There seems to be space in realist accounts for both what Husserl calls the "truth of correctness" (true/false) and a "truth of completeness" (awareness/ignorance). I think the intuition that there can be gradations of knowledge generally flows from an understanding of knowledge in terms of completeness and perfection.

Vis-á-vis completeness, a set of statements is more true if it truthfully describes more of what a thing is, and more false just in case it attributes false things to the subject of knowledge or precludes true things. It's possible to have descriptions that are more complete than others, but which also have more elements of falsity mixed in to them. These can still seem to represent "more knowledge" of a thing, a "better grasp on its intelligibility," than a description that is entirely accurate, but extremely sparse on detail (accuracy versus completeness). There is a sense in which, as completeness increases, accuracy becomes more difficult.

It's easy to draw comparisons to the idea of entropy here. As a description becomes more complete, there are fewer ways the world could be and still be wholly consistent with the description. The formalization of completeness might be something like a thing's Kolmogorov Complexity, the description that allows it to be uniquely specified (and we might add "constructed" to avoid problems in the philosophy of information akin to the Meno Paradox). This is finite, whereas there is an infinite number of true propositions that can be made in reference to any thing because we can list all the things that are not true or it, which appears to have no limit.

I also don't think you need bivalence for realism. It's more of a metaphysical question as to whether all statements about the future have truth values, or if potentially/actuality and potency/act are required for an accounting of the world.

The attempt to reduce truth and knowledge totally to propositions isn't intuitive. At the very least, it misses something psychologically intuitive.

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

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

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

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

Now we move on to a separate matter:
Second assertion: We cannot be certain of any justification applied to a belief that 'makes' it or transforms it into knowledge. So this is where we are working with the mathematical concept of limits. It would seem that that effect is one way to cause the Sorites paradox. Since the definition of a category is weak, not specific enough, the paradox appears. But there is a difference. When for example we feel the need to define a heap of sand as containing a finite number of grains in order to escape the Paradox, we CAN do that. Assuming we were willing to take the time, we COULD possible count. And yet the Sorites Paradox is still deemed present simple because users of the 'heap' term refuse to do so.

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

So, no, this is not the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I like this

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

:up:

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

great point and i feel drawn to point out how that initiative "to soothe" when it comes to the means of that situation. Its not just about the soothing others, the fools that are actually being soothed are themselves. I can admit I am a self soother and I like to believe I can justify my reasons to no end. It may be true, but it is not what is RIGHT. I take warnings seriously and I think some folk might miss the heart of the AND IN the message because they take your style as they can. "Thanks for the warning, big guy...i think ill be alright" but its not about that (even though that impression I assume is just that, an assumption but i believe it is not 100% incorrect, NOW WHAT?) Its just true, some times....in some cases dealing with some specific individual experience and all that comes with.

Anyways, it's now obvious to me reading your last reply in full that it's understandable to be to the point of brute honesty. You're feelings and beliefs about these fools are valid, I get that. I am looking past the personal zest in your tone, and the MEAT of your assertions will help correct this behavior. Will it take some time and WORK, absolutely. Will others pick up that slack regardless? I have no doubt. It is the right thing to do, and KNOWING how to become aware of our place in the world only requires selfless self awareness. Just by, like you go on to say, it can start with doing the work to write better. I definitely need to get moving in this department, but sometimes I slack off. But being better at communication using the right language and proper format DOES give my words better reach. When I post a discussion one of these days, it will be nothing shy of my best! I will do that for me, and more importantly it benefits all. I dont do it for others, that would be a white lie but not incorrect. I do things for ME and when I am better, I do things for others. Things I may never know, the impact the impression the inspiration (the frustration, even too lol). We all do that for each other. I like to call those moments out! I consider the last few points knowledge, self-knowledge is a knowing but its changing. I definitely believe in my self, but I have no system of belief that filters or limits my knowledge when it comes to admitting I am wrong, or taking corrections with stride and implementing the new information only helps my awareness. My belief is not linked to my doubts, and boy do I have them. I question myself when I am doubting, and waste time which is unfortunate. Beliefs can become your enemy if they are not growing and uplifting you, i feel. The balance is always earned and never given. The choices are given, and we figure it out from there. Navigate. I believe in my capabilities and self enough to be more than willing to be better, for my own sake at least. BUT on my time, of course :wink:

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

It's interesting what sticks and what doesnt and WHY certain knowings come easy, NATURAL to certain people. The how isnt important, its a question of WHY are certain people picking up some things better than others (like concepts, sports, puzzles, music, charisma, math, logic, reading etc whatever) Everyone ought to question themselves into knowing, BELIEVING they have a place and do the best they can to position themselves to set the self up for success. I think foreseeable outcomes for individuals can be predicted easily if you observe with detail. Sometimes it doesnt take too long and sometimes YOU are right. Give credit where it's due, to self, to others.

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

Since you asked nicely! Ha...its interesting how some people only respond to those requests when they are asked politely. The "good manners" and respect THEY DESERVE seems to hit them in that way without thinking deeper, the good manners WORKS in persuasion. A lot of things are verifible, like you mention with the grain of sand paradox, its the refusal and the tolerance I am also beyond frustrated seeing being repeated and regurgitated in the WRONG ways. The way that is right and true is knowable, I believe. Not for all though, thats up to the TIME!

I also don't think you need bivalence for realism. It's more of a metaphysical question as to whether all statements about the future have truth values, or if potentially/actuality and potency/act are required for an accounting of the world — Count Timothy von Icarus

I wonder how much in that attempt could be reduced from all statements? All statements broken down to some broken down to a few broken down to one? What if statements arent good for measuring truth values, what gestures still hold truth might suffice in its place? You have to assume statements might hold truth, but I think holding truth is not in only statements about the future. It travels with them, perhaps capturing sentiments could change the order of operations to get those answers... I think verification processes might be able to gather all statements without taking up the space, energy and time of inputting all statements about the future and still determine truth values. Why do you think (if you do) these truth values in statements about the future have anything to do with what is required for accounting of the world? Is the goal accounting of the world or finding the truth values in all statements of the future? and say that is doable, then to "have" them (the truth values) how do you input that to accounting. To do that, it requires something that knows how to explain truth from the statements and if one can know how to do that, how can it be understood for what its actually worth? Who do these answers help? I dont even think the proof that comes from this matters in account of the world. It matters for understanding humans of it. And its not so natural, im beginning to believe...good stuff!

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

Yay!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The balance is always earned and never given. — Kizzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

its normal, but not necessary

edit:(above is original sent comment- this edit* is to explain my quick reaction vaguely claimed by ME. I will add the deets to this later, i must, but this immediate response is just that, nothing serious- im just reading and responding)

edit2: it was serious in fact...

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

Delusion feels harsh, what about confusion? who am i trying to soothe? *cough* myself *cough* Confused on their place and misplaced confidence? My doubting causes me delayed action, thats what I meant by waste of time. I didnt intend to say that doubting is USELESS.

Except, in my case I made the claim earlier that I had no doubt the slack would get picked up...but I dont need to know anything else from that, i believe I meant it when i said it but do i give a shit if its true? No. I would be surprised if I was. But doubting for me brings up more doubting thoughts/thinking. I almost avoid doubtful thinking, but not out of righteousness. my humility is strong enough, I have the shielded shell of a hermit. I do, succumb to doubt without even having to claim anything, in the privacy of my mind. Its true you may be right, if I embraced the doubt my attitude would be enhancing for the best! Towards happiness again. Its a weird battle i guess for me...Especially in the moments of conquering it, the doubt, I use time and acts of proactive procrastination to hide my doubting dual. Try again tomorrow, you can be better then I say at 11:59 pm. Here we go again, lets do it! My hope is in that chance, time is wasting because I could of been believing instead. Doubting is strange now that I am thinking about it. Sometimes I know when to doubt automatically but nothing comes from it...dealing with doubt is intuitive and internally practiced for me.

I do doubt, a healthy portion i believe. How do you know I have not doubted in my mind, and decided to not agree with the doubt. I am glad you have your doubts, but I think you ought to! And you can choose when to doubt with more force some times over another. Or whenever you feel it inside!

Yeah what if i already doubted before I said what I said and its faced with another doubt? But with no intention behind "i have my doubts" clearly expressed. We have them, we dont use them as efficiently as others do. Its learning...we ought to. I believe the doubt lingers but not im my sight at times. Blinding, masking, and perhaps for good reason. NICE! (yikes) Blinded by the light!!! Springsteen style!

I think people are right for doubting, especially judgements. Im aware and was not lost at the idea of that what i assumed by me to be common sense. That place to judge from is real interesting..."who do you think you are?" WHO can speak on other peoples delusions without understanding? "You know what I meant" its not delusional until we take it to that level. Its more then statements, but yes to YOUR point that is why its important to have better ones. Statements. Fighting against them is still a dual, but I think some people in here want to fight. Like you said in the first response to Janus, about picking a bar fight and then getting beer after! Lets go! Were all just humans anyways...we dont know our full potential until we know our purpose. Some die before knowing but the purpose remains. Who wants to know lifes purpose? How can you? What is yours? Figure it out, if thats what we want to do that it is....anyways, we can decide.


I think if the NEED to know your own correctness of statements like mine,

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

and turning it into a right vs wrong match on the spot, those who need to act like that, "I am right and YOU are wrong" and not only act, NEED that act its not about truth its about the answers chosen to accept while willing to lose chances to grow in return for the validation of self ONLY.

Im glad I commented, this is fun. Relishing.


You should know, I like your doubts. People should be questioned yes. They are also predictable. Maybe thats why my doubts seem not present but what if I doubted from the start? I disguise the doubt in the questioning, but is it a good thing? I dont know. But does it not show the interest is there and also that it can be followed to the intentions behind the questioning for both parties... You doubt, but come to what answer from doubt or because of doubt teamed with, balanced with what? A measured belief and/or knowing perhaps. Does that doubt just drift around your mind until you believe something has been doubted enough? Doubting isnt taking place in the backround of my mind, it jumps out at me! I am delusional but I am not seeing hallucinations....yet. Just actively engaging in some unhealthy but still GOOD screen time!

But I cant help think about now that doubting leads to questions from doubt and those answers can/may be tailored to any liking. Why you believe, trust, act like you agree, say you understand a certain persons words IS telling. What they share, and why and how is also. Behavior observable and verifiable. I consider or believe what is noted from behavior is information, not knowledge. I believe what I see, tell me what I am supposed to be seeing? We ought to know. I dont know what is going on sometimes, because my receptions was off not because I mean to. Thats fine, until I do?

Even saying "I have almost no doubt" seems like soothing or convincing an audience, to me. But your doubts would pick up on that wouldnt they??? AHHH I see what you mean NOW! They would! Dang those doubts are good! "Give me some," says the poorest beggar...as if you didnt work hard to have them. Pft! You have your doubts and you are valid in them. Valued.

I literally do not doubt or question certain statements in the act of making them. Maybe because my "knowing" that statements can be revised, rewritten and deleted and I could deny it ever occurred. BAD KIZZY! Easy way out, get back in there! That perhaps, is a personal delusion but if aware of delusions is it just a display of the will one has or hasnt. It can display the will and its alignments to beliefs through intentions. So people are delusional? Get them a shrink and some medicine then, doc! Whose paying for it though? Ha!!

Just to be better, please. you are saying to me in the crowd and I cant say more to that because we ought to be doing that anyways! Bravo :party: :flower:

BUT I wanna say more, for fun! :naughty:

I dont need to be right, I said this early...we know this, we dont believe it, we dont have to. Dont believe, fine with me. Believe! Not fine until verified. I dont know if I am delusional, I dont believe it. I feel it but I am sometimes at fault for being influenced by how I am perceived some times. Thats my flaw. I can jokingly agree that I appear to be delusional and some people here wouldnt BAT an EYE at that BUT that ground is only stable from the stance taken upon it. Surfaces and bases. Evidence is not the base, what is it upon makes the point. I believe I agree with my bias sometimes, its not limiting enough to prevent the ability to attempt to objectively moralize.

I think that morality is objective. Doubting does nothing for truth but everything if its linked to belief--doubting can lead people in a direction to or from the truth despite beliefs though. Dual it out, the strongest prevails. Or quits willingly. Or dies with honor. Witness the truth and do nothing about it. Shame!

Doubting is not required in my delusions, but i can understand what you mean by believing its "healthy" Its fine, its natural, its normal. Perhaps, doubt exists for me always a little under belief, it pushes it up when im leaning too far in my own right...its a balance. I guess it is healthy afterall, would you look at that. I take back my haste in correcting you use of "healthy" in place for normal. That is not better, you had it right and wise.

Healthy is better...I cant deny that. Good stuff, chet!

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

it did grow on me, see my previous comment if you dare. My comment was a response to the quote I lead with and didnt read from that point until after posting. I see you predicted this might happen! Upon further reading, I am pleased with the synchronicity. Can it convince wonderer1? Is that all we must do? Ha!

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

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

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

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

Okay but not to soothe only because I respected and agree with the insight.

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

I got ya good looking out!!!

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

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

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

"Redundant" is n interesting choice of terms. So, do we agree that belief is necessary for seeing the tree in the front yard?? It goes without saying that seeing a tree in the yard includes believing that something is there, doesn't it? That necessary presupposition is what makes the terminological use redundant, right? — creativesoul

I don't think believing the tree is there is necessary for seeing it. I see the tree there, and the question of whether or not it is really there (answering that question being the point where belief enters into the picture) doesn't arise, certainly doesn't have to arise.

You can say that seeing the tree presupposes believing it, (like the old adage "seeing is believing") and that is one way of speaking about what is happening; I just happen to see that way of speaking as redundant. I think believing comes into play when there is doubt and we decide to go with one possibility or another.

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. — Bylaw

Sorry I missed your comment earlier. I think this is an important point: leaving aside faux-skepticism or global skepticism, which profess that we cannot be certain of anything at all, I think it is true that there are many things of which we can be certain. The distinction you seem to point to is that many people feel certain about things they obviously cannot be certain about.

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

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

The distinction you seem to point to is that many people feel certain about things they obviously cannot be certain about. — Janus

There's certainly that, but my point was more that I think many of us use the word 'know' while generally understanding that we might be wrong AND then there are people who don't use the word know (on a specific occasion or in general) but who think they are infallible in what they consider true.

We can cosmetically remove the word 'know' but easily continue with what CH is concerned about.

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

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

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

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

So perhaps there is then a hierarchy of belief differentiations similar to the ontological categories of Aristotle?

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

I make no claim that I understand his schema. He laid out some information above, but I felt like it would take more time than I am willing right now to suss it out. That said, it seems to me that his communication often looks extremely certain. Things are often bluntly stated and if this was a different thread or I just came at those posts, I would likely assume that he is on the high end of thedamn well sure he is correct and sharing knowledge spectrum. Despite not saying he knows X or Y.. Presumably, behind the scenes he does not think he knows. My point being however that I don't think removing the words know and knowledge is either necessary or effective.

In addition, I don't think there is a problem with having moments of certainty. I don't think we can or should organize out minds that way. In part because it takes language so literal and final. I see language as expressive, ad hoc, context dependent and having all sorts of uses. Telling my kid it's a bad idea for them to keep a bottle of toxic pesticide on a shelf in their bedroom and that I know this is a bad idea, is to me not a problem. And I wouldn't spend a moment debating over whether I merely believe it's a bad idea. Yes, it may be possible that it's somehow not a good idea is some scenario I can't imagine right now, but I don't have time to unravel what seem like minute possibilities. I gotta make breakfast and go to work.

Also, I see language as eliciting things, not just containing things. Oh, that assertion might contain something that could possibly be false. Sure, but I wasn't - in some other scenario - presenting a portion of my Bible of unquestionable truth that we can mount on a wall. I was seeking to elicit things. If we look at truth models there are problems with language mirroring reality and correspondence theories of truth. Language is a very versatile set of tools - containing information being one, but only one of many.

And then, if we are to avoid claiming we know because we might not know then this includes judgments that one should never use know.

And the moment you get to where you are judging people as bad or immoral or evil for not using words the way you believe they should, you might as well be making a knowledge claim. I mean, you went that far. (you in the general sense, not you in the Janus sense)

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

Which does depend on your definition of a what a belief even is. A cursory look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists a number of predictable positions such as highly reductive ones no different than behaviorism or functionalism as well as the ever popular cousin positions of instrumentalism/fictionalism/eliminativism. The more constructive ones build beliefs out of mental states or mental representations regardless of the metaphor used which has us thinking about stored information similar to a computer, representations as propositions, and literal mental maps.

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

They also may refuse to define the terms as such BECAUSE it wouldn't do justice to the difference between a few grains and a heap. Not a decision of laziness or failure to assuage the troubling ambiguity bubbling within our accuser but rather to emphasize that something deeper is going on. Something that a mere precisification of terms will not solve.

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

So, no, this is not the same thing.

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

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

However, similar to a Sorities it will have the same solutions or attempts at one. Whether this is along esoteric mystical routes, semantic ones, or in adopting new novel forms of logical grammar/syntax.

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

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

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

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

A thread with quite some bizarre posts I have to say.

I cannot doubt legitimately that 'a = a' — Bob Ross

Let me lazily link a article which might be of interest: https://thedangerousmaybe.medium.com/the-deconstruction-of-identity-derrida-and-the-first-law-of-logic-3a6246c42eb
The comment is also interesting.

Also Tones' comments in this thread strarting here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/897006

Can you be certain that you are in pain? Or better, can you doubt that you are in pain? — Banno

:fear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think believing the tree is there is necessary for seeing it. I see the tree there, and the question of whether or not it is really there (answering that question being the point where belief enters into the picture) doesn't arise, certainly doesn't have to arise.

You can say that seeing the tree presupposes believing it, (like the old adage "seeing is believing") and that is one way of speaking about what is happening; I just happen to see that way of speaking as redundant. I think believing comes into play when there is doubt and we decide to go with one possibility or another. — Janus

Do you really believe that the question of whether or not we're hallucinating(whether or not the tree is really there) comes before belief?

All doubt concerning the veracity of our vision is belief based.

Do you really believe that the question of whether or not we're hallucinating(whether or not the tree is really there) comes before belief?

All doubt concerning the veracity of our vision is belief based. — creativesoul

Yes, I do believe that the existence of the tree I see is not in question. If I decide to question it and then accept an answer, then, and only then, has belief come into play. In other words, of course all doubt concerning the veracity of our vision is belief based, but I am speaking about the situation prior to any doubt about the veracity of our vision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, no, this is not the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I do believe that the existence of the tree I see is not in question. If I decide to question it and then accept an answer, then, and only then, has belief come into play. In other words, of course all doubt concerning the veracity of our vision is belief based, but I am speaking about the situation prior to any doubt about the veracity of our vision. — Janus

That's when one's initial basic worldview is forming. One is acquiring and accruing belief about themselves and the world around them. Prior to doubting the veracity of one's own vision, one completely and totally trusts their physiological sensory perception(eyes in this case). During these times prior to that awareness... seeing is believing. What I mean is that one does not doubt their own eyes until they become that they are sometimes untrustworthy, by then we're operating under a belief system.

When we begin looking at the world, we believe that there are things all around us, despite the fact that we cannot articulate nor formulate our own experiences. It's impossible for a bike rider to swerve in order to avoid an obstacle that they do not believe is there. Belief is baked into all experiences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't demand determinable, metaphysical rights and wrongs, I observe that such are impossible.

There are determinable rights and wrong in the everyday empirical context, and that's all I've been pointing out.

You have descended into posturing rhetoric, have offered absolutely no cogent arguments or explanations of your beliefs, and I'm not interested in trying to engage with that kind of approach, so I think we are done here.