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.

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

Yes.

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

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

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

Second, Ok!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes that.

Who cares what it's called? — ENOAH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perfection-aiming IS NOT perfection-expectation!

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've not explained anything adequately. — AmadeusD

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

You conflate understanding with agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honesty about the vagueness is precisely the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do we mean by the word “sin”? — Art48

We mean an immoral act. Of course, then we must decide how is morality founded and found. Religions would have you believe in the 'sky daddy' or the 'earth mother', both of which are useful and insane by roughly equal measures. Anyway, on we go.

A common definition is sin is some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God. — Art48

This is, even on the surface of it, nonsensical. If we are known by the strength of our enemies then your choosing to do battle with incoherence is both terrifyingly brave and foolhardy beyond all estimation. Your foe is illusory as defined. What sort of contest is that?! For your next trick will you punch your way out of a wet paper bag? Will you accidentally offend a liberal? Set the bar higher!

Using that definition, I can say with complete honesty and assurance that I have never knowingly sinned. — Art48

I define evil as wearing pink underpants. I have never knowingly sinned!

Why? Because God has never revealed his will to me. As a consequence, I am unable to knowingly violate his will. I am unable to knowingly sin. — Art48

If you can pretend to fight imaginary foes, you can at least arm them properly with imaginary truths.

God's will is known to you by intuition, by existence, by thought, imagination, and more. Even amid something as precarious as religions are, they still explain it that way, the better explainers among them. That means even such a dyed in the wool heathen as you must be is STILL informed by your own presence in the world and the world's effects on you and vice versa. You have a moral sense. Even sociopaths have the rudiments of moral understanding.

Religion is window-dressing, and not strictly necessary for discussions on morality and the moral sense.

So you are pitching a very one-sided set piece battle here. I predict inclement weather and a resounding upset.

Of course, there is no shortage of people who CLAIM to know God’s will. — Art48

What if they are just saying they are aware of the moral sense, really? They just do not know how to be honest and clear. It's as if they set up some illusionary battle and weighed all the lack of evidence (and the real evidence) in their favor. Then they spoke 'to the people' in a public place and played out that little charade in good faith with NO ONE, including themselves. Does that sound familiar? It should.

There are priests and pastors who CLAIM to know what God wishes and what God does not wish. — Art48

Are they simplifying what their moral sense tells them and then also aggrandizing it with embellishments for entertainment purposes? <Brzzzt> "Please insert additional coins to continue ..."

If I become a Catholic, I’ll be told God wishes me to go to Mass every Sunday. — Art48

Yes, so that you can continue to be indoctrinated and insert coins to continue.

If I become a Jehovah’s Witness, I’ll be told God does not allow blood transfusions. — Art48

Well, at least not without consent. Fluid transfer is some nasty ... stuff. "The Blood of Christ compels you, though!' I guess SOME blood is better than others. Lilu, my love, where are you? Supreme Being!

If I become Hindu, I’ll be told God doesn’t want me to eat beef. — Art48

What do they say about crickets? Aren't plants people to? We need the elven point of view!

If I become a Muslim, I’ll be told God doesn’t want me to eat pork. Etc. Etc. Etc. — Art48

Clearly, the dumbest religion on the planet. Bacon is manna from heaven.

But being told by some human being what God wishes and God does not wish is a very, very different thing than being told by God. — Art48

No, it isn't. Not really. In some Eastern faiths and more recently entertained in Western ones, is the notion that we are all one. This oneness idea, that I call the Unity Principle, is really the best way to approach such matters.

In oneness the delusional barrier of the ego is ignored or consciously denied so that unity may be more easily experienced. It is much harder to relegate any aspect of reality to 'other' status if you are them and they are you. And there is a feel to that, a sense, that is part of the moral sense. It rings true for some people. And those people would be those that many of us consider wise, oh except for academic philosophers who have real trouble with recognizing wisdom apparently. Who knew?

It’s difficult to imagine two things more different: one is a work of man, the other a work of God. — Art48

Man is god is you.

What do YOU consider a sin or 'bad' as an action? Now let's put the lie detector up or why not the sword of Damocles. Speak truth now. Have you ever committed a sin in your own estimation?

It's a MUCH BETTER question, don't you think?

Of course, there are things that religions mostly agree on, simply because most human societies have found it advantageous not to allow murder, thief, and other things commonly labeled as “sin.” And I believe it’s a good idea to try to be an upright, honest, and charitable person. I believe there are things we should generally do and things we should generally avoid. — Art48

This paragraph really is touching on the rather boring concept of conflating order and the good. That is not wise. Order is NOT the good. The good does contain some order.

Religion is not relevant. But morality is the only thing there is, let alone the only thing that's relevant.

Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin. — Art48

No it is not. You are just playing games with yourself and (ha ha) your immortal soul.

Beyond this point there be dragons!

The trouble comes like many such Zenos paradoxes. You wish to speak and reason in the realm of actual infinities when you cannot do such a thing. Reasoning fails there. So your tool of reasoning is the wrong tool. Well done.

The potential infinity realm can still use reasoning.

But that requires a currently bounded scenario.

So, you loaded the question and that is not nice.

In any case the example is horrific as well with each side being half the pervious. It is not neat. It's not even really that interesting. The sides should be of the same length. And since infinity extends in both directions, or all directions, and not just one direction your arbitrary single bound of natural numbers is yet another nonsensical limit that does not help in any way. The absolute value and zero included as a set is more tenable as an infinity and it ruins your nonsense. Lead be thou gold!

I know you are but what am I, ... infinity!

I guess I am lucky, in that all I have to do is to look around, to see all sorts of people who are wiser than I in a wide variety of ways.

For example, those who know better than I, than to waste time on narcissitic guru wannabees. — wonderer1

Well I am lucky as well. I also see people that are more virtuous in some ways than me all over the place. I try to learn, to earn more wisdom by integrating the lessons from them. That has no contradiction to what I claimed.

If you understand, wisdom is ALL traits and individual traits combined. The virtues are the parts. But the final thing, wisdom, is never best described as anything but ALL of the virtues. So I still encounter paragons of virtues and earn more wisdom, but, so far, I am the paragon of wisdom in my experience. That is not to say that you are not yourself actually wiser, only that I have not experienced the full show of your ostensible wisdom. I am much more familiar with myself. So my potential mistake is understandable and not really that criminal.

We should all be guru wannabees. That is wise. The pursuit and broadcasting of wisdom is quite wise. I admit to error in all my endeavors, a fact that people perhaps like you miss all the time. I just did so again. Did you? Yes you did! You admitted to looking around and finding some better wisdom in others. Great!

But false modesty is no way to be, either, and it is not wise. I am a confident bridge-builder and I will say so. I do enjoy Socrates' will o the wisp style of wisdom claiming. But to admit one is partially wrong in every belief and yet claim to still be wise is actually a measure of wisdom. Humility and confidence juxtaposed, non contradictory to the careful observer.

If love of wisdom and its pursuit, including love of the self and the unity principle meaning the self is you and you are me, is wrong, then I don't want to be right. But it is not wrong and I do want to be right, even more right than I already am, which is damned well impressive.

But hey, you do you.

Would you categorize this as knowledge? — Bylaw

What was laid out there was knowledge of a sort, but admittedly to me only belief therefore, because knowledge is merely belief.

Still, the fullness of your question is more important.

No. Existence is being in essence, mass, anger. A fear based approach would prefer to categorize things. My inclination is just to refuse, as anger simply stands for itself using mass to make its argument. Fear rarely approaches unless it can overwhelm the intimidation. Often fear ends up grouping and clumped to meet anger. Or in fact fear can orbit anger. These are natural effects well and often observed.

But yes also. Being IS awareness. Sum ergo cogito. All these (emotional) maths are obvious.

Aren't you dividing beliefs into those that are better and those that are worse? If so, would naming those that are better, better beliefs be delusional? — Bylaw

So, understanding that every choice contains delusion is wise. Then you have to make progress based on relative wisdom, rather than 'being right'. Something like 'knowing' can really get in your way amid such a process.

Yes, judgment, your 'dividing' mentioned just now, is morally required. Although many people (all of them) are wrong about what 'better' means, some people are better about what better means. Ha ha!

So we MUST partake in delusion. The goal is to do so less and less. This is part of the truth that suggests that a moral choice is harder than an immoral one. It is harder in every way morally. That is a law of the universe. So, if you take the easy path, it is almost always in error.

Readiness to change stance is critical. Anger knows this. It understands the nature of balance intuitively. Fear has trouble accepting this truth on every level at the same time. Nihilism and foolish pride (certainty) are the usual suspects as immoral paths. The need for certainty also causes stubborn disbelief as in simply an unwillingness to remain open and try new things as moral duty to test 'that which is unknown' or better even, 'that which does not fit existing logic'. Exploration is a moral duty. 'Use the space! We need more cowbell!' - Christopher Walken

I do still number some of them as above quoted to assist in fear types understanding. ;)

Assertions themselves are a prison, a logical or fear based path artifact. Take in all streams that are delivered via experience. It is precisely the ones you are not skilled at that will inform you more.
— Chet Hawkins

I didn't understand this section. — Bylaw

It's not to understand (or not too hard to understand) so I ask you plainly to re-read it.

The new ground, the new action, is more informative than the old 'known' patterns.

Granted that Pragmatism can enjoy this position and that most people will not have the courage to argue against its workable everyday ways. In other words most people are both 1) Willing to accept that when you say you know that knowing is possible. AND 2) That its ok to say you know if you have done some UNKNOWN amount of justifications, especially if some reasonably thought-of-as-known(not really known) authority (group of bozos wearing the same orderly clothing and using the same orderly practices) says so. THAT is Pragmatism.

I adhere to a better way.
— Chet Hawkins
And wouldn't this better way include a collection of assertions that you think are better than pragmatist assertions? Aren't you dividing the set of beliefs into those that are better and those that are worse? — Bylaw

I have made nothing but assertions. If you are just ignoring my many statements because they are not formally numbered, that would laughable.

I do still number some of them as above quoted to assist in fear types understanding. ;)

Assertions themselves are a prison, a logical or fear based path artifact. Take in all streams that are delivered via experience. It is precisely the ones you are not skilled at that will inform you more.

All the reasons I have for doubting that I exist are highly implausible thought experiments (e.g., the evil demon, simulation theory, etc.) — Bob Ross

List them please.

and

given the immediate experience I am having, — Bob Ross

Glad you put this in there. What is it about 'immediacy' that is so compelling?

I have no good reasons to doubt my existence; — Bob Ross

This belief is not correct. You might have immoral (not good) reasons to doubt your existence. But then you have not listed them really. I need more than some title. Show the work. Explain each one you care to, please.

although I cannot be absolutely certain I am, because those highly implausible possibilities are actual and logical possibilities. — Bob Ross

These calculations are wrong then, and not possibilities is my gut pre-action. Being is already sufficient counter to a denial of existence. Negation, as mentioned in the Brahman thread, is foolishness.

Logic is only fear, asymptotic to the GOOD. As a singular approach to the GOOD, it will fail, in orderly fashion, lacking the confidence (anger) and will (desire) to go the distance. Balance is lost and a logical prison is formed. This is why death happens, usually.

I cannot doubt legitimately that 'a = a' because any reason to doubt it I could conjure springs from a misunderstanding of what it is. 'a = a' is a tautology and logically necessitous: there is no possibility of it being false. Any doubt I have will thusly be illegitimate. — Bob Ross

'a=a' is a juxtaposition. If I were to say 'b=b' as a second clause and then say therefore 'c=c', logicians would go berserk. They are wrong to do so. Such is the trap of fear.

The unity Principle, not my own creation, but an extrapolation and extension of all such 'oneness' concepts, monism, etc. shows us, if understood that nothing does not belong. All things partake of all things. Separation (fear and order) is delusion. Reductionism is delusion. The truth is 'You are me and I am you, and we are both God and everything' Therefore 'a=a' where a and b implies 'b=b' and even 'a=b'. If you are confused by temporal state, there is no reason to be. Time is delusional and it is a moral error to bow to that delusion,

The single path of fear, all your so-called logic, intersects the single point of perfection at only one infinite point. It is better by far to support fear with anger and desire to realize truth. It's over-emphasis as that like enshrined in academia, is a dazzling failure in most cases, an echo chamber of foolishness and false certainty.

Do you know where that post is in the thread?
— Bylaw

Fear as an emotion is rooted in the need for comfort and certainty. And certainty is absurd. Sp, by pandering to that fear, we cause more problems than we really solve. Fear is always, when served in this fashion, a cowardly short-cut to wisdom, to truth, that is a lie, a delusion, an immoral mistake.
— Chet Hawkins


This IS cowardly Pragmatism writ small, again and again. It is a short cut. It is greatly immoral in its aims.
— Chet Hawkins

As for anger, well, take a look at this search. I've not been able to follow what is going on. There is something a bit unbalanced here. — Banno

Anger's sin is laziness. In the righteous rejection of immoral desire and the challenge for a fight towards immoral fear {see here now}, anger is doing its part. But often enough, anger or the lazy exemplar avoids conflict and moral choice suffers.

Peace is delusional. It is not what anyone that advocates for it thinks it is. Any and every task is hard by a rough parallel to its worthiness. There is no long term respite. Indeed anger suggests that to be finally moral, one must learn to never need rest. Of course medical practitioners aplenty will disagree and chastise the righteous for their sense of moral duty. And they are like most fear path types, more right than not, as in, probability is on their side that the anger type will fail, not being perfect. But this ignores the real truth, the hidden mystery, of perfection. Perfection transcends all cases, and we must practice for it. That means that finally, rest cannot be needed. It is a tautology if one understands or comes close to grasping without knowing the nature of perfection itself.

Every act one or we take, must be maintained by constant vigil. This is the nature of 'no rest'. But there is maybe a way to properly rest amid the approach such that fallibility is taken into account in the best way possible. Each unit (us) must take turns manning the wall. Surround evil on all sides and chant! Maintain a pure discipline. Re-commit each day, each hour, sometimes each minute, to the pusuit of truth and the GOOD.

You had best martial your anger, indeed!

↪Janus Yes, to an extent. Chet Hawkins sets up an absurd standard only to complain that it cannot be met. He is forced by this ideology to ignore the very many examples of things we do know - he doesn't address the examples, but instead merely repeats the assertion that we cannot know anything, and that therefore the examples are supposedly in error. That's the approach of a dogmatist. As is the contention that those who do not accept his ideology are evil - that those who think they know things are angry and cowardly.

And its this that makes his ideas distasteful. We've had enough of dogmatism masquerading as liberalism. His confusion is gross. — Banno

What is absurd standard? Perfection? Well, I like worthy goals.

Certainty is part of perfection only. One step shy of it is not it in any way. Yet it is and will always be the real goal. Pragmatism (the fear path), whether you understand its definition or not, remains extant in the world. That is to say its understandable that fear seeks the comfort of immoral certainty. But it is not finally wise. Until the very last step of perfection is attained in either single choice or whole universal choice, which may be the same, mystery remains and certainty is truly absurd.

The word and ideas surrounding the concept of knowledge are too often taken and used with a hubris that makes mine here seem quaint only. Even in the face of quite clear balanced arguments to the contrary the need for certainty, and surrender to its grasp, has done in legions of soldiers, whole nations, and most certainly almost all academics. (That last bit was intentional in case you doubted)

An ideology is nothing but a well of beliefs. All of us therefore have one. I am not forced to ignore what is known for certain because NOTHING is known for certain. I am only adding a new sense of awareness, not the lack thereof, to us all, in that we SHOULD morally tend to remain more open to what we 'know' changing. I am as well, by my own statement of belief. But that is harder with me. It is harder because I was already standing ready, less sure of myself. My anger has reinforced my fear. Further I know my foolish desires are tempting me off balance. I am ready to reel them in as well unless I can detect no reason why they are not aimed at the single path towards the objective GOOD.

We DO have a sense of morality. That sense responds to two things, resonance and consequence. The resonance side is the harmony with fear, anger. and desire that is further along the path to the objective GOOD. The consequence is only and always GENUINE happiness (the first thread I posted on this forum). It is easy indeed to mistake immoral pleasure or joy for this happiness and that is disingenuous happiness, which is another reason moral choice is so hard. The same consequential reward system that is a law of the universe still accurately returns its reward by law to a chooser. Having never felt anything better than that so far in their lives, they press the feed button like a chicken in a box and fail to try elsewhere to get other discrete virtues to be included in the mix. It's a big reason that other points of view, even immoral ones, are needed to show us our ignorance. In such a way it is easier to use the mirror selves that have other failures but also other strengths to show us what strength of any kind is. Then we can toe test that virtue and BOOM, genuine happiness comes to us and we see how blind we really were all that time. Out lopsided approach has been revealed. Balance calls to us and we can course correct.

One you 'know', you can never go back, you gotta take it on the other side! - Chili Peppers

You have your way of thinking about it, and I have mine, and the twain shall never meet, it seems. I think we know many things, as I've said, but I admit there is no perfect, absolute, context-independent knowledge, and since such a thing is impossible, I find it to be an absurd inapt principle by which to attempt to assess and understand our concepts. — Janus

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!

Yes, but people can manage to assert things in ways where they seem certain, without using know or knowledge. And they do all the time. In fact, I'd say this is more common. People asserting things without qualification. Rather than saying I know this subject, they act like they know the subject. I don't hear that formulation much 'I know this subject'. Instead one gets a lot of blunt statements. — Bylaw

In general, you are discussing what I call the path of anger, of being, which is what empowers real confidence. Of course, if you understand my model, which admittedly is not yet fully revealed here, you realize that it is over expressions of an emotion that cause or ARE immoral choices. Balanced emotions are better than imbalanced ones and more is better than less.

So, more anger is properly balanced by more fear (as well as more desire). That means the very aware and skilled confidence is better than the confidence lacking in that because its confidence is 'worthier' or wiser.

Likewise, fearful types that express only the 'dread certainty' of over expressed fear, without balancing anger (confidence) are then more immoral than not. And if they can get to balance they usually have to add anger to make their awareness/preparedness worthier or wiser. That is the fear path to pretend to confidence that is disingenuous.

Desire has its flippant confidence as well. Used to convincing its followers to take every hit for it, desire can be immorally 'confident' also. This also has a negative vector where the 'confidence' (immoral) is such that it is 'known' or wallowed in that the universe is stamping out the negative blotch that is them. That is what they are disingenuously confident about and they consider it as correct as it is persistent.

It turns out that amid the three emotions the tendency naturally is to be weak on anger. I would say anger is the most denigrated emotion. It is also the most honest emotion. It can seem like fear and desire need to be balanced first before anger is addressed. That is not the case, but if you look at the spread that is experienced, it does seem that way. Perhaps it is because we are embedded in a fear-desire polarity in terms of our temporal placement in history. That may seem like chance but these major vibrations are quite hard to affect and one could be forgiven for expecting incorrectly that there is such a thing as pre-determination.

I do think or believe though that fear and desire are the natural first order 'balance' in most ways. There is a massive reason and it is the anti-gravity like effect of wisdom itself. Each choice that is more moral than the last is harder and harder. Anger alone turns from this truth in laziness, avoiding the truth. But fear and desire are not avoidant so much as they are delusional. Avoidance is a type of delusion, but one could argue that anger is still keeping it real and at least is reacting to the actual perceived difficulty rather than fooling itself, like the other two emotions do. But it is this reverse gravity or reverse magnetism of moral choice(s) that is effectively another law of the universe.

Wisdom can only be earned through suffering, but the wise know this and accept it. Therefore they suffer more exquisitely than others do and they pursue their own necessary suffering in that regard. Unwise people often fall in to Hedonism and or simple laziness and try to avoid suffering and thus they avoid wisdom itself.

So, if you do decide that some beliefs are more likely to be true or better justified, what do you call that set of beliefs, if you call it anything? — Bylaw

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

I suppose one could, as we already have, delve into justification methods and qualification of so-called experts. That misses the point.

We cannot KNOW or be certain of anything. If we are all fine using the term 'know' as colloquially meant which is 'nigh unto certain', then I suppose my advice is stop using it until people get used to the idea that it does not really mean that.

That is to say, it is better to use 'I am aware of some aspects of this subject' rather than I KNOW this subject. In every way, the former is more accurate. The latter is intended to and DOES for most people imply an assertion of 'dread certainty'. It is humorous that many 'believers' will indeed be the ones to claim that knowing is certain and then that their belief is certain.

We need a better way of expressing ourselves that allows for doubt, the unpleasant condition, to be maintained with less need for the false comfort of the delusion of certainty.

You seem more a lover of your belief that you are particularly wise, than a lover of wisdom. — wonderer1

Well that's your belief. It is not mine. I do pursue wisdom. And I am happy to engage in the false modesty of Socrates when I say, 'I am not wise'. It covers the point a bit nicely. That is to say, despite the fact that no one else I can find is wiser, I admit as well that I am not finally wise. This is rather the same point about perfection that I am making with saying something as goofy as 'knowing' when its colloquial definition is an error involving certainty.

But here's a chance for you to show me that I'm wrong. Name five posters on TPF who you have learned from. — wonderer1

I learn from everyone, even if it's just how they are usually.

So I could name any five. But, to not avoid your challenge I would say:

wonderer1
Tom Storm
Bob Ross
Bylaw
and heck we will even throw Banno and Janus into the set.

I did six so I am excelling at this task.

Subset has the word sub in it. By bizarre personal or colloquial standards of the day I could claim you are trying to dominate British cities by the category cities and you expect sub drop and eyes lowered. Why? Why?
— Chet Hawkins
Yes, sub means under orginally, but it has lost that connotation, means part of the set. I'm happy to us any other noun for mean it contains some of the members of the larger set of beliefs. — Bylaw

Well you can get that you claimed I was implying something negative with the word 'merely' or 'only' if I recall properly. I was not.

So, I am very concerned about the proper use of words and in the case where they are used improperly or let's say oddly, that they should then be accompanied by a personal definition, and, I do try to do that if the context of the discussion is not already making that abundantly clear.

But....
The issue isn't really the word. — Bylaw

If one feels or believes one has been misunderstood, one tries to determine why. If people cannot agree on some aspects of what a word means, that is OFTEN the reason for the confusion and miscommunication. So, the issue is OFTEN the word or words.

If you don't mean something negative with only and mere, then it doesn't matter. — Bylaw

I do not mean anything negative. I do not consider subsets of sets to be a negative thing either. But again, that speaks to MY point. Neither is merely or only. They properly infer the condition or state of being a subset.

It seems like you are saying all beliefs are the same when you say this. — Bylaw

Not at all and that is another strawman as an implication. I never said that but I know you used the word 'seems'. So, ok.

No, what I want to show or assert is that:
1) Facts are ONLY or MERELY beliefs.
2) Knowledge in the colloquial sense is really only beliefs.

Neither of those assertions assert that any random individual's process for validating 'facts' and colloquial 'knowledge' is incorrect or useful in any way, including my own. I must say colloquial when I say knowledge because, to me, knowing and thus the term knowledge partakes of perfection and is not really best used to show belief unless of course we all agree that knowledge is only belief. And round and round we go.

I agree experts are not always right. But I go further, amid honesty. Experts cultivate their position in order to sell out. It is the NORM, not the exception. The Capitalist system (and others but especially that one) foment a culture of sell outs. Fake it til you make it and then sell out. What a system!
— Chet Hawkins
I recognize this phenomenon. But still, I will tend to believe experts over random non-experts. And, as I say later in my previous post, I also take a portion of beliefs to be better than others. I have my own methodologies. I am not separating beliefs into different categories just on expert opinion. — Bylaw

Yes you are separating them as you just admitted. It's ok. Even I do that some. I tend also to trust people who have a vested interest in a subject of being at least marginally aware of the truths related to it. But, it is also true that in most cases I find that my allowance in that regard was woefully incorrect and I should have treated the expert as potentially worse than a common sense guess, e.g. a random non-expert's opinion. It is frankly quite scary what passes for expertise and it always has been.

It's not clear to me yet what your overall position is, so much of what I am doing is triangulating, probing, until, hopefully I do understand it. — Bylaw

No worries and thank you. I do appreciate someone that tries to understand my point. I get of lot of what I would characterize as intentional misunderstanding. That relates to your later question I will answer about 'feeling insulted' etc.

Do not trust anything at face value, especially authority.
— Chet Hawkins
I'd say I am an outlier in my criticism of authority and expert opinions. Of course, often I am going with marginalized expert opinions that have informed my disagreement. Also my understanding in general that leads to my rejection of authority, when I do that, is also informed by the work of experts. I have intuition, experience added into the mix and also a sense of paradigmatic biases. — Bylaw

All of that is as it should be, or, let's say simply, I agree.

Set's include better and worse members, given the purposes one has.
— Bylaw
Incorrect. Reality is objective, so subjective belief does not matter to truth.

Sets include only members and set theory has no designation for 'lesser' and 'greater' until we redefine the set in those terms. You are wrong.
— Chet Hawkins
It's not wrong. And I went on to give examples. Of course better and worse have subjective elements - given our purposes!!!!!!, but if we are saying all members are the same and we have no context for that, well, who cares. — Bylaw

I mean, what is going on here? I am aware of what is happening to some degree, but still ...

The set is or is not accurately believed as 'related in the sense of what defines the set' Sets do not include better or worse members until we filter or intersect them, perform some function on that set which reveals the ordering. Granted that the set of things of which a person is aware can be divided into 'beliefs believed more strongly', and 'beliefs believed less strongly'. That is not really the point I have been after.

The assertions are like this:
1) Knowledge is only belief.
2) The word and its ramified terms, 'to know' is not well used often. It is taken most often to mean certainty, which is wrong. ... Because ...
3) Belief is almost always partially in error. Belief is almost never certain.
These assertions are crafted more carefully to avoid the superlatives that one is tempted to use.

But to me there is a context for discussing the issue of knowledge and beliefs and that has to do with what we want and how we use these things. — Bylaw

What is 'wanted' is often self-indulgent and wrong. What should be wanted is the objective truth in each case. The want to obscure truth by encouraging or not calling to task issues like how often and incorrectly people believe that 'knowing' and certainty are acceptable, is not wise. The desire or want to call that bad habit to task may be unpopular, but it is wise.

If this topic is just about sets for you and getting the members that fit those sets and you have no other purpose, OK, fine. It's not a topic that interest me and I'll bow out. — Bylaw

So that is only the meat of the argument, as in what is needed to explain the relationship between certainty and belief. Beliefs are most commonly accepted as uncertain, by definition. Knowing is sadly not understood to be only a matter of belief. Therefore many and most people treat 'knowing' as if the believer is certain. That is and always will be an error. It is an error even if the use of that belief works and works regularly.

Notice that I even gave examples of different subjective uses for the set of beliefs.
, given the purposes one has.
— Bylaw
you quoted this part but seem to have ignored it. Given the purposes we have which would be based on our subjective values. — Bylaw

Right but although we are all left with only subjective belief finally, we should aim at being as objective as we can be. Even still, we will not arrive at objectivity. So we should not claim to 'know'. It confuses people CLEARLY as this thread shows. Many of them believe that 'knowing' is the same as certainty.

I'd prefer to know that 2 inches of ice would likely hold my weight and I'd want a good source for that information. I don't want just any belief from the set of beliefs, I want one that meets my criteria. Our purposes are subjective, yes. That condition is right there in my explanation (given our purposes). A surgeon has a set of tools available but doesn't ask for 'a tool', she asks for the one that is better for her purpose. If they were playing some game in the operating room with no patient there, than other purposes might be afoot and any tool would do.. Given the purposes. — Bylaw

None of this is anything but tangential to the issue I am trying to get across.

I'm just genuinely concerned that some people consider knowledge and facts to be something more impressive than beliefs quintessentially, when they are not. It does make some difference, I suppose, when you yourself have validated the belief somewhat, but no matter what it's still just, only, merely, belief. I mean if we agree on that then that is the whole reason for the thread.

In order for me to be wrong, knowledge, a given bit of it, would have to be greater quintessentially than belief. It is not. That means it would have to break the set barrier and belong to a superset rather than a subset.

Characteristics of elements within a set are a case for intersection, not exclusion. So you are burning a strawman.
— Chet Hawkins
Honestly I have no idea why you called my explaining my thinking....note: my thinking - a strawman. — Bylaw

Because you made a case for purposes or value judgements UNRELATED to the categorical formation of the set mattering, when they do not. It is always the case that your thing is the strawman when a strawman is being used. I did not bring that to the argument. Correct. You brought that strawman. So, my usage of the term is also correct. I would not bring a strawman for you to burn (unless you are going to burn me, in which case let me know and I will indeed bring a strawman for you to burn in effigy).

For me when two people are communicating with each other, here online especially, I think it is important to lay out my thinking. This often helps prevent talking past each other. In the process of trying to understand and yes, possibly also criticize, someone else's position, I will do a number of different things. — Bylaw

I agree. But the implication is that I have not done that which is in error. I have laid out my thinking. And I do not get the sense that we are only talking past each other. Some other posters in this thread are doing that with me, but not you.

You mentioned earlier that you were used to being insulted or it seems implicit in what you said. Is it possible you are seeing my posts through the lens of how other people have reacted to you? — Bylaw

It is possible, even probable. I apologize for being on the defensive, to the degree to which I am.

Are you assuming that I fully understand your position, so, for that reason and/or other factors you think everything I say is an attack or somehow supposed to be a representation of your position? If so, that's not what I'm doing. — Bylaw

I do not assume ANYONE understands my position, or at least well. I do not really think it's all that hard to understand it. But, that seems to be an ineffective impediment to many let's call them 'detractors' of my assertions.

So, over time, that effect has given me a fairly robust ability to hang on, keep explaining, until at least some few can relate my position back to me in enough detail to allow me to feel heard. It is NOT strictly necessary, thank the fates, that I be understood at all. It is again a truism that relative resonance is acceptable in place of some foolish expectation of certain or complete resonance.

They imply a perfection, an objectivity, that is NOT and CANNOT be present.
— Chet Hawkins

I find the distinction useful and at the same time do not assume knowledge, for example, must be and is perfectly correct. I don't even assume despite the capitals and lack of qualification in what you said above that you mean what you said MUST be 100% correct. — Bylaw

Well, I did qualify it. But at least you and I are in agreement on that point of knowledge not being certain and therefore being ... yep ... merely belief.

Perhaps you think it is, but I don't assume that's the way you think. — Bylaw

Good. I think I made it abundantly clear I do not even like the implication of certainty, let alone the assertion of it.

And even if one avoids using those words - the ones that you think entail a claim of infallibility - one still batches some beliefs over there, some here, some in another batch. With varying degrees of confidence in them. — Bylaw

And that is my point. All beliefs, including all knowledge, are in the belief bucket (only). They cannot escape that bucket.

I'm happy to use the word knowledge. If someone else assume this means perfection, well, I disagree, but I'm open to whatever noun they use for the category of beliefs they have a great deal of confidence in. — Bylaw

In any case THAT is the problem. The reason it is a problem is one that I have qualified over and over and over again in these posts. That is ... people use it as a stand in for certainty. Maybe you don't. But you are participating willingly by your own admission in a cultural practice that spreads confusion. That confusion is allowed or caused by the situation that people object to or TYPICALLY intend for the word 'know' to mean certainty. And it is being OK with that nonsense, that is the root problem. It is not wise. It cannot be wise. It is wise to challenge people to stop doing that. It is wise to NOT be happy to use that word as long as so many people use it that way. So very many communications are confused by this concept.

If I read your post it comes across that you are not just a skeptic. You tell me, for example, something I said was incorrect, period. No qualification. Many of your positions and reactions seem very confident. Nothing wrong with that. So, when you assert things this way, that set of assertions, which presumably reflect beliefs of yours, what do you call that set? — Bylaw

Beliefs and you could say then, assertions, which are also only beliefs.