But that wrongness is relative to each assertion set made by others. Therefore we can be wrong finally, and still BETTER than all other contenders for what is wise. This analysis must be rigorous. And it can never just throw its hands up. A choice must be made. And the goal amid humility is to get closer to the objective moral truth, perfection, the GOOD. We are not allowed to pretend that all choices are equal in moral value.

The trouble is that when most people say 'know' most others that have not already come to doubt their knowledge incorrectly assume that matter is settled.
I'm not close to anyone who does this. Assume it is settled, period, shall not be questioned. There are many situations where I just move forward with what they've said as the case. And I like having, for example, my wife using think and know - or some other similar categories. I don't assume when she says know that she cannot be wrong, but I work with it in a different way from 'think'. I think I shut off the stove. I know I shut off the stove. Yes, she might have hallucinated or shut off something else and been confused. But she's got a great record when sure and I find the distinction useful. I certainly don't want her walking around saying I believe regardless of her certainty. If she says she knows, but I am aware of things that put this in doubt, well, I may well go back up and check. She just got terrible news. She's had a couple of shots - she doesn't drink, but just showing some obvious examples of things that might affect me - and also might keep her from saying she knows also, given her self-awareness. — Bylaw

Again, and for the thousandth time in this thread it seems, I will say that the usefulness of the distinction is the problem. It IS an expression of probability and not truth.

The GOOD is the most improbable thing of all and it is truth. So at some point, seeking probable outcomes is a short cut that is immoral. This is either understood and admitted or the belief is immoral.

If you want to trust that which is merely more useful over the truth, you may do so. It WILL cost you.

We all have to place our bets on the actions and beliefs of others, as well as ourselves. It is no violation of trust to suggest that each of us is not perfect. It is in fact a suggestion that acknowledging this truth means questioning everything, and as we get closer and closer to truth, perhaps questioning EVEN MORE CLOSELY that which we trust. We are ALWAYS partly wrong in every belief. That means we are always partly wrong on what we choose to trust. The percentages LIE or seem to, because the good is so hard to get to, so highly improbable. This is the trap of fear.

The trouble is that most people stop caring or thinking when that word is used and they forgo the other 30-15% that is where the real value is - Chet Hawkins

I don't find it useful to follow rules that might good for most people to follow. — Bylaw

That is a horridly immoral position to take.

Also I think if most people stopped using those words, they wouldn't stop thinking they knew, nor would they stop conveying that they are right and you go against their belief at your own danger. — Bylaw

I agree. More errors on THEIR part.

The idea is the request from me, allows them to consider the failure inherent in the use of the word in the first place. I think that warning is wise and will continue to be, as a tautology. That is until some truly greater truth overturns that idea when we are well past being so silly that we clam to 'know' anything.

I mean, you responded to me by saying that in the future I will suffer if I don't do as you believe we all should here, advice you categorize as wisdom. — Bylaw

Indeed, an idea and assertion that I maintain. I have defended that position in the words of this post.

So, while adhering to your own guideline you spoke without qualification what you classify as wisdom and predicted that I would suffer in the future. — Bylaw

Correct. And suffering becomes greater with awareness. Now that I have warned you and that situation exists in the world, you will begin to see and understand more where it comes into play. It will rankle and tease you as an idea from the sidelines, until you make a better choice on its veracity.

I mean, honestly. I'd rather someone said 'I know.' I don't assume either one of you is correct, but in a sense of I feel like the other person is being more honest even if they are incorrect about being right and infallible. — Bylaw

Your need for certainty comes out clearly in this suggestion that allowing for certainty in others that are equally deluded in its existence harmonizes with. You like those that are like you, all fear. The comfort of similar beliefs is dangerous.

Instead choose to be uncomfortable, because it is harder and wiser. Do not be foolish with this pursuit either, like wearing a hair shirt.

You just honestly admitted your predilection for that immoral need. I get it. That is why I am adding the challenge of my warning. The trap of fear is hard for a fear type or even a person who is, in this specific instance, adhering too much to fear's approach, to admit, to avoid.

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

To expect something, to think it most likely, is not necessarily to believe it will happen. Of course you could say that it is a belief that it is most likely to happen. Once the expectations are met, and one observes that they have been met, then that would count as knowledge. I might expect that it will rain, and when it does rain, if I see it raining, or stand in the rain and get wet with it, I could say that I know it is raining.

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

No need to apologize. We all follow our inclinations, and far be it from me to proscribe against such investigations. My characterization of "wankfest" is nothing more than the way I interpret the goings on; I'm not claiming there is any right or wrong, or fact of the matter there.

But never mind we cannot know with 100% certainty. That reveals another eerie fact about our experience. We cannot know truth period. — ENOAH

This is where we disagree—I think we can know many things with certainty.

Thanks for your response, but I'm afraid I don't get what you are driving at.

expect something, to think it most likely, is not necessarily to believe it will happen — Janus

I agree. I was recklessly pursuing a thought.

I'm not claiming there is any right or wrong, or fact of the matter there. — Janus

I appreciate that.

I think we can know many things with certainty. — Janus

Is that not, then dependant upon our definitions of certainty? Assume 100% is a fitting adjective. I.e., that there is absolutely no room for doubt or possibility. Still? I personally cannot see that anywhere

Except, maybe if you "enclose" the knowing and the object of knowing in the "conventional". For e.g. to say I am 100% certain I have a nose on my face. But take that statement outside the box, and already questions arise, what is "nose", what is "face" is it really "on" what is "on" what is "my" is it "my" is there a me, or is there just a lump of flesh? Etc.

Is that not, then dependant upon our definitions of certainty? Assume 100% is a fitting adjective. I.e., that there is absolutely no room for doubt or possibility. Still? I personally cannot see that anywhere — ENOAH

When I explore my environment I do not find any room for doubt that the things I perceive there are actually there.

I simply agree and in fact, one is well advised that wisdom, being far trickier than knowledge alone, is something handled in far worse ways than only knowledge is. I admit that up front. This is the first such accusation leveled and I simply acquiesce.

But we cannot immorally throw our hands up and start just cutting bait. Fishing is the real task. The 'throw your hands up' and cut bait approach is only fear side Pragmatism. "get er done' usefulness IS NOT the way. — Chet Hawkins

And you haven't said I am throwing up my hands or suggesting we should. But just to be clear, I am not saying that and.

If any of my emotions is not ringing a low hanging bell of alert, but instead is ringing a highly hung bell, then I must attend that ringing. — Chet Hawkins

I think we may be close in approach when you say something like this. You are using intuition, perhaps even, for example, Interoception to do an ongoing monitoring. Fine. I appreciate when people can be up front about this. I think it is a problem when people think there is no intuition involved in their reaching of conclusions. That somehow they manage to do deduction, only, for example. Some kind of clean bird's eye view logic alone.

I don't find it useful to follow rules that might good for most people to follow.
— Bylaw
That is a horridly immoral position to take. — Chet Hawkins

No, it would be immoral to pretend that guidelines and rules must be universal. No one should drive because some have Parkinson's (metaphorically speaking).

Do you understand how that hierarchy is wrong? It is only really desire, fear, anger; as additive. That is the behind the scenes wrongness of that model. That is a fear-centric model. — Chet Hawkins

Right or wrong it is present. So, you come out with your prescription. Some follow it. Now other people hear wisdom regularly instead of knowledge and the same problems arise. Or the problem is driven underground: correct words are used and the exact same interpersonal, intra-personal dynamics continue. You can wag dogs in the short term, but you're not really changing anything but the surface. And wagging parts of the body is actually more intimate than wagging the choice of words.

The same problems seep out of the undealt with unconscious patterns and imprinting.

Perhaps you have a program to deal with these also, but so far I see a focus and to me fear of certain words. They can certainly be problematic, but changing them is consmetic.

Again, and for the thousandth time in this thread it seems, I will say that the usefulness of the distinction is the problem. It IS an expression of probability and not truth. — Chet Hawkins

Sure. Probability of what, however?

We all have to place our bets on the actions and beliefs of others, as well as ourselves. It is no violation of trust to suggest that each of us is not perfect. — Chet Hawkins

Sure, that's a given in my outlook.

Correct. And suffering becomes greater with awareness. Now that I have warned you and that situation exists in the world, you will begin to see and understand more where it comes into play. It will rankle and tease you as an idea from the sidelines, until you make a better choice on its veracity. — Chet Hawkins

I think predicting my internal states - so, not even mindreading me in the present, but telling me what I will be thinking and feeling - is unnecessary and, in specific often confused.

You seem to have met certain kind of resistance to your ideas and then assume you understand what anyone is like when you encounter them.

There are people out there who use the word know, but also rapidly realize that what they thought they knew they didn't.

So, when I encounter then, sure, they come at me with assumptions, but then they have feedback loops which lead them to rapidly get off their positions.

You can have people who religiously avoid 'know' for example. But end up continuing the pattern of assumptions. They don't recognize anomalies very quickly, despite their epistemological position and use of language.

This is sets off warning bells in me.

I appreciate the situation's effects: online, words on a screen, philosophy forum - the last entailing tendencies to have positions on logic, reason supposedly versus intuition, what parts of the brain are honored and so on.

Your need for certainty comes out clearly in this suggestion that allowing for certainty in others that are equally deluded in its existence harmonizes with. You like those that are like you, all fear. The comfort of similar beliefs is dangerous. — Chet Hawkins

Completely missing the point.
They do not have the same beliefs and this is reflected in their language.
To me it's like you want to teach used car salesmen (taking that metaphorically) NLP and more cognitive science.
And given that those people already exist, I get my warning bells despite whatever cosmetic dress up they are wearing.
To me focus on the dress up is fear based because it assumes we need people to use certain words. I get it: raising the issue around words may help some people begin to notice a pattern you and I notice. It can be a starting point to question not just practice but what is going on in them.

But the project is not actually noticing what is going on. It presumes this kind of reformative dialogue could EVER get at the roots of the problem.

I don't think you understand the fear not being noticed in your assessment of the situation. This approach is not going to get at the roots of the problems.

In part because they are not going to listen. But also the why, the what is going on ontologically that keeps them from listening AND why if they listened we just get a new layer over the problem. We get slightly more sophisticated problem makers.

I hear a lot of 'this is your fear'. But I experience someone who has not even faced certain fears, lecturing about fear. Fear denial is a problem.

And yes, I see that you are confident in you system of feedback. You'll hear those warning bells from fear also. But the denial is built into the model your presenting. And then the moment you are denying fear you are also denying anger and desire. For example. I am not saying that is the only direction these denials flow.

None of this means that I think nothing can be done or hands have to go up in despair or a sense of futility or that mine do.

When I explore my environment I do not find any room for doubt that the things I perceive there are actually there. — Janus

Understood. Thank you.

I should have added that radical or global skepticism can be entertained, but not without holding some things certain, from which it follows that such skepticism cannot ever be what it purports to be.

So, when I look at my hands I cannot but be certain that I have hands, and the kinds of 'evil demon' or 'brain in a vat' objections hold no water for me, I just can't take them seriously and I don't believe anyone bar possibly the mentally ill really does either.

radical or global skepticism — Janus

I do not agree with that position either.

It is obvious that your eyes see and that the objects are there, and are real. That's not where the uncertainty is. It's in this, my expression of that hypothetical event, and, with respect, it's in yours. We do not disagree that when we look we know and see that we have hands. As to what "your" or simply "knowledge" of that event is, that's where we differ.

If "my" skepticism about that must be relegated to "radical skepticism," so be it. I would then believe there are some who do not understand radical skepticism and think it entertains the foolish idea that you can't be certain you have hands. (Who knows, maybe what you're calling Radical Skepticism is just misunderstood. I haven't studied it well enough to know).

I'll consider whether, and how best to discuss this further. Either way, your OP was perhaps more interesting to some than you might have intended/expected. Sincerely, Thank you.

It is obvious that your eyes see and that the objects are there, and are real. That's not where the uncertainty is. It's in this, my expression of that hypothetical event, and, with respect, it's in yours. We do not disagree that when we look we know and see that we have hands. As to what "your" or simply "knowledge" of that event is, that's where we differ. — ENOAH

It's not apparent to me just what your skepticism consists in with regard to the example. Can you explain?

If "my" skepticism about that must be relegated to "radical skepticism," so be it. — ENOAH

I don't see how your skepticism in this example could be radical or in other words global, I think it is possible to play at doubting, in the radical sense, anything, but I don't think it is possible to doubt everything at once or that such doubt based on merely imaginable alternative possibilities, whose only quality that could recommend them is that they are not logically contradictory, is significant or interesting. For example, I might claim to doubt I have hands by citing the possibility that I am a brain in vat or being deceived by a demon, but those possibilities depend on their being brains and vats or deceptive demons, so I can't at the same time doubt the existence of whichever of those I am using to support my radical skepticism.

Either way, your OP was perhaps more interesting to some than you might have intended/expected. Sincerely, Thank you. — ENOAH

I appreciate your kind words, but I can't take credit for the OP. It was Chet's suggestion to start a new thread in which to question his position if I wanted him to explain his ideas. I think he has failed to explain anything. Anyway, thank you for your interest and participation.

Can you explain? — Janus

It requires a long and patient (I.e., on my part) explanation, given it appears "unconventional." Add to that my own limitations at translating my deepest reflections, many not necessarily fully processed (sorry, I know that sounds self serving and pretentious) into text, and, the fact that this is a shared space, you can imagine my challenge (I know, Im not the only one). And yet, my passion to share (which is autonomous, and runs through all of us. . . But Im expanding)

So, I'll give something brief and limited to one aspect of a much larger "picture;" leave it at that for now. Note. I'm trying to be surgical with my words, a skill I lack. I beg some play in the reader.

Sticking to the "I see my hands" example.
Yes we both agree there is a Real, and for the sake of discourse, "knowable" event. That is, in the presence of its being. There are real eyes seeing, real hand seen, all of which takes its place in the presence of being.

But in the instant that that event arises as a thought; specifically in our discussion, the instant it becomes the object of knowing, it (or our real conscious attention to it (?)) "ceases" to be, and "enters" (not literally. Organic consciousness, which naturally attuned to being present (eyes--see-ing--hand) has "its" attunement displaced) is now attuned to becoming ("something"); that is, to no longer really "experiencing" that "knowable" real event (long forsaken), but to constructing it. And that construction process is what we are arguing about as knowing. And that is what I say requires belief and is necessarily not 100% certain.

Even for something as lightening speed as seeing your hand. I say, yes, "you" know this because "you" were there. But you're not there anymore, you're truly just making shit up. Best you can. But still. [Not sure I like the last bit, but wouldn't want to cheat you out of it, should you wish to "attack"]

Oh yes absolutely. I have in mind Austin's comment that while word use should be the first word on a topic, it need not be the final one! — fdrake

Agreed.

I simply agree and in fact, one is well advised that wisdom, being far trickier than knowledge alone, is something handled in far worse ways than only knowledge is. I admit that up front. This is the first such accusation leveled and I simply acquiesce.

But we cannot immorally throw our hands up and start just cutting bait. Fishing is the real task. The 'throw your hands up' and cut bait approach is only fear side Pragmatism. "get er done' usefulness IS NOT the way.
— Chet Hawkins
And you haven't said I am throwing up my hands or suggesting we should. But just to be clear, I am not saying that and. — Bylaw

So, yes, you are saying that, as I define it. That means anything in the same pattern as 'but saying know or knowing is useful and understood by most' is effectively throwing your hands up and taking a short cut for efficiency and fait.

It sets up a pattern of continuous 'acceptable' incorrectness that is participated in by almost everyone. It's similar but not quite of the same flavor pattern as setting a speed limit so low on a road that the statement innocent until proven guilty gets flipped whether people realize it or not. It's either intentionally wrong (pure evil) or accidentally wrong (dumb evil). It would be far better to say, 'I left the lever in the up position.' as a claim, an assertion, rather than to say, 'I know I left it in the up position.' There is no need to make such statements that definitive anyway. Likewise to say 'I have 6 years of experience with programming in C# is better than saying 'I know C#'.

You are effectively saying, 'get er done'. Use that word I 'know' what you mean. But you really don't. It's all a matter of best precision.

If any of my emotions is not ringing a low hanging bell of alert, but instead is ringing a highly hung bell, then I must attend that ringing.
— Chet Hawkins
I think we may be close in approach when you say something like this. You are using intuition, perhaps even, for example, Interoception to do an ongoing monitoring. Fine. I appreciate when people can be up front about this. I think it is a problem when people think there is no intuition involved in their reaching of conclusions. That somehow they manage to do deduction, only, for example. Some kind of clean bird's eye view logic alone. — Bylaw

I mean, of course. I am the one advocating for intuition and desire as EQUAL to logic and reason.

I don't find it useful to follow rules that might good for most people to follow.
— Bylaw
That is a horridly immoral position to take.
— Chet Hawkins
No, it would be immoral to pretend that guidelines and rules must be universal. No one should drive because some have Parkinson's (metaphorically speaking). — Bylaw

We disagree here. Morality is objective and people's and culture's opinions DO NOT MATTER to that distinction. Such differences only serve as arguing points where there should be none.

Your example is horrendous and not relevant. You are being specific with your clauses and not making the moral rule generic enough to fit. The rule would be very general like,

One should only engage in tasks being aware of the risks involved and both being capable of performing to a minimum standard and being tested and certified by society as such, unless the activity is new and unknown which takes a much higher level of expertise in many areas.

Do you understand how that hierarchy is wrong? It is only really desire, fear, anger; as additive. That is the behind the scenes wrongness of that model. That is a fear-centric model.
— Chet Hawkins
Right or wrong it is present. So, you come out with your prescription. Some follow it. Now other people hear wisdom regularly instead of knowledge and the same problems arise. Or the problem is driven underground: correct words are used and the exact same interpersonal, intra-personal dynamics continue. You can wag dogs in the short term, but you're not really changing anything but the surface. And wagging parts of the body is actually more intimate than wagging the choice of words. — Bylaw

I get what you are saying and yes the moral action is harder and that is fine and partly the point. What some idiots are still going to do is not really the debate here. I am trying to get non-idiots to agree to a better truth approach.

The same problems seep out of the undealt with unconscious patterns and imprinting. — Bylaw

Yes-ish and not really relevant. The point is being made here in the rare air for people of a quality that say they are for that sort of thing to discuss. My guess is, if such people are not ready for it, then maybe the general public is not either, and that is really sad. Still, the general idea of the point is important enough for everyone to be at least exposed to.

Perhaps you have a program to deal with these also, but so far I see a focus and to me fear of certain words. They can certainly be problematic, but changing them is consmetic. — Bylaw

It's precisely not cosmetic. Cosmetic is a change on the surface that means little. This is not that. It's the reverse of that. Its addressing the problem of words that poison deeper understanding, specifically NOT cosmetic. Way to get that completely wrong.

Again, and for the thousandth time in this thread it seems, I will say that the usefulness of the distinction is the problem. It IS an expression of probability and not truth.
— Chet Hawkins
Sure. Probability of what, however?
We all have to place our bets on the actions and beliefs of others, as well as ourselves. — Bylaw

And we should never say 'know' about a bet. You're proving my point for me.

It is no violation of trust to suggest that each of us is not perfect.
— Chet Hawkins
Sure, that's a given in my outlook. — Bylaw

I know we agree on that point.

Correct. And suffering becomes greater with awareness. Now that I have warned you and that situation exists in the world, you will begin to see and understand more where it comes into play. It will rankle and tease you as an idea from the sidelines, until you make a better choice on its veracity.
— Chet Hawkins
I think predicting my internal states - so, not even mindreading me in the present, but telling me what I will be thinking and feeling - is unnecessary and, in specific often confused. — Bylaw

Nonetheless, I stand behind my belief as stated. It's bound to come up and soon, in everyone's life reading this thread.

You seem to have met certain kind of resistance to your ideas and then assume you understand what anyone is like when you encounter them. — Bylaw

Granted, I, like everyone, makes assumptions. The difference is that I call that awareness and belief and not knowledge. You should to.

There are people out there who use the word know, but also rapidly realize that what they thought they knew they didn't.

So, when I encounter then, sure, they come at me with assumptions, but then they have feedback loops which lead them to rapidly get off their positions. — Bylaw

And I encounter almost nothing but that. Meaning the word know is no more useful in reality, and actually less useful in almost all cases than them saying they believe. I mean, really, you are proving my point over and over again. Don't you KNOW that?

You can have people who religiously avoid 'know' for example. But end up continuing the pattern of assumptions. They don't recognize anomalies very quickly, despite their epistemological position and use of language. — Bylaw

Some do and some do not. But neither one of them actually knows.

This is sets off warning bells in me. — Bylaw

Just like the word know does for me whenever I hear it. It becomes a lesson in humility for the speaker in almost every case. Nope, you didn't know did you?

I appreciate the situation's effects: online, words on a screen, philosophy forum - the last entailing tendencies to have positions on logic, reason supposedly versus intuition, what parts of the brain are honored and so on. — Bylaw

It's much less 'parts of the brain' and much more intent.

Your need for certainty comes out clearly in this suggestion that allowing for certainty in others that are equally deluded in its existence harmonizes with. You like those that are like you, all fear. The comfort of similar beliefs is dangerous.
— Chet Hawkins
Completely missing the point.
They do not have the same beliefs and this is reflected in their language.
To me it's like you want to teach used car salesmen (taking that metaphorically) NLP and more cognitive science.
And given that those people already exist, I get my warning bells despite whatever cosmetic dress up they are wearing.
To me focus on the dress up is fear based because it assumes we need people to use certain words. I get it: raising the issue around words may help some people begin to notice a pattern you and I notice. It can be a starting point to question not just practice but what is going on in them. — Bylaw

I just want them to understand two points really:

1) No one really knows things so just say 'I believe that ...' instead of know.
2) Just because no one knows anything does not mean that one person's ideas are not better than the other ones.

But the project is not actually noticing what is going on. It presumes this kind of reformative dialogue could EVER get at the roots of the problem. — Bylaw

You'd be surprised. Language effects great change. So changing language can do that as well.

I don't think you understand the fear not being noticed in your assessment of the situation. This approach is not going to get at the roots of the problems. — Bylaw

I believe that you are right in that. But that is not the point. The point is that my point is better, even if it will not be useful enough to work (and it still would slowly).

In part because they are not going to listen. But also the why, the what is going on ontologically that keeps them from listening AND why if they listened we just get a new layer over the problem. We get slightly more sophisticated problem makers. — Bylaw

Yes, but progress is incremental and we need to start taking steps.

I hear a lot of 'this is your fear'. But I experience someone who has not even faced certain fears, lecturing about fear. Fear denial is a problem. — Bylaw

I have no idea what you are referring to now. I embrace fear and since I have great anger, I can balance a lot of fear so it does not get over-expressed. Over-expressed fear is what I am arguing against. That is a fear approach with not enough balancing anger or desire.

And yes, I see that you are confident in you system of feedback. You'll hear those warning bells from fear also. But the denial is built into the model your presenting. And then the moment you are denying fear you are also denying anger and desire. For example. I am not saying that is the only direction these denials flow. — Bylaw

You are entirely incorrect about what I am denying.

Greater wisdom, greater balance, is actually more of each emotion. That part of the point of my model. And this higher fear, still in balance, is better. It IS more critical and more expectant, as you perhaps rightly point out. I am challenging people to be ... BETTER.

None of this means that I think nothing can be done or hands have to go up in despair or a sense of futility or that mine do. — Bylaw

If you give in to 'how things are', human delusions, as opposed to truth, that is exactly what that means.

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

The following quotes are Chets replies to my comment above and the italics are my latest responses for clarity.

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

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

When I talk about "relevant realms of reality," I am referring to the different environments a person regularly encounters, such as where they were born or where they live now. The range of these influences can vary greatly from person to person, and they carry these influences with them every day. These places shape our daily lives and experiences, influencing our views, actions, and the decisions we make. I was thinking of reality and how it hosts a collection of experiences that are lived through and from and by the pov of the person in a specific location, environment, time, circumstance. I think where a person spends their day to day life, geographically matters and a boundary exists for each person to be considered "their relevant realm" meaning the diameter, the range of comfortable living where you travel to how far do you spend away from "home" each person has a different radius, a reach. A reach meaning like its not possible to affect a person outside of my realm because our existences never cross paths.

Chet you say, "Belief DOES have to exist in any choice, any act, any purpose. Either that or the definition of belief is wrong/not-what-I-mean-by-belief."
to which I want to make clear, Yeah I am with you, I just tossed the salad a little hard and over dressed it. WILTED. Here is fresh: I am seeing a problem though when "beliefs" are the excuse to justify acts or behaviors that are noticed when certain outcomes take place.The intention is what I was saying does not need a purpose, the individual has purpose and should be judged morally in how the use intentions. Intentions change to fit into the individuals perception of reality and the reasoning to justify the acts that support beliefs can be judged right and wrong. I think a ground exists to be able to judge right from, and the behavior from those consequences can determine and create beliefs that change projections potentially. What happens when people have false beliefs and they are purposely placing them to avoid even having to justify themselves in their beliefs...like i said in the link, morality is justification itself. They appear to be a moral agent of good faith, hope, and religious beliefs but by putting that "belief" or "fake belief" or "reason to make belief" in order to AVOID justification so they can hide their actual intentions.

Then you went here and I want to defend myself a bit, "The outcome IS NOT EVER the cause and effect. That is because there is error in the choice. The objective nature of a consequence leave it surprisingly unrelated to the belief or intent. Your statements here are part of consequentialism, a deadly lie."
I spoke no deadly lie and I dont speak for consequentialism. That is judging right or wrong from the outcomes. I am saying that judging from just outcomes is NOT going to work. I never said that actually...What I meant when I said, (causality, the nature of cause and effect) is NOT grounding enough to be the base alone to judge outcomes without more details surrounding the purposes of the person in their relevant realms in reality. In their reasons, truth, their experience, it should be noticed in the way they lead their life. The outcomes are foreseen not to be judged morally from there, you are misunderstanding my goal. The outcomes are how the person handles the consequences after being judged, a foreseeable reaction. Behavior displays emotions in action! But yeah my statements were not explaining consequentialism thats the problem, when the place people judge from is wrong, and what they judge is also wrong. How can you say "your statements here are part of consequentialism, deadly lies" but admit that my comment is just becoming "word salad" to you? At that point, it would be better if you just swallowed the bad lettuce for what it is or perhaps just decline tasting it. Instead you spat out my word salad right back out. YES CHEF!

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

Well I lean towards thinking that perhaps while beliefs are influential and "the cause" they do not set the parameters for objective morality. Instead, they serve as a reference point, helping assess whether our intentions and actions are in harmony. Our daily existence, too, is framed by the geographical context of our lives—the places we visit, where we were born, and where we reside. Each individual operates within a "relevant realm," a comfortable living range where their influence is most potent, and beyond which it wanes. I never said consequential outcomes, I am saying foreseeable outcomes of the future because humans are predicable. How they handle consequences is only a part of the outcome to be predicted, and the predictions are far from vague, undemanding but can turn out wrong. But they also sometimes turn out right, in the same way. I am not worried about what happens when the unlikely becoming likely, I am talking when the unlikely become real. Or when what is "likely" does not become real. Something is becoming real and is it coming from the belief as the cause? Do you mean the cause as in the drive the motive? Does the cause see an end in the acts to come from the specific belief?

"We all understand, unless we are being intentionally obtuse, that belief is something you fear is true, desire to be true, or that you reason is true based on sensory data and experience. These are the three paths of wisdom, fear, desire, and anger (being). It is more useful to approach belief that way than in any of the ways I read about on that link."
I am not approaching belief at all, I am approaching morality by imagining if there is a common place where judgements are verifiable and in a proper place to be made from and held accountable from/viceversa. Morality can be verified in the justification of a belief that is true and shown in the intentions, behaviors, act and choices that are available.



EDIT: addition to this comment posted 11:10pm, as I am reminded that you have mentioned before in your thread "Happiness and Unhappiness" an assertion that is relevant here, I believe.

"It is my 1st assertion that happiness along its entire continuum is evidence for morality. It is in fact the only evidence possible for morality. The basis of the happiness result, either more or less happy, is the consequence of choice/action. So, the only causal agent in the multiverse is free will. I do not want to debate determinism here. I can, but that is not the point of this post. So, please despite your reservations, assume free will is true."
I thought your model was great and spot on. I followed what you presented in the thread and am relating it to this thread like this:

Acts/choices > both have consequences > pushes the HAPPY button (more or less- the basis) >Happiness scale (decisions, personality based? behaviors, moods, states? Who is dealing with happiness and how? subjective well being? how individual handles emotions) >more or less HAPPY because of who we are and virtues(balance the scale)> Happiness (more or less)

Say three different fear based people (random, no correlation) and they all three make decisions/act/choices regarding a similar task...then of course from the choice, all three differently justified their morality in how their virtues play out together by having more or less happiness as the consequences?? The consequence is not about the outcome, here is that where I was scrambling the salad?

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

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

HUH? I meant like these predictions of outcomes are doable and can be replicated, for instance Fitness Functions*, what good is it? I am defending the uncertainty when I said that, I could be more clear next time...I am saying the awareness is gained, some are built for it others are not. Predictions are just the truth that was always to occur anyways....

*A fitness function is a particular type of objective function that is used to summarise, as a single figure of merit, how close a given design solution is to achieving the set aims. Fitness functions are used in evolutionary algorithms (EA), such as genetic programming and genetic algorithms to guide simulations towards optimal design solutions.[1] per wikipedia

"Just by chance you will get some things right. Granted that is no credit to you. But over time, you intuit those bits and then in humility you step forward with awareness that was always there anyway. Just living, the rote force contained in the body, with its patterns of effort well known and unconscious to you, is still a very large portion of good baked in."
CREDIT to me? For WHAT? Cmon, I am not lost on this comment but I dont know why you add the credit remark. The rest has been obvious stuff to me. Fine with it.

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

ME? Hmm, thats it! You got me...... :eyes:

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

Yeah you are right but isnt that almost obvious? I pretty much served that up in my word salad...if not,it was served in my latest response. This explaining is not so much word salad, its more dense...a word sundae is what is could be! Messy, but you should get through it before it melts!! Or get the napkins ready! Anyways, it should speak for ME a bit better. You spoke loud and clear, chet!

Chet--You said also, "The cause is a belief, only and always. The belief is partly in error, always. But the belief side is informed by the ideal of perfection, sensed erroneously, but still sensed. Over time this process narrows towards perfection and that again is evolution. But the sensors and the choosers other inputs to choice, other beliefs, all causal, are all flawed and by degrees."
I am wondering, like narrows towards? like "focuses in" on perfection...or like simplifies to perfection. Narrows towards could meaning the process is guided by what aids and bouncing off how many things? Dont have to get into evolution to clear up my questions here...

It sets up a pattern of continuous 'acceptable' incorrectness that is participated in by almost everyone. — Chet Hawkins

You're making me responsible for everything. That is tucked into the word 'it' above. You are hallucinating a future where you and like-minded have managed to change everyone's mind about the use of those words AND you believe the consequences of them doing this, should you succeed, will be the ones in your mental images. You are then comparing this image with the image of what happens if this particular change does not take place and putting that on my table. k You have approaches to improving things. I have approaches to improving things. I haven't set of a pattern of continuous acceptable incorrectness. We find ourselves in the middle of a situation, with an incredible array of causes and systems. We can choose to reform or revolutionize or adjust or....and so on......different parts of the whole, putting our energy in those parts and in those ways that match our values and where we can have the most effect, in the direction we want things to move.

We disagree here. Morality is objective and people's and culture's opinions DO NOT MATTER to that distinction. Such differences only serve as arguing points where there should be none — Chet Hawkins

I haven't weight in on cultural differences.

Your example is horrendous and not relevant. — Chet Hawkins

It's extreme. I often use extreme examples to get a foot in the door. In the realm of epistemology, of self-awareness, or introspection, of intuition and so on, there is an incredibly vast range of skills sets and approaches. I am not going to follow rules, unless the consequences of breaking them are so negative, that are put in place for people who are far away from me on the spectrum in the relevant skill set.

I'm not going to stop using metaphors or analogies because many people misuse them. As a kind of parallel example.

I get what you are saying and yes the moral action is harder and that is fine and partly the point. What some idiots are still going to do is not really the debate here. — Chet Hawkins

What some idiots do is part of the real world where I live. This is not a side issue. And to be less harsh...the real world includes what happens when people are given cosmetic language based changes but don't really change. I live in that world. I am skeptical about these kinds of language-based reformations, for reasons given in previous posts on this specific language reform you are proposing.

Yes-ish and not really relevant. The point is being made here in the rare air for people of a quality that say they are for that sort of thing to discuss. My guess is, if such people are not ready for it, then maybe the general public is not either, and that is really sad. Still, the general idea of the point is important enough for everyone to be at least exposed to. — Chet Hawkins

My point was that I think it is misleading to propose this kind of reformation since it is not the source of the problems. Even the epistemological naivete is not.

It's precisely not cosmetic. Cosmetic is a change on the surface that means little. This is not that. It's the reverse of that. Its addressing the problem of words that poison deeper understanding, specifically NOT cosmetic. Way to get that completely wrong. — Chet Hawkins

Are there language-based reformations that have eliminated evils?

And we should never say 'know' about a bet. You're proving my point for me. — Chet Hawkins

The point we agree on.

Nonetheless, I stand behind my belief as stated. It's bound to come up and soon, in everyone's life reading this thread. — Chet Hawkins

And here you are making my point for me.
'It's bound to come up.' This is an expression of certainty. 'everyone's life'. You can tell me that 'really' you never mean 'know' but I experience you are exactly as certain as the people who do. In response to my saying the mind reading is unnecessary you use bound and everyone.

Will my interaction with you have any effects?
Will my interaction with someone who uses 'know' have any effects?

How often? Has the likelihood increased because of your attitudinal change and no longer using 'know'?

Has the attitude actually changed and in what way do we see this change in you?

How will we in Philosophy Forum notice the differences between you, in dialogue with us, and someone who uses know?

I can certainly find people who use 'know' who mind read
and stand by their mind reading and present their positions without qualification and who in response to my criticism or questioning start to tell me about my emotions and how these lead to my not accepting the truth of their beliefs. And I can find people who don't do this who use 'know'.

To boil that down. I can't even tell if it's cosmetic in you.

1) No one really knows things so just say 'I believe that ...' instead of know.
2) Just because no one knows anything does not mean that one person's ideas are not better than the other ones. — Chet Hawkins

I thought you believed this but it's good to have it clearly written.

You'd be surprised. Language effects great change. So changing language can do that as well. — Chet Hawkins

There may well be an example in the past, but if you have a specific one, share it. And, of course, even if there isn't one in the past, I'm not ruling it out, but it's not my main objection.

Greater wisdom, greater balance, is actually more of each emotion. — Chet Hawkins

I agree with this. But what this actually looks like and if someone is, as a specific individual evaluating themselves correctly...that's a different issue.

So, to focus on what we seem to agree on, we both seem to see positive things about fear, desire and anger. We wish to have these in balance. We also value intuition and my sense is we both see intuition where others think they are going on some intuitionless immaculate logic unsoiled by intuition - and likely have poor intuition about what they actually are doing in their minds.

These are not small agreements, so I think it's good to emphasize them.

Intuition and emotions are often denigrated in philosophy forums, directly or implicitly.

And there can often be this implicit or explicit post-Enlightenment judgment that really it's best if these things are weeded out of everything from epistemology, science, politics, interpersonal interactions, discussions and so on - and with some real-world horrible trends where actually modifications through social pressure and even technology are trying to be put in place to eliminate emotions and intuition.

It sets up a pattern of continuous 'acceptable' incorrectness that is participated in by almost everyone.
— Chet Hawkins
You're making me responsible for everything. — Bylaw

Well, yes. VERY indirectly we are indeed responsible for everything, each of us, as in we are all each other really, when the objective truth is uncovered. That does not mean of course that subjectively some of us are not more responsible than others, especially in the case of their own personally scoped immoral choices.

That is tucked into the word 'it' above. — Bylaw

Well! When I see formulations like this sentence, I know (ha ha) that we are in for a real treat. Let's see where this goes.

You are hallucinating a future where you and like-minded have managed to change everyone's mind about the use of those words AND you believe the consequences of them doing this, should you succeed, will be the ones in your mental images. — Bylaw

Yes, that is what imagining a better future is about. It's important not to dip into Consequentialism in either way amid this endeavor. I admit that this is only my belief at present and I have stated my case as to why. This has advantages. That is, until society tries IT (<--- the terrifying it) my way, I can kind of stand on ceremony and keep appealing for sense and wisdom. If - all of society (a bit more terrifying for real) - were to adopt this idea theory and try it, they would either become enamored of it in short order as the right way mostly, or they would all be like, we prefer being foolishly certain, ... please bring back 'porch monkey' as a thing. No monkeys nor porches were harmed forming this paragraph.

But I would be remiss, if, in seeing a better way, I did not engage in the then morally responsible behavior of at least suggesting a better way be tried, DESPITE ANY AND ALL DIFFICULTIES in bringing that better way about. And further, amid this same thought, it is not required that such changes are immediate or all-or-nothing, because frankly that is the same stupid sh*t as the idea I am fighting against anyway, certainty, and it criminal order-apologist problematic nature.

You are then comparing this image with the image of what happens if this particular change does not take place and putting that on my table. k You have approaches to improving things. I have approaches to improving things. I haven't set of a pattern of continuous acceptable incorrectness. — Bylaw

I get it. Most of history is the blind leading the blind. Why should now be the exception?

Still, we try things and dare to take risks because that is the only way to confront mystery. We have to have the SPINE to do so and this spine is kept in good shape by testing its limits frequently. I played 23 games of volleyball yesterday, half on indoor hardcourt and then half later in the day on sand. Even in my prime that would have been a trick. And of course these games were not to that level of competition. But at age 58, let me tell you, my spine was tested. In some ways it was found wanting. But I made it through and oddly I am only marginally sore today. The point is proceeding apace with what is 'known' is a disaster in most cases, because what is 'known' IS NOT KNOWN. And growth lies in the direction of that which is UNKNOWN always, anyway. So backing off on any and all importance of 'knowing', especially since that 'knowing' is delusional, is wise.

We find ourselves in the middle of a situation, with an incredible array of causes and systems. We can choose to reform or revolutionize or adjust or....and so on......different parts of the whole, putting our energy in those parts and in those ways that match our values and where we can have the most effect, in the direction we want things to move. — Bylaw

Our 'values' are mostly horridly polarized foolishness. One has but to take a casual cursory glance at todays court proceedings (if the term proceed means anything other than 'get er done') to witness the rather pointless chicanery that passes as 'leadership' in the United States.

There are so many levels of immoral nonsense piled on top of one another in any 'system' of today, that to suspect something as clearly esoteric as 'proceeding' or 'progress' is the height of reckless optimism.

We disagree here. Morality is objective and people's and culture's opinions DO NOT MATTER to that distinction. Such differences only serve as arguing points where there should be none
— Chet Hawkins
I haven't weight in on cultural differences. — Bylaw

I know (ha ha). I am aware of that (better). Please forgive my fit of whataboutism because I think it's clear neither one of us is convinced by the arguments of the other. We have both stated our case in many ways. Whataboutism is all thats left. I'm looking into the well dressed strawman closet at this point. Nod's as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?

Your example is horrendous and not relevant.
— Chet Hawkins
It's extreme. I often use extreme examples to get a foot in the door. In the realm of epistemology, of self-awareness, or introspection, of intuition and so on, there is an incredibly vast range of skills sets and approaches. I am not going to follow rules, unless the consequences of breaking them are so negative, that are put in place for people who are far away from me on the spectrum in the relevant skill set. — Bylaw

Amen brother Bylaw! Preach! Rules are for order-apologists. Real beings take responsibility for all their actions and beliefs and therefore are free to break poorly conceived or situationally inaccurate rules. Isn't having a spine wonderful? Has mass, occupies space. Yep! I guess it matters. Even a chihuahua can stand its ground with a mean loud attitude. And that IS real.

I'm not going to stop using metaphors or analogies because many people misuse them. As a kind of parallel example. — Bylaw

Yes, they allude to a strawman with a strawman analogy. Great ... delusional presentation of other delusions. Where does it end. Just give a machete! It's getting to be too thick up in this jungle.

I get what you are saying and yes the moral action is harder and that is fine and partly the point. What some idiots are still going to do is not really the debate here.
— Chet Hawkins
What some idiots do is part of the real world where I live. This is not a side issue. — Bylaw

It is though. Despite protestations to the contrary, the idiots WILL GO where various pipers lead them. The smart and wise among us ARE INDEED capable of steering them wisely or not. The trouble is now meta though.

That is that these leaders are INTENTIONALLY steering into stupidity. And we all know how hard a house of cards is to build. It's trivial to knock it down. We are thus beginning to realize that the infrastructure of wisdom must be addressed. That is what my book is really about. We need a new paradigm that shows clearly what wisdom is, objective, and we need to develop clear and procedural steps to arrest leadership on the left (chaos-apology), the right (order-apology), and the extreme middle (anger-apology, or laziness).

As is both sides are conspiring to keep idiocy safe. Thanks so much! Where was that machete again?

And to be less harsh... — Bylaw

We need more harshness, not less. The delusions of pleasure and peace are costing us dearly right now, and will continue to be a increasingly difficult problem. See the enlightened visionary future of Wall-E as a footnote of likely dystopian scenarios. Idiocracy was a little too street/stupid.

the real world includes what happens when people are given cosmetic language based changes but don't really change. I live in that world. I am skeptical about these kinds of language-based reformations, for reasons given in previous posts on this specific language reform you are proposing. — Bylaw

I am skeptical as well because we have not really tried all that hard, ever. This is new paradigm territory. I admit it. As OneMug mentioned, the problems of today will take better, as in meta level better solutions. Muzzling sheer forms of stupidity is probably required. That is not a full on muzzle. We love the puppies. But if they keep biting themselves or others, they get the cone of shame.

Yes-ish and not really relevant. The point is being made here in the rare air for people of a quality that say they are for that sort of thing to discuss. My guess is, if such people are not ready for it, then maybe the general public is not either, and that is really sad. Still, the general idea of the point is important enough for everyone to be at least exposed to.
— Chet Hawkins
My point was that I think it is misleading to propose this kind of reformation since it is not the source of the problems. — Bylaw

Yes it is (one source). You just do not want to admit that. It's ok. It remains a big source of the problems. Fear's need for certainty in so many ways is a/the fear problem. Its manifestation across all behaviors is similar in pattern to JUST THAT.

Even the epistemological naivete is not. — Bylaw

I agree there. We are talking about intent and intent led by over-expressed fear. Naivete is best discussed as an innocence of sorts. That is balanced as a default. So, I am NOT talking about naivete when I speak of order-apology or fear over-expressions. I am talking about living in fear such that you need to know and prefer to speak as if knowing is a good idea, as opposed to accepting the risks of life and living it that are required to be wise. In humility, we assert that we cannot know, so we proceed then carefully. Those wanting to say they 'know' are those wanting really NOT TO KNOW, finally, so that they can effectively pretend to know and mess things up without ... care. It's a baked in short-cut aim. Fear does not want to admit this.

It's precisely not cosmetic. Cosmetic is a change on the surface that means little. This is not that. It's the reverse of that. Its addressing the problem of words that poison deeper understanding, specifically NOT cosmetic. Way to get that completely wrong.
— Chet Hawkins
Are there language-based reformations that have eliminated evils? — Bylaw

Pre-1900 citizen(idiot): 'Has an airplane ever flown?'

And we should never say 'know' about a bet. You're proving my point for me.
— Chet Hawkins
The point we agree on. — Bylaw

We cannot KNOW. Therefore a statement or assertion is only a belief. If we agree on that point the thread is mostly concluded (and not to be a stickler for reality checks but, in my favor).

Nonetheless, I stand behind my belief as stated. It's bound to come up and soon, in everyone's life reading this thread.
— Chet Hawkins
And here you are making my point for me.
'It's bound to come up.' This is an expression of certainty. — Bylaw

You're only comical at this point. 'Bound to ...' is certainty? Not at all. It's like saying 'highly probable' or 'I believe'. So, no, again, I am not proving your point, but you are proving mine, again and again.

'everyone's life'. You can tell me that 'really' you never mean 'know' but I experience you are exactly as certain as the people who do. — Bylaw

I've aready taken great pains to explain the difference between anger-confidence and fear-need-for-certainty. Either you get it or you don't, but, no, you're again wrong, it is a casual thing for me to admit as I have in so very many posts that I KNOW nothing. I have only belief. I speak confidently, yes. Do not confuse confidence with certainty.

Saying 'I know' is the fear types way to stand with the confident anger types. It doesn't work really. Ask most females. BEING (anger) and risking the bad confidently, IS NOT the strength of fear. Digging into every detail properly is not the strength of anger. But since reality rarely requires extreme over-expression, and in fact over-expression is actually by definition unwise, anger is a BETTER default case than fear is. Anger is the emotion of balance wherein risk is accepted in the present moment of now. That is where we are by the way. What was 'good enough' in the past, what we 'know' amid delusion, is not proper for a more moral footing. It lacks spine, in general, and attends to a laziness actually of awareness based in already-knowing (delusional).

In response to my saying the mind reading is unnecessary you use bound and everyone.

Will my interaction with you have any effects?
Will my interaction with someone who uses 'know' have any effects? — Bylaw

Only time will tell. Assuming I hold true to patterns of the past and place emphasis on and participation within a community of people that at least pretend to understand my arguments, we can revisit the question in 5 years and that would indeed be interesting.

How often? Has the likelihood increased because of your attitudinal change and no longer using 'know'? — Bylaw

Almost (<--- pay attention to that word) certainly! Attention to detail (fear side value) is something I do have, despite it being perhaps less formalized than some classical philosophy academics here. That is in fact endearing and proper for a more balanced approach that allows said supposed philosophy to reach the general public. So, by all means, continue with the fear-side separation and be separated thereby. That is at cross purposes to the aim of wisdom.

You might argue that my wishes for the change in language are the same. But they are not. One is doing what is hard for wise reasons. And the other is doing what is easy for unwise reasons. Again, either you get this, or you don't. That is in the nature of wisdom and next steps. Next steps always seem 'too hard' to the weak. I am ALSO sometimes the weak, so this is not an admonishment to be taken too much to heart. I'm just not weak on this issue.

Has the attitude actually changed and in what way do we see this change in you? — Bylaw

You have but to re-read this thread and even this post in it to discover, if you really look, at how carefully my words are chosen. I am adept at this and post extremely detailed (elongated lol) posts that actually explain my arguments but in plain English so everyone can understand. I am no ivory tower academic or Pragmatic sell-out.

If you are asking how I feel about this the answer is as strongly as I have felt about anything in my life. I have not had children though so, some feeling strength may be beyond my ken. But having interfaced with vastly differing seas of humanity over 58 years of life, I admit in my defense that I rarely find others as passionate as myself about things they supposedly care deeply about, including their own children.

How will we in Philosophy Forum notice the differences between you, in dialogue with us, and someone who uses know? — Bylaw

I venture to say frankly that most people who have interacted with me here consider me in some way different than almost anyone else they have ever had dialogue with. If not, well, that still speaks volumes about ... them, and their observational powers.

I can certainly find people who use 'know' who mind read
and stand by their mind reading and present their positions without qualification and who in response to my criticism or questioning start to tell me about my emotions and how these lead to my not accepting the truth of their beliefs. And I can find people who don't do this who use 'know'. — Bylaw

And missing the point or trying to label my admitted guesses as to your future as 'bad', just cuz is not an argument either. What is qualification to you? What level of acumen must be shown that can transcend some external third party certification or credentialing? I have made an extensive career out of beating the many Phds I work with, not by intent, but by blunt force trauma, as in they could not solve the problems, so I was called in to do so. As few of them were worth their papers. Most by far were not even close.

To boil that down. I can't even tell if it's cosmetic in you. — Bylaw

Well, again, time will decide. Risk is acceptable. Opinion does not really matter. Truth does.

1) No one really knows things so just say 'I believe that ...' instead of know.
2) Just because no one knows anything does not mean that one person's ideas are not better than the other ones.
— Chet Hawkins
I thought you believed this but it's good to have it clearly written. — Bylaw

I have been fairly clear throughout this dialogue. Many would call my clarity blunt even. It has been fun.

You'd be surprised. Language effects great change. So changing language can do that as well.
— Chet Hawkins
There may well be an example in the past, but if you have a specific one, share it. And, of course, even if there isn't one in the past, I'm not ruling it out, but it's not my main objection. — Bylaw

My great intuitive leap on this issue would be that the military mandates much of its chatter. The reason is that lives depend on the second by second efficiency of what they say in the field. If you watch Star Trek Discovery its so comically bad in that way. The original series had military adjacent speech and was therefore far more accurate and sensible. The foolishness of blather seen even on the last few shows would have them all dead in nanoseconds in that future world. But luckily for those bozos the writers are infinitely powerful and on their side, as a pandering group of sycophants. In roleplaying games I had to put segment limits on the syllables of soliloquies for the carebear drama lovers of today's roleplaying world, because if they said one tenth of what they say in combat situations they would lose initiative, suffer several surprise attacks and be dead and bleeding on the floor or gassed out on the ethereal plane before anyone understood their ridiculous self-indulgent nuances.

(easing off the trans-axle now. I'm just grinding metal)

Greater wisdom, greater balance, is actually more of each emotion.
— Chet Hawkins
I agree with this. But what this actually looks like and if someone is, as a specific individual evaluating themselves correctly...that's a different issue. — Bylaw

A matter of debate for sure. And here we are.

So, to focus on what we seem to agree on, we both seem to see positive things about fear, desire and anger. We wish to have these in balance. We also value intuition and my sense is we both see intuition where others think they are going on some intuitionless immaculate logic unsoiled by intuition - and likely have poor intuition about what they actually are doing in their minds.

These are not small agreements, so I think it's good to emphasize them. — Bylaw

I must agree. Thank you for stating that. Yes.

Intuition and emotions are often denigrated in philosophy forums, directly or implicitly. — Bylaw

I would say the culture in such lofty forums is decidedly order-apology, foolish in the extant need for certainty, devoted to rather pointless qualifications, and entrenched in esoteric language that is a balzing impediment to their de-facto goals as 'bringers of wisdom'. But, ... yeah!

And there can often be this implicit or explicit post-Enlightenment judgment that really it's best if these things are weeded out of everything from epistemology, science, politics, interpersonal interactions, discussions and so on - and with some real-world horrible trends where actually modifications through social pressure and even technology are trying to be put in place to eliminate emotions and intuition. — Bylaw

Exactly, and the HUGE, world-shattering truth is that logic and thought are all fear-based. Fear, last time I checked was not only an emotion, but it is properly and very improperly denigrated. If thought were properly understood as a manifestation of fear, their bulwark of delusional certainty would properly collapse.

Let's end this here, and I know you still disagree with 'only' and my language oversight suggestions. But we really have hashed it out well.

If you would please, take the final word on this to which I will not respond (unless you lose all perspective and go full nutcase). I have faith!

How will we in Philosophy Forum notice the differences between you, in dialogue with us, and someone who uses know? — Bylaw

The irony is that @Chet Hawkins constantly talks about things which are undecidable, and hence mere matters of opinion, as though he knows the truth concerning them, while refusing to use the word "know".

Others addressing like questions will acknowledge they are just expressing their opinions and will reserve the word "know" only for those (countless) mundane cases where we actually do know.

I think the intellectual honesty belongs to the latter group.

EDIT: I could sum up on part of my objection as: his approach reinforces the idea that when someone says something it must be literal, contain truth (conduit metaphor), be a kind of permanent engraving and is not, for example, expressive, functional, meant to elicit or any other kind of including-language act. It end up contributing to a number myths about language, one of which he is trying to eliminate.

I think it's a tricky issue. In a certain abstract sense I share, I think, a number of beliefs in common with Chet. I differ about the prescription for reasons I've raised in a number of posts. He has at times taken this to mean that I give up. But my problem with the prescription of eliminating 'know' and 'knowledge' is not just that I think this won't happen. I also understand that he considers this only a part of his solution proposal. My main problem with it is that I think it actually will simply create better used car sales reps.

I'd say I also object on philosophy of language grounds: that placing so much focus on the words presumes a philosophy of language that I think is both misleading and limiting. It takes language literally - me thinking in terms of all the dead metaphors and other tropes hidden in literal language. It likely connects to the conduit metaphor for language/communication and it's biases - Reddy
[url=http://] http://www.biolinguagem.com/ling_cog_cult/reddy_1979_conduit_metaphor.pdf[/url]
as opposed to a diverse set of actions in the world, a dynamic set of options that do things, rather than or in addition to merely containing things. Along with some ideas about what truth is: mirror/representational (only).
And his approach it seems to me reinforces people's assumptions about themselves and their beliefs: such as that their beliefs are conscious and what they (the people) assert (necessarily), that our beliefs are in words, that words are literal.
I also think it implicitly understimates the problem. He may not, but I think his prescription and approach does.

So, when I look at my hands I cannot but be certain that I have hands — Janus

I'm wondering what you're saying here. Are you saying that looking at your hands (sensory observation) provides a justification for the belief that you have hands? There is no epistemological justification for the belief that you have hands. To know this is the case ask yourself if there is any good justification for doubting the belief that you have hands. If there are good reasons to doubt, then justification makes sense, but if there are no good reasons to doubt, then justification doesn't make sense. The connection between knowledge and doubting is an important epistemological connection. This is an important point that Wittgenstein makes in OC.

Knowing and doubting require good reasons when we speak epistemologically. Given what you wrote previously you seem to agree, at least, with some of this.

How will we in Philosophy Forum notice the differences between you, in dialogue with us, and someone who uses know?
— Bylaw

The irony is that Chet Hawkins constantly talks about things which are undecidable, and hence mere matters of opinion, as though he knows the truth concerning them, while refusing to use the word "know". — Janus

The way you express this is jumbled. I DO NOT state ever that things are 'undecidable'. That is your word and very wrong. Everything is decidable, just always partly wrong. That is the nature of belief.

I do not refuse to use the word 'know' as I have shown in many cases in this thread. I bet I wrote it more than anyone else did. So again, your precision is incredibly bad (kind of my point overall). The precision of 'knowing' is relevant. The implication and the way the public (and even you guys) treat the word 'know' and its derivatives is not as functional as you all believe it to be. Instead, it causes problems. The more precise truth is that knowing is only belief.

Others addressing like questions will acknowledge they are just expressing their opinions and will reserve the word "know" only for those (countless) mundane cases where we actually do know. — Janus

No, you actually do not know. And every time you claim to, you prove that point.

I think the intellectual honesty belongs to the latter group. — Janus

If the word 'intellectual' means deceiver and or delusional, sure. But I have met quite a large class of people that are what I call 'intellectual' and they are more dedicated to truth, you know, wisdom, ACTUAL philosophy, instead of the stuffy academic version, a deluded stiff interpretation of what is and is not intellectual. If you believe you are on the honest side of that debate, it will be very hard to help you.

I prefer to proceed properly from assumed casual ignorance rather than delude myself that I 'know'. Even in trivial matters this stance makes a fine and useful difference. But in serious matters it blows away the conceit and 'assumed objectivity' of people incapable of being objective.

All Theory of Knowledge (TOK) statements on this issue are just ridiculous, as is the philosophical treatment to date for the difference between belief and knowing.

Otherwise respectable 'intellectuals' post and defend pointless arbitrary designations for words such as 'opinion', 'belief', and 'certainty'. It becomes increasing obvious reading their tripe that they have no idea and cannot agree between them on anything, except this:

Some words in language SEEM to mean CURRENTLY less certainty, and some words SEEM to mean CURRENTLY more certainty. That is just hogwash. Stop drinking it and the Kool-Aid.

There is a logarithmic function to awareness. There is no arbitrary line/break ANYWHERE on that line. The line is asymptotic to truth. It never arrives. This means you cannot know anything with absolute certainty. This means that to claim you do is very problematic, conceited and rather dully situated in terms of ACTUAL awareness. Speaking and acting in accord with truth and ACTUAL awareness is BETTER morally than not. Thus confusing people with arbitrary designations that then get interpreted by people vastly differently.

This DOES NOT empower used car salesmen to the careful observer. In fact, quite the reverse. Listeners will be more on guard now if knowing with certitude is off the table. Such types, used car salesmen are paragons of speaking in absolutes that are never realized (AND YOU AND OTHERS ARE DEFENDING THEIR CHOICE TO DO SO).

The world is risky and unsafe. Cling to your delusions at not only your peril, but the peril of us all, and ultimately the whole universe's purpose. That is my belief.

Are you saying that looking at your hands (sensory observation) provides a justification for the belief that you have hands? — Sam26

No. I'm not thinking in terms of justification. I just see my hands, feel them, use them, so I know I have hands. Doubt about it is impossible unless I buy into some silly artificial possibility like "brain in a vat" or " evil demon.

. I agree with you that eliminating the word 'know' from the lexicon would make no difference. That said, I do think that people often take themselves to know things which they really don't.

My issue is that we do know many things, so eliminating the word 'know' would be impossible in any case, because then we could no longer speak accurately about our experiences.

The way you express this is jumbled. I DO NOT state ever that things are 'undecidable'. That is your word and very wrong. Everything is decidable, just always partly wrong. That is the nature of belief. — Chet Hawkins

This is confused, If something is undecidable then we cannot know the truth about it. We can know the truth about many things, and these are therefore decidable. It doesn't follow that people cannot decide to believe they know the truth about those things which are undecidable—this happens all the time.

I do not refuse to use the word 'know' as I have shown in many cases in this thread. I bet I wrote it more than anyone else did. — Chet Hawkins

You know perfectly well that I meant that you do not use the word to apply to yourself. Of course, you must use the word in order to refer to the idea so that you can reject it. Your thinking seems quite shallow, but I don't doubt that it is clouded by some dogma or other.

I'm familiar with the teachings of both Naranjo and Gurdjieff, I have participated in the Gurdjieff Foundation in Sydney and completed two of Naranjo's 'SAT' workshops. The enneagram typology has some interesting insights, but life and people are not so configured as to fit neatly into such systems.

There is no epistemological justification for the belief that you have hands. To know this is the case ask yourself if there is any good justification for doubting the belief that you have hands. If there are good reasons to doubt, then justification makes sense, but if there are no good reasons to doubt, then justification doesn't make sense. The connection between knowledge and doubting is an important epistemological connection — Sam26

Hi Sam26, I am glad you bring this up. It is kind of confusing TO UNDERSTAND, and apparently not just for me to understand that statements like Janus' "So, when I look at my hands I cannot but be certain that I have hands — Janus," that are used NOT to defend "knowledge" but defend "certainty". I wonder the same thing,

Are you saying that looking at your hands (sensory observation) provides a justification for the belief that you have hands? — Sam26

because to me that seems like the efforts to defend "knowing" are largely misdirected when used in this sense. COMMON SENSE....where the absence of doubt is taken as sufficient grounds for certainty.

Are you saying that looking at your hands (sensory observation) provides a justification for the belief that you have hands? — Sam26


No. I'm not thinking in terms of justification. I just see my hands, feel them, use them, so I know I have hands. Doubt about it is impossible unless I buy into some silly artificial possibility like "brain in a vat" or " evil demon. — Janus

So Janus is onto something and Sam26 was wise enough to point it out... The distinction between certainty and knowledge is crucial.

G.E. Moore would argue that the knowledge of having a hand is as clear as day; it's a basic truth that doesn't need to be dragged through the mud of skepticism. It's like saying, "I'm certain I had coffee this morning,"—no one needs a signed affidavit from the barista to believe that.

On the flip side, Wittgenstein suggests that our game of doubting everything, including the existence of our hands, is like sawing off the branch we're sitting on. It's all fun and games until someone questions the existence of the tree. Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' whispers to us that there's a difference between knowing something for sure, like the presence of our hands, and just being stubbornly skeptical.

In epistemology, certainty is a state of no doubt, like knowing one has hands, and doesn’t need justification. Knowledge, however, is a justified true belief that requires evidence. Wittgenstein argued that basic certainties are needed to build knowledge. While certainty is immediate, knowledge seeks justification through evidence. Doubt is valuable as it leads to knowledge, but for certain truths, like the existence of our hands, seeking justification may be unnecessary. The relationship between certainty and knowledge involves understanding what we accept as true and what we justify, shaping our view of the world and our self-awareness.

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

I like this — Kizzy

@Chet Hawkins

EDIT 920 pm
I am now aware, I should have just edited my last comment and included in it the quote above instead of making it a separate comment. I'll remember that next time!

My issue is that we do know many things, so eliminating the word 'know' would be impossible in any case, because thenwe could no longer speak accurately about our experiences. — Janus

what is the issue THEN lets say, if I cant hear? We show, point, gesture...we emote, we react, we acknowledge, we affirm with gestures, faces, body lang. we move forward, we think, we believe...how do you "know" someone actually "knows" what they claim?....Do we question them, based on what? Your standards? What you accept, what you refuse to accept, what you tolerate, what you are determined--what you are WILLING to do to understand? What if no one questions YOUR certainty? How do you? Why bring up "knowing I have hands" ??? Why would you question your hands, why would anyone that SEES you question that? Why would anyone that can ONLY HEAR you claiming that you have hands, believe you? unless they can FEEL you, touch you...or do those that dont have hands, eyes, ears or those over distance communicating through a screen just have to BELIEVE in the fact they think they know you?

EDIT 1114 pm - In addition to my questions above: I wonder if we just have good enough reason TO KNOW what we DO NOT believe...why/how can we though without knowing a belief? Perhaps in "thinking we know" So then, do you know you have them...do we know you have them? Yes? Who needs to know?

I have no idea what relevance you think what you wrote has to the issue. Do you know anyone, or know how to do anything? When you are out and about, do you know whether it's raining or the sun is shining? If someone asks you, do you know where you live, what your address is?

there is no issue

So, you're just trolling then?