I will first say that I am attempting to 'adjust' my approach here. Even though there is one right objective way to proceed, some may not be ready for that. So here goes.

To reframe this to see if I am getting it right this would be something like: "I find all these murders unpleasant, you all do too. So let's not murder."

But then this seems to circle back to individuals' desires, or am I missing something? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No! You are spot on. Freedom is just another word for chaos and desire. So then, the only question and I do mean only in this case, is, can it ever be that all desire is moral? I think this is low hanging fruit, obvious, and deeply obvious, all at the same time. This answer has a lot of resonance.

But then we have to stop and actually think. Thinking is order. The combination of order and chaos is ... balance. I submit that the concept of balance as being 'more right' is correct. That is because it's low hanging fruit, it obvious, and deeply obvious; all at the same time.

Balance is wisdom. But dead with nothing happening is also balance and we would venture easily to say that such a state is not good. So we need balance in our final set of good things, but there is another factor that must be included.

Examining the 'dead' state, and that word is in quotes, we get the impression, right off the bat, that there should be more 'life' involved, more activity. What causes that assumption, that observation? Let's talk about why dead was in quotes. Dead was in quotes because the dead I am talking about is everything, all at once, the ALL is completely dead. 'God is dead'. And where have we heard that before?

So, rather than the 'dead' state, what should we prefer? The very living state. I mean we could infuse as meta gods that pile of dead balance with energy and start things popping. But more seems to be better, yes? SO, more, more, more! Pile in on. But there is now a firm caveat. Balance it!

What is it we want more of? Well we like this silly freedom idea. So let's start with more desire. We know desire is chaos, or you know, maybe we don't. We should, so I will continue as if. Desire can go in any random direction. We know people can want things that are 'wrong'. So desire is not only good, it is also evil. But in what percentages? It's balanced, of course, 50/50.

So we want more desire. What else? We like the idea of order balancing chaos so now we have to do that. Order as you probably know by now, in my model, is represented by fear. Fear is really all logic, all reasoning, all thought, all structure. All of these artifacts are limits. They behave according to the limit function in their use. Define a category, draw a line that otherwise does not exist. YOU, the chooser, is making this distinction. This restraint 'appears' because you imagined it exists. Thus YOUR order is born. Others may agree. The fact that they do so is problematic. That is because others may not agree. So, order is in many ways delusional. But for now, without getting too much deeper, we will add fear into the list of things that we need to have more, more, more of.

SO if we increase fear and desire they polarize rather quickly. And never the twain shall meet. The universe would be destroyed in the false duality. More and more individuals would add their choice to one side or the other creating something. That something is a 'mass effect'. And in this case we have some split universe of fear types and desire types. This is what happens. Even in something as real to us as politics, we see this dichotomy, thesis (desire), antithesis (reaction-fear). Something must exist as a force to cause synthesis. What is that force?

That force is anger. Anger says 'no' to fears. It gets big and it gets loud to push past fears. Anger says 'no' to desires. It gets aloof and unresponsive to desire. It says 'we do NOT want this, because we are already sufficient unto ourselves. We belong and we cannot be made to un-belong!' Anger stands its ground. But the trick to realize is that anger causes that ground to exist.

The mass effect of polarization of fear and desire is only undone with anger stepping in. Before anyone objects, there is anger led by fear and anger led by desire. That anger is impure and imbalanced. It is immoral. The purpose of the pure anger is to bring balance and of course it then cannot be led. If we arrive at the point of balance there is harmony and no is leading or following. The decision is agreed upon and followed by all. And if that following is not in action yet, then the first step is belief, the precursor to action.

So now, we have found a third to add into our more, more, more list. And this time we see how and why the list must needs be complete. Intuition 'feels' like this set is complete. The duality has become a trinary relationship. Fear, anger, and desire together, balanced and maximized. The word and concept and all of its procedural glory , 'maximized' was missing previously from our balanced idea.

So, the good, is balancing and maximizing fear, anger, and desire. Which is order , chaos, and the balancing force between them.

Please note that desire and fear must be balanced. That is level 1. But also anger must be balanced within itself to half support and half resist each. That is level 2. But DO NOT proceed. Why not? Why not suggest that there is then a third balance? That is because we already decided, or did we, that good is only in the direction of the maximal emotions. Why should be not talk about the level 3 balance? That is because the level 3 balance is the balance between good and evil. We do not want more evil. We want only increasing good. Is this possible? If we add in the third balance we become terrified that perhaps it is not possible and we just start grasping for the desire side more, more perfection, more good. But these both are imbalanced reactions, again imbalanced = immoral.

If we draw a line along the good evil axis and a line on the order chaos axis, what is the third axis to allow us to add equal volumes of fear, anger, and desire into the system mathematically? It is just an axis that contains the amplitude of each of these emotions in ever increasing amounts. (the third axis is also likely TIME. That is to say, as time increases evolution works its magic and more of the GOOD prospers, but that seems overly warm fuzzy). And the high side of the amounts is what is properly called GOOD. That 3d map is THE map of all reality. It is the emotional map which in turns out means it is also the map for physical reality. Why is that?

That is because with the addition of anger to our more more more list, we have created balance. The tension of balance is something we see in nature in every way. Functions come but then they must go. The tides come in and they receded. Apogee gives ways to Perigee. Intensity gives way to calm. The waves have troughs and crests. Passion comes and goes. Understanding is solid for a time and then overturned or a new depth of possibilities discovered as always present, meaning we never really understood in the first place, finally.

So, anger is responsible for the tension, the balance, between fear (order) and desire (chaos). This tension causes what we refer to as physical reality to 'spring' into being. I would say 'thus our universe is born' but that is not as cool as we would believe. Clearly these truths and forces predated the universe or let's say this, 'they always were the universe'.

So, what is takeaway from this ... 'thesis by accident' I just wrote? None of it is accidentally observed, I promise you. Only I just started to answer this post and accidentally was compelled to write it all by way of interaction.

The takeaway is that desire alone is an immoral leader to the chooser. The choose MUST morally include EQUAL amounts of fear and anger to arrive at the most good.

So, that being said, on we go.

What do we say to the sheep who says, "I personally enjoy the murders. Why should I follow this rule?" That is, what is the answer to the nihilists' question: "why is bumping bad?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Progress along the desire axis IS NOT NECESSARILY progress along the good axis. The question IS properly answered. Is there understanding though? What force is needed to push the result, the consequences, of choices, into the good direction? More anger and more fear are always the only right answer.

And in the practical sense, that we can better relate to, what is an example?

The addict is tied to their desire of 'one more hit'. The feeling that is had by 'a hit' is misrepresented as 'good'. So, desire can lie. Supposed happiness is not actually happiness. What is it? Why is it? Well, we already know (not really) but we are working on a theory that we need more fear and more anger. How does that translate and why? So, we can take several angles on this. First let's decide, using our model, that the happiness we feel IS NOT full happiness. It is some lesser variant at best and maybe even not happiness at worst. But it is compelling in the same way as desire. It is desire somehow. So how can this trouble be solved?

We must think. Thinking is ordering, adding fear. What is the danger? What should we be afraid of? Is following this desire bad/evil in some way. You bet it is. Addiction is destructive, rotting the self, and this is easily observed. Observation is awareness is fear. Logic is fear. Restraint of all kinds is fear. Thus we counsel the addict to stop wanting the drug. We make a case for why it is bad. I want to mention here that ALL desire follows this pattern. The drug addiction angle just makes it clear. There is only one desire that is objectively aimed properly. From any point in intent space that choice, that desire, is the one perfectly constrained (almost imprisoned but by choice) to the single line between the current state of the chooser and perfection itself. That is the OBJECTIVE GOOD choice. There is no other choice possible that is as good.

So we have made the case for fear. Yay! Even if you do not believe this rather free flowing non proof of these ideas, it can still be compelling to you. Compelling enough to suggest the cracks in other models, other confusions, of reality. This is a majestic observation I am about to make. It occurred to me just now, writing the above gerund, that gerunds themselves are a map to truth, in a special way. They remove the subject and object from the statement. They resonate truth in that way because subject and object are changeable, and the same; at the same time. Gerunds thus represent what properly of balance I am now going to say is necessary to make the model work.

The balance between order and chaos AT ANY POINT is just a first step in balance. Why? It is because we are not making ANY progress towards the good. The level 1 balance is static in relation to the GOOD. We already discussed that a prospective level 3 balance was a bad idea. That would just add more evil. So where is our progress?

Progress to the good is only possible if we can add more fear and desire. It appears, on the surface, that fear and desire are disinterested in that progress. It's only an illusion like all fear and all desire is. But, with skin in the game, with mass, something to feel the loss and the gain, we can proceed. In order to break the tie between each of these forces, fear and desire, they must be made to feel the overall trouble, good vs evil. They must be made, FORCED, to understand and want the right things. And the greater level 2 balance of anger shows these truths to them.

As anger rises, it can help fear hold immoral desire back, not by restraining it, but instead by forcing it to realize its own mistakes. Likewise we can step into the great mystery of the future by suggesting to fear that being calm and unafraid is just the right way to be, even in danger. So, get over your panic when facing the unknown. And since fear gets trapped into what it 'knows' (like a bunch of clowns in a clown car) when it really knows nothing; with anger balancing fear, we can proceed.

Each of the three emotions, and there are only three, works this way. In balance and with MORE of each we properly aim at the GOOD.

How does this finally relate to your murderous sheep?

Any self entity has a peer group. That peer group is equivalent roughly to it in terms of how it grows morally. There is balance. Disturbing balance, even on the surface, is something we just discussed as fairly suspect as wrong morally. The investment in time to arrive at any state is epic. And it does not matter what the embedded immorality of that state ... is. To deny that investment by eliminating a peer is immoral because it is an act of bad faith in the system of morality itself. By contrast, treating less evolved entities with too much preference is also ill advised. If the moral state of the new entity, new set of peers is superior, that greatness must be respected in some ways. This does not mean we treat non peers with immorality. So, we are then tasked to say amid peers and morally less advanced entities, which one is on the RIGHT path? So here again is the need to differentiate between desires, and not just the sheep that have them.

Your murderous sheep offers us no greater insight into its desires than 'it feel good'. Any truth can be taken to its limit and remain true. Delusion cannot. If the murder sheep represents good then its murdering ALL THE OTHER SHEEP has to be good. Is it? The non-murdery sheep if taken the same way has counseled 'don't murder other sheep'. If taken all the way that has to be GOOD. Is it? Notice that we are not talking about natural death here. Notice that living sheep can evolve and become even more than they were. It is ostensibly objective that same species murder is immoral. The temporal investment by evolution in that entity type is being disrespected. They who are thus afflicted are not 'paying it forward' properly.

And on we go ...

Is the answer "because that's what makes the most sheep happy?" But then why is this good? We could be like Nietzsche and denigrate the herd. Is the answer in human nature? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, not at all. The answer is an equation, a law of the universe, the GOOD, perfection, and its many ramifications if it is properly considered.

Human nature is just one of many such plateaus. It is special but humans are far too likely to treat it with too much specialness. When something becomes 'my precious' it can lead you to immorality very fast. here again is seen the delusional nature of many forms of desire, many aspects of so-called 'freedom'.

I guess an example for contrast might be helpful. Consider Plotinus. The Good is the first principle above intellect, the first principle responsible for (although transcending) being. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This statement is dangerous. Notice how in Plotinus' case he mentions intellect which is fear. He mentions being, which is anger. And he places the GOOD as transcendant. But since desire is not mentioned the risk is run that the immoral elements of desire are not properly treated by his far weaker model. If desire is not simply held as synonymous with the GOOD, the model is ... BETTER.

A sunset's goodness and beauty are according to its participation in being, rather than anything related to individuals. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a very weak statement. It has some elements of truth to it. And its a warm fuzzy, so people like to glom on to it. But it partakes of the same error as Plotinus' dangerous model. It venerates desire at the expense of fear and anger.

If I were a real teacher, I would ask for an essay into all the ways that the setting of the sun was good that are not merely related to its presence as beauty. In fact I would ask specifically that at least some of the work shown clearly relates directly to individuals to DISPROVE your assertion here. Such a task is not actually difficult. That is how weak the statement was.

Or we could consider Aristotle. There is a human telos, but rather than it simply being the ground for our preferences, it is also defines the perfection/actuality of a human life. Actuality is better than potentiality, so the life of theoria is higher (more divine), a greater actualization of freedom and purpose. However, this would remain true even if we had a horrible society, maybe something like A Brave New World, where no one agrees with this claim, because it isn't grounded in the individual(s). That is, what the sheep are currently saying doesn't determine the good. It's possible we could have a bunch of very vice addled sheep after all. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exactly! Aristotle is much more correct.

What is must partake of the good in many ways, but devotion to the good is choice only. And the good remains objective despite any and all choices we or anyone else makes.

If this is true, then faith is a belief in objective morality. Bad faith is a belief in anything else. And these beliefs are both by degrees. So, a person's belief is either moral OR NOT. At any time the state of any entity in belief is merely a summation of moral and immoral beliefs. We are not perfect. So we are non zero on our immorality. Judging what is objectively moral is the ONLY real worthy goal of life and this belief is the precursor to action, to being. Your murderous sheep is in more bad faith than the other sheep was. But that supposedly good sheep still spits its cud at little lambs while they eating ivy. I mean, the nerve!

There is more to the discussion on desire. Obviously the desire gives us some consequential feedback such that the murder sheep is claiming to 'feel good' about murder. The non murder sheep presumably 'feel good' as mentioned about refraining from murder. This causes confusion. We must clear that up to proceed.

All virtues are part of an emotion. In general, the classical virtues are born of one emotion mostly. But each emotion, and each virtue offers each of us, all entities, a result, a consequence of choice. And these offerings, these consequences, are additive. In other words each entity experiences happiness differently. And achieving one's desires in general IS A PART of happiness. But, if an entity is relatively unaware it will not realize that 'things are not as good as they could be'. Or maybe that entity does realize this and simply does want to put in the effort to make things better. Here we see again the relationship between happiness and effort.

Both desire and fear tend to seek ease. One seeks more of itself, the other less. And both call that ease. The beauty of these two statements is not easily understood fully. Anger also falls prey here. And anger is already different than the other two emotions in that it does not partake of the first duality, the delusional duality that still runs the show in today's world. Anger is better than that. But, it still falls to immorality here. In fact, anger causes this problem. That is to say, the sin of anger is laziness. What could be more synonymous with ease?

Thus we are led to a scary truth, a great truth, and a hard truth: A moral choice, the choice that shows us the most GOOD, is the hardest choice in all cases. The seeming does not matter. The seeming is your fear and your desire and anger even, lying to you that there is an easier way.

So each virtue causes this seeming with its normal contribution to happiness. If that happiness is still the most happiness an individual has ever known, they will kill, steal, cheat, do everything in their power, to keep it. They are unaware that there is a better way. We see this in movies all the time when an individual from a less moral culture joins or is captured by a group of a more moral culture. It takes time, but, the resonant happiness of the new more moral culture begins to sink in. And this is no guarantee. Some really murderous sheep will realize they 'just can't' be so moral. And they will still, even knowing they should not murder, murder. But that is a deeper level of bad faith, resigned to evil. Many and most will at least try to resonate the greater happiness within the new more moral group. What is this called, this 'greater happiness'. I call it GENUINE HAPPINESS.

Genuine happiness is the full or total happiness, all of it. It does not happen. But it does come by degrees. The more and more moral your choices are (and there is only one objective path to the GOOD ), the more of genuine happiness you will experience. It is true that many divergent paths are long and meandering ways to get to the GOOD also. But they are LESS THAN BEST and should be challenged as such. So, subjective morality is immorality.

By contrast, even the Kantian deontology seems to me to be grounded in the individual. The unconditional good is the good will of the individual, acting in accordance with rationality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is true, but, it avoids some of the point.
You only allude to anger here, balancing desire and fear. Your word 'grounded' is that allusion. Mass, matter, being, all are anger.

There is an overlap with the earlier, dominant tradition in that there, good behavior is also in accord with reason, but there is a strange flip where it is no longer necessarily the case that being good is good for you. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is not true.

The reason it is not true is that GOOD is universally GOOD. It is our awareness of it, desire for it, and embodiment of it, all three, that are constantly in error in some way.

For example one huge statement of challenge to fear, to Pragamtism is this statement that is true:
'It is better to die than to be immoral in any way and spread that corruption.'

A pragmatist almost cannot deal with that truth. In this lack of compliance fear is immoral.

Likewise desire has tests of equal truth and dread for them:
'What you want is not relevant, unless it is the GOOD, and that is one and only one thing, finally.'

These are paramount statements of truth that literally slap both fear and desire in the face. 'What you want, and death; neither of them matter unless they are in support of the only thing that does matter, the GOOD.'

Indeed, you sort of end up in a place where you're most praiseworthy when you are doing things you hate out of a sense of duty, which IMO is an indication that we sheep have begun stumbling down the wrong path. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, this is the flip side of the ideas that I am discussing. It is a great Pragmatists point of view towards all of these things, pesky moral questions, and living. That is be afraid when you do not desire something at all. And want more from your ideals than just a sense of duty. I like it.

I have heard the argument before: moral principles are simply an emotional reaction - just a sophisticated 'grunt' toward certain behaviours, all without having any real logical basis in itself.

I have a different answer - I liken it to cooking; in terms of what 'tastes good,' or 'tastes bad,' there are a range of possibilities. For instance, someone could literally find that a 'Big Mac' tastes better than a burger from 'Five Guys' - even though people generally prefer Five Guys to McDonald's - maybe even something like 10 to 1. This is simply a relationship between things like permutations of taste buds, or the release of brain chemicals that makes one 'prefer' McDonald's to Five Guys - or vice versa. — jasonm

Hilarious and flippant, but no.

Morality is an objective scenario. Perfection as an extant thing in the universe is the source of the emotion we refer to as desire. This is what pulls us into the future, all things, via evolution, it mechanism.

Opinion and subjective experience do not matter at all to objective moral truth. Truth does not change. Subjective human experience is still informed by objective reality, including morality.

The reason that people believe in subjective morality is essentially self-indulgent immorality, mostly.

This topic can be discussed much further, but effectively subjective morality is delusional and cannot exist. The 'proof' is a rather complicated thing. Happy to discuss if that is something you'd like to go on about.

In the same vein, whether abortion or euthanasia is right has a range of possible answers, and it is hard to say that such things are any less subjective than food, and might depend on things like brain chemistry as well. — jasonm

Not at all. Again, morality is objective. I am not saying I know the right answers about every moral question, but it is my assertion that there is always a singular right answer.

Another reason we are deluded into thinking there are many possible right answers is because we are at different places in intent space as a state when any choice is made. As such, although perfection is a single predefined point in intent space, the path to it differs based on the starting state. This confuses some people into a foolish belief in subjective morality.

However, with food, every now and then someone serves up something that is rancid. In such cases, we are no longer talking about different combinations of taste buds or brain chemicals - such food is almost universally foul to almost anyone's taste buds. — jasonm

This is a horrendous and laughable way to treat morality.

This also applies to human behaviour as well; every now and then certain people 'serve up' ethical behaviour that is 'rancid.' Then it isn't just certain sensibilities that this irritates, but rather it is behaviour which makes almost all of us 'sick.' — jasonm

You make no sense.

If you believe morality is subjective then your opinions about it to others does not matter. They get to choose their morality in your pov. So you have no right to judge anyone that way. But you are lucky. Morality IS NOT subjective. It's objective, so, in that case, (the real case), you are then allowed to judge others. It is logically incoherent to believe that morality is subjective and that some morals are better than others. There is no basis for judgement unless morality is objective.

Such behaviour would then be far less subjective than what such camps would like to admit. — jasonm

Precisely. That is because subjective morality as a belief system is wishful thinking that is immoral.

There is no state of being that is inherently bad or inherently good.

Morality is only a resonance with choices made in the now. Choices are the only things capable of being good and bad (evil).

It is true that current states hold weaknesses and flaws based on all former choices since the dawn of time that brought that state into being.

The thing that has the state always also has choice. Humans are only one example.

So the state can make good choices harder, but that is only a delusion, a seeming.

Choice or free will is actually infinite in power. Our delusional or limited awareness (same thing) is self limiting and thus we deny ourselves SOME of the immense power of choice. Fear has a great role in imprisoning our choice, and it is our choice to empower fear with belief in such a way.

But all states and scopes are also part of delusional awareness. That means that the arbitrary decision to limit the scope of analysis to less than ALL, is effectively ... immoral. Proper awareness always factors ALL into the equation of analysis.

This eventually through some stuffy set of permutated assertions yields the Unity Principle, my label. This is the 'oneness' concept, or loosely, 'you are me and I am you and we are both cats, all cats, and the Swedish telephone system.'

So, if this universe has any purpose at all, it must be moral. That is the goodness of maybe even all choices is somehow relevant. And no choice is immune from participation in this effect. All choices are morally scrutinizable.

To declare or assert that any choice has no moral weight to it is ... immoral. This neat and tidy truth is no accident as it turns out the universe is quite an intentional place.

The balance of force impacting any scoped chooser is immense and infinite. This empowers free will and the infinite choice. But lacking perfect awareness, perfect form, and perfect desire we fail all the time and in all three ways. The nuances of each of these supposedly only three ways are infinite so you could be obtuse and say infinite ways instead of just boring old three. I am not good with holding on to infinity but three, yeah, ok, I can do three.

It is part though of the nature of perfection to permeate all reality in every way and to all depths. Therefore what color shirt you wear this evening is a moral choice. You can fail at that choice and your choice be less moral than it should be. No Godhead arrival for you. We will forgo the jail thing, because prisons are delusional, but go back two spaces, do not pass Go and do not collect 200$.

That is all (for now only, duh)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can read your mind and I invented pants!

So, I think you misunderstood me here. — ENOAH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although your intentions may be good, your responses are elongated, disrespectful, sporadic, intellectually lazy, and unsubstantive; and I say this with all due respect, as a person that wants to see you both grow and develop into better philosophers :kiss: . Please try to see it from your reader's perspective: they are reading an essay which conveys a plethora of different ideas (all of which are unrelated to each other) in incredibly confusing, convoluted, and incoherent ways...all while hurling insulting comments at them. How do you expect them to react? — Bob Ross

The fact that you and other 'readers' cannot connect connected ideas is not the fault of the poster, in any case. That goes as well from me to them and vice versa. I can accept these 'rude' comments about my efforts in stride, a tactic I advise you and many other fear-bound intellectuals (scoff) on this and many other sites to earn as wisdom. I like it that you have the strength to say such things and ostensibly mean them. I do not demand that you stop. You should not either.

The fact that you describe my posts as 'elongated' is hilarious and in the next breath you say they are not rigorous. It is the need for complete rigor that requires depth and breadth in these communications. And besides, I like being elongated. It's readiness.

I do make every effort to see things from the poster's perspective. And when I understand the errors, not just of their post, but their general approach to the issue, which is the greater problem, I do feel called to step in and show another, an actual other, perspective. All of these fear-side perspectives you label as intellectually rigorous partake of the same (low) quality of failing as a pattern. That does not discount their positive contributions (high) from the same approach. You are absolutely failing to understand the value in the anger and probably the desire side approaches to truth.

Of course fear calls anger rude. Quelle surprise! But anger has just as much to offer to truth seeking. So if fear really wants to be aware, faite attention! I call you coward. You call me rude. So what? On we go and everything is fine. I am substantial and I can take the blow. Can you?

We are, all of us by turns, cowards, lazy, and self-indulgent; the three major immoral mistakes. Again, so what? Every single choice and idea or belief partakes in these types of errors without exception. Your post is rude. What of it? I am undaunted! What is daunting about my posts to you and why? Address the points that were made OR if you can't understand them or prefer to pretend that there are none, then simply go about your business. Without attention, I assure you, I will get bored and move on anyway, engaging with others that do choose to resonate.

Again, the fact that you refuse to understand my posts leaves me asking you to re-read your own admonition here. Your ideas are not 'actually rigorous' as opposed to intellectually rigorous.

Conformity is a path aspect of fear-based immorality. Reality accepts all comers. THAT is actually rigorous. Which are you representing? Truth and wisdom include all.

This forum is all about a congregation of people willing to learn from each other with genuineness, respectfulness, and intellectual rigor. It is completely fine and understandable to have different views than other people on this forum, but I would strongly suggest that you try to make your future comments more concise, respectful, and intellectually rigorous. — Bob Ross

That is the trouble with supposed intellectual rigor. It isn't, finally. You can argue then that my approach is not then finally actually rigorous, and I would simply agree. That's how compromise really works. We are both failing some and we both contribute some. It is not just my views that are different, but my entire approach in all ways, and THAT is still good. Or, let's say it's better than ostracism or dismissal, the classic retreat of the cowards. Fear guy: 'We cannot convince you of the lies we have all settled for, so, exit stage left, if you please!' So kind in this immoral act!

I strongly suggest you grow a spine. That is a respectful idea. This is a place where mere words and concepts are bandied about with ... apparently something less than reckless abandon and passion, with something less than an attention to the incredible difficulty of approaching perfection. That something LESS thing is the typical miasma of limits born of fear.

I am totally with you all in the love of wisdom. I venture to say it matters somehow MORE to me, as I am willing to fight through any storm to earn it. If I am qualified as a storm, the ones who label me as such are not paying attention to the dread dangers of real reality enough. My avatar says it all in some ways. This cartoon is deadly serious and yet finally rather innocent and harmless. I lost the Illudium Q-36 space modulator. And I never really fired it yet. But in theory, it works great!

And here I am trying to spread what I do believe is wisdom. Have I come to the right place? Do they love wisdom here enough to grow in a new way?

By 'intellectually rigorous', I do not mean that you need to have extensive knowledge of the topic-at-hand; but, rather, demonstrate in your responses that you took the time to reflect on the topic and the person's post you are responding to (as opposed to just ranting). It goes a long way, when the reader of your response can see that you took the time to genuinely reflect, dissect, and contend with their ideas. — Bob Ross

And actually I have. The fact that you again do not realize this because I still disagree is telling, but not really of me, if you follow. I find here, as usual, people cannot escape their cage of patterns. And of course fear is more prone to that error in the first place. But that is just hyperbolic unconcise blather to you, isn't it? Who is not taking the time to really research and consider other points of view here? It is not me, I assure you.

I will say, that even in this community I have found people who are willing to flow with truly new ideas rather than ones that conform to a fear based need for comfort and propriety. 'Stuffy' is really a good word for the typical responses, but it's ok, there are people who get it, even here. And that means, it must have SOME value. Or at least, some few people actually take the time to treat a new approach as valuable. Someone might say something like 'We are not going to solve the problems of today with the same (lack) of wisdom that created them.' But you know, that OneMug guy, he was just a poser; a janitor really, a clerk. And yes I paraphrased, so sue me.

I say none of this with any ill-will intentions nor disrespect in mind: as I said before, I want to see you both become great philosophers (: — Bob Ross

I could repeat the backhanded compliment to you. But why stand on ceremony? It is not disrespectful to state a belief that nonsense is nonsense, even if that nonsense is not nonsense. All we have is belief. If the intent was genuine, then that is still ok.

Great philosophers LOVE wisdom. They DO NOT have to be intellectually rigorous. They do not have to be polite, although I admit I appreciate politeness as well. Assuming you are the example of politeness here, I could suggest someone is elongated, disrespectful, sporadic, intellectually lazy, and unsubstantive; and say that with all due respect.

We are all in the process of becoming better philosophers. That is at least a nod, albeit unintentional, to a better future together. I desire that as well, just intentionally, and for us all, admitting that work is needing from all parties, none of us having arrived yet at perfection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morals are justification itself. — Kizzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The threat of all forms of immorality is many fold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes to both and that is always true.

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

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

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

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

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

I am assuming that is two sentences.

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

Maybe my view is obstructed on purpose. — Kizzy

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

I'd like to believe. — Kizzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intent does not always reflect belief. Stated belief does not always reflect belief. Choice or action and consequences do not always reflect belief. So belief remains an implausible interpretation from every angle that it is viewed or considered. We all understand, unless we are being intentionally obtuse, that belief is something you fear is true, desire to be true, or that you reason is true based on sensory data and experience. These are the three paths of wisdom, fear, desire, and anger (being). It is more useful to approach belief that way than in any of the ways I read about on that link.
— Chet Hawkins
sniffing this out, ill be back...release the hound dogs! Belief does not have to exist in the purpose on intentions, but the purpose of the individual with intentions linked to beliefs can be traced to a foreseeable outcome but that outcome itself is both cause and effect...the causality is also not grounding enough to be a base alone, perhaps it is when intentions are properly judged and considered along with the causality in a relevant realm of reality. — Kizzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite the delusions of all people, morality is the only thing going on. Morality is objective and true. All acts are only of course moral acts in that they SHOULD be judged morally. There is no act, no substantive state, that is not merely a succession of choices amid free will. This universe is alive. It emerges life as a natural law. The seeds of life exist as choice down to the sub-atomic level. Choice is effectively the only act thing in the universe. States are all the consequential arrangements of matter and energy and we will say consciousness as well. Really though we could JUST say consciousness because matter and energy are both just forms of consciousness.

These and other seemingly absolute statements seem sort of at odds with your prior claims that no one can know anything and that any pretension to knowledge is a sort of delusion/vainglory, no? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not at all. As I have already mentioned many times in this thread, stating things with confidence as a belief IS NOT stating that one has objective knowledge. The assertions are hypotheses only and anyone may argue against it at any time.

That is incorrect.

All morals are forced to be hypothetical ought-judgments. We cannot know. So all beliefs are effectively hypotheses.

But I take it you don't actually know if what you've just. claimed is true or not. Is it only a hypothesis? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, clearly.

Weren't you saying something about how people shouldn't speak/write in such a way that they seem certain about things, but instead should always piously acknowledge their ignorance. But then... — Count Timothy von Icarus

I did not say that at all. I said the use of the word 'know' and its derivatives is inclined in the wrong direction. People more often take that to mean certainty. Stating your beliefs confidently is not the same thing at all. And here I am again saying, 'everything I say is partially wrong, by admission. What I say is my belief only. I am willing to argue the points based on evidence and reasoning.'

Consequentialism is a dangerous lie. Deontological morality is the only thing that makes any sense...

The good is objective.

Etc.

look like knowledge claims. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I didn't use the word knowledge and they are only beliefs. Still my belief is that KNOWLEDGE IS ONLY BELIEF. That's the thread title. Is there something I said that denies that belief? No. What it means is that the colloquial use of the term 'know' and 'knowledge' partakes in our culture of too much certainty when it is only belief. I again, despite my ringing confidence, claim to know anything at all. I do claim to have strong beliefs and speaking JUST FOR ME I do not confuse those two things. Others do all the time.

All thinking is incoherent.

You should have led with this. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You do not say why. You leave others to fill in the gaps AS IF your point is merely obvious. You believe in certainty then, at least more than I do.

All thought is belief impelled. Fear is only an emotion. The patterns it believes it understands are NEVER understood totally. So all thought is belief and all belief is partially in error. Any error corrupt the purity of the belief as objectively proper, so, it is then improper in all ways, simultaneously.

This means it is a tautology that all thought is incoherent.

What a REAL Pragmatist philosopher Scotsman should say is that probability is very high on the side of the least incoherent thoughts in existence. And that probability again shows up to help us accredit sources of thought and thought statements as less incoherent. That is also something I believe.

But you didn't go there. You just wat to discredit the notion that I believe as a tautology with japes and saying I am rude. Imagine how rude I believe it is for everyone not to notice what I am really saying and how it does work. Your incoherence on this is greater than mine. That is a belief, not a thing I know. And in any case, knowledge is only belief.

Aside from the piety of declaring ignorance, you might want to consider not being so rude lol. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is often consider rude to stand in the way of stupidity, but, I find myself called.

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


Understood and agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since we do not know what reality is
— Chet Hawkins

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now we must face the future. We must 'give in' to the call of perfection as we realize via judgment that anger should not just squelch desire. It should use judgement to determine when to leap in
— Chet Hawkins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enneagram was conceived from a search amid meaning taking all the best examples of wisdom throughout the world and combining them. There was the way of the monks, the yogis, and the fakirs. These were taken loosely to be fear, anger, and desire
— Chet Hawkins

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

They are so not Jungian, at least to me.

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

Introduction

What is the breadth of the moral sphere? The common view is that some acts are moral, such as giving a starving man food or committing murder, and some acts are non-moral, such as taking one’s dog for a walk.1 You should immediately notice that by “moral” I do not mean morally good; by “moral” I am not talking about the opposite of immoral. — Leontiskos

This is incorrect as a disclaimer. Even by your ensuing description you ARE talking about moral goodness. The word moral effectively means, good. If you assert otherwise, it would make no sense (to me).

Instead, when I use the term “moral act” I am referring to an act that belongs to the species of moral-and-immoral-acts; or an act that belongs to the species of good-and-bad-acts. More simply, I am referring to an act that is susceptible to (moral) scrutiny, evaluation, or judgment. A moral act is an act that can be legitimately (and, thus, morally) judged good or bad; a non-moral act is an act that cannot. — Leontiskos

Exactly. So this explanation refutes your own assertion from before that you do not mean morally good. You DO mean that as explained here by you, just now.

There are two theses that I am prepared to defend regarding the breadth of the moral sphere. Both of them will clash with modern language and intuitions, for I am convinced that modern thinking about the moral sphere is confused and perhaps even incoherent. — Leontiskos

All thinking is incoherent. That is not the relevant point. The relevant point is intent. Indeed moral scrutiny should be applied to all choices, past and present. The consequential patterns of the past that lead to the various states of now are informative to new intents. Consequentialism is a dangerous lie. Deontological morality is the only thing that makes any sense.

Thesis 1: All human acts are moral acts

For Aristotle, virtue and teleology permeate all aspects of life. For Aquinas, any act that flows from intention is a moral act.2 In order to understand why all human acts are moral acts we must understand the difference between applying scrutiny to an act and applying moral scrutiny to an act, for above I noted that a moral act is an act that is susceptible to (moral) scrutiny. Or in other words, we must attempt something that very few are willing to attempt: we must attempt to define the moral. — Leontiskos

There is no difference.

Despite the delusions of all people, morality is the only thing going on. Morality is objective and true. All acts are only of course moral acts in that they SHOULD be judged morally. There is no act, no substantive state, that is not merely a succession of choices amid free will. This universe is alive. It emerges life as a natural law. The seeds of life exist as choice down to the sub-atomic level. Choice is effectively the only act thing in the universe. States are all the consequential arrangements of matter and energy and we will say consciousness as well. Really though we could JUST say consciousness because matter and energy are both just forms of consciousness.

Defining the moral and acting morally is the entire purpose of the universe. Perfection is the end goal, and the good is the only right path to get there. That path is objective from any point in intent space.

Before we do that, what is meant by a “human act”? — Leontiskos

This question is ridiculous. The happenstance that allows us to take conceit in the moral agents in the universe with the greatest known scope of moral awareness is indeed humans. But to argue in any way that this situation is special is foolish and indeed conceited. The entire universe is alive and other moral agents across the universe are highly probably more advanced morally than even humans are. But even still, that matters not at all.

The GOOD is objective. So, human choice and choice of animals and indeed choice of rocks are all flawed by poor choice. Nonetheless the call of desire towards perfection is the guiding light as well as the genuine happiness that resonates from choices with more and more such happiness the closer those choices are to the path leading directly to the objective GOOD.

those actions are properly called human which proceed from a deliberate will. And if any other actions are found in man, they can be called actions "of a man," but not properly "human" actions, since they are not proper to man as man. — Leontiskos

This is only nonsense. There is no need whatsoever to separate acts by chooser type. That has no relevance to moral content or strength.

moral acts properly speaking receive their species from the end, for moral acts are the same as human acts.
— Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IaIIae, Q. 1, A. 1 & A. 3 — Leontiskos

I agree

A human act is any act that we do on purpose; any act that proceeds from a deliberate will. — Leontiskos

This is a fine thing to say. But I think when you say it you are not meaning it the right way and most people will also fail to mean it the right way.

What does 'deliberate will' mean? Is just living an act of deliberate will? If not then no, your definition is wrong. I say living itself is an act of deliberate will and that death in fact only happens because that will is immorally insufficient.

All weakness of any kind is immoral. It does not matter if this is offensive. The truth is often offensive to people that refuse it. So be it. Not being perfect is immoral. This state of delusional immorality is why, sensing the extant truth of perfection as reflected in the emotion of desire, evolution happens. All efforts towards perfection are finally about choosing to eliminate weaknesses.

Objection 3 to the first article gives the complement of human acts, “But man does many things without deliberation, sometimes not even thinking of what he is doing; for instance when one moves one's foot or hand, or scratches one's beard, while intent on something else.” In his reply to objection 3 Aquinas says, “Such like actions are not properly human actions; since they do not proceed from deliberation of the reason, which is the proper principle of human actions.” — Leontiskos

This is nonsense.

My model helps me to understand. Fear, anger, and desire are all three consciousness. They are all three involved in choice. The choice to be, anger, is still a choice. The choice to comply with instantiated patterns, involuntary acts, as you just gave an example for, are indeed still choices.

The power of choice is effectively infinite. But a weak will (desire in general) is hard pressed to carry out 'deliberate' acts that violate the tendencies of the weak current state. We are slowly evolving into more capable moral agents. That is a law of the universe. It is happening everywhere and it is, from what we can determine so far, reasonably rare that what we call life happens. As mentioned, that is a misunderstanding. The call of desire, the existence of nothing but consciousness in the universe, empowers free will for every particle in existence. The STATE of that particle determines the difficulty of choice. So it is nigh unto impossible for a rock to play poker for example. But that is only nigh and not finally actually impossible. Understanding and accepting these extremely rare cases of truth delving is a better way than what most people have of being aware what is going on.

Most people will not be comfortable discussing rocks that choose. But any other assertion is more than just incoherent. Everything in this universe is choosing constantly. And moral scrutiny DOES apply to rocks as well as humans. I realize I am probably alone in this assertion. No worries.

So what does it mean for something to be moral?3 In keeping with the foregoing, I will define morality by reference to a definition of moral judgments. A moral judgment isdf a non-hypothetical ought-judgment. — Leontiskos

That is incorrect.

All morals are forced to be hypothetical ought-judgments. We cannot know. So all beliefs are effectively hypotheses.

Strictly speaking, a moral act is an act that involves a moral judgment, but for the pedagogical purposes of this thread I am primarily thinking of a moral act as, “an act that is susceptible to (moral) scrutiny, evaluation, or judgment” (see above). — Leontiskos

Which is every single act in the universe that has happened, is happening, or will happen. No narrowing down of the scope occurred here. If you think it did, you are only deluding yourself and those that believe you.

Admittedly, there is a difference between an act that involves a moral judgment and an act that is susceptible to moral judgment, especially on non-Aristotelian theories. This difference should be largely irrelevant, although I will tease out some of the implications as we go.4 — Leontiskos

There is no difference.

For clarity:

A moral act is an act that involves a moral judgment, or an act that is susceptible to moral judgment.
A moral judgment is a non-hypothetical ought-judgment. — Leontiskos

I disagree as mentioned.

What then is a non-hypothetical ought-judgment? An ought-judgment is simply a judgment about what to do, past, present, or future. For instance, “He should have done that; she oughtn’t do this.” But what does it mean to say that some ought-judgment is non-hypothetical? It means:

He ought to do X if he wants Y.
(including:)
He ought to do X because he wants Y.

A judgment that is non-hypothetical is not therefore a judgment that is necessarily non-instrumental. “He ought to do X because he wants Y,” is instrumental but it is not hypothetical, for it involves no hypo-thesis. — Leontiskos

That is blatantly incorrect on the surface of the issue. The ought word means the ought statement is by its very nature hypothetical.

The objective nature of morality cannot be known by us. We are left with hypotheticals only, belief.

A variant of this sort of judgment could be written, “He ought to do X because he ought to want (or attain) Y.” A non-hypothetical ought-judgment is a judgment in the simplest sense, a judgment “all things considered.” A hypothetical ought-judgment merely presents one consideration that is intended to influence the inevitable all-things-considered judgment which will eventually take place. — Leontiskos

These distinctions are not relevant, is my assertion. The one consideration is itself a belief. So, it is already hypothetical, meaning all consequences are also hypothetical, even after they occur. They are all hypothetical because we may experience them and they may be objective, but, we cannot know them objectively, so we are left adding hypotheticals to hypotheticals. There is nothing else going on.

Let’s take an example:

You ought to fix your car. (non-hypothetical)
You ought to fix your car if you want to travel to work. (hypothetical)
You ought to fix your car because you need to travel to work. (non-hypothetical) — Leontiskos

Incorrect. Both 'ought' and 'if' are instances of word use that show the hypothetical state.

Let’s focus on the latter two examples in this set of three. These two judgments are not saying the same thing. The non-hypothetical judgment involves a secondary judgment that traveling to work is necessary, and the hypothetical judgment prescinds from this secondary judgment. Only non-hypothetical grounds can result in non-hypothetical conclusions. The statement, “You ought to fix your car if you want to travel to work,” is hypothetical because the antecedent of the conditional is not being asserted. Therefore it is not a judgment about “what to do” simpliciter (all things considered). Instead of saying, “This is what should be done,” it says, “This is something you should take into account when deciding what should be done.” — Leontiskos

This whole process is messy and covered in errors to me. The definitions of need and want should be addressed. For example your second proposition should be reworded to say, 'you ought to fix your car because you ought to travel to work. There is no such thing as a need to travel to work. We speak incorrectly in so many ways that language is becoming a barrier to understanding in this case. We employ SO MUCH DELUSION on a regular basis that many and most here will rise up against me just for pointing out how insanely silly it is.

If you want to travel to work, then you should fix your car.
You want to travel to work.
Therefore, you should fix your car. — Leontiskos

Is it you that is fixing the car? Or would it be better to say, 'have your car fixed'?

The non-hypothetical judgment includes (1), (2), and (3). The hypothetical judgment affirms (1) but not (2) or (3). Those who are paying attention may recognize that on this account moral acts are bound up with normative ends. — Leontiskos

Moral acts are all acts, not just normative ones, but yes, all of those are included.

Note that this is a logical analysis, not a linguistic analysis. Sometimes in everyday speech people will equivocate between, “He ought to do X if he wants Y,” and “He ought to do X because he wants Y.” Tone of voice, for example, often indicates whether the locution is hypothetical. — Leontiskos

I think this is intentional semantic blather. The because of ... phrasing does not in any way remove the nature of the statement as hypothetical. The state transition from now to any future may have causes, but those causes are themselves hypothetical because understanding them as causes can be in error (and is always in error to some degree). You may prefer not to answer to my post because it is too disintegrating of many of the assumptions not mentioned that went into this entire formulation. I understand, but, presumably, we are after truth, hunting it, here.

Note that a non-hypothetical judgment is not the same thing as a categorical imperative. We could say that all categorical imperatives are non-hypothetical judgments, but not all non-hypothetical judgments are categorical imperatives. For example, “You should fix your car,” is not a categorical claim because it only holds given certain circumstances. — Leontiskos

Just more semantic blather.

What clearly stated to you determines a non-hypothetical state? I promise you there is not one. To any experience of any chooser, any act past or present is hypothetical only.

Acts and regrets are non-hypothetical

Following in the footsteps of Philippa Foot, many are accustomed to claim that morality is merely a matter of hypothetical judgments, or that non-hypothetical judgments are rare. — Leontiskos

Yeah they are rare alright. They don't exist.

5 To give an indication of how gravely mistaken this opinion is, consider the fact that acts and regrets are all non-hypothetical. Each time we concretely choose and act we are making a non-hypothetical, all-things-considered judgment. — Leontiskos

We have zero chance to make any all-things-considered judgements. We are weak and immoral in so many ways that all beliefs and acts are flawed in many ways at the same time. One of those ways that is always true is that we cannot consider all things, ever. So saying that, using that phrasing, is foolish.

As soon as I decide whether to fix my car all of the previously-hypothetical considerations become non-hypothetical, and this is a large part of what it means “to make a decision” or “to decide.” To make a decision is to gather up all the hypothetical considerations and render an all-things-considered judgment. — Leontiskos

This is nonsense. Choices all involve failure, and all states involve the failures of other previous choices. No state is known. Known means 'in its entirety'. Only an objectively perfect being, 'God' could know anything. So to us moral agents that are not perfect every act is hypothetical even after decisions are made and a new state is formed. We do not know the past. We do not know the present state. We do not know the future. All of it is hypothetical.

Similarly, when we regret some act we are also making a non-hypothetical judgment. — Leontiskos

No, we are not. There is no such thing as a belief that is held at or with 100% certainty. So even the holding of the belief is hypothetical, let alone the belief itself and holding a belief is an act.

To say that one regrets an act is to judge that they should not have carried out that act, — Leontiskos

No it is not. You can still regret an act and still believe that you should have carried it out. This is just all too messy.

and this sort of judgment is never hypothetical; it never means, “I should not have done that if…” Such a hypo-thesis would undermine the regret itself, placing it in limbo. Therefore the idea that one can get along in life with only hypothetical judgments is absurd. — Leontiskos

Welcome to limbo.

What are examples of non-moral acts?

As noted above, the only non-moral acts are acts that do not flow from rational deliberation, such as absentmindedly stroking one’s beard. Or if the doctor hits your knee to check your reflexes and you kick him, you are not morally culpable because the kick did not flow from rational deliberation; it did not flow from you. The difference in these cases is that I am not choosing to act in any way. My body is doing something of its own accord, and these things do not count as moral acts. “Deliberation” is not for Aquinas something that must involve taking time in premeditation. The split-second braking to avoid a pedestrian is therefore a moral act, an act which flows from our humanness, our rational and intentional nature. — Leontiskos

These are all moral acts and choices. Even unconscious acts are a choice, finally. The fact that we immorally allow the structure of the body to carry them out without our consent is a lie. We consent to live therefore we consent to all these acts. It is still choice.

I will stop with Thesis 1 to see how this is received.

e irony is that in trying to neatly encapsulate and work it all out in terms of the enneagram typologies and fear, anger, desire and free will, you are behaving exactly as you would characterize a fear type who cannot cope with uncertainty. You apparently need your tidy little system to cope with the messiness of life. — Janus

I do not eschew fear. Far from it. I encourage fear. It is awareness, preparedness, and joy; all three.

But the point you miss is that they must be in balance. That means the certainty must go away and things that make us feel too much comfort via certainty are immediately and eternally suspect. Increasing discomfort is wise, because it means we are more humbly aware of the need to be strong in all ways.

I also do not shrink from the messiness of life. I walk into mystery with confidence, many strategies in place to tackle unexpected things, like having what someone 'knows' be wrong. like it always is. It's not a struggle to prove I am right. It is a struggle to explain that we all are always wrong to some degree. We should not delude ourselves or others in this process into any sort of fear calming show for certainties' sake.

Then you are thinking about things wrongly, is my assertion. And that false confidence born of fear and not anger properly, WILL cost you.
— Chet Hawkins
Merely labeling it (so far at least) as thinking wrong and telling me I will suffer doesn't really interact with the ideas or move things forward — Bylaw

I agree. But that is because that cost is not yet apparent nor will be, necessarily. After all it's actually there already in past uses between the two emotions. But, usually, in these matters I do not have to be the one to say, 'I told you so'.

Anger does not really need to be right until it gets too far into enneatype 1; and even that is just an overexpression of that type. The certainty thing is fear talking, fear talk.

It's ok though. I do not know how to move the bar forward between us because we are both mostly on the same page and only disagree about 'only'.

Incorrect. As a volleyball coach I know that my players are being trained as well as might be. But my knowledge is flawed. Their knowledge is flawed. The game is a flawed construction. Being sure via fear is delusional and will cause great troubles. Instead I coach confidence. You have trained. You have listened. You have practiced. You have played many times. Resolve within yourself to take on all challengers and see what you can do. Certainty is a dread enemy. It is the player who thinks they know. It is the coach who thinks they know. It is the game that pretends to be the best. Self-delusional lies are not wisdom.
— Chet Hawkins
But I wasn't advocating certainty. Doubting vs. Certainty is a false dichotomy. — Bylaw

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

There are indeed sources I trust more than others. But with ALL of them, my discipline is to replace their word 'know' in all its forms with 'believe' or 'claim to be aware of this as likely'. It has served me so well in terms of efficient tracking of problems in almost all cases that I had decided and maintain that it is useful for others to adopt that strategy as a part of general wisdom.

The trouble is that when most people say 'know' most others that have not already come to doubt their knowledge incorrectly assume that matter is settled. So, the mere assertion that knowledge is something other than belief is dangerous and almost always wrong at least in some particular way. The trouble IS NOT that Pragmatism correctly identifies a merely useful short-cut that is a 70-85% solution for the trouble at hand. The trouble is that most people stop caring or thinking when that word is used and they forgo the other 30-15% that is where the real value is. Not knowing as an assertion is clearly a superior paradigm to live by. The use of proper language to express that awareness is also a superior paradigm to live by.

Instead, stand. Decide to face the unknown. You must push back fear that you are not enough, that you do not belong. You did the things. You mean it. Now fight. Show the universe that you are not afraid, that you are not so foolish as to 'know'.
— Chet Hawkins
So, I should, for example, when in the shower and I've seen (or is it merely that I thought I saw) the soap where it usually is, not simply reach out to grab it, but question myself and focus on the possibility that I might be wrong this time about the soap. Or is it OK to just continue letting the water hit my face, and with confidence reach out to where I saw (or thought I saw the soap)? — Bylaw

This does not involve language. So it misses the troublesome point.

But to not avoid the specificity of the question I would answer, 'there is always a better way to do anything than what has been tried before.' Therefore although confidence is still in place, especially in a familiar environment like your own shower, the truth is more subtle and wonderful both. That is that 'no plan survives contact with the enemy (reality as ever-changing in states, not in truths). So, the correct doubt comes in remaining confident BY always optimizing your actions. This means confidence IS NOT properly blithely assuming your senses/memory/expectations are ever right, but including a mitigating balance to every action AS IF any assumptions are wrong. And knowledge is mostly just an assumption.

Because if my hand finds not soap there I can pull my head from the water and check. Or must I always be treating every situation as completely up in the air? Or does the specific situation affect how much I consider things up in the air? — Bylaw

No. There is no 'understood scenario'. Each time your woman complains the last thing you should do is use certainty/knowing to unravel the current state. In fact, history will often serve you not at all in solving the situation, and neither will appeals to logic. There are exceptions, of course. But 'everything is a minefield' as an attitude will work best. Anger kind of 'knows' (ha ha) that its you against the universe, especially with your 'best' friends and family.

Exactly! You speak of fear unbridled or desire unbridled. Only anger brings the balance. Natural athletes are usually anger types. They are balanced. I see this all the time. The fear types are in their heads and some form of old school smack has to happen to get them out of there. If they do not get out of their heads, they WILL fail. Trust to the body's memory.
— Chet Hawkins
Exactly. So, I get to trust. I get to act as if it is knowledge in many situations. Of course it might not be correct. And I am a natural athlete, while we're on the topic. In practice I may focus on a habit, a kind of physical assumption and tweak it, but in a game, I trust my body. I act as if I know. — Bylaw

Ugh. That is not 'knowing'. That is the inertia of intuition. You are giving fear credit for anger's value. It is not uncommon.

I know (ha ha). So you already agree with my point, really.
— Chet Hawkins
Sure. I agree with the point but the prescription.
But nothing in the statement 'knowledge is only belief' is wrong.
— Chet Hawkins
I think 'only' is wrong. I think its a poor heuristic. I do fine without that word. I remain unconvinced that changing my words the way you think I should is necessary or an improvement. — Bylaw

Whereas I think it's addition to the statement is rather precisely the point. Unless I know (ha ha) the justification of the other, their knowledge is best treated only as belief. I do not even have to have experienced them for a long time to understand that as true. It's always true.

You're right. Its also a container for deception/delusion. Will you now defend that?
— Chet Hawkins
Of course it's also that. But it's not just a container for truth or assertions or beliefs, it is something else often also and someone only these other things/functions — Bylaw

This is another strange wording that I cannot quite follow. Yes, that is MY point. Knowledge is not a container for truth. It is a belief (only) and that means without awareness of every aspect of the other party's justification, it is best only treated as such. It really is not too hard at all to pick apart what someone thinks they 'know', usually. And that picking apart process should not be so easy, if knowledge meant something past belief. Truth cannot be destroyed.

Yes and all are beliefs and choices, some of them to delude; and some to promote more resonance with wisdom and truth.
— Chet Hawkins
No, language is not always a conveying of beliefs. It can be also or only an act. An eliciting. — Bylaw

That is wildly incorrect to me. Language, even being, is nothing but a set of beliefs, choices. Any act is a conveying of beliefs ONLY. That is to say all aspects of that act, any act, are reducible to beliefs.

Confidence and certainty are NOT the same thing.
— Chet Hawkins
I think you give too much power to your particular interpretation of words. — Bylaw

Yes, perhaps, because power in this sentence only means belief. But it is not for lack of attempted best efforts towards justification.

Our minds are not all the same. You are acting as if you know what happens when everyone uses those words. You are acting like those words mean one think and you know what it is and you know what happens in other minds than your own when they use those words. I think language and minds are vastly more complicated and varied — Bylaw

This is all wrong. Truth is objective, not subjective. It matters not what opinions are offered, truth does not change. Knowledge changes, so it is not truth. We agree on that I think.

But the goal here is to approach truth more properly. That is not best accomplished by ever presuming to know. In humility alone we demur. In language we should show that acquiescence to belief only, and although we may add the words to describe our justification of belief(s) the short cut statements of knowing are ill advised. The false confidence this inspires in many is too dangerous to have the use of the word 'know' to be wise.

Inept teachers make wrong adjustments all the time. They should do better.
— Chet Hawkins
But I feel they were making the same cosmetic mistake that you are. — Bylaw

Cosmetic? Hilarious! Well, I have tried to convey the importance of this issue. There are many others in language and action that also share in this perfection assumed stance that is always wrong. And it does not matter if they say 'we know (ha ha) it's not perfection' OK, then, SPEAK that way.

↪Chet Hawkins I can prove that if you have one banana and you eat it, you won't have a banana left. There are trillions of such things that I can prove. So, it's incorrect to say that there is no proof. — Truth Seeker

The banana is still there, inside you. You are partially wrong.
Someone may give you another banana. You are partially wrong.

Your examples are too limited to have much use. Experience is not limited in that way, or let's say experience is LESS limited.

Your proofs leave much to be desired. They are in fact not proofs at all.

↪Chet Hawkins Thank you for sharing your beliefs about this. Can you prove your claims? — Truth Seeker

I realize that there is no proof. Apparently you do not. To prove something is to know it, objectively. That is not possible.

We must live based on a well of beliefs, faith. This is not religious. It is nonetheless informed by experience, by being in reality.

Proof is a delusional need. It will not serve you to ask for it. You DO properly take on awareness as a burden. The wiser we are the more of a burden we have to do good, to choose the good, amid free will.

This thread already contains many of my arguments towards truth. Since proof is impossible, it is incoherent to expect it. It is not incoherent to seek truth and awareness though. Fear is useful and parts of it are good.

You call yourself truth-seeker and that is a fine name. Truth arriver, they who have proof, would only be delusion. That name would not be good.

What if I exist as an immaterial soul that is experiencing the illusion of being in physical body on a physical planet in a physical universe? — Truth Seeker

In one sense, that IS the case.

Reality is nothing but consciousness. Anger pushing back against fear and desire, and itself, causes mass to exist. The tension of anger is mass itself.

The 'immaterial soul' is just a phrase used to describe the awareness of the illusory nature of physical reality by itself. In other words reality is more than just physical reality. It includes the mind and all fear constructs, as well as desire and perfection as a guide.

The only thing in existence that is not an illusion is the truth of perfection. That is why we are compelled via desire to approach it.

Exactly! I would say that I rest my case, but you are still not getting it.

Confidence IS NOT knowing. Firstly, it cannot be, because one cannot actually know. One only believes. So, confidence is exhibited as 'They who do not know, but believe strongly anyway'. Of course immoral fear types will chafe and call that incoherent. They are not really right, but this is the hubris of relatively high awareness or let's say a facility with awareness.
— Chet Hawkins

Perhaps we are just keep missing each other's point. It is understandable that it can happen. After all we have different ways looking at things in the world, and I am not aware of the contents in your mind what is going on, and you must be the same. — Corvus

Up to here, we are fine. I respect your temerity and your clear need to find some balance.

Confidence in the linguistic expression is based on the empirical experience and evidence from the real world events and observations, hence it can be said with most certainty. — Corvus

No it is not. This is wrong. Confidence is informed by fear, yes. And fear is the patterns you are referring to as experience. But it also includes BEING in those situations. So, it can be hard to speak of single emotions rather than all together in experience.

But fear does realize that reductionism is useful. So, we reduce emotions properly to understand the root of any motivation.

Confidence is rooted in anger, not fear. Real confidence is sourced in belonging and being inseparable from all of reality. Because nothing can be created nor destroyed, death is delusional. Ultimately, that is the source of balance and confidence. 'Everything will be fine' (even if we all die screaming).

Fear cannot track that. Fear is, more than anything else, enervated and aware. It is aware of death most poignantly. Courage and confidence deny the fear of death.

Fear is the source of the need for certainty, a limit that is delusion in ALL cases. So the patterns of awareness are NOT related to confidence directly. The awareness that is related to confidence is the awareness that the certainty of fear must be put down and the awareness that death is acceptable and normal. Of course we do not want to go too far with this. Every emotion can be over-expressed.

Anyway, hopefully that was useful.

I always get assigned the tasks no one else can solve, because what they know is not correct, and I do not assume what they know is. So I, often alone, can solve it. I have been ordered off tasks where that method was being used by me and then called back and that with me having to tell the CEO or interested parties that I would be assuming what they know was not true and if they wanted me to work on it they would have to allow for that. In almost every case my original assessment was correct. What they knew was the problem and was not true. It was not all the time, but by far most of the time. So, even the practical implications for what I am suggesting are wise.
— Chet Hawkins
This deals with a situation where professionals have failed to solve something and it arrives on your desk. In such a situation I would be on high alert (so to speak) that conventional approaches are probably not working and something new, lateral, unexpected is going on or is needed. I would be in a more exploratory state than when I reach for the soap on the soap holder in the shower. Or when I see the back of the head of a blond woman - my wife - sitting in her chair in the living room. I'll just reach out: I'll just start talking to my wife before walking around to see if another blond woman broke into my apartment. I happen not to use the word 'know' a lot in my communication. I'd be more likely to say I'm sure. Which does not mean to me that I can't possibly be mistaken, but it means that I consider it extremely likely that X is the case. I have degrees of certainty and for practical purposes I am not questioning a lot of things, each day. I choose to question in response to indications something is interesting, not what it seems, failing to be accurate and so on. Then also there is a range of issues, I keep exploring. But a lot of things every day, I assume are the case. This doesn't mean I think I couldn't possibly be wrong. — Bylaw

Then you are thinking about things wrongly, is my assertion. And that false confidence born of fear and not anger properly, WILL cost you.

One reason to not fussing with many things each day is because they are very much like taking a jump shot in basketball. I am rising up in the air, my opponent is trying to block me....and I don't start reassessing things 'perhaps my right hand should be placed more towards the top of the ball, perhaps I should draw the ball further behind my head. Those are issues that could come up in practice, when being coached, if something has gotten worse in my %ages, if I have decided to improve and want to retrain and so on. Or, heck, not being a pro player and just wanted to enjoy a weekly pick up game, I'll be exploring other things that are more important for me to improve outside that game.

Enforcing a kind of 'not knowing, not being sure' in a lot of my daily moments would actually reduce my skills. — Bylaw

Incorrect. As a volleyball coach I know that my players are being trained as well as might be. But my knowledge is flawed. Their knowledge is flawed. The game is a flawed construction. Being sure via fear is delusional and will cause great troubles. Instead I coach confidence. You have trained. You have listened. You have practiced. You have played many times. Resolve within yourself to take on all challengers and see what you can do. Certainty is a dread enemy. It is the player who thinks they know. It is the coach who thinks they know. It is the game that pretends to be the best. Self-delusional lies are not wisdom.

Instead, stand. Decide to face the unknown. You must push back fear that you are not enough, that you do not belong. You did the things. You mean it. Now fight. Show the universe that you are not afraid, that you are not so foolish as to 'know'. You are open to new things, new awareness. You are not decided, because that would be stupidity.

I'd also want to avoid infinite regresses: is this the right moment to try to improve my shot; do I have the right information to make that evaluation; am I actually playing basketball; what are the phenomenological differences between fantasizing, dreaming and actually playing basketball and how certain am I which one this is: is my sense of the % of moments/actions a good heuristic: should I develop a logically arrived at heuristic or base my choices to explore on intuition or some combination; was that the right question to ask.....and so on until they are closing the gym and ask the b-player lying on his side ratiocinating on the court to go home. — Bylaw

Exactly! You speak of fear unbridled or desire unbridled. Only anger brings the balance. Natural athletes are usually anger types. They are balanced. I see this all the time. The fear types are in their heads and some form of old school smack has to happen to get them out of there. If they do not get out of their heads, they WILL fail. Trust to the body's memory. Practice. Stand to the foe. Engage with confidence in your training. The pattern of fear was there, in the past, in the practices. It was either better or worse for your team than the other. The pattern of the day and the location matter. The pattern of the player's decisions to retain lessons matters greatly. But if they are certain, then they will lose. I've seen it hundreds of times. A great team can lose to someone willing to stand no matter what. The fierceness of anger will destroy fear until fear cheats. That is why there are rules to games. But life's rules are laws of nature only. And nature allows deception as a path towards perfection. The fake it til you make it step. It is supposed to be brief. And anger balances the desire such that finally one is no longer faking it either.

We can learn amid doing, but, for sports and other imminent actions, like war, there is less of this and more of only confidently, despite all odds, acting as your patterns of training have prepared you.

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

I know (ha ha). So you already agree with my point, really. Why waste more time. Knowledge is only belief. It is belief that we have decided is true because 1) we are afraid that it is true, 2) we want it to be true, or 3) sensory and memory data within reality (being, experience) seems to show it to be true.

But nothing in the statement 'knowledge is only belief' is wrong. Knowledge partakes of an objective character. It is at least mistaken as meaning that by most. Thus such terms are ill advised in general.

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

You're right. Its also a container for deception/delusion. Will you now defend that?

Now that's categorized as knowledge so I cannot notice counterexamples, must defend that belief the to death, must never listen to someone who is questioning it - of course in some instances I will not want to discuss whether I exist. — Bylaw

I admit that sentence was too ... something ... for me to understand.

That's not something I will allow a toll booth operator to question with my participation. Going to work, find a philosophy forum guy, gotta go. If the toll booth operator thinks there is small fire in the back undercarriage of my car and I think he's wrong, I'll probably still get out to check. — Bylaw

Operating on belief is wise. Operating amid certainty is not. Operating within confidence is wise. Confidence and certainty are NOT the same thing. They arise from different emotions,

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

Yes and all are beliefs and choices, some of them to delude; and some to promote more resonance with wisdom and truth.

I've been around people who qualify what they say, avoid stating things with certainty...and they are so damn sure it oozes out of their pores. Or they don't come off like that, but for all their supposed open mind, and their ability to entertain alternate ideas, they never change their minds. They would easily admit they can't be sure, or they don't know. They can say those words and even mean them honestly. But it doesn't really matter. Nothing really gets at the beliefs they have except perhaps when catastrophic events slam them out of their beliefs. — Bylaw

Even then you cannot tell. Catastrophe comes with damage. So it is unfair to judge so much after that at least for a space in time.

And yes, anger confidence holds its truths more aggressively than fear certainty does. Fear crumbles in the face of anger. It must cheat usually to win. That is a matter of numbers or skill or some structure that denies being in essence. Fear almost always places a false separation in the equation. Country borders. Identity as an ego. Rules of man. These barriers do not really exist. But fear has CUT OFF its awareness with knowing. And hell is always the result. The same value is had by awareness alone without the Pragmatic cut off.

I know people who do use the words knowledge and know who have changed their beliefs about what they consider knowledge. Because they don't think those word indicate absolute perfection and infallibility. And many of these people don't have to go through catastrophic failures to move off positions. — Bylaw

Neither do I. As long as knowledge is assumed to only be belief, I am good. But, I caution against the use of the word, because so many others ARE NOT GOOD. They don't get it. And thus, the word knowledge is like a bad drug, convincing people that having it is good, and that if you have it, you are done, you are good, that there is no more work needed.

I remember working in an alternative preschool that did not like negative words. So, if a child did something 'wrong' they would say to the child that their action wasn't in harmony with the other children or some such.

Well, lack of harmony judgments went into children's bodies and did that same thing as the words the school was supposedly avoiding. Words just being sounds, and the children picking up with dynamic regardless. Now a different sound meant what they did was wrong. — Bylaw

Inept teachers make wrong adjustments all the time. They should do better. My mother and father told me that if I stepped in poison ivy I would 'break out'. It sounded awful and I was an extremely careful child in the woods until I figured out that they were foolishly exaggerating. They did not know. They were aware that sometimes contact with that plant's resins can cause a skin itch that spreads. If they had said that and not some idiomatic nonsense it would have helped.

You also make my point for me. It is VERY IMPORTANT that all advice and learning be balanced. Wisdom must be used to include fear, anger, and desire; all in balance with EVERY communication. Earning greater awareness is always a better expression than knowing is. That is all.

Intent does not always reflect belief. Stated belief does not always reflect belief. Choice or action and consequences do not always reflect belief. So belief remains an implausible interpretation from every angle that it is viewed or considered. We all understand, unless we are being intentionally obtuse, that belief is something you fear is true, desire to be true, or that you reason is true based on sensory data and experience. These are the three paths of wisdom, fear, desire, and anger (being). It is more useful to approach belief that way than in any of the ways I read about on that link.
— Chet Hawkins

Virtually total respect. But
One question. I am compelled by your presentation. And not just above. But why is "anger" the 3rd? presumably corresponding to reason and being, the latter of which you anointed with parentheses, or suspended. (I know you've explained it. I'm inviting you to abandon it or express any new openings since you began this dialectic journey) — ENOAH

So, I could never abandon anger. It all starts in balance and only we (and all choosers) disrupt that balance with delusions. In the context of this thread belief is only one form of choice.

So, there is not real first, and that may seem to undo what I said last paragraph. Since we do not know what reality is, we can only each add conjecture and then try to test if that matches with all empirical data. My model does, is my opinion. I cannot prove it because no one can prove anything, really. But it matches even more what reality is than so-called science does to date. That is to say, I have no problem with the scientific method as long as we realize that confirmation of a tendency in nature is not proof, finally. It is pattern matching. And sure, pattern reliability. But that reliability never goes to 100 percent.

So, on with the explanation.

Anger is not the 3rd. None of the emotions are ordered, as they are in balance. There is never really a point in time that does not contain all three emotions, and only those three. I think I did explain earlier, but, in case I did not, Fear is properly defined as a excitable state that arises as a result of matching a pattern from one's past. This energy can be something that is in need of being calmed or it can be something that, due to the comfort of the match and what it means, our awareness of certain patterns as 'safe' (delusional) we actually stoke that feeling of excitement. In all cases thus, fear is associated with the temporal dimension we refer to as the past.

The patterns can only be matched if we are aware of them. So, this seeking awareness is fear in action. It is the first rung of the fear action/reaction. We become aware, It is obvious that the state of being must already be present to seek awareness. But fear is involved in a more intimate way than that. If we picture a physical blob of tissue or matter of any kind it is impacted by its environment. A layer forms of interaction between substances. That layer will itself differentiate into hard pack or toughness, sensor stuff, and interactive stuff. These are always the three splits and the correspond to anger, fear, and desire respectively.

The sensor route is the route we are taking now. That is the path of fear. Eventually the blob becomes aware of the pressure or pain or whatever stimulus is acting on it. A good example in the human case is sitting on a chair with a weave. That weave is transferred to the blob of tissue and whether we move or don't that pattern is shown there for a time. Of course humans find it funny or annoying and BOTH of these responses are fear, an excitable state arising from matching a pattern from one's past. If we we such a blob that we sat on chairs like that so often that it became a sovereign pattern to us, we would indeed evolve to be tougher and or sculpt our bodies to interact in some premium way with the chair. It is inevitable.

The second rung of fear's actions, fear's virtue set, is preparedness. We reduce our excitement to becalm ourselves by adding patterns to the first pattern that reduce the danger to being. We put down a buffering towel to reduce the effect, the pattern impact, of the chair on our essence. This is preparedness. It is also a loyalty thing, a connection. We have connected with the idea of an identity to protect at this time. Our awareness has congealed upon the self. Fear is the origin of identity. It establishes the delusional border between the us and the them. So fear is of course the source of all bigotry. That line is delusional. But it is useful to protect the self, so it is both delusional and useful. We are not gaining awareness and preparing AFTER we encounter patterns in case we meet them again. So now we have this thing, the pattern and its recurrence. We 'realize' in being that patterns repeat because of memory. Memory is pattern storage. Memory is a construct made from fear. The mechanisms that match memories to sensory input are fear path mechanisms. Eventually, everything we call 'thought' and then of course all logic, is only fear manifested.

The third and final rung is the pattern we prefer to continue without alarm. Such a pattern resonates with something not quite beyond the awareness of the essence, our emerging thought. So that is the call of perfection, extant, from all of reality. This is desire. And since it is preferred when such a pattern emerges we relish it, we wallow in it, as it is wanted. This is the cause of the singular consequence emotion known as joy. It is NOT full genuine happiness. But it is a type of fear, yes fear. It loops and engages instead of trying to becalm itself. It is important to understand each of these three responses of fear.

Now let's re-examine fear. If we fold anger, which is being in essence back into fear and combine them, we get the blob trying to sense and remember patterns. That is awareness, the first fear reaction. If we add more fear to that fear, the memory or the sensory data as it happens, that is fear-fear or the second fear reaction, preparedness. If we add desire to fear we then can have the third fear reaction of joy or even something as banal as excitement, just in general. And look at what that does. Rather than just being, just reacting, we now might seek action, instead of reaction.

Action is the realm of anger.

Our joy filled blob has advanced. It is now 'leaping' into situations, remaining aware, preparing, but, finding favorites and pursuing them. The first action of anger is to challenge the self to overcome this fear at every opportunity. The fear is seen, perhaps rightly so, as weakness. It must overcome. But fear is also appreciated. It recognizes the patterns and orders our lives. Categories are formed from fear. We have structure. But the blob needs to become aware of all, prepare for all, and find joy in all. So the blob must become tough. The truth becomes manifest. More patterns, more toughness, and more joy also. So this desire infusion of fear, joy leads to desire infusion of anger, challenge. Innocent exploration of all leads to weaknesses discovered and addressed. We throw ourselves at everything.

But then anger comes in a second wave. Anger at desire. We have become reckless. Perhaps some of what we identify with, other individuals, are lost. That pattern is something we become aware of slowly but it has seeped in. Now anger pushes back against desire. And the result is a balance. It is not the balance of fear, as that was observation and awareness, anger infused fear. This is anger infused anger. And just like anger was an inaction push into fear by way of observation, as opposed to participation, now anger is against anger. So we have peace, calm, and a very balanced point of view. This is also where laziness comes from, as we can go too far with this effect.

Finally we realize that the call of something is still out there. That something is perfection. It makes us restless and the power of desire is calling. But having gotten to a peaceful balance we are afraid of this call now. So this last step for anger is the fear infusion. We begin to choose more properly. We go back to leaping in, but only after more than simple observation. The prospective patterns are now placed more thoroughly into categories of right for us or wrong for us. This is judgment. This is fear infused anger. It prepares us like nothing else for the future.

And now we must face the future. We must 'give in' to the call of perfection as we realize via judgment that anger should not just squelch desire. It should use judgement to determine when to leap in. At first our identity helps us achieve the mass needed to overwhelm fear and we again leap in. But we realize that something can be done in most cases. Action can be taken to encourage us to jump in correctly or to repair damage when it happens. We have begun to admit in others the call of desire and we sympathize. We understand that the pattern called them to do the things that might have hurt or slowed them. So we help. We support. We want to do it, so that we can all arrive. This is patterned. We have to know what to do. We must separate support from its opposite patterns. So this is fear infused desire.

We have the basis now for much faster success. More of us can leap in because some of us will show the support pattern. We have memory and judgment, perspective. From this we determine there is an image we wish to show. That image is not us, but we can show it some. We want to. Its fairly close to this perfection thing that calls us. We feel some matches in our showing. But there are many non matchings in this showing. Who cares! Keep showing what we can. And thus deception is born in the pursuit of image showing, or achievement. Fake it until you make it! It's a law of reality itself. This is desire infused desire. We have realized that too much desire makes you only supportive and not exultant. Some of us prefer not being the martyr but showing off as if we were nearer to perfection than we really are. This is wanted so badly that deception is common. And amid that truth is a deeper truth, self-deception. Such types must pretend not to see that they are only showing. They realize if they act as if they are not just showing, but that they acting as if they are fully realized, others will have a better chance to pattern match them with perfection. And it works. It works so well that they begin to believe it of themselves. These are the winners of the world, that show success and work like hell to do anything to deceptively show.

Finally, we come to the last permutation of fear, anger, and desire. No longer is desire overwhelming the self to show false images. Now, authenticity is demanded. This is more balance, Anger has come back. Anger is demanding that pretense is erased. This has many effects. Anger infused desire puts off desire but the effect is we must dig to know the real authentic path to perfection. We must BE right in the show. So this type will wallow in its showing of perfection. This is art. This is beauty. But this wallowing shows such types over and over again that they can glimpse perfection, but they demand of themselves to be authentic and they are not perfection. So that truth is underscored to them again and again amid their wallowing. They are the most likely to commit suicide.

These are the 9 types of the Enneagram. They start properly at type 5 and proceed all the way around to type 4.

Notice the strange gap between 5 and 4. We have the past of fear stretching all the way through the permutations of emotion to the final extent of the future types. This is the 'open circle' part of my model, not recognized in the enneagram itself. Further the Enneagram does not claim that fear, anger, and desire are the basis of reality. I do. But as a model the Enneagram IS INDEED the basis of reality. There is none better (so far).

The Enneagram was conceived from a search amid meaning taking all the best examples of wisdom throughout the world and combining them. There was the way of the monks, the yogis, and the fakirs. These were taken loosely to be fear, anger, and desire. And George Gurdijeff then started what is best described as a cult called the fourth way. He realized that combining all of these into one was the real wisdom.

My model is a multi-dimensional extension of the model of Claudio Naranjo and ultimately Gurdijeff's but it is so different as to be merely informed by them, rather than truly an extension.

I have found that this model answer to every single aspect of reality in every way. That is my model and not JUST the Enneagram or its assumptions/assertions. Compared to the wisdom of the Enneagram the Big 5 personality system is a colossal fear-sided joke. I can critique every aspect of its solidity as just certainty seeking fear-side failure precisely similar to the attitudes most prevalent against me in this thread.

For instance why not just two? In addition to your e.g.s, Desire covers "convention" "belonging" Fear covers "revelation" "authority". Maybe Reason falls under one or the other. Maybe reason is a category of belief. Rather than anger. — ENOAH

No. You miss the essence.

Fear is the past, is order, is the limiting force in all of reality erecting delusional barriers where none exist.
Desire is the future, chaos, the limitless force of perfection's call. This is evolution's source. It is delusional in the sense that desire seems to run in all directions at once and yet morality and the GOOD, perfection are objective. This means there is really only one path. From any location in intent space we see a differing path to perfection, a single point. This deludes us into the belief that morality is subjective.
But anger is the cause of physical reality. It pushes back against fear and desire both to achieve balance. This balance is being in essence. It combines the limiting force of fear with the limitless force of desire into the single eternal moment we call NOW. Anger is being, is essence, is mass itself.

Again. I'm sincererely asking. — ENOAH

Hopefully that answer helps.

Or, if anger is a legitimate 3rd, and not a (poetic) attachment (the preceding parentheses were definitely a detainment), then how does reason (and being) correspond to that category? And why not a 4th for reason? — ENOAH

It is a delusion, of course.

Fear constructs, all thought, is delusional. But anger pushes them back into balance. Re-read this thread in that context. ;)

Of course all three emotions interact with each other. But the physical realm, ALL OF IT, is the realm of now and therefore the realm of anger (being-in-essence). You are trying, struggling, to conflate the fear inclusions so that you can reason it all out. Only your past and your memory allow this. Fear is an artifact of order and always the past. If your fear informs your being that this pattern sensed by the sensors embodied in anger are bad and to be feared, you may run. But that run is finally a desire of what to do from now and into the near future. The impetus is many fold. But fear was the basis. All three emotions act in concert to create the opportunity of choice, the enactment of free will.

Free will is REQUIRED of any sensible model of reality. The balance needed is such that even a tiny iota of will is all that is required to move you. If it were too much off of that pure balance free will or choice and action could not exist. It is a 'proof' of sorts for free will.

Anger and the present are the motivational basis of this balance. Anger is thus closer to truth than fear or desire are. But anger is prone to its sin, laziness, as discussed above.

My point being however that I don't think removing the words know and knowledge is either necessary or effective.
— Bylaw

I agree. Confusion results when knowing and believing are conflated. We might not always in practice know the difference, that is we may not always know which we are doing, but they remain conceptually distinct, and losing that distinction is not going to help. — Janus

Incorrect and obviously so. Confusion results when people claim to know and they really do not (which is every time they make that claim).

Your use of 'in practice' shows your clear nod to Pragmatism, immoral fear side failing. The conceptual distinction disappears until each chooser is allowed or required to understand the justifying evidence. But these choosers CANNOT understand all such evidence. So you are setting them up for yet another faith based let down. Granted, over time the practical, pragmatic approach has yielded some fine results and I am not denying that. The discipline of not saying we know is wise, even for these pragmatists. They can still speak in terms of greater awareness and then WHY that is so, in other words show your work.

You can look at every script ever written and see the mistake easily. In every single one it's what someone 'knows' that is untrue that is the problem. It would greatly behoove them all to erase this false level of certainty from their beliefs. In my own real life the first thing I do when I am solving a software or hardware issue is to disregard what I think I know in the most immediate sense. As in not all the base awarenesses, but the specific bits or assertions of awareness that I would write down as probable. I always get assigned the tasks no one else can solve, because what they know is not correct, and I do not assume what they know is. So I, often alone, can solve it. I have been ordered off tasks where that method was being used by me and then called back and that with me having to tell the CEO or interested parties that I would be assuming what they know was not true and if they wanted me to work on it they would have to allow for that. In almost every case my original assessment was correct. What they knew was the problem and was not true. It was not all the time, but by far most of the time. So, even the practical implications for what I am suggesting are wise. They are wiser than leaving things as they are, unless people begin to have MUCH MORE diligence about what they say they 'know'. foolishly and or what the word 'know' means.

Abuse is acceptable as a risk and then must be confronted by challenge.

Just because abuse exists is no reason to crawl under a rock and pretend to half-truths (your little t truth).

The big T truth is the only thing in life that really matters.
— Chet Hawkins

Abuse might be acceptable as a risk according to your personal belief—but there is nothing in the fact that you believe that that gives me any warrant or motivation for believing it. — Janus

Well that sounds horrible! It's as if my acumen is deemed to be chopped liver! I like chopped liver actually. So yummy! But that is the expression.

I also added that abuse 'must be confronted by challenge'. That's what I am doing here. The word 'know' and all its derivatives are abused regularly to mean 'certainty', which is absurd.

Little-t truths are not half-truths, they are truths relative to contexts, not absolute truths. There are no absolute truths, or at least none that are determinable by us. — Janus

Actually we agree on the last sentence. That means that the first sentence is just wrong. A truth relative to a context is a state and not a truth at all. States are effectively meaningless although awareness of them is not. They cannot be known. The flux of reality does not advise knowing in any case. It advises constant vigil, constant effort towards awareness. That is my point.

The idea that big T-truth is all that matters is a dangerous idea—the very foundation of fundamentalism. — Janus

Yes, truth is dangerous. I like it. But you are flipping the script there, without realizing it. It is I that am counseling to avoid the certainty of fundamentalism, not you. I in fact am so cautious about approaching fundamentalism that I advise we presume to know nothing, and only accept statements of increasing awareness of something. That is much wiser and so your point was backwards.

So, I reject your beliefs on ethical grounds, apart from the fact that there is no empirical or logical support for them. They cannot even be cited as inferences to any kind of best explanation. To me they are nothing more than rhetoric. — Janus

You rejection is based on your backwards assessment of my proximity vs yours to fundamentalism. But since you do not agree we end up rejecting each other's beliefs on ethical grounds. War it is. I am ok with that. Down with the infidels!

Yes, well, what we call reality is not reality. Physical reality is a shortsighted version of the actual reality, the capital T True reality.

We are embedded within the capital T reality. Its awareness and union is the only real goal of existence.

So metaphysics is a greater effort, and thus more worthy than physics is or could ever be. This truth does not diminish physics in any way. It shows it proper placement in actual value.
— Chet Hawkins

I get that you believe that. I have some sympathy for those ideas, but I am not confident that it is anything more than a fantasy. — Janus

And you never will be, because knowing is impossible, and unwise.

Some fantasies are BETTER than what we think we know. But I am not advocating abandonment of plausible and probable tests. These are still just based on awareness and some awareness is better than others and we should judge that. But in no case is it certain as in 'knowledge'. It is only a state of awareness and states are not truth, not objective.

So, let's say you believe those things, and I don't. If you don't know anything more than I do, or if I don't know anything more than you do—if it is all just different beliefs then there is nothing to argue about, and no being right or wrong about it. — Janus

Yes, there is because I say so. If I am willing to argue, you have no choice but to or concede the point. I am not saying that to be aggressive or bullying. I am saying that because aggressive bullies exist. Might might not make right, but as intuition says, there is a certain rightness to might. It partakes of SOME rightness, by definition, competence on a certain level, mass effect.

Further, and much more importantly, genuine happiness is an extant and demonstrable measure of right vs wrong. It is in fact the only real one in the universe. So we DO have a means of measuring your beliefs vs mine.

That there is no determinable right or wrong when it comes to metaphysics is the situation as I see it. No amount of high-falutin' talk is going to change that. — Janus

Well, yes, this is the stance of the incoherent champions of coherence. They do not believe that anger and desire offer as much truth as fear does. I get it. It's hard to see or feel past what you are. But each of us is capable of all three paths and then the fourth path that is an integration of all three others. So we can indeed be deluded into assertions and beliefs that partake too heavily of one path or another and that is infinitely more common than not. But wisdom also exists and it means not devaluing any of the three paths, but instead supporting higher instantiations of all paths by admitting to all of them. And that admittance denies the need for determination -> certainty.

As usual, you, an order-apologist demand certainty or 'determinable' right and wrong. Too bad that that is not the way reality works. You are allowed to demand these things but you will never be realized in that demand. You have to take truth in part on faith.

This is demonstrated quite well by the multiply by zero effect. You are always safer saying a thing is unlikely than you are to say it is impossible.
— Chet Hawkins

Not making sense at all. "It is unlikely that" sounds you are lacking confidence on what you are saying, or just being evasive. "It is impossible that" sounds far more declarative and certain of what you are saying. — Corvus

Exactly! I would say that I rest my case, but you are still not getting it.

Confidence IS NOT knowing. Firstly, it cannot be, because one cannot actually know. One only believes. So, confidence is exhibited as 'They who do not know, but believe strongly anyway'. Of course immoral fear types will chafe and call that incoherent. They are not really right, but this is the hubris of relatively high awareness or let's say a facility with awareness.

Confidence is anger. It stands up to fear (all thought, all logic) and to desire (all needs) and basically says, 'Nope! I choose not to be afraid of not being certain, and not to want, at least right now.'

Would you say the most confident people in the world are also the most aware? No. Yet they possess a trait that is useful despite the UNAVOIDABLE position of being unable to know. And that is wise, despite the objections of fear-side certainty seeking cowards.

Well, your answer is the kind I would typically dread. I do not feel the need to engage in deeply academic issues related to philosophy as I find their machinations to be largely unnecessary and far too uselessly detailed, in general. However, I do not want to alienate them from understanding my position(s) which obliges me to at least entertain their various insanities.

As such, I at least gave a cursory examination into each of these academic issues you put forth here by way of a pittance of due diligence.

My assertion is that as far as what defines belief, knowledge is indeed fully included. That is all. Knowledge is only belief. It is fully included in that set.
— Chet Hawkins
Which does depend on your definition of a what a belief even is. A cursory look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists a number of predictable positions such as highly reductive ones no different than behaviorism or functionalism as well as the ever popular cousin positions of instrumentalism/fictionalism/eliminativism. The more constructive ones build beliefs out of mental states or mental representations regardless of the metaphor used which has us thinking about stored information similar to a computer, representations as propositions, and literal mental maps. — substantivalism

So, when we discuss the mechanism of a behavior or choice, we lose sight of the actually relevant parts of it, the dedication to meaning. Getting all bent out of shape about the physical aspects of belief is precisely the sort of failure in reasoning that I am trying to warn and take a stance against. I am not saying some aspects of that secondary effort are not worthy. They are.

But action and choice are related and often guided by belief. Belief is only just another choice. And belief has the nature of states and not truth. It can change and the breadth of its change is not really something to worry overmuch about. Effectively the degree or breadth of change is infinite, and probability is not involved. In other words, yes, if you want to create an algorithm to predict what choice will be made then probability is relevant to such a discussion. But I am only or stating that I am only concerned about what is in any way possible. And a default belief I have for that is that choice is infinitely powerful, despite the lessening probabilities of some extreme choice examples.

After reading your linked pages or skimming them to some extent, I believe my definition for belief is most closely shown by Interpretationism. That is to say, the mechanisms by which the behavioral patterns is accomplished DO NOT matter effectively to my understanding of belief.

And none of these belief definitions change IN ANY WAY the point that I am making about belief and knowledge. That is to say that such an issue only relates to the probability of awareness being true, as in a 1:1 correspondence with objective truth. Since we cannot actually know what is objective, i.e. the probability of a belief is never 100%, that means all knowledge, all beliefs, are partially in error. They are limits approaching 100% certainty, but never properly arriving at that probability.

So, no, it does not matter which definition amid these that I choose, as I understand it.

We cannot be certain of any justification applied to a belief that 'makes' it or transforms it into knowledge. So this is where we are working with the mathematical concept of limits. It would seem that that effect is one way to cause the Sorites paradox. Since the definition of a category is weak, not specific enough, the paradox appears. But there is a difference. When for example we feel the need to define a heap of sand as containing a finite number of grains in order to escape the Paradox, we CAN do that. Assuming we were willing to take the time, we COULD possible count. And yet the Sorites Paradox is still deemed present simple because users of the 'heap' term refuse to do so.
— Chet Hawkins
They also may refuse to define the terms as such BECAUSE it wouldn't do justice to the difference between a few grains and a heap. Not a decision of laziness or failure to assuage the troubling ambiguity bubbling within our accuser but rather to emphasize that something deeper is going on. Something that a mere precisification of terms will not solve. — substantivalism

I mean I love the term precisification. It kind of underscores what I am talking about. What I am saying effectively is this: It does not matter how precise you make the guess at 'knowing' something, you cannot make it 100%. So the effort of precision is worthy, yes, but NOT RELEVANT to the claim I am making. The claim I am making can ONLY be wrong if the probability of 'knowing' can reach 100%, and it cannot.

So there is a conflation here that is typical of order-apology, too much fear. That is too much respect for precisification as a concept and not enough respect for the precision of the over-arching truth that truth itself is approachable but not arrivable. It is THAT distinction that is the one that matters.

If this makes me flamingmonkyism, I am fine with that.

Intent does not always reflect belief. Stated belief does not always reflect belief. Choice or action and consequences do not always reflect belief. So belief remains an implausible interpretation from every angle that it is viewed or considered. We all understand, unless we are being intentionally obtuse, that belief is something you fear is true, desire to be true, or that you reason is true based on sensory data and experience. These are the three paths of wisdom, fear, desire, and anger (being). It is more useful to approach belief that way than in any of the ways I read about on that link.

But the limit is different. Limits are special in that nothing is being said about the content of either the axis or the asymptote. It is their relationship that is the point. The asymptotic relationship defines the characteristics of the limit.

So, no, this is not the same thing.

It is the 'fact' or 'knowledge' or better as I mentioned, let's say it is the awareness of something that approaches objective knowing, BUT NEVER GETS THERE, that is the point. And it cannot get there. That is critical to understand. One is tempted to say or add, '... in finite time'

So before we continue I wanted to address that part of the issue. It is not clearly just Sorites.
— Chet Hawkins
However, similar to a Sorities it will have the same solutions or attempts at one. Whether this is along esoteric mystical routes, semantic ones, or in adopting new novel forms of logical grammar/syntax. — substantivalism

And my response to that would be 'who cares?'. The reason I am left with or prone to this response is that you made no argument as to why that is a 'bad' thing, but, presumably you would not have mentioned it unless it is a 'bad' thing. What about Sorities solutions is 'bad'?

Second, the idea of a limit seems to underwrite part of your thought process on 'knowledge' and such an analogy is what allows for or is inferred from holding knowledge as the greatest unreachable but one with which we can in principle. . . approach. Despite the intuitiveness of this, that I admit to, I can't help but feel that all an opponent would need to attack is the coherency of 'getting closer to the truth'. Even in ignorance of such a journey. — substantivalism

And I sympathize with this problem you mention. But, I offer that we are not as powerless or lost in this process as you imply. In fact, this is a response indicative to me of a defensiveness that is not advisable.

The fact is that although perfection seems unreachable and may be, we can indeed detect and measure progress towards it. The means of that demonstrable testing is a concept that like belief will not be easy for anyone to agree on. The fear types especially, and most people that call themselves openly philosophers are academic fear types, are prone to this mistake, this error. That error is not realizing that happiness is indeed the consequence of alignment with objective moral truth and by degrees. Therefore if we begin to get better at measuring genuine happiness we will solve a lot of this issue, assuming the certainty needers can back off realizing that certainty is delusional and therefore not a goal per say.

Notice I say genuine happiness because joy is often conflated with happiness and Hedonism with the GOOD, when that is not accurate in any sense.

Each virtue in the list of discrete virtues does offer a happiness component to total genuine happiness, but, these often become detrimental to the chooser. That is because the pursuit of a single or a few virtues still offers positive discreet feedback for those virtues only. That then is the only happiness some people know of. They confuse that with genuine happiness perhaps understandably. They have simply never known better. The sample case for this revelation is seen in many stories where the dyed-in-the-wool cynic or dark intended anti-hero slowly accepts the more vulnerable good oriented culture they are in. Specific examples include Philipa Georgio of Discovery and Negan of The Walking Dead. Real life examples also abound.

When you say an opponent would only need to attack the coherency of this idea or assertion set, I disagree. All arguments that talk overmuch about coherency are based in order-apology, fear side thinking only. As such they run into the limit I refer to in all cases. Therefore, effectively, no argument can be coherent. All arguments are delusional. All arguments are beliefs, only. If THEY think they have found a coherent one, that is even more certainly a delusion than if they remain in doubt.

Anger has the intuition that logic will yield to it and to desire in certain ways. The thing is, a dedicated logic or fear path person will never admit to the coherency of such anger and desire side arguments. But the Truth is that reality is constructed such that its structure, its Truth, is split into these three approaches. Therefore finally, it IS logical for logic itself to give way to the final union with anger and desire. As such, indeed, fear side approaches do intersect anger and desire at precisely one point in intent space, perfection. That is where each of these three asymptotes actually merge.

So, these arguments you suggest, and I realize you sympathize with the other paths, are themselves indicative of a fear-side failure. When I see the word 'coherent' or any variation on it. or the word 'knowledge', or the word 'fact' on THAT side of the argument, I know I am dealing with an order-apologist, someone who does not properly value anger and desire. Further, since most such types do not realize that logic and thought is only fear, they do not realize or admit that fear is what is causing their failure.

There are two approaches that come to mind with one being rather esoteric and the other that probably has semantic/psychological positions in greater philosophical literature ->

Meaning Equivalency: Basically, this position denies that any of the assertions you are making which 'seemed' to be distinctly different claims/descriptions/beliefs of the world were in fact not so. Specifically regarding ones which resist any or all attempts at justification and truth assessment even in principle. I have a feeling that one of the methodological methods, lingo, that would be used to get at this point would be to split up assertions into falsifiable and unfalsifiable. However, that may have its limitations and therefore I leave open what such a criterion even is. Suffice as to say once such a split is made between claims/beliefs which can be assessed versus those which are impossible allows us to then use this positions' patented semantic translator to render all such inaccessible beliefs as vacuously true/false about the world. Instead of allowing for each belief to independently be possible of being true or false this person's intention is to figure out how it is that huge swaths, if not all, such types of beliefs are all equally as vacuously true or false. Basically, its to give you your point about beliefs being closer to this objective thing as more true or false but only in the most vacuous sense possible so almost all such similar beliefs are similarly true/false. In the same manner as tautologies or contradictions, they don't say much but they are true/false strictly speaking. — substantivalism

This position is the classical fear oriented order apologist failure in understanding as related above.

Mental Reductivism: This position is simply to assert the meaninglessness of assertions regarding the outside world and our language as having any coherent connection to begin with. In principle, then, such a position would survive off of re-translating everything into purely observable/experiential language or throw it in the garbage bin of meaninglessness if it cannot be. Could such a position dissolve into Berkleyian subjective idealism of a sort or external world skepticism? Yes, but perhaps this is a cost worth being subjected to if it removes us from some unhealthy dichotomies. Basically, it doesn't even let your idea of 'getting closer to the truth' or this objective thing off the ground and denies that assertions about the external world have any meaning at all let alone truth values. — substantivalism

And this position is even worse. It is just Nihilism effectively. Even a cursory examination of meaning shows a fairly grand 'wisdom of the masses' effect. That is not just a throw away. It means that although all of THEM are partially wrong, they are partially right as well, at the core, in some way. This is the intuition of mass, of anger. It is understandable that fear types would not be comfortable with this assessment or assertion and yet it will stand based on mass appeal. So, the something that 'wins' must at least not deny this set of intuitions at its core. I am hiding in the term 'core' the eventual belief set that will indeed be married up with 'getting closer to the truth' by other less denying fear types. That is what we would have when, in the fullness of time, such a matter is ... better ... resolved by all three paths, as it must be.

In others words the one DOES lead to the other, and you think it does not.
— Chet Hawkins
I do not think it does not. It is, indeed, a matter of degree. A spectrum. Your dogs are a good example. Even different breeds of dog, though all are the same species, able to mate and produce fertile offspring, can vary noticably in their degree of awareness.

But the area of the spectrum a tree is on does not come with the capacity to be amazed by card tricks. That is not suggesting their awareness is zero. It is suggesting a matter of degree in a specific area. If your dogs are far beyond other dogs, is it not possible that other dogs are likewise far beyond trees? Le Guin mentions "the wisdom in a tree's root." A phrase I am very fond of. With regard to a tree's life, and needs, and being, a tree's root is certainly far wiser than we are. But we are far wiser than trees are in other ways. — Patterner

Excellent. I think we can agree to agree then. What an unusual situation! Yay!

↪Bylaw Well yes, there are many different usages and contexts of usage of the word.

Adding to what you say we could equally fail to cosmetically remove the word 'know' from our lexicon while continuing to tread the spiritual path Chet Hawkins seems primarily concerned with.

To me the main area the word know, in its propositional sense at least, seems inappropriate is the metaphysical. — Janus

Yes, well, what we call reality is not reality. Physical reality is a shortsighted version of the actual reality, the capital T True reality.

We are embedded within the capital T reality. Its awareness and union is the only real goal of existence.

So metaphysics is a greater effort, and thus more worthy than physics is or could ever be. This truth does not diminish physics in any way. It shows it proper placement in actual value.

I get it. I understand the (your) position, Thank you for starting this thread as, to me, it has been fun and good work and clearly something people are willing to engage on. That's what such a forum is about!
— Chet Hawkins

I agree that exchange of and argument about the different ideas we may have are fun and also worthwhile for the endless task of clarification. I don't share your notion of "capital T Truth" because I think the idea has been egregiously abused throughout history, and also, I think that if we have no knowledge we cannot even begin to approach 'small-t truth" let alone the Capital-T chimera. — Janus

Abuse is acceptable as a risk and then must be confronted by challenge.

Just because abuse exists is no reason to crawl under a rock and pretend to half-truths (your little t truth).

The big T truth is the only thing in life that really matters.

It is the right thing to do, and KNOWING how to become aware of our place in the world only requires selfless self awareness. — Kizzy

ONLY that? Well then why are we all not in the Federation already? Free medical and career path investment for all! Where's my replicator?
— Chet Hawkins

Yeah I think I got scrambled. It isnt only that, but only that as a stand alone attribute is not effortless in itself. So ONLY that does imply that work is within that. What is required of selfless self awareness? Its takes more or less, depends. — Kizzy

Exactly! As pointed out to me before this word only can get misused easily and sometimes it is incorrectly taken as derogatory.

Awareness requires more than just or only selfless self-awareness. In fact, selflessness is a delusion. I know I am overfond of that word, 'delusion'. But it is accurate on so many aspects of human behavior and belief that I am well justified in its continual use.

Still, colloquially, the way the word knowledge is used, it is only belief.

That is because THEY, others, as opposed to me, do not view the word 'knowledge' in a trying to be objective way, as partaking of perfection. But that causes a red flag in me.

That is because in social settings the word 'know' IS, whether THEY do it or not, whether THEY admit it or not, used to imply certainty, a known (ha ha) delusion. Many and most people love it when someone says they know something because that means they are then accountable, for instance.

There are those of us, the wise, that are accountable, even if we do not know. That is moral duty. But the unwise that believe themselves unaccountable because of a lack of awareness are just making excuses to suck as a person. Confidence allows us to approach mystery with responsibility rather than laziness.

So, as meant colloquially, knowledge is indeed ONLY belief.
It (knowledge) is wholly contained in the superset(beliefs) as an element.

I take it now that you are kind of a push-me pull-you of openness. You are open to the idea that ideas are real or let's say at least impactful. But you are not open to the idea that all the seeds of awareness (any level of awareness) are present in all things since the dawn of time as a law of nature. Is that correct?
— Chet Hawkins
That is not correct. We could not be conscious if the possibility of consciousness was not present in all things, and from the beginning. We are, after all, made of the same particles everything else is made of. My guess is that all particles have the mental property of proto-consciousness, in addition to the physical properties like mass and charge. I think proto-consciousness is simple experience, which, when matter is arranged in certain ways, combines to form consciousness. — Patterner

Awesome! My first guess was not wrong then. I am ... relieved.

But that doesn't mean a rock or tree knows what can normally be done with cards, and is surprised when someone skilled at sleight of hand does something that makes it look like a card is floating in the air without any means of support, reforms after being torn into tiny pieces, or passes through a solid wall. They do not know such things, do not have the sensory apparatus to perceive things visually (necessary for visual illusions), and I'm not aware of any reason to believe they have the intellectual capacity to experience such illusions even if they did have eyes. Dogs have eyes, but they don't seem impressed by David Copperfield or Penn & Teller. — Patterner

Ah, I understand now. This is would say, the way you think of it, is wrong.

In others words the one DOES lead to the other, and you think it does not. There is the disconnect. Of course what we are both really discussing at this point is something akin to matter of degree.

For example there are things that make noises that dogs give that side head turn to, but otherwise as you mention they cannot relate to them. However, the seed is there and the reaction is non-zero even to the higher states and aims embedded in the pattern.

Further, my dogs, border collies, are beyond other dogs by such a distance that they will totally freak humans out, some humans. It is hilarious to me that to notice this about border collies is a filtering trait for the awareness of humans in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that that action which provokes the strange and aware response in border collies is amid dogs.

So, you are not properly allowed to suggest the awareness is zero. And that is where our difference of opinions lies here to me.

It also underscores the central question of this thread. That is to say, knowledge is only belief. Final knowledge is beyond even the awareness of what to do with the card trick. It includes everything about how the cards were made, what time of year it is in which the trick was shown, the life history of the magician in question, and perhaps more importantly the objective nature of the question, 'Should that trick have been shown at that time, in that way'. To know all these things objectively is required by me to 'know'. Otherwise we are only discussing something as relatively unimpressive as ever-increasing awareness. Yet and still that has great value if its PROPER position is understood and adhered to. We do not 'win' the final game by pretending to 'know'. The practical short-cut is compelling and ... wrong.

But awareness and increasing amounts of it are wise as goals. They are generally correct and generally in evidence. There is a faith in this, that the tree 'gets it' on some level and is learning to 'get it' more. I refuse to disallow that truth in my wording and in what I say directly. If the universe is alive and all seeds of awareness are there, it DOES behoove us to act that way.

"It is possible that " is based on guessing, illusion, unfounded optimisms of low probability of the cases manifesting in reality. "It is impossible that " is based the empirical experience on the cases backed by the highest probability of something not happening in reality.

They are at the opposite end of the scale in the statements. The point was that "It is impossible that" has far more plausibility than "It is possible that". — Corvus

No it does not.

To partake of the infinite nature of impossible, is a lower chance in all cases than to partake of some small chance.

This is demonstrated quite well by the multiply by zero effect. You are always safer saying a thing is unlikely than you are to say it is impossible.

Second, an illusion needs a viewer.
— Patterner
No, it does not.
— Chet Hawkins
If I am alone practicing a card trick, there is no illusion. I know and see exactly what is happening with the cards. The illusion only exists when there is an audience who does not see the way the card gets from A to B, and sees it seemingly do the impossible. The table and walls don't see the illusion.

Trees along the road do not see the heat waves coming off the road on a hot day and think it looks like water. The car I'm driving does not think it looks like water. You need a person to see the illusion of water. (Possibly other animals can see it. I don't know.) — Patterner

Well that is interesting. You draw the line on this oddly (to me) especially when you also said:

First, just because something does not have physical properties that can be touched, measured, weighed, does not mean it is not real. We are literally reshaping our planet because of our ideas. We want things to be other than they are, and act on the idea of what we think they should be. I don't know how we can view the ideas that are transforming our world as not real. — Patterner

So, this statement would tend to show that you value and view the realm of ideas as meaningful and that means (to me) that the standard (boring) and traditional barriers to understanding that come into play with having only physical things be 'real' would include such standard (colloquial and boring) interpretations that seem to separate humanity in its various abilities from lower life forms first and then not even living, otherwise accepted as 'inanimate' objects.

I take it now that you are kind of a push-me pull-you of openness. You are open to the idea that ideas are real or let's say at least impactful. But you are not open to the idea that all the seeds of awareness (any level of awareness) are present in all things since the dawn of time as a law of nature. Is that correct?

I will say two things about the idea that it is an illusion, both of which I've said in the past, here and there. I realize I may not be addressing the word in the sense that you mean it. — Patterner

And in that one sentence you just described the accurate definition for the term, 'illusion'. Not addressing some perception in the sense that it was meant ... is the definition for illusion.

If you wish to speak on the physical phenomena that cause an illusory perception in others, THAT THING IS NOT the illusion. The illusion is the mistaken perception.

First, just because something does not have physical properties that can be touched, measured, weighed, does not mean it is not real. We are literally reshaping our planet because of our ideas. We want things to be other than they are, and act on the idea of what we think they should be. I don't know how we can view the ideas that are transforming our world as not real. — Patterner

I completely agree. The imagination produces images that are real. They are in the world. They are not physically instantiated in the world. But that IS NOT RELEVANT to the proper use of the word, 'real'. In many cases therefore, the word 'real' is itself too ambiguous to be used. In each case we should make it clear what is being discussed.

Or we can instead discuss any concept as real merely because it is a concept. It has meaning. That is fine with me and it seems that is fine to some extent with you also.

Second, an illusion needs a viewer. — Patterner

No, it does not.

The unity principle states that perfection is ALL. The unity of all things is a perspective, and perhaps the only accurate one, perfection. As such, the thing observed and the thing observing are the same thing. Therefore, your assertion is wrong.

At any point in the scope of examination, there can be and arguably should be an assumed observer that is the same as ALL or as 'the thing being observed' as self-aware.

Truth is unchanging. Self-awareness is thus an intrinsic part of the universe. It's realization may take some time depending on how much granularity we use to define it. That is not relevant. The relevant point is that self-awareness is a property of all reality.

When a magician does a card trick, the cards and hands do not view what is going on as an illusion. The audience watches, and is delightfully surprised to see something happen that cannot have happened. The audience, of course, needs to be able to recognize an illusion. A tree doesn't recognize illusions. — Patterner

So, speaking to the awareness of certain limited scopes of reality IS NOT the same thing as cannot. In others choice is infinite. The standing awareness that a tree is not self-aware is ... wrong. It is (self aware). And therefore it CAN detect illusion, but, due to its current state, that choice is super hard for a tree. It is so hard for that tree, that it is represented by the mathematical impossibility of the limit as x approaches infinity with infinity being the possibility.

Yes, this is a radically different interpretation of reality than most. Animism is effectively true and has always been true. Nothing we 'know' denies that possibility.

If consciousness is an illusion, where is the viewer of the illusion? How can a consciousness be the viewer of its own illusory nature, fooled into thinking itself actually conscious? — Patterner

That is trivially easy. Consciousness is ALL. So it is both the observer and the observed. It also is that which allows for the confusion via poor choice. Delusional choice based on fears or desires or even anger is what causes the belief in the separation of the observer and the observed.

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

Yay!

It is the 'fact' or 'knowledge' or better as I mentioned, let's say it is the awareness of something that approaches objective knowing, BUT NEVER GETS THERE, that is the point. And it cannot get there. That is critical to understand. One is tempted to say or add, '... in finite time'
— Chet Hawkins
:up:
The warning I am putting forth is to call into question the Pragmatic nonsense of soothing fools with lies about certainty. We all need to become more amenable to the idea of not knowing. Clearly the Yogi mentioned agrees with my general aim. It's a matter of respectful wise humility.
— Chet Hawkins
great point and i feel drawn to point out how that initiative "to soothe" when it comes to the means of that situation. Its not just about the soothing others, the fools that are actually being soothed are themselves. — Kizzy

That is precisely the point. And in general then, on that issue, the person is revealed as an order-apologist acting from a place of imbalanced fear. It is a listening skill to be aware of this.

The 'know' word is thus a red flag for fear side errors, order apology.

Such a person is likely to conflate order and the GOOD. They are also likely to denigrate desire and anger as opposed to fear. The classical and huge example of this is claiming something like, 'Let's not be emotional! Let's use logic.' Logic is only fear and fear is an emotion. So, this one revelation and people's reaction to it is actually rather germane to the overall effect.

The need for order is the need for clear rules and delusional boundaries WHERE NONE EXIST.

I can admit I am a self soother and I like to believe I can justify my reasons to no end. It may be true, but it is not what is RIGHT. — Kizzy

Exactly so. We take the low hanging fruit amid self-soothing, for practical reasons. And it can intersect what is right but the pattern itself is not safe as right. And THEY think it is, more or less.

I take warnings seriously and I think some folk might miss the heart of the AND IN the message because they take your style as they can. — Kizzy

Lol, well yes. Like taking life advice from Gene Simmons. Wait ... sign me up!

"Thanks for the warning, big guy...i think ill be alright" but its not about that (even though that impression I assume is just that, an assumption but i believe it is not 100% incorrect, NOW WHAT?) Its just true, some times....in some cases dealing with some specific individual experience and all that comes with. — Kizzy

And yes, Pragmatism can HIDE behind that process. The probability is their 'bet'. They are not worried really about something so pesky as truth. They are more concerned about something as obvious as efficiency of day to day progress. I suppose they can be forgiven, but only just. Each time such a premise is accepted on its efficiency, we create a society wide delusional plateau that will take a whole lot more activation energy to overcome that .. .lie. It's very dangerous and the next standard of wisdom needs to disinclude that inclination.

Anyways, it's now obvious to me reading your last reply in full that it's understandable to be to the point of brute honesty. — Kizzy

Sadly, that could be said of me in general. Still, most of my thuggish friends consider me elegant and noble to a fault so, what does that mean? I am an anti-Zelig. I do not become you, I become the you-foil. The quintessential challenger. Touche!

You're feelings and beliefs about these fools are valid, I get that. I am looking past the personal zest in your tone, and the MEAT of your assertions will help correct this behavior. — Kizzy

Well that's the intent anyway. It's true, I will not be holding my breath. Wisdom is not a very popular thing finally. The touchy-feeling warm snuggly wisdom is well received, but the get off your ass and set your house straight wisdom is rarely offered anything but 'line on the left, one cross each', or public stoning. 'Are there any women with us here today?' - Life of Brian

Will it take some time and WORK, absolutely. Will others pick up that slack regardless? I have no doubt. — Kizzy

Well I have my doubts. THEY simply rarely do the right thing.

It is the right thing to do, and KNOWING how to become aware of our place in the world only requires selfless self awareness. — Kizzy

ONLY that? Well then why are we all not in the Federation already? Free medical and career path investment for all! Where's my replicator?

Just by, like you go on to say, it can start with doing the work to write better. — Kizzy

Well yes, and I am only admonishing a community that should sympathize in theory with an aim towards perfection and truth. But even here it is seen this tendency, as a law of nature, order apology. And of course the occasional bought of chaos apology. And these are not even admitted tendencies within reality. How far indeed do we have to go from ... here?!

I definitely need to get moving in this department, but sometimes I slack off. But being better at communication using the right language and proper format DOES give my words better reach. — Kizzy

In the fullness of time, for sure. It can also get you banned by order-apologist moderators. Likewise the feel good chaos-apologist moderators will ban you for their reasons. But both reasons are fundamentally immoral. It's quite tricky to thread that needle and not get ostracized.

But what do we know about any kind of separation? It's an immoral aim, finally.

Categorization and separation by way of reductionism is useful only as a temporary device amid discussion. Everything MUST be properly unified back to ALL before any non-conclusion is drawn.

When I post a discussion one of these days, it will be nothing shy of my best! — Kizzy

Ha ha! 'One of these days!', the procrastinator's oath! I relate to that!

I will do that for me, and more importantly it benefits all. I dont do it for others, — Kizzy

I like that. It's the same for me. I own my choices as for me, even if it is me trying to help others that is still for me.

that would be a white lie but not incorrect. I do things for ME and when I am better, I do things for others. — Kizzy

Well due to the Unity Principle they are finally the same thing. That IS NOT to excuse Hedonism and self-indulgence. That is the lie the subjective moralists push. It is only because morality is objective that helping yourself is helping others. That is to say you must ACTUALLY help yourself in an objectively GOOD way and not a delusional self-indulgent way. Eating a box of sugar cookies is not objectively helpful to you.

So again, this concept of objective use of words and concepts helps us, for real, all of us, to understand what truth is, where it lies in relation to other assertions, and how to navigate in a world of false limits (order apology) and false unities (chaos apology).

Things I may never know, the impact the impression the inspiration (the frustration, even too lol). We all do that for each other. I like to call those moments out! — Kizzy

I do as well. Feedback, your cue to quality interaction!

I consider the last few points knowledge, self-knowledge is a knowing but its changing. I definitely believe in my self, but I have no system of belief that filters or limits my knowledge when it comes to admitting I am wrong, or taking corrections with stride and implementing the new information only helps my awareness. My belief is not linked to my doubts, and boy do I have them. I question myself when I am doubting, and waste time which is unfortunate. Beliefs can become your enemy if they are not growing and uplifting you, i feel. — Kizzy

Well that bit is maybe you working out how it is for you. As mentioned, I do not believe that people have knowledge except in the colloquially meant sense of 'beliefs that are strongly believed' and that really says NOTHING about any credible attempt to justify that knowledge as such, as more than JUST belief.

My belief is NOTHING BUT linked to my doubts. In other words there is no belief I have that is not doubted somewhat. I think that is healthy and that the alternative is not.

Doubt and questioning are not wastes of time. They are healthy. They are more a part of truth and wisdom than 'knowing' is at any stage. The delusion of 'knowing' without doubt is precisely the point I am speaking against.

Finally, although I agree that what DOES grow us objectively is GOOD, what we believe grows us is subjective and always partially wrong and therefore not 'known'. We are left only with belief (and of course doubt). That is healthy. So, many people will judge that this or that belief will grow them and that this or that belief is too much an impediment to growth and these same people are very often wrong on BOTH counts.

Still, amid the effort to have society mirror love as a functioning thing, we prefer properly that free will be 'allowed' within the law (order) as much as we can. That is to say, we respect each person enough to allow them and encourage them to experience and reject or justify any and all beliefs. This is why a wise parent or leader MUST wisely inflict suffering on their charges. This is done in a controlled way to facilitate the earning of wisdom. It is in this way that belief becomes stronger. It can NEVER become knowledge.

The balance is always earned and never given. — Kizzy

Exactly and that is very well said. It is a fight to get to balance and an ongoing fight to maintain balance. The peace seekers are delusional. War is the only constant. And it is morally correct.

The choices are given, and we figure it out from there. Navigate. I believe in my capabilities and self enough to be more than willing to be better, for my own sake at least. BUT on my time, of course :wink: — Kizzy

I like it. Delve into the free will thing. Seek each path in experimentation and have the strength to pull back from the bad ones. Some are so obviously bad that a full delving is not needed, only a cautious approach.

I know people and I believe in building awareness with NO LIMITS. Limitless knowledge, we can't literally know EVERYTHING. Can our brains handle it one day? Maybe. I would 100% donate my body to science to experience futuristic body mods. Thats just me though. But you'd think we could know now more then ever ALL types of things. But do we know the relationship we have with knowledge and how we obtain, use, share, interoperate etc it? How can we be better there? How good is knowledge really if lets say a person has bad memory? How does knowledge differ from thing to thing, person to person? How do we see knowledge. Our beliefs shine no matter what. Truth revealed. — Kizzy

Well truth shown about a thing is not truth. That is a status, a state. So we get confused all the time into calling personal states or states of anything truth. If it can change it is a state. Truth does not change.

I agree that awareness has no seeming limit. It extends out into infinity and that is my point that kind of started this thread to some extent. The limit as x approaches infinity in math is a way to describe this relationship. We get the impression that arrival at knowledge is impossible, but that we can indeed always do better, as in earn more awareness.

It's just that you use the same word and words 'know', 'knowledge', and 'knowing' where I would ask for aware of, awareness, and being aware of; instead.

You can even say something more indirect and be right for me as in. 'try to know' or 'almost know'. But to just say 'know' partakes of the error.

I to want to contribute to our awareness. Part of that is the discipline to make words and their colloquial use less ambiguous.

It's interesting what sticks and what doesnt and WHY certain knowings come easy, NATURAL to certain people. The how isnt important, its a question of WHY are certain people picking up some things better than others (like concepts, sports, puzzles, music, charisma, math, logic, reading etc whatever) — Kizzy

Exactly! Again, why people hold information as belief, why they justify it, speaks MORE, not less clearly to reality than does HOW they hold or justify it.

Why in fact is the central question of all questions. Why encompasses everything. No other reason is not subservient to why. All wisdom, all meaning is contained in the one word, 'why'.

Everyone ought to question themselves into knowing, BELIEVING they have a place and do the best they can to position themselves to set the self up for success. I think foreseeable outcomes for individuals can be predicted easily if you observe with detail. Sometimes it doesnt take too long and sometimes YOU are right. Give credit where it's due, to self, to others. — Kizzy

Well, probability is an issue. It is what blinds Pragamtists. They will say things like, 'How is that working out for you?' when you maintain that a small probability thing is possible. You are correct but they are ... something. We are tempted to fill in that blank the way THEY want us to, by saying they are ... more correct. But that is a lie. They are not more correct. They are less correct. But they are betting on a more highly probable outcome which makes them SEEM more correct. That is order-apology.

I love it that people TRY to be objective. I love it that people try to justify their beliefs. But that is NOT the issue here. The issue is when any of us say we 'know' or that we are 'being objective' they are actually just simply wrong. We cannot know and we cannot be objective. We can believe and we can try to be objective and let's speak and write about that correctly, please.
— Chet Hawkins
Since you asked nicely! Ha...its interesting how some people only respond to those requests when they are asked politely. The "good manners" and respect THEY DESERVE seems to hit them in that way without thinking deeper, the good manners WORKS in persuasion. A lot of things are verifible, like you mention with the grain of sand paradox, its the refusal and the tolerance I am also beyond frustrated seeing being repeated and regurgitated in the WRONG ways. The way that is right and true is knowable, I believe. Not for all though, thats up to the TIME! — Kizzy

Well suffering is hard and wisdom reflects an increase in suffering, not an increase in ease. So I sympathize with the rejection of these 'truths' as people are only seeking their ease. Bu tin order to be a servant of truth, to speak real wisdom, I cannot counsel them to 'know' or to pretend to 'know'. I can only counsel that they instead say they are aware of something and then they can qualify that by explaining what they believe they know. In all cases they will discover that what they know is only belief.

It means the OP is under some sort of suppositional or imaginary scenario rather than based on the fact. When you say "It is possible that", it must have some degree of plausibility with the factual evidence for being real life cases. Without it, "It is impossible that" has the same plausibility too. — Corvus

I disagree. No matter how implausible something is, it is nowhere near the same thing as saying something is objectively impossible. That again partakes of a dangerous misunderstanding of what perfection is. Perfectly impossible is probably just that, as in do not talk about it at all because (re-read this sentence until you get it).

But even immeasurably small chances are nowhere near impossible, finally. In fact, saying they are slightly plausible is infinitely more plausible than objectively impossible.

Just had to jump in and steer that one back on the rails.

↪Chet Hawkins You are misattributing the words to me. I said "Quoting the description of the book". I don't know who wrote the description - maybe it was the author of the book or maybe it was someone else. The description was quoted from the Amazon website.

If all particles in the universe are possessed of free will (and they are) then there is nothing else that need be explained or extrapolated. It is simple and persistent, like all truth. Matter, energy, and emotion; all three are never created nor destroyed. State changes like death are NOT RELEVANT. To believe that they are is the height of conceit and delusion.

How do you know that your claims are true? — Truth Seeker

We cannot possess knowledge or truth at all. We can only believe or not.

I am NOT saying that one belief cannot be better justified than another.

There are thousands of reasons why I believe THAT belief. Together they collectively inform my belief as stated.

A short justification for the belief that is summary in nature is this:
Because emotional balance has the characteristics it does, and because I have reason to believe that reality is only consciousness, I then believe that what works in the emotional realm shows clearly that nature itself, and colloquial physical reality, is only possible because that balance between emotions is profound.

What is the result of that balance? The result is that an infinitesimally small amount of the motivating force of will, that which we might call 'choice', is all that is ever needed to do something. Of course we all complain about this so immorally that it is ridiculous because we are so lazy. That stupidity notwithstanding, the balance points to one core truth of the whole universe, free will is the only thing happening.

It's much more profound and well thought out than that, but, that is a good start with it.

It is the elusive and unattainable aspect of perfection, the objective GOOD, that cause Pragmatists to throw their hands up in frustration. They are first afraid they cannot attain perfection (easily), and that is correct. Then they start making short cuts to justify 'knowing' AS IF, which is delusional and wrong. In realizing they cannot attain perfection they cut bait, instead of fishing. That is the Pragmatic failure. The other paths have their failures which are less in evidence in this thread as the subject matter being discussed.

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

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

I suppose it could be the case that formal Realism is something I would deny.

As I understand it in brief. there are arguments about existence which are largely just sense based assertions. 'I can feel this rock so it exists.' But that to me is also just an awareness and not knowledge at all. Even to say something as general as 'Rocks exist' would also be just awareness or belief and never knowledge.

But I object to the loaded term realism then. Realism is a tacit assertion of a delusional thing as real. It's somewhat the same argument as between knowledge and belief. We as moral agents do not experience reality as it is, objectively. We are not capable of that because we are not perfect. Likewise what we can sense is debatable. So, what is being done is a fear based short-cut as usual, some part of Pragmatism. Because most people are aware of what they mean when they say 'rocks exist' or 'I can feel this rock so it exists' is widely accepted. So is Jesus as more than just a man. I could rest my case there. So let's all first agree that what is widely accepted and deemed true is not relevant in any way to actual truth, to even something so vague as 'reality'.

To me reality includes unicorns. I am not saying that to be facetious. Something that has meaning is very real. So in that sense is seems more plausible to say 'Jesus was real', for example. It does not even matter if he was real in the colloquial sense of he did EXIST. It matters then only that he has meaning to many. That makes it real. If we want to say that is fantasy only, then we begin to realize that imagination is real. It exists. Therefore its objects kind of exist.

So, we need our terminology to be cleaned up, more clear. If we mean to say that something was instantiated into physical reality, then we should say that. Because to many people real meaning is 'real'. And I sympathize because it is my belief that reality is only consciousness. The well of meaning is MORE, not less important, than physical mass instantiation.

Regardless, the core debate is a three way, not a two way one. That is there is a perspective that prefers fear based orderly Pragmatic viewpoints on everything. There is a perspective that prefers desire based chaotic Idealistic viewpoints on everything. And there is a little admitted and less understood third perspective that advocates balance between them, sometimes immorally to quickly or too lazily (which is why it is misunderstood and not admitted as extant in many cases).

The 4th path of wisdom is all three of those combined and maximized.

So what I am trying to do is hone the arguments, the argument set, that acknowledges the idea that all of these emotional relationships within intent space are asymptotic to truth. The big one is the know/belief issue. It has ramifications into many perspectives like it that are ONLY in error currently.

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

Confusing these two is the reason this thread is at page 14.
— Banno
Well. . . there is a discussion that could perhaps go on without this obfuscation dealing with whether that intuition we call the certain/uncertain distinction (or the true/untrue distinction) with regards to beliefs is coarse or fine grained.

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

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

Truth and certainty are the same thing.
Anything that is not 100% true is false.
If you want to instead speak of truth value, then again STOP using the wrong words. Truth is objective and perfect.

I love this because this is the same problem with chaos-apologist thought. They believe that perspective is ok and that morals are fungible in many cases, basic subjectivism. But that is a delusional self-indulgent lie.

Perspective is always only the degree of error you have to the objective truth, so perspective is just error.

That DOES NOT mean that one perspective is not closer to objective truth than another one is. That would be just more failed logic on top of something as ridiculous as believing that truth is fungible.

You can call it whatever delusional thing you prefer to call it. It still is actually JUST belief.
— Chet Hawkins
I'm missing a lot of context here because you write so much and your philosophical thinking is rather dense but I feel as if there is really just a thinly veiled Sorites argument getting in the way of all of this. Whether on the part of your opponents or you. — substantivalism

Now you are speaking to my point, and since you said it could be my opponents and not me, then ok. Yes, impossible or unknown proof of any 'knowledge'. is a sliding scale, vague where it begins, how much effect it has.

But that issue is also one that I would say is typical of order-apologists. As in bringing up that issue is not precisely the point.

My assertion is that as far as what defines belief, knowledge is indeed fully included. That is all. Knowledge is only belief. It is fully included in that set.

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. So this is where we are working with the mathematical concept of limits. It would seem that that effect is one way to cause the Sorites paradox. Since the definition of a category is weak, not specific enough, the paradox appears. But there is a difference. When for example we feel the need to define a heap of sand as containing a finite number of grains in order to escape the Paradox, we CAN do that. Assuming we were willing to take the time, we COULD possible count. And yet the Sorites Paradox is still deemed present simple because users of the 'heap' term refuse to do so.

But the limit is different. Limits are special in that nothing is being said about the content of either the axis or the asymptote. It is their relationship that is the point. The asymptotic relationship defines the characteristics of the limit.

So, no, this is not the same thing.

It is the 'fact' or 'knowledge' or better as I mentioned, let's say it is the awareness of something that approaches objective knowing, BUT NEVER GETS THERE, that is the point. And it cannot get there. That is critical to understand. One is tempted to say or add, '... in finite time'

So before we continue I wanted to address that part of the issue. It is not clearly just Sorites.

How your opponents see it is that perhaps you'd make the horrible jump of thinking. . . that because there is vagueness in some categories, whatever they may be, they can be abandoned along with their intuitions for new intuitions both familiar and peculiar for only one of the categories in consideration. — substantivalism

Far from it. They can carry on with delusions all they want (clearly they prefer that). I am taking the eyes wide open approach. We cannot know, so why speak of it? I am NOT saying that one belief is not more properly held than another.

I am saying that we use the word know and its derivatives too freely to mean 'certain'. And frankly, its a no contest argument, really. We do that. All the time. I've had so many arguments based on the other person saying I should know a thing and with me honestly saying I cannot know. I can only be aware of something more and more and never know. I've had them order me to say that I know. Ridiculous!

The warning I am putting forth is to call into question the Pragmatic nonsense of soothing fools with lies about certainty. We all need to become more amenable to the idea of not knowing. Clearly the Yogi mentioned agrees with my general aim. It's a matter of respectful wise humility.

I.E. if statement 'A' of strong intellectual support is a belief, expression of scientific confidence 'B' is a belief, and irrational nonsense postulate 'C' is a belief then it would seem they are all the same in kind as they are also in value. When in reality its obviously the case that various beliefs entertain certain hierarchies of certainty. . . intuitiveness. . . truth-likeness. . . knowledge status. . . etc. Regardless of what word we give to that doxastic attitude. — substantivalism

Yes, with respect to doxastic attitudes, it is better to treat everything as withholding, suspension of disbelief, rather than to simply believe or disbelieve. That is a tautology.

And the thing is that tautology comes first. So we do not speak of knowing already. We know (ha ha) or we are properly aware of the fact that that is impossible, so done.

Now, there is no problem (the problem of this thread). We didn't foolishly speak of knowing. Now, let's hear the argument you say supports your belief. That is entirely different than whether the idea is indeed belief or knowledge. Knowledge is impossible. So, duh, it's belief. Now, why do you think so?

And you are free. You are free to justify the belief in any way you can. So please do. But it is not and never was knowledge.

Language is such that we all cannot agree on some vague percentage of awareness that constitutes the cutoff between general belief and the sub-category candidate, 'knowledge'. So for me, knowledge is only a single point of perfection at the top of belief. Knowledge would be an objective belief. And people will stupidly say that as well. They will say, 'Let's be objective!' You cannot. We are incapable of being objective. We can only TRY to be objective. So that is another example of the same problem. You see, you understand, the NEED for certainty inherent to the delusional method of speech. It's cooked in. And its wrong.

I love it that people TRY to be objective. I love it that people try to justify their beliefs. But that is NOT the issue here. The issue is when any of us say we 'know' or that we are 'being objective' they are actually just simply wrong. We cannot know and we cannot be objective. We can believe and we can try to be objective and let's speak and write about that correctly, please.

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

Exactly, well said! Stubborn and you could have said also stupid and been correct. You are now switching into the defensive posture that rather proves my point. People start to get angry instead of reason at this point. But that is anger led by fear, and not in balance.

Fools always defend untruth with stubborn fear clinging to the past. 'That's how it's done! That is the way it is done!' Yeah, ok, bozo, and it's wrong, and it always was wrong.

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

Know = certain in colloquial terms. It doesn't even matter if you deny it. It is true for many people so that alone makes you wrong. I am asking that we clear things up and make sure that THOSE PEOPLE are aware (because they cannot know) that ... they cannot know. Knowing objectively is impossible.

We have to change the COMMON usage of the word by slow choice, to represent a more proper awareness of reality. Eventually when the 50somethingth percentage of the human herd turns their head to the right idea, we will all spring off in that direction and be the better for it. Let's be a part of the correct subset of the herd leading the way to a better understanding.

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

Yes well, as mentioned, the more moral choice is always the harder one.

I read The Self Illusion: Why There is No 'You' Inside Your Head. Have you read it? If so, would you like to discuss it with me? If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. — Truth Seeker

Interesting and I added it to my next up set of books.

Most of us believe that we possess a self - an internal individual who resides inside our bodies, making decisions, authoring actions and possessing free will. — Truth Seeker

I do not believe that.

Instead, to me, the self simply is. That is to say there is no 'possession' and writing of it that way seems wrong to me in the gut. The individual is certainly not 'external' either so all the wording is wrong.

The feeling that a single, unified, enduring self inhabits the body - the 'me' inside me - is compelling and inescapable. — Truth Seeker

It is neither compelling nor inescapable. That is a new fallacy you are applying to many of us that do not feel that way. So, back off, just in general. Your experience is not mine.

The assumption that others feel the same way we do is compelling, but we are supposed to get past that light compulsion around age 2 or so. You know it's about the time you realize peek-a-boo doesn't make the person disappear, really.

This is how we interact as a social animal and judge each other's actions and deeds. — Truth Seeker

Also not true for me. Very early on I had a sense of right and wrong. The indoctrination for the Christian church only put into words what I already felt. Of course, it went to far and then my indoctrination failed because I could not follow the rank silliness of religious dogma. Still, the sense of right and wrong was at least compelling, if not resonant. I prefer the latter word in every way. I did when I was a child even though at that time the word was not a word but a feeling.

But that sovereignty of the self is increasingly under threat from science as our understanding of the brain advances. Rather than a single entity, the self is really a constellation of mechanisms and experiences that create the illusion of the internal you. — Truth Seeker

There is no difference between a unity of things and the thing as singular. That is the delusion. So this assault is just the giving way of one delusion towards another. And yes, I am claiming that this new revelation is only JUST another delusion. It is uninspired, unremarkable, and in fact dangerous as a belief.

We only emerge as a product of those around us as part of the different storylines we inhabit from the cot to the grave. It is an ever changing character, created by the brain to provide a coherent interface between the multitude of internal processes and the external world demands that require different selves.
— Quoting the description of the book — Truth Seeker

This is chaos-apologist nonsense. The patterns that define the body and give rise in an emergent sense to the mind are linked and not easily changed at all, if ever. The persistence of personality as tendency is profound. Nature is much more determinant than nurture. Still, choice is superior to all of that as choice was what defined the prison of the body up until now. That is state and state changes. Truth does not.

Although choice is infinite in power finally, it is harder to choose well from certain states. Almost nothing is created by the brain. Integration is not finally creation. It is discovery and management, more properly stated.

I do like the idea of multiple mechanisms working together as that matches my feelings regarding the scope of moral agency. But such scopes are all delusional, finally. That is to say, there is only ALL, and delusional sub scopes within all. Identity of any kind is then just delusional. Inasmuch as we are made of cells and then down to atoms and perhaps sub-atomic quanta, and they are doing their thing, which to me is STILL .. JUST ... free will, we then are 'cells' or 'units' of ALL. There is no real difference excepting only the moral agency sum at that level of scope.

I am sentient but I can't prove to you or anyone else that I am sentient. You could call me a Philosophical Zombie and I won't be able to prove that I am not a Philosophical Zombie. — Truth Seeker

Indeed, proof and certainty are delusional and not relevant. Pursuit of greater awareness is not the same thing as certainty. Casting off the foolish need, the timid need, for comfort and certainty is wise. Awareness is ... good enough. Self aware is a vastly debatable topic. The critical issue is already well in place, that is free will, the only truth in the universe. It exists at all levels, even in sub-atomic quanta. It is no surprise at all that this same phenomenon is then emergent to the greatest moral agents of which we are aware, us, human beings.

Many people believe that humans have immortal souls which leave when the body dies and is either resurrected by God or reincarnated according to karma. I am not convinced that souls exist but I am open to examining any new evidence for the existence of souls. — Truth Seeker

There is no purpose to the God delusion or the soul delusion.

If all particles in the universe are possessed of free will (and they are) then there is nothing else that need be explained or extrapolated. It is simple and persistent, like all truth. Matter, energy, and emotion; all three are never created nor destroyed. State changes like death are NOT RELEVANT. To believe that they are is the height of conceit and delusion.

What is the true nature of the self? — Truth Seeker

The nature of the self is truth, is ALL, is belonging. All separation is delusional.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I think we can end up just agreeing.

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

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