Yes.By the way, I answer posts AS I READ THEM. That means
— Chet Hawkins
...
Ha. Me too. As we "speak." — ENOAH
I will assume that was genuine. OK, yw, on we go!The need for certainty is moral failure because certainty is absurd.
— Chet Hawkins
First, thank you, in spite of your well deserved dig. — ENOAH
Well your juxtaposition of the absurd and the 'non-absurd' is troublesome. As in I cannot tell if your form of poetry is to make Voltaire's arrival at the NON ABSURD position of declaring certainty (as a pursuit) to be absurd, or to try to flip the script sarcastically and suggest that he arrived at the absurd (which is not the truest point). So your wording confuses me. I suppose I should admit that mine confuses others, and I do, but that was not my intent. What is yours?Second, Ok!
But still, now to satisfy entirely justifiable rules of methodology (dictated by this very specific form of poetry), I should have to read (or re-read, I don't remember) Voltaire on how he arrived at the absurd etc. — ENOAH
Ah, ... well, you seem to be on the side of the angels, so, sure, on we go.But for the thrill of the expedition, and for whatever edifying artifacts we dig up, I'll proceed trusting either way, it's something to learn. And asking your indulgence. — ENOAH
All weakness, all no perfect intent is immoral. That is a tautology. Immorality is ubiquitous, common. But that again is not the point. The point is to be slowly more and more able to discern which position, between any two, is more moral than the other.It is NOT certainty we seek, properly, morally, but only ... more ... awareness ... endlessly. THAT is a subtle but required distinction to be moral.
— Chet Hawkins
Wow! Yes, ok. Sorry. I should have read, and not so boldly entered. But though indefensible, in my indefense, I was looking for a shortcut answer to that specific question "why immoral?" — ENOAH
This is miswording and strikes me as perhaps intentional. How can one misunderstand? Seeking is not absurd, as seeking awareness is wise. Truth seeking is wise. What is not wise is the belief in finding as a final thing. As in 'job done on this, let's pack up the effort and go home to laziness.' No, immoral choice. So, instead of saying 'I know this', say 'My awareness suggests this'. Or instead of saying 'In conclusion we say this', say 'Our added suggested awareness is this'Voltaire, and you, are recognizing that there is never certainty, and only incessant movement, thus seeking is absurd; instead, be watchful of the incessant movement (?) — ENOAH
Yes that.most probably unaware or unwilling even to consider it as a goal. Nevertheless, our entire society would be improved to an alarming degree if we all could develop the discipline to speak and write that way which would then point to us thinking more properly as well.
— Chet Hawkins
Totally! But I'd say, "think," first, speech etc follows suit. But I sense you mean something akin to discipline, like when we insist upon reason or empirical process. I mean "think" first that all knowledge is a thing in constant Flux, and given dozens if not hundreds of factors, my mind will settle every now and again at belief. — ENOAH
We all must care. To not care is immoral. The label is critical as it causes certain effects in its use. That is why 'know', 'knowledge', 'conclusion' and similar words should be called into question. If we realize properly that KNOWLEDGE IS ONLY BELIEF, we are better served by that admission than we are by denying it.Who cares what it's called? — ENOAH
Yes, this 'endlessness' is the endless pursuit of perfection.I need to be endlessly vigilant, watchful of the changes, where I settle, and so on. — ENOAH
Again your backwards wording. It is I that does not settle, they that do. At least the they I am speaking of that use 'know' so flippantly and will not agree that 'knowledge is only belief'.In that sense, speaking and writing are less disciplined, free to explore the endless changes, unrestrained. But You watchful you, not chained by seeking certainty, not chained by seeking anything, you can settle where you believe, in your thinking, it is justified to settle. — ENOAH
I do not understand your use of the word 'third' here. You mean the word 'certainty' in the list? Well, OK. That is not the key point there. The key point is clarity in statements that confer meaning or truth. Knowing is not possible in the final sense, so awareness is all we have and it would be better to speak as if that was the case and not about 'knowing'.point is that the word 'know' and its many derivatives like 'knowledge' and even the concept of 'certainty' itself all partake of perfection which is an unattainable state, in general. So, it is BETTER by far to avoid speaking and writing that way. It is better to say instead 'aware of' rather than 'know', in all cases.
— Chet Hawkins
Oh, yah. Beautiful. I agree. Voltaire and you? If that's what you mean. I see how functional that is for thinking, and why you'd place it third. — ENOAH
Any aspect of art is an expression that either makes sense in some way, resonates truth, or does not seem to, and therefore is indiscernible as art in fact. Beauty is objective, like truth. It is impactful in its relationship to truth. That is to say, true beauty commands attention because it reveals the mystery we align with or even one that we do not. It can be a comfort, but more often it is a challenge by its very resonance.Notice the word almost that diffuses the superlative case. That is discipline in writing.
— Chet Hawkins
I truly respect that! Does it manifest as poetry? Sorry. Yes. But I respect the point. Sincerely. — ENOAH
It is a burden, but no big deal. I am well past the point in life where I let the opinions of others deeply bother me. I do care and very deeply, but it would lessen my delivery if I were too reactionary.You will notice that many responses to me call my confidence into question, rather than being supportive.
— Chet Hawkins
I hear you, neighbor. A pathology in the Dialectic. Nothing's perfect. — ENOAH
Well, I am not sure about the conjecture there, but, Body, mind, and will work together in all things.It cannot beat anger on confidence as that is the purpose of anger (in balance).
— Chet Hawkins
I hear you, brother! Anger. Mind. A beautiful thing, how it constructs Anger, as if out of the blue, just by mixing memory and desire. — ENOAH
Yes, well, settle has its own negative connotation, that of satisfaction or death. That misses the core aspect of the complaint against 'conclusion'. We are NOT done properly. We do not 'settle' properly. Properly, we are agitated and unsatisfied at all times. We engage every fiber of our being in growth and change for the better.That is why I demand or argue for such things as changing the word 'conclusion' to the phrase 'non-conclusion'. The former is a lazy and fear driven need for certainty expressed. It DOES, whether THEY admit it or not, imply that we are done, finished.
— Chet Hawkins
Totally get you. Why not "settlement" "current point of settlement"? You know, it recognizes, not only what you're after, that the speaker hasn't provided Us with the end, that they, the speaker are "aware" (as per you and Voltaire), that they have not provided an end. — ENOAH
No that was like, as if, anyone, the practical speaker speaking TO ME, me saying it in their stead. Practical speakers say things like that to people all the time. 'Do something!' And the funny thing is I am an anger type, a doer. Have no fear! I will do something! Ha ha! Be careful what you ask for.Cast aspersions on others that seem weak. Be seen doing so. Win! But even just the idea that 'Hey, fish or cut bait buddy! Do something (even if it sucks)!
— Chet Hawkins
You're not talking to me anymore, are you? — ENOAH
Cool! Although I have no idea why you said 'Monarch'. What does that mean?Plainly, if certainty seeking was evolved, now built-in, it is not a failure, but a "necessity".
— ENOAH
No, that is the Pragmatic retreat, order-apology, and it is precisely the immorality of over-expressed fear. The need to be aware is fine until it goes too far, like any virtue. The need for certainty is NOT the same as being as aware as we can be in reasonable time.
— Chet Hawkins
Yes. I get how I misunderstood/misplaced previously. And I now understand why you would reply to my comment directly above in that way. I agree! You and V! Certainty seeking is absurd. Of course! And awareness is Monarch. — ENOAH
I understand everything everyone says to me. They do not return the favor though, in any way, usually.I actually do sympathize. I realize I have not explained the entire model yet. Really though the basis of it is fairly simple. Explaining it thoroughly though is a really a matter for yet another thread.
Even in plain English this sentence is not nearly as bad as you claim though.
— Chet Hawkins
I don't think you're really understanding much of what anyone is saying to you, most of the time.
You certainly haven't understood the vast majority of what I've thrown your direction.
You've not explained anything adequately. — AmadeusD
Yes, well you are now proving that it's hard to get people to understand. I am apparently not a great explainer, who knew. Sticking just to the erroneous colloquial definitions of emotions will not aid you in any way.Remember that I consider 'knowing' a moral failure, more akin to certainty seeking, expression an imbalance between anger and fear by definition. So defenders of that wording are like to over-express fear, ... is my forecast.
— Chet Hawkins
In my experience people who are afraid tend to be less sure and people who are angry tend to express more certainty. — Bylaw
OK, interesting. Let's see where this goes. By the way, I answer posts AS I READ THEM. That means I simply start by quoting your whole post and then begin. I have not read the whole thing before I answer. So I have no idea yet what you will write next in this same post.Remember that I consider 'knowing' a moral failure, more akin to certainty seeking, expression an imbalance between anger and fear by definition.
— Chet Hawkins
First, and I happen to mean this admiringly, your words awaken already hovering suspicions that this forum is creating a very specific form of complex poetry (especially if you modify the comma placements). I'll stop. And yet... — ENOAH
Well if you had read the responses thus far, you would hopefully know (ha ha).Secondly, more, hopefully, to point. My current thoughts align with "certainty seeking," but why "moral failure?" — ENOAH
Anger is not the emotion of certainty-seeking. Anger can support over-expressed fear and add imbalance or it can push back against over-expressed fear to the point of balance and the need for certainty would vanish. If one has sufficient anger, there is no imbalanced need for certainty. Anger allows us to stand up to the mystery of the universe with confidence in that balance.Only because you find fear and anger to be the source/position of certainty seeking? If you could surrender that hypothesis, would certainty seeking still be moral failure? — ENOAH
Honesty about the vagueness is precisely the point.Are you compelled because you find it illogical or unreasonable for Mind to "simply" have evolved such that "knowledge" is seeking "certainty " (and I say they are the "same" mechanism), emerged as a "necessary" "step" in an "autonomous" "mental" process? (the quomarks are necessary to delineate that when vague hypotheses are being worked out in a forum of many "scientists" and "technicians," then, notwithstanding their arguably poetic byproducts, it is best to be honest about the vagueness) — ENOAH
Yes, that is a big part of it. Leaping to a short-cut to assuage fears is common in all walks of life and perhaps none so egregiously as mainstream academia. Get the grant! Be seen doing so. Say complex words! Cast aspersions on others that seem weak. Be seen doing so. Win! But even just the idea that 'Hey, fish or cut bait buddy! Do something (even if it sucks)! Pragmatism (fear) is all efficient short cuts that deny the aim at perfection. Idealism has its equal problems as well. But this thread is about awareness, which is all fear.The intuition which we all share, which makes your hypothesis interesting (presumptious on my part) i.e., that it is "weak," for e.g., or "attached/desiring," and, thus fear/anger based (the intuited organic source of these constructed "movements" "dialectics" or "emotions"), to need to seek reassuring, I.e., to be driven to seek certainty, may have led you to construct such a hypothesis. — ENOAH
Engagement is respect. I appreciate any valid attempt. So far, you do not seem uninterested or simply derogatory as many others have been.And, still, there is on a balance of probabilities, a much greater chance I have misunderstood and am misrepresenting your thoughts. If so, I apologize, but autonomously continue. — ENOAH
No, that is the Pragmatic retreat, order-apology, and it is precisely the immorality of over-expressed fear. The need to be aware is fine until it goes too far, like any virtue. The need for certainty is NOT the same as being as aware as we can be in reasonable time.Plainly, if certainty seeking was evolved, now built-in, it is not a failure, but a "necessity". — ENOAH
Yes, so you have stated the real pattern. But at no point was certainty involved. We should become comfortable with that and speak and write that way to be more harmonious with truth.And from there, I would go on to suggest that "belief" too is an evolved mechanism incorporated into the holy trinity of knowing--seeking, certainty/settlement, belief. That no matter what a person thinks they have done to arrive at the mental state wherein they can claim, "I know," they have passed through that autonomous process and settled at belief. Temporarily! That's the thing! All the fuss about certainty, and most knowing gets modified, if not completely reconstructed by settlement at a "new" belief. — ENOAH
So, all colloquial definitions for emotions do not really serve in my model. That can be confusing because of habit.Fear is synonymous with order.
— Chet Hawkins
I can see fear leading to order and rage leading to order. The law and order crowd often seems very angry. Fascists and other dictators who enforce extreme order often seem rather angry to me. In any case.
Anger holds its ground against everything.
— Chet Hawkins
Anger can be defensive in this way, but it also can be offensive. — Bylaw
I actually do sympathize. I realize I have not explained the entire model yet. Really though the basis of it is fairly simple. Explaining it thoroughly though is a really a matter for yet another thread.Anger holds its ground against everything. That is the nature of balance. If this is not intuitively obvious, I can go on an on, because every other aspect of reality supports that non-conclusion.
— Chet Hawkins
THis is a neat little microcosm of hte senselessness of most of your writing. Unsure whether that reflects on your positions though, because it's so unclear. — AmadeusD
Fear is synonymous with order. It regulates and makes 'laws'. It advocates for stability over change and it is rather obvious, is it not that limiting oneself to what is 'possible' by choice is a prison of fear. That is the over-expression of fear. I feel and believe that this eventually leads to death itself. It's more complicated than that, but to say that plainly clearly is more right than wrong.Readiness to change stance is critical. Anger knows this.
— Chet Hawkins
If anything I would say fear is more ready to change stance. — Bylaw
Yes, over-expressed anger and imbalanced overconfidence are possible as well. I am not denying that.In any case we often use anger to bolster our stances rather than feel the fear that we might be wrong and might well need to change (be open to something else or something new). — Art48
I suppose I can begin to outline it shortly, but, really its mostly about that core idea that love is nothing more than fear, anger, and desire maximized and balanced. The perfect maximum of all three in balance is perfection.I don't understand your schema, but perhaps starting with something specific like what I quoted above might help. — Art48
Clearly, that is what I am saying. I am also saying that 'knowing' and using that term is a fear-side order apologist failure in moral awareness.I see both emotions having their place, dependent on context. — Art48
That is true. But acknowledging the 3 paths amid any choice is better than not. In any case your partial quote doesn't capture the right context of my meaning. That is why it is better to quote the whole thing and respond to each part. This also is a lack of unity in addressing issues.No. Existence is being in essence, mass, anger. A fear based approach would prefer to categorize things. My inclination is just to refuse, as anger simply stands for itself using mass to make its argument.
— Chet Hawkins
You refuse to categorize things? Are you not categorizing with your fear, anger, desire schema? For example. — Bylaw
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.What do we mean by the word “sin”? — 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!A common definition is sin is some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God. — Art48
I define evil as wearing pink underpants. I have never knowingly sinned!Using that definition, I can say with complete honesty and assurance that I have never knowingly sinned. — Art48
If you can pretend to fight imaginary foes, you can at least arm them properly with imaginary truths.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
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.Of course, there is no shortage of people who CLAIM to know God’s will. — 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 ..."There are priests and pastors who CLAIM to know what God wishes and what God does not wish. — Art48
Yes, so that you can continue to be indoctrinated and insert coins to continue.If I become a Catholic, I’ll be told God wishes me to go to Mass every Sunday. — 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 a Jehovah’s Witness, I’ll be told God does not allow blood transfusions. — Art48
What do they say about crickets? Aren't plants people to? We need the elven point of view!If I become Hindu, I’ll be told God doesn’t want me to eat beef. — Art48
Clearly, the dumbest religion on the planet. Bacon is manna from heaven.If I become a Muslim, I’ll be told God doesn’t want me to eat pork. Etc. Etc. Etc. — 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.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
Man is god is you.It’s difficult to imagine two things more different: one is a work of man, the other a work of God. — 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.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
No it is not. You are just playing games with yourself and (ha ha) your immortal soul.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
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
What was laid out there was knowledge of a sort, but admittedly to me only belief therefore, because knowledge is merely belief.Would you categorize this as knowledge? — 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.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
It's not to understand (or not too hard to understand) so I ask you plainly to re-read it.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
I have made nothing but assertions. If you are just ignoring my many statements because they are not formally numbered, that would laughable.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
List them please.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
Glad you put this in there. What is it about 'immediacy' that is so compelling?and
given the immediate experience I am having, — 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.I have no good reasons to doubt my existence; — 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.although I cannot be absolutely certain I am, because those highly implausible possibilities are actual and logical possibilities. — 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.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
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.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
What is absurd standard? Perfection? Well, I like worthy goals.↪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
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!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
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.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
You can call it whatever delusional thing you prefer to call it. It still is actually JUST belief.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
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.You seem more a lover of your belief that you are particularly wise, than a lover of wisdom. — wonderer1
I learn from everyone, even if it's just how they are usually.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
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.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
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.But....
The issue isn't really the word. — 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.If you don't mean something negative with only and mere, then it doesn't matter. — 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.It seems like you are saying all beliefs are the same when you say this. — 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.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
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.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
All of that is as it should be, or, let's say simply, I agree.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
I mean, what is going on here? I am aware of what is happening to some degree, but still ...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
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.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
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.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
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.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
None of this is anything but tangential to the issue I am trying to get across.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
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).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
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.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
It is possible, even probable. I apologize for being on the defensive, to the degree to which I am.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
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.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
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.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
Good. I think I made it abundantly clear I do not even like the implication of certainty, let alone the assertion of it.Perhaps you think it is, but I don't assume that's the way you think. — Bylaw
And that is my point. All beliefs, including all knowledge, are in the belief bucket (only). They cannot escape that bucket.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
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.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
Beliefs and you could say then, assertions, which are also only beliefs.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
Until we are perfect, objective in understanding, until we do 'know'; we have only varying degrees of awareness and of course, belief.No, seeing is seeing and believing is believing. I can see the tree outside the window, I don't need to believe it's there in order to see that it is. Belief is only operative where the possibility of doubt exists. — Janus
That idea is not new to me, although much too much is made of this, and without a proper intent (yes, according to me).The term intention has very different uses, particularly between laypeople and philosophers. I'm guessing you know this already. Just thought it worth mention. It's relatively new to me. That said... — creativesoul
Since knowing is impossible, when we use a BETTER term, 'to be aware of' this cleans up a lot of conjecture and confusion. For some, it may seem to add confusion, but that is only because they believed that knowledge was somehow actually fundamentally different than belief. The truth is it offers a better understanding to all to aim or intend in that direction.If we're using the layman's notion of intention or the philosopher's, intentionally mimicking for the sake of mimicking requires believing one is mimicking for the sake of mimicking. The object of intention(the philosopher's kind) is the mimicry in both cases, it seems to me. Although, I suppose ridicule could be the object in the deliberate cause of mimicry. The difference between mimicking without knowing one is mimicking and intentionally mimicking is the knowing part. In either case, one knows how to mimic when one mimics. — creativesoul
Yes, and in all cases, 'knowing' nothing (for sure). It is my assertion that the word or verb and all its ramifications, 'to know' is misused and further that its misuse is a causal agent for confusion, allowing and encouraging confusion to grow, as opposed to wisdom.Both cases require believing that there is something to be mimicked; believing that another individual behaved in some certain way; believing that someone else did something or another. — creativesoul
The decision that one 'knows' is merely in error. In all cases that sort or quality of error is MORE ERROR than just admitting to belief instead of claiming 'knowing'. Knowledge in this case is shown to defy belief. It claims to be transcendent or better than belief. That is a lie. Instead say the supporting argument by which you harden your belief. Or claim the belief as fact with the tacit admission that fact is only a subset of belief. All beliefs, facts included, are partially in error. That does mean I am claiming that belief is not important and wise. But claiming to know is surely unwise. That is my belief.Earlier you wrote that one without hands cannot plane a board. Strictly speaking that's not true of everyone without hands, but yes... that's the gist of the existential dependency I'm setting out regarding knowledge and belief. — creativesoul
I am a sucker for most topics because all meaning is embedded in every topic. This is both a joke and a truism and humor and seriousness are juxtaposed but non-contradictory.I understand that this is not really germane to the thread topic, but it involves belief, and I'm a sucker for that topic. — creativesoul
He is the OP. So, what do you mean?As far as the OP goes, you and I agree much more than disagree. It's when we unpack our respective notions of knowledge and belief that things begin to get more contentious. It seems that way to me anyway. — creativesoul
Since knowledge is delusional belief, knowledgeable people are delusional. And that is ok. But we are trying to become MORE AWARE in this process, or at least that is my aim.It makes more sense to me, to applaud and enjoy with the people who demonstrate that they have knowledge. You can't know that it is inherently less correct, right?
— wonderer1
I think that the self-indulgent position you take here is part of the problem, not the solution. Enjoyment of awareness is STILL NOT knowing.
— Chet Hawkins
And yet here you are hypocritically indulging in discussion with knowledgeable people, and using the internet which only exists as a result of people having the knowledge required to make the internet work. — wonderer1
Colloquial or personal nonsense notwithstanding:No, 'only' and 'mere' are PRECISELY the same (to me) in meaning and they are certainly no worse than 'subset'. So, I confess, I do not get this complaint. It's like saying to 'them' that 'OK, if you concede the main point about your door, we will agree to paint it chartreuse, as you direct.'
— Chet Hawkins
'mere' has negative connotations. — Bylaw
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?Subset is neutral. British cities are a subset of the category cities. — Bylaw
I suppose that sounds fine enough. You have SOME means of accrediting supposed authorities. But the only final authority is you, yourself, for your beliefs. Even if you choose to accredit or validate an external authority, your own nexus/locus of choice is still 'to blame' for your beliefs and you have to own those beliefs by way of moral responsibility.Yes, groups can do this. On the other hand, given their methodologies, I trust the information I get from some groups and some individuals more than others. I'm not exactly sure what you meant in the two parts I quoted here.
— Bylaw
Most 'grouping up' as a fallacious attempt to argue by mass or numbers, is cowardly, if you follow, an approach/need of fear and order. Anger does not care if others agree or not. It will hold the line to the balance of its own belief, regardless. At least that is GOOD anger.
— Chet Hawkins
I mentioned methodologies. This would include my own methodologies also, so really it has nothing to do with number. I am lying in bed and I think it's raining. I thought they maybe said something on the news that it would rain today, but I'm not sure. But I believe it is raining. Or, I get up, look out the window, see drops falling, hitting puddles. I now also believe it is raining, but the methodology I used in the second instance I respect more. So, it is when I evaluate how others reach conclusions: their methodologies - and perhaps past record, my sense of their trustworthiness and other criteria. — Bylaw
So, I WILL write in terms of my model to answer or post. That means, as in my model, there is nothing in this universe that does not ALWAYS partake of all three emotions, fear, anger, and desire. So, it is not factual at all to say that anything at all has nothing to do with fear, anger or desire. Of course such facts are only potentially facts to me, but they are facts by my definition. I have done as much due diligence as I can to validate these assertions as facts.This has nothing to do with fear or anger. — Bylaw
So, far, you have been ... excellent in your approach, as in: not just dismissive of a let's call it 'fresh' viewpoint and willing to temper what I usually get, a rudeness. The rudeness is fine to me. I don't mind a fight, of any type really, as it is the nature of reality. But the dismissiveness is when the fighter offers no argument at all for their side and just says 'you're wrong'. They lose when they do that, but, it doesn't mean they lose the public vote. This is just one reason why Democracy is a deeply immoral system. You cannot vote truth into existence, nor out of existence.While there are bad dentists, I don't go with a toothache to prison guards or stock traders.
— Bylaw
Yes, on some of that we can agree. But we both know that in reality and especially human reality, there are many situations where the fox ends up guarding the henhouse. Why is that? I 'know' (ha ha) why. It's fair to use the fox's tricks against them, maybe (not really) The fox is likely to sell out truth. The fox is likely to call it doubters facetious when they are the serious ones. The fox was appointed by other foxes. It's there to corrupt the serious nature of truth, precisely to let slip things in a certain way. We are all beset by wisdom, by truth. It is too hard to live up to. The 'powers that be' have to make sure that some roads to truth are obscured. This aids in the pragmatic short cutting of truth in daily life. This aids in immorality, the opposite of wisdom.
— Chet Hawkins
Sure, I haven't said: if the experts say X, X must be true. — Bylaw
I do not expect perfection either. In fact I dismiss claims of it. That is what this is about. Expose those that say, 'I know', for they do not, and they should not say that they do. Certainty is absurd. We should speak as if that is true.But I recognize differences between beliefs. I use the word knowledge for beliefs that I consider very likely to be correct. It is a subset of beliefs that I have confidence in over other subsets of beliefs. I don't expect perfection, because I and we are fallible. We do our best. — Bylaw
This analogy is incorrect.Messi is a football player. He is one football player in the set of football players. But I would choose him to play on my team over three random players.
The parallel here is not that Messi is a kind of knowledge, though he certainly has that.
It's just I have no reason to say he is only a football player or a mere football player because he is part of that set. — Bylaw
Incorrect. Reality is objective, so subjective belief does not matter to truth.Set's include better and worse members, given the purposes one has. — Bylaw
Characteristics of elements within a set are a case for intersection, not exclusion. So you are burning a strawman. I do not know (ha ha) what else to say. More properly: I am not aware of how better to express this to you. That is a lie to some degree. I can go on and on. But I admit to not knowing, nor having the capacity to arrive at a conclusion (delusion). Therefore I am eternally engaged as is morally proper. I suggest a similar way. "This is the Way!' - MandoIf I am interested in surprising beliefs, then out of the set of beliefs, many beliefs not considered knowledge and many considered knowledge will fit my needs. — Bylaw
Indeed, one should be able to depend more thoroughly upon one's beliefs that one has vetted well. Bu even the best is not knowledge, really. It is not to the objective standard and should be treated that way. I am NOT suggesting dismissal of moral duty related to judgment of which beliefs are better or worse. In fact, quite the opposite. I am saying that the dread finality of words like 'know' and 'certain', and even 'fact' and 'conclusion' are dangerous as colloquially used. They are used by choosers possessed of LESSER awareness only. They imply a perfection, an objectivity, that is NOT and CANNOT be present. They should be frowned upon as modes/tools of speech and writing.If I am trying to successfully navigate the world, then those in the subset knowledge tend to work better. — Bylaw
I used it because 'mere' IS only or merely a synonym of 'only'. That is a fact. Other beliefs are using tertiary and beyond interpretations of this word. I certainly consider it no less disparaging a word than any word with a prefix of 'sub' in it. I mean really!?But I see no reason to use mere or only, especially if the latter is considered a synonym of the former. — Bylaw
That is MY point. You are ... aware ... of many aspects of your parents and how they are, who they are. But you DO NOT know them. They do not know themselves. That way of writing and speaking is BETTER than saying knowing.It seems to me that I know my parents. I do not know them perfectly, as God knows them. I do not need to know them perfectly to know them at all. It would be more speculative — more dishonest — for me to claim that I know nothing of my parents than to admit I know something about them. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I agree with his point, but his conclusion is wrong. If he was instead to say we are only aware of things, he would have spoke or written better. There is no cut-off of something or someone pour-soi. Even if they die and are en-soi there is still false awareness of what was.As St. Thomas says in his commentary on Boethius, all knowledge is received in the manner of the receiver. The human intellect's grasp on the intelligibility of things is necessary finite, imperfect, discursive and processual. We do not grasp things in their entirety, nor is what we grasp present to us all at once. This is simply the nature of human knowledge, that it is not angelic knowledge. But this does not make it such that there is no such thing as human knowledge, only knowledge from the "God's eye view." — Count Timothy von Icarus
I admit to knowing nothing, but I claim to be aware of many things. Those are not the same things to me. Indeed, people react less well in general to someone claiming some awareness than they do to someone lying to them and claiming knowing. This is a terrible problem with understanding in most people. It is inherently more correct to applaud and suffer with the person only claiming some awareness. That is the gist of my claim stated fairly plainly. - Chet Hawkins
— Count Timothy von Icarus
Not at all. They are often in fact motivated to seek delusion. The comforting lies desire is all over this thread. Truth is elusive and hard to hold on to. The wise suffer more and exquisitely compared to others. Awareness is a burden and causes suffering and that is ok. All virtues are similar. Wisdom is nothing so much as the union of all virtues.I take it that you then might agree with the following claims, that human beings are intrinsically motivated to seek truth, to attain to veracity — Count Timothy von Icarus
I disagree that truth seeking is a fundamental choice. If you are saying instead what I would, in other words, it would be this:By veracity I do not mean a virtue; it is something more elementary. It is in us from the beginning. Veracity is the impulse toward truth, and the virtue of truthfulness is its proper cultivation. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I disagree entirely. That is a messed up way of looking at it. The choice to delude oneself and in what ways one does so, are not veracity and we should not poison that word as well with foolish interpretations. There is no false veracity. There is only accurate veracity and all else is moral failure. Even if the failure is relatively better than everyone else's, it is still failure, finally. It is just BETTER than others morally /relatively. The wording is critical to understanding properly.Veracity is the origin of both truthfulness and the various ways of failing to be truthful. Thus, lying, refusing to look at important facts, being careless or hasty in finding things out, and other ways of avoiding truth are perversions of veracity, but they are exercises of it. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Truth seeking is wise, but, amid that process we often fail. Especially if we believe that truth or morality is subjective.Curiosity is a frivolous employment of it. Veracity means practically the same thing as rationality, but it brings out the aspect of desire that is present in rationality, and it has the advantage of implying that there is something morally good in the fulfillment of this desire. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I do not think that is curiosity. I think that is judgement.It also suggests that we are good and deserving of some recognition simply because we are rational. — Count Timothy von Icarus
No, veracity is a state. It could be the truth value of a thing, its expected state. But curiosity itself or just truth seeking would be fine for stating a desire for truth. I don't agree that veracity means that.Veracity is the desire for truth; — Count Timothy von Icarus
Inclination is desire is passion. All desire is passion. One could also say that inclination is pattern is order is fear, as in a trait. But I do like the idea that inclination includes some desire.it specifies us as human beings. It is not a passion or an emotion, but the inclination to be truthful. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I disagree. Passion to me is synonymous with desire. There is no need to muddy the waters there for me. Reason is not the servant of anything, but its own thing entirely. And that thing is sourced in fear. It is only a pattern that is something one can be aware of or not or to greater and lesser degrees.The passions are not the only desires we have, and reason is not just their servant; we also want to achieve the truth. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I disagree. Dishonesty is a lack of truthfulness. Honesty is a part of truth. We are all always partially dishonest. It is the same thing in some ways as saying we cannot know. We cannot be truthful absolutely. We can only intend to be truthful and do the best we can.If we cultivate our rationality we become truthful, and if we frustrate it we become untruthful or dishonest (or merely pedantic), but it is not the case that truthfulness and dishonesty are two equivalent alternatives for us to pursue. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I agree that truthfulness is something to aspire to as part of perfection.It is not the case that we are defined by veracity (rationality) and that we can cultivate it in these two different ways. Being untruthful is not one of the ways of being a successful human being.
Robert Sokolowski - The Phenomenology of the Human Person — Count Timothy von Icarus
Agreed, but since I did not claim that your idea is moot. I did not say we have no awareness which is what your strawman argument there implies. You are trying to act as if I am claiming that we are aware of nothing, as in we have no awareness at all. We do not have knowledge because any knowledge is all knowledge really. Only by knowing all can we know any. But we are indeed aware of a lot. And awareness to me is already steeping in the understanding of its limitation, which is far better.However, I think there is a misplaced sense of piety if we begin to claim that we do not know anything of our parents, anything of arithmetic, or anything of ourselves for fear of error. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This strikes me as the "fear of error becomes fear of truth," that Hegel discussed in the preface of the Phenomenology of Spirit. For, "as a matter of fact, this fear presupposes something, indeed a great deal, as truth, and supports its scruples and consequences on what should itself be examined beforehand to see whether it is truth." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Again, that is MY point. I am unafraid of error enough to admit not knowing, and only claim to some awareness, a far wiser position than to fear error by claiming to know and be thus error free. You make my point for me, as I understand it.
Again, this is using the word know wrongly, colloquially. To know is an absolute is my claim. I agree that no one lives as if they have no awareness. But they SHOULD live as if they know nothing. They are just wrong not to. It means they do not understand the subtle difference in the terms.But no one lives as if they actually "know nothing." — Count Timothy von Icarus
This conflation you offer again proves my point. The word 'know' is an absolute and should not be used hardly ever. If you change to my term as directed your statements are more correct. Most such are marginally aware of some things, yes, like the way to the Lyceum. But they all know nothing because knowing is unattainable as a skill.Phyrro of Elis, the arch skeptic of ancient Greece was himself caught running away from a wild dog, apparently confident that it would indeed harm him if it bit him. As Aristotle remarks on such skeptics, they obviously believe they know some things, as they find their way to the Lyceum to bother him following paths that take them there, whereas if they truly knew nothing they should not prefer one path over any other when they set out to travel to some place. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I think that the self-indulgent position you take here is part of the problem, not the solution. Enjoyment of awareness is STILL NOT knowing.It makes more sense to me, to applaud and enjoy with the people who demonstrate that they have knowledge. You can't know that it is inherently less correct, right? — wonderer1
I agree, and it's actually not hard really to understand that languages and specifically the emotion of fear cause a separation to happen. Fear is the limiting or orderly force in the universe. In being afraid that one is not a part of all, one is instantly and eternally separated from all until that fear is balanced. That is in some ways the purpose of fear, to offer this delusion of separation that must be overcome. Thus, the overcoming of that fear is wisdom, good, the right path.What is non-dualism ?
Non-dualism represents the absence of a distinction that seperates reality into subject-object, appearance-thing in itself, becoming-being, nothingness-somethingness, necessity-contingency etc. In short, binary distinctions created by our langauges and thoughts dissappear. — Sirius
No more or less than we ever were from any perspective. Perspective is not relevant to truth. Nothing can change truth. Perspective is only error.Who are we from the non-dual perspective ? — Sirius
There is no purpose to offering any label to Truth, ALL, or Love, especially a name. In offering a name to something you are participating in that fear separation game, an immoral mistake. If you belong, then you are Brahman also, so saying 'Brahman' is not precisely helpful.Brahman, who is pure consciousness. — Sirius
That was kind of what I just did my best to explain.What is the way to knowing Brahman ? — Sirius
This is incorrect and dangerously so.Through negation. The ascetic with the perfect contentment looks past all the veils that hide Brahman from the ignorant and sensuous people who are trapped in their mistaken apprehension. The veils are all the material and subtle (astral) bodies. Negate them to find Brahman, to find your true self. — Sirius
That is actually simple to begin to understand. We are not perfect. That realization and admission comes easily. So, in accepting this delusion, we limit ourselves and get comfortable amid those limits.How can Brahman be ineffable and still be described as pure consciousness ? — Sirius
Yet and still we do sense it, non-duality. We sense oneness, perfection. The emotion that arises from that sense is desire itself. Desire is caused in us by the extant (current) existence of perfection. We are deluded in our efforts with desire, just like fear. We want only parts, and not all. That is immoral. It is how we make mistake after mistake. And to want something that is out of balance will unbalance all. Our moral duty to the universe is balance, and maximization; NOT negation.Pure consciousness isn't a description. You can't point to it in the world. It's a phenomenal non-dual experience. In a sense, this experience is ineffable. — Sirius
You can. Who told you that you cannot?Why can't l change the world if l am Brahman ? — Sirius
What 'doesn't happen' is nonsensical. What happens is illusory enough! It is not REALLY illusory, but we are incapable of apprehending things objectively. If we are capable, then it is the least likely thing in the universe, to choose even a single moment of perfection. It is almost infinitely hard, giving rise to the very accurate statement that no one is perfect. Yet all, everything together, is perfect.If l am Brahman, then my will is Brahman's will. But my so called "will" related to what doesn't happen is illusory, like my mind and body. — Sirius
Perfection is a flux. That is what was mentioned earlier. Perfection ALLOWS FOR imperfection within it. And that greater set of possible 'happenings' is more perfect than just a bland perfection would be. In fact, it's perfect (ha ha).How does Brahman bring change if he is unchanging ? — Sirius
Yes, as in circular. Meaning proceeds endlessly from meaning. But there is no need for the term or name Brahman, nor 'grounding the temporal realm'. The provenance of free will is the only thing in existence.Brahman grounds the temporal realm in which both mental and bodily change occurs. The change has no beginning, nor end. — Sirius
All choices/beliefs are illusory for any scope that is not all. Only all contains the conclusion, the only conclusion, love. Every sub-scope is illusion. Identity, time, separation; all these terms are delusional. We fight very hard to be separate from all against our own happiness.What is the nature of an illusion ? — Sirius
No, not just apprehension (fear). Desire and anger can also be delusional. No emotion can escape interaction with the other two. If one wants what is not perfect, that is delusional, an illusion. If one believes that effort can be less than perfect, laziness, and be moral, that is delusional. So, it is not only apprehension that is the source or causal to illusion/delusion.An illusion is something seeming or appearing as other than what it is. All illusions are caused by mistaken apprehension. — Sirius
One is tempted to speak for Brahman and say that perfection contains all illusions and is confused by none of them.Does the world exist as an illusion for Brahman ? — Sirius
AgreedBrahman experiences the content of illusion, without mistaking the illusion to be the reality. Just like a knowledgeable person can see a mirage, without believing in its actual existence. He never loses his identity as pure consciousness. — Sirius
There is only one thing, the thing, perfection. It is somehow the goal of all choice, perhaps. It could be that only experience itself, simply being, suffering the path to perfection, is the only end that justifies all means. But it is fun and interesting to offer that there is a higher dimension still, and that perfecting the one of which we have awareness is required to move on to it.What exists other than all that is illusory ? — Sirius
Clearly, it is possible to use consciousness, or love, as perfection. It is then also Brahman or 'God' and Truth as well. All the terms are synonymous.Consciousness — Sirius
There is nothing but consciousness. All physical reality is just emotions interacting. And only three emotions, fear, anger, and desire. I can explain much further, but that is a sufficient starting point.How can consciousness ground the mental and physical world and how can an illusion be grounded by what is real ? — Sirius
Although it is wise to worry about the perfection of any assertion, any useful analogy or aphorism will hold in all cases, or it is not truth at all but only a state. States change, truth does not.The real can actually ground an illusion. Just as the real moving wings of a fan show an illusory circle. This is an analogy, so it doesn't explain the "how" in the case of Brahman-Maya, nor is it wise to stretch an analogy beyond its limit. — Sirius
We must suffer to earn wisdom. Suffering is the only path to wisdom. Think of it as learning to shoulder the right to be Brahman. You are Brahman but you should be a good one. Get busy. The more moral a choice is, the harder it is.If l am Brahman and Brahman knows how consciousness grounds the illusion, then why don't we know how consciousness grounds the illusion ? — Sirius
There is no need to speak of a 'realm of illusions'. That is only us, believing less than perfection, being less than perfection, as allowed, within perfection. But the aim should be, and moral aims are, towards perfection.Brahman (I) knows the way the illusion is grounded without a "how" or "why". In other words, it's a brute fact, requiring no further explanations. But nevertheless, it's a brute fact in the realm of illusions. — Sirius
The infinite nature of perfection, even as a concept, is shown in every experience, and in every philosophical concept in many ways.It seems that most forms of "we cannot know anything about the world," rely on a certainty that there is indeed a world and a real truth about it out there. I just don't know how advocates of these theories can claim to know this given their position. — Count Timothy von Icarus
And all of that is fine. It's all error, not truth in any way. But you can bet on it as highly probable and be correct.Normally, colloquially, knowledge does not refer to absolute truth. When someone says "I know that the distance to my local grocery store is 10 miles", they do not mean that they are absolutely certain nor that it is absolutely true that <...>; rather, they mean that they are (1) have a belief that , (2) are justified in, (3) and have high enough credence levels to claim that it is true that <...>. — Bob Ross
I agree that there is no helping some folk.↪Chet Hawkins Meh. You are presenting a pretty stock pop version of pragmatism. You are unwilling to consider where it goes astray.
No helping some folk. — Banno
Most people would not know the difference in these terms. That is my point. I contend that in fact those most people are more correct than anyone claiming as you are here.You are confusing absolute knowledge with knowledge. — Bob Ross
All of these other angles on the same thing are just more subterfuge, more deception. Justification can be in error and is only belief as well. What is believed as true is again, also, only a belief. So error creeps in. Blah blah blah.If knowledge is a justified belief that has a high enough probability of being true, then you can know you know X IFF you have a justified belief that has a high enough probability of being true that X. — Bob Ross
I would say that saying 'to know x' does imply absoluteness. That is the colloquial understanding.All you have noted, is that you can’t be absolutely certain that it is true; which is not a qualification of knowledge. — Bob Ross
This complaint has no quality. You are just repeating the same mistake. You offer no argument.That is to say, the deadly serious idea of accuracy is not being treated properly at all when we say we 'know' something.
— Chet Hawkins
But we do know things, all sorts of different things, often with good reason. — Banno
I cannot tell who you are not quoting here. Quote for better responses.Science is not the world. Limiting your examples by presuming that science is the only, or even the best, way to determine truth will lead you astray. — Banno
And your fear here is correct. There is no other way than belief. It is the strength or quality of the belief that is critical. That strength includes elements of the other two paths, desire, and anger.You want a moral argument.
As I already pointed out, if all we have is belief, then there is no correcting ourselves. If there is only opinion, then one cannot be mistaken, for to be mistaken is to believe something that is not the case, not true. In the place of learning, there would only be changing one's opinion. If there is no difference between believing and knowing, one cannot cease to believe a lie and so know the truth. — Banno
I mean that is just some sort of gloming onto 'their' sentiment. I would maybe see one of 'them' also suggesting that we not use the the derogatory word 'subset' implying inferiority. No, 'only' and 'mere' are PRECISELY the same (to me) in meaning and they are certainly no worse than 'subset'. So, I confess, I do not get this complaint. It's like saying to 'them' that 'OK, if you concede the main point about your door, we will agree to paint it chartreuse, as you direct.'My statements are intended precisely to call this foolishness into question. A fact or knowledge, both, are only a subset of beliefs.
— Chet Hawkins
I wouldn't use the word only (or mere). It's a subset. — Bylaw
Most 'grouping up' as a fallacious attempt to argue by mass or numbers, is cowardly, if you follow, an approach/need of fear and order. Anger does not care if others agree or not. It will hold the line to the balance of its own belief, regardless. At least that is GOOD anger.Even if (perhaps especially if) you assess certain groups (scientists, intellectuals) you will narrow that spread because all of them are closing ranks as a rep of the group DESPITE personal feelings or beliefs or 'known (ha ha) facts' to the contrary, because they would rather do that than let chaos get a toehold further into their protected spaces.
— Chet Hawkins
Yes, groups can do this. On the other hand, given their methodologies, I trust the information I get from some groups and some individuals more than others. I'm not exactly sure what you meant in the two parts I quoted here. — Bylaw
And this last bit is another appeasement of 'them'. It surreptitiously implies that maybe this application of the word 'subset; even works, but not well.All sorts of categories can have as subsets, members that work much better than others. — Bylaw
Knowledge is ENTIRELY belief. Knowledge is ONLY belief because in the sense that I am referring to it is entirely belief. Knowledge is MERELY belief because belief itself is more interesting and useful than 'they' give it credit for.There are chess players. Magus Carlsen is a chess player. He's not only a chess player or a mere chess player (the word 'only' her taken in a similar sense to 'mere.' But he is an individual subset of the set of chess players. — Bylaw
Yes, on some of that we can agree. But we both know that in reality and especially human reality, there are many situations where the fox ends up guarding the henhouse. Why is that? I 'know' (ha ha) why. It's fair to use the fox's tricks against them, maybe (not really) The fox is likely to sell out truth. The fox is likely to call it doubters facetious when they are the serious ones. The fox was appointed by other foxes. It's there to corrupt the serious nature of truth, precisely to let slip things in a certain way. We are all beset by wisdom, by truth. It is too hard to live up to. The 'powers that be' have to make sure that some roads to truth are obscured. This aids in the pragmatic short cutting of truth in daily life. This aids in immorality, the opposite of wisdom.While there are bad dentists, I don't go with a toothache to prison guards or stock traders. — Bylaw
Apologies, yes. As you might have surmised I DID NOT read all the pages that accumulated in my absence. That is no guarantee though that there is the answer there. I doubt that it is there, and for reasons. Some reasons that border upon what I will mention again here in this post.You claiming this with no explanation at all shows the depth of your intent or lack of it.
— Chet Hawkins
Dude, check out my posts on page three. I think I've set out enough to be getting on with. — Banno
As I do your responses of this ilk in meaning.That has no bearing on what we are discussing, except that knowledge is the same. Ergo knowledge is only belief.
— Chet Hawkins
I'll take that argument to be facetious. — Banno
Your adjective, 'true' is analogous to 'knowing' more so than to a measured awareness. True has that logical 1 or 0 finality to it, an error (in all cases). A floating maybe is more, not less, accurate. And that statement is ... true. Totally not being facetious at all. I can have fun writing something without it's being facetious.Here's where I think we stand. You said that knowledge is just belief. I've pointed out that in addition to being believed, the things we know also have to be true. — Banno
And now you are equating confidence with certainty. That is JUST yet another error.You might come back by asserting that in that case we only have beliefs, and do not know anything; this because we don't know what is true and what isn't. My reply to that is that we do know some things - examples given previously; and that further you are treating your explanation as something of which you are certain, as something you know, giving only lip service to your doubt. — Banno
No, these are disparate issues. As previously discussed in full. Truth is only able to inform choice. Belief is a form of choice. There is no choice we can make that is not just belief.That would be much better than the alternate account, asserting in the face of evidence to the contrary that there is no difference between belief and truth. — Banno
Since you cannot know certainties, uncertainties are right out! 'Nod's as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?'Can you know uncertainties? — wonderer1
I agree and that was a fairly lion's share portion of what my claim was.Thanks for trying, but I'm not seeing any actual arguments to recommend your position, so I remain unconvinced. I think we agree that there is no absolute truth at all to be had, so that is some commonality at least. — Janus
Confusing you maybe. Events are not truth. They may true, as in 'This happened'. The laws of 'Truth' Involved is what we are discussing, not events or truth value.But you do know that you just responded to my previous post, and that it's true that you did. What possible reason could you have to doubt that? It seems to me that you are confusing yourself unnecessarily. — Janus
There is nothing but belief because knowing is not possible.When it comes to metaphysical matters, I agree that nothing is known or knowable. We cannot know truth in any absolute sense. It is in the metaphysical domain that belief reigns supreme. — Janus
I'm horribad at it. The clarity of my own world is simply never seen in others.Do you think that you are that good a mind reader? I'm quite certain that you are not. — wonderer1