Absolute truth would refer, in your terminology, to anything that is considered true with absolute certainty; and 'absolute certainty' would refer to a level of certainty which cannot be doubted legitimately (e.g., a tautology) as opposed to what one doesn't have good reasons to doubt. — Bob Ross

Well, is the following a tautology?

That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.

It depends on what one is doing.

What of this:

Φ∨¬Φ

Which Intuitionist logic denies; or this:

Φ,¬Φ⊢Ψ

which paraconsistent logic denies?

Again, we can do surprising things by bringing into doubt that which can not be doubted.

That is not quite the point I would make, though. That relates to your thread on unanalysable concepts. Both "absolute" knowledge and "absolute" simples depend on context. They depend on what one is doing. Some things are held constant in order for us to be able to move other things. Some things are held indubitable in order for us to doubt other things. Some things are held to be simple in order for us to be able to analyse other things.

And we sometimes change what we hold constant in order to change something else.

The over-used example is a bishop remaining on its own colour for the purposes of a chess game, but not for the purposes of putting the pieces back in the box.

Interestingly this also relates to the nearby discussion of what an "object" is in Wittgenstein's Tractatus. That's not surprising, since that book is a failed attempt to ground analysis and hence knowledge. The "simples" there were "tractatrian objects", the nature of which is famously enigmatic. The Wittgenstein of the Tractatus was engaged in much the same exercise as you, seeking a foundation for analysis and knowledge, only to find such an approach unworkable. The Philosophical Investigations gives an account of why this "logical atomism" will not work.

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.

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

:up: I think you're right that it is dogmatism masked as liberalism; it's couched in terms of being merely Chet's belief, yet it's asserted in a way that is inconsistent with that.

Yep. It's the relativism of the right wing. If there is only belief, then no situation is better than any other. Consider the criticism as against Feyerabend - if "Anything Goes" then everything stays; if there is no correct method, then we have no reason to do science this way instead of that way, astrology is as good as experimenting. Hence there is no need to do anything differently to how we have been doing it, no potential for improvement. If Chet were right, then we may as well settle for oligarchy as democracy. Indeed, if there is no knowledge, we have no way to make things better.

Or consider the relation to Frankfurt's philosophical bullshit. If there is no knowledge and truth doesn't matter, then all that remains is bullshit: speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. Which is seen in Chet's posts.

It's Chet who's position is immoral.

Something like that.

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. — Banno

wow. Do you know where that post is in the thread?

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 tend to agree with this. I think using 'know' and 'knowledge' is fine. I don't take assertions put in those categories as impossible revise. Yes, it can happen and has happened. But I don't need to walk around doubting everything all the time. I think I remember that I boil the water first before I put in the egg, but then perhaps my memory is false and I don't know that that works. And then working is working getting my egg boiled the way I like it. What if my liking it that way is actually not liking it? What if I am someone else? and so on. Having a category we call knowledge works well. Yes, you might run into problems if you consider all things considered knowledge unrevisable. But the opposed danger of thinking every belief is a mere belief and it's wrong to divvy that set up into subgroups seems to instantly create a mass of problems. Like today, now, in the next few minutes dozens of problems will arise and any moment of decision becomes an infinite regress.

It's not clear to me he is saying we have to doubt everything (all the time?) or that he doesn't categorize beliefs into better and worse groupings.

I don't share the optimism that changing the words will make much difference. And people assert things as if they are certain all the time without using the verb know or the noun knowledge.

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.

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?

Thanks for the quotes and search. It was mainly that word 'evil' I was surprised by, but I looked through the search and found some odd and interesting quotes. I couldn't get a handle on the anger issue: if this was positive or negative in his view. But seeing posts more generally instead of just his responses to me it struck me that despite being one of those seeing all beliefs as mere beliefs, his beliefs are expressed with a great deal of certainty and judgment. But perhaps the idea is that as long as you say everything you say is a mere belief, you are then allowed to plow forward without qualitification. Is that the anger?

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.

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!

↪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

All the reasons I have for doubting that I exist are highly implausible thought experiments (e.g., the evil demon, simulation theory, etc.) and given the immediate experience I am having, I have no good reasons to doubt my existence; although I cannot be absolutely certain I am, because those highly implausible possibilities are actual and logical possibilities.

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.

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!

That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles

No, this is not logically necessitous; and therefore is not tautological. This is a proof derived a priori in our intuition.

What of this:
Φ∨¬Φ
Which Intuitionist logic denies; or this:
Φ,¬Φ⊢Ψ
which paraconsistent logic denies?

What relation does intuition logic denying the law of excluded middle have to do with the geometrical intuition you expounded (above)? I am completely lost at your point here, other than that there are many theories of logic; and to that I say that there is only one, and each is merely arises out of a (human) disagreement about the one: they are competing theories about whatever logic really is, and is objective.

That is not quite the point I would make, though. That relates to your thread on unanalysable concepts. Both "absolute" knowledge and "absolute" simples depend on context. They depend on what one is doing. Some things are held constant in order for us to be able to move other things. Some things are held indubitable in order for us to doubt other things. Some things are held to be simple in order for us to be able to analyse other things.

I am not seeing how the concept of ‘being’ is merely being ‘held constant’ for us to ‘move other things’: it seems, to me, to really be absolutely simple, and that it is not as malleable as you seem to think.

And we sometimes change what we hold constant in order to change something else.

What you are describing is humanity learning; which is not a negation of the existence of absolutely simple concepts.

Overwhelmingly, we agree about more than we disagree. — Banno

By way of unhelpful digression, I like to use this principle in reference to arguments by analogy for other minds - we are similar to frogs, trees, viruses, rocks and possibly even Palestinians in many more ways than we usually pay attention to. Not that I want to derail the thread.

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.

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.

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, — Chet Hawkins

Yes, I don't understand your model and I didn't really understand this post of yours.

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. — Chet Hawkins

Yes. I didn't say anything about you not making assertions.

If you are just ignoring my many statements because they are not formally numbered, that would laughable. — Chet Hawkins

I was responding to your statements not ignoring them. And I said nothing about their being numbered or not.
I asked above two questions you quoted.
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?

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.

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! — Chet Hawkins

Would you categorize this as knowledge?

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.

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.

That is to say, despite the fact that no one else I can find is wiser... — Chet Hawkins

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.

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.

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

Yep.

The rest is dross.

Moved to https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/896568

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.

Something like 'knowing' can really get in your way amid such a process. — Chet Hawkins

I didn't suggest 'knowing', I suggested referring to that set as better beliefs. You referred to some things as wisdom. That is also a category distinguishing some beliefs from others.

Readiness to change stance is critical. Anger knows this. — Chet Hawkins

If anything I would say fear is more ready to change stance. 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).

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

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