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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

Second, Ok!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes that.

Who cares what it's called? — ENOAH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perfection-aiming IS NOT perfection-expectation!

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

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

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

It sets up a pattern of continuous 'acceptable' incorrectness that is participated in by almost everyone.
— Chet Hawkins
You're making me responsible for everything. — Bylaw

Well, yes. VERY indirectly we are indeed responsible for everything, each of us, as in we are all each other really, when the objective truth is uncovered. That does not mean of course that subjectively some of us are not more responsible than others, especially in the case of their own personally scoped immoral choices.

That is tucked into the word 'it' above. — Bylaw

Well! When I see formulations like this sentence, I know (ha ha) that we are in for a real treat. Let's see where this goes.

You are hallucinating a future where you and like-minded have managed to change everyone's mind about the use of those words AND you believe the consequences of them doing this, should you succeed, will be the ones in your mental images. — Bylaw

Yes, that is what imagining a better future is about. It's important not to dip into Consequentialism in either way amid this endeavor. I admit that this is only my belief at present and I have stated my case as to why. This has advantages. That is, until society tries IT (<--- the terrifying it) my way, I can kind of stand on ceremony and keep appealing for sense and wisdom. If - all of society (a bit more terrifying for real) - were to adopt this idea theory and try it, they would either become enamored of it in short order as the right way mostly, or they would all be like, we prefer being foolishly certain, ... please bring back 'porch monkey' as a thing. No monkeys nor porches were harmed forming this paragraph.

But I would be remiss, if, in seeing a better way, I did not engage in the then morally responsible behavior of at least suggesting a better way be tried, DESPITE ANY AND ALL DIFFICULTIES in bringing that better way about. And further, amid this same thought, it is not required that such changes are immediate or all-or-nothing, because frankly that is the same stupid sh*t as the idea I am fighting against anyway, certainty, and it criminal order-apologist problematic nature.

You are then comparing this image with the image of what happens if this particular change does not take place and putting that on my table. k You have approaches to improving things. I have approaches to improving things. I haven't set of a pattern of continuous acceptable incorrectness. — Bylaw

I get it. Most of history is the blind leading the blind. Why should now be the exception?

Still, we try things and dare to take risks because that is the only way to confront mystery. We have to have the SPINE to do so and this spine is kept in good shape by testing its limits frequently. I played 23 games of volleyball yesterday, half on indoor hardcourt and then half later in the day on sand. Even in my prime that would have been a trick. And of course these games were not to that level of competition. But at age 58, let me tell you, my spine was tested. In some ways it was found wanting. But I made it through and oddly I am only marginally sore today. The point is proceeding apace with what is 'known' is a disaster in most cases, because what is 'known' IS NOT KNOWN. And growth lies in the direction of that which is UNKNOWN always, anyway. So backing off on any and all importance of 'knowing', especially since that 'knowing' is delusional, is wise.

We find ourselves in the middle of a situation, with an incredible array of causes and systems. We can choose to reform or revolutionize or adjust or....and so on......different parts of the whole, putting our energy in those parts and in those ways that match our values and where we can have the most effect, in the direction we want things to move. — Bylaw

Our 'values' are mostly horridly polarized foolishness. One has but to take a casual cursory glance at todays court proceedings (if the term proceed means anything other than 'get er done') to witness the rather pointless chicanery that passes as 'leadership' in the United States.

There are so many levels of immoral nonsense piled on top of one another in any 'system' of today, that to suspect something as clearly esoteric as 'proceeding' or 'progress' is the height of reckless optimism.

We disagree here. Morality is objective and people's and culture's opinions DO NOT MATTER to that distinction. Such differences only serve as arguing points where there should be none
— Chet Hawkins
I haven't weight in on cultural differences. — Bylaw

I know (ha ha). I am aware of that (better). Please forgive my fit of whataboutism because I think it's clear neither one of us is convinced by the arguments of the other. We have both stated our case in many ways. Whataboutism is all thats left. I'm looking into the well dressed strawman closet at this point. Nod's as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?

Your example is horrendous and not relevant.
— Chet Hawkins
It's extreme. I often use extreme examples to get a foot in the door. In the realm of epistemology, of self-awareness, or introspection, of intuition and so on, there is an incredibly vast range of skills sets and approaches. I am not going to follow rules, unless the consequences of breaking them are so negative, that are put in place for people who are far away from me on the spectrum in the relevant skill set. — Bylaw

Amen brother Bylaw! Preach! Rules are for order-apologists. Real beings take responsibility for all their actions and beliefs and therefore are free to break poorly conceived or situationally inaccurate rules. Isn't having a spine wonderful? Has mass, occupies space. Yep! I guess it matters. Even a chihuahua can stand its ground with a mean loud attitude. And that IS real.

I'm not going to stop using metaphors or analogies because many people misuse them. As a kind of parallel example. — Bylaw

Yes, they allude to a strawman with a strawman analogy. Great ... delusional presentation of other delusions. Where does it end. Just give a machete! It's getting to be too thick up in this jungle.

I get what you are saying and yes the moral action is harder and that is fine and partly the point. What some idiots are still going to do is not really the debate here.
— Chet Hawkins
What some idiots do is part of the real world where I live. This is not a side issue. — Bylaw

It is though. Despite protestations to the contrary, the idiots WILL GO where various pipers lead them. The smart and wise among us ARE INDEED capable of steering them wisely or not. The trouble is now meta though.

That is that these leaders are INTENTIONALLY steering into stupidity. And we all know how hard a house of cards is to build. It's trivial to knock it down. We are thus beginning to realize that the infrastructure of wisdom must be addressed. That is what my book is really about. We need a new paradigm that shows clearly what wisdom is, objective, and we need to develop clear and procedural steps to arrest leadership on the left (chaos-apology), the right (order-apology), and the extreme middle (anger-apology, or laziness).

As is both sides are conspiring to keep idiocy safe. Thanks so much! Where was that machete again?

And to be less harsh... — Bylaw

We need more harshness, not less. The delusions of pleasure and peace are costing us dearly right now, and will continue to be a increasingly difficult problem. See the enlightened visionary future of Wall-E as a footnote of likely dystopian scenarios. Idiocracy was a little too street/stupid.

the real world includes what happens when people are given cosmetic language based changes but don't really change. I live in that world. I am skeptical about these kinds of language-based reformations, for reasons given in previous posts on this specific language reform you are proposing. — Bylaw

I am skeptical as well because we have not really tried all that hard, ever. This is new paradigm territory. I admit it. As OneMug mentioned, the problems of today will take better, as in meta level better solutions. Muzzling sheer forms of stupidity is probably required. That is not a full on muzzle. We love the puppies. But if they keep biting themselves or others, they get the cone of shame.

Yes-ish and not really relevant. The point is being made here in the rare air for people of a quality that say they are for that sort of thing to discuss. My guess is, if such people are not ready for it, then maybe the general public is not either, and that is really sad. Still, the general idea of the point is important enough for everyone to be at least exposed to.
— Chet Hawkins
My point was that I think it is misleading to propose this kind of reformation since it is not the source of the problems. — Bylaw

Yes it is (one source). You just do not want to admit that. It's ok. It remains a big source of the problems. Fear's need for certainty in so many ways is a/the fear problem. Its manifestation across all behaviors is similar in pattern to JUST THAT.

Even the epistemological naivete is not. — Bylaw

I agree there. We are talking about intent and intent led by over-expressed fear. Naivete is best discussed as an innocence of sorts. That is balanced as a default. So, I am NOT talking about naivete when I speak of order-apology or fear over-expressions. I am talking about living in fear such that you need to know and prefer to speak as if knowing is a good idea, as opposed to accepting the risks of life and living it that are required to be wise. In humility, we assert that we cannot know, so we proceed then carefully. Those wanting to say they 'know' are those wanting really NOT TO KNOW, finally, so that they can effectively pretend to know and mess things up without ... care. It's a baked in short-cut aim. Fear does not want to admit this.

It's precisely not cosmetic. Cosmetic is a change on the surface that means little. This is not that. It's the reverse of that. Its addressing the problem of words that poison deeper understanding, specifically NOT cosmetic. Way to get that completely wrong.
— Chet Hawkins
Are there language-based reformations that have eliminated evils? — Bylaw

Pre-1900 citizen(idiot): 'Has an airplane ever flown?'

And we should never say 'know' about a bet. You're proving my point for me.
— Chet Hawkins
The point we agree on. — Bylaw

We cannot KNOW. Therefore a statement or assertion is only a belief. If we agree on that point the thread is mostly concluded (and not to be a stickler for reality checks but, in my favor).

Nonetheless, I stand behind my belief as stated. It's bound to come up and soon, in everyone's life reading this thread.
— Chet Hawkins
And here you are making my point for me.
'It's bound to come up.' This is an expression of certainty. — Bylaw

You're only comical at this point. 'Bound to ...' is certainty? Not at all. It's like saying 'highly probable' or 'I believe'. So, no, again, I am not proving your point, but you are proving mine, again and again.

'everyone's life'. You can tell me that 'really' you never mean 'know' but I experience you are exactly as certain as the people who do. — Bylaw

I've aready taken great pains to explain the difference between anger-confidence and fear-need-for-certainty. Either you get it or you don't, but, no, you're again wrong, it is a casual thing for me to admit as I have in so very many posts that I KNOW nothing. I have only belief. I speak confidently, yes. Do not confuse confidence with certainty.

Saying 'I know' is the fear types way to stand with the confident anger types. It doesn't work really. Ask most females. BEING (anger) and risking the bad confidently, IS NOT the strength of fear. Digging into every detail properly is not the strength of anger. But since reality rarely requires extreme over-expression, and in fact over-expression is actually by definition unwise, anger is a BETTER default case than fear is. Anger is the emotion of balance wherein risk is accepted in the present moment of now. That is where we are by the way. What was 'good enough' in the past, what we 'know' amid delusion, is not proper for a more moral footing. It lacks spine, in general, and attends to a laziness actually of awareness based in already-knowing (delusional).

In response to my saying the mind reading is unnecessary you use bound and everyone.

Will my interaction with you have any effects?
Will my interaction with someone who uses 'know' have any effects? — Bylaw

Only time will tell. Assuming I hold true to patterns of the past and place emphasis on and participation within a community of people that at least pretend to understand my arguments, we can revisit the question in 5 years and that would indeed be interesting.

How often? Has the likelihood increased because of your attitudinal change and no longer using 'know'? — Bylaw

Almost (<--- pay attention to that word) certainly! Attention to detail (fear side value) is something I do have, despite it being perhaps less formalized than some classical philosophy academics here. That is in fact endearing and proper for a more balanced approach that allows said supposed philosophy to reach the general public. So, by all means, continue with the fear-side separation and be separated thereby. That is at cross purposes to the aim of wisdom.

You might argue that my wishes for the change in language are the same. But they are not. One is doing what is hard for wise reasons. And the other is doing what is easy for unwise reasons. Again, either you get this, or you don't. That is in the nature of wisdom and next steps. Next steps always seem 'too hard' to the weak. I am ALSO sometimes the weak, so this is not an admonishment to be taken too much to heart. I'm just not weak on this issue.

Has the attitude actually changed and in what way do we see this change in you? — Bylaw

You have but to re-read this thread and even this post in it to discover, if you really look, at how carefully my words are chosen. I am adept at this and post extremely detailed (elongated lol) posts that actually explain my arguments but in plain English so everyone can understand. I am no ivory tower academic or Pragmatic sell-out.

If you are asking how I feel about this the answer is as strongly as I have felt about anything in my life. I have not had children though so, some feeling strength may be beyond my ken. But having interfaced with vastly differing seas of humanity over 58 years of life, I admit in my defense that I rarely find others as passionate as myself about things they supposedly care deeply about, including their own children.

How will we in Philosophy Forum notice the differences between you, in dialogue with us, and someone who uses know? — Bylaw

I venture to say frankly that most people who have interacted with me here consider me in some way different than almost anyone else they have ever had dialogue with. If not, well, that still speaks volumes about ... them, and their observational powers.

I can certainly find people who use 'know' who mind read
and stand by their mind reading and present their positions without qualification and who in response to my criticism or questioning start to tell me about my emotions and how these lead to my not accepting the truth of their beliefs. And I can find people who don't do this who use 'know'. — Bylaw

And missing the point or trying to label my admitted guesses as to your future as 'bad', just cuz is not an argument either. What is qualification to you? What level of acumen must be shown that can transcend some external third party certification or credentialing? I have made an extensive career out of beating the many Phds I work with, not by intent, but by blunt force trauma, as in they could not solve the problems, so I was called in to do so. As few of them were worth their papers. Most by far were not even close.

To boil that down. I can't even tell if it's cosmetic in you. — Bylaw

Well, again, time will decide. Risk is acceptable. Opinion does not really matter. Truth does.

1) No one really knows things so just say 'I believe that ...' instead of know.
2) Just because no one knows anything does not mean that one person's ideas are not better than the other ones.
— Chet Hawkins
I thought you believed this but it's good to have it clearly written. — Bylaw

I have been fairly clear throughout this dialogue. Many would call my clarity blunt even. It has been fun.

You'd be surprised. Language effects great change. So changing language can do that as well.
— Chet Hawkins
There may well be an example in the past, but if you have a specific one, share it. And, of course, even if there isn't one in the past, I'm not ruling it out, but it's not my main objection. — Bylaw

My great intuitive leap on this issue would be that the military mandates much of its chatter. The reason is that lives depend on the second by second efficiency of what they say in the field. If you watch Star Trek Discovery its so comically bad in that way. The original series had military adjacent speech and was therefore far more accurate and sensible. The foolishness of blather seen even on the last few shows would have them all dead in nanoseconds in that future world. But luckily for those bozos the writers are infinitely powerful and on their side, as a pandering group of sycophants. In roleplaying games I had to put segment limits on the syllables of soliloquies for the carebear drama lovers of today's roleplaying world, because if they said one tenth of what they say in combat situations they would lose initiative, suffer several surprise attacks and be dead and bleeding on the floor or gassed out on the ethereal plane before anyone understood their ridiculous self-indulgent nuances.

(easing off the trans-axle now. I'm just grinding metal)

Greater wisdom, greater balance, is actually more of each emotion.
— Chet Hawkins
I agree with this. But what this actually looks like and if someone is, as a specific individual evaluating themselves correctly...that's a different issue. — Bylaw

A matter of debate for sure. And here we are.

So, to focus on what we seem to agree on, we both seem to see positive things about fear, desire and anger. We wish to have these in balance. We also value intuition and my sense is we both see intuition where others think they are going on some intuitionless immaculate logic unsoiled by intuition - and likely have poor intuition about what they actually are doing in their minds.

These are not small agreements, so I think it's good to emphasize them. — Bylaw

I must agree. Thank you for stating that. Yes.

Intuition and emotions are often denigrated in philosophy forums, directly or implicitly. — Bylaw

I would say the culture in such lofty forums is decidedly order-apology, foolish in the extant need for certainty, devoted to rather pointless qualifications, and entrenched in esoteric language that is a balzing impediment to their de-facto goals as 'bringers of wisdom'. But, ... yeah!

And there can often be this implicit or explicit post-Enlightenment judgment that really it's best if these things are weeded out of everything from epistemology, science, politics, interpersonal interactions, discussions and so on - and with some real-world horrible trends where actually modifications through social pressure and even technology are trying to be put in place to eliminate emotions and intuition. — Bylaw

Exactly, and the HUGE, world-shattering truth is that logic and thought are all fear-based. Fear, last time I checked was not only an emotion, but it is properly and very improperly denigrated. If thought were properly understood as a manifestation of fear, their bulwark of delusional certainty would properly collapse.

Let's end this here, and I know you still disagree with 'only' and my language oversight suggestions. But we really have hashed it out well.

If you would please, take the final word on this to which I will not respond (unless you lose all perspective and go full nutcase). I have faith!

I simply agree and in fact, one is well advised that wisdom, being far trickier than knowledge alone, is something handled in far worse ways than only knowledge is. I admit that up front. This is the first such accusation leveled and I simply acquiesce.

But we cannot immorally throw our hands up and start just cutting bait. Fishing is the real task. The 'throw your hands up' and cut bait approach is only fear side Pragmatism. "get er done' usefulness IS NOT the way.
— Chet Hawkins
And you haven't said I am throwing up my hands or suggesting we should. But just to be clear, I am not saying that and. — Bylaw

So, yes, you are saying that, as I define it. That means anything in the same pattern as 'but saying know or knowing is useful and understood by most' is effectively throwing your hands up and taking a short cut for efficiency and fait.

It sets up a pattern of continuous 'acceptable' incorrectness that is participated in by almost everyone. It's similar but not quite of the same flavor pattern as setting a speed limit so low on a road that the statement innocent until proven guilty gets flipped whether people realize it or not. It's either intentionally wrong (pure evil) or accidentally wrong (dumb evil). It would be far better to say, 'I left the lever in the up position.' as a claim, an assertion, rather than to say, 'I know I left it in the up position.' There is no need to make such statements that definitive anyway. Likewise to say 'I have 6 years of experience with programming in C# is better than saying 'I know C#'.

You are effectively saying, 'get er done'. Use that word I 'know' what you mean. But you really don't. It's all a matter of best precision.

If any of my emotions is not ringing a low hanging bell of alert, but instead is ringing a highly hung bell, then I must attend that ringing.
— Chet Hawkins
I think we may be close in approach when you say something like this. You are using intuition, perhaps even, for example, Interoception to do an ongoing monitoring. Fine. I appreciate when people can be up front about this. I think it is a problem when people think there is no intuition involved in their reaching of conclusions. That somehow they manage to do deduction, only, for example. Some kind of clean bird's eye view logic alone. — Bylaw

I mean, of course. I am the one advocating for intuition and desire as EQUAL to logic and reason.

I don't find it useful to follow rules that might good for most people to follow.
— Bylaw
That is a horridly immoral position to take.
— Chet Hawkins
No, it would be immoral to pretend that guidelines and rules must be universal. No one should drive because some have Parkinson's (metaphorically speaking). — Bylaw

We disagree here. Morality is objective and people's and culture's opinions DO NOT MATTER to that distinction. Such differences only serve as arguing points where there should be none.

Your example is horrendous and not relevant. You are being specific with your clauses and not making the moral rule generic enough to fit. The rule would be very general like,

One should only engage in tasks being aware of the risks involved and both being capable of performing to a minimum standard and being tested and certified by society as such, unless the activity is new and unknown which takes a much higher level of expertise in many areas.

Do you understand how that hierarchy is wrong? It is only really desire, fear, anger; as additive. That is the behind the scenes wrongness of that model. That is a fear-centric model.
— Chet Hawkins
Right or wrong it is present. So, you come out with your prescription. Some follow it. Now other people hear wisdom regularly instead of knowledge and the same problems arise. Or the problem is driven underground: correct words are used and the exact same interpersonal, intra-personal dynamics continue. You can wag dogs in the short term, but you're not really changing anything but the surface. And wagging parts of the body is actually more intimate than wagging the choice of words. — Bylaw

I get what you are saying and yes the moral action is harder and that is fine and partly the point. What some idiots are still going to do is not really the debate here. I am trying to get non-idiots to agree to a better truth approach.

The same problems seep out of the undealt with unconscious patterns and imprinting. — Bylaw

Yes-ish and not really relevant. The point is being made here in the rare air for people of a quality that say they are for that sort of thing to discuss. My guess is, if such people are not ready for it, then maybe the general public is not either, and that is really sad. Still, the general idea of the point is important enough for everyone to be at least exposed to.

Perhaps you have a program to deal with these also, but so far I see a focus and to me fear of certain words. They can certainly be problematic, but changing them is consmetic. — Bylaw

It's precisely not cosmetic. Cosmetic is a change on the surface that means little. This is not that. It's the reverse of that. Its addressing the problem of words that poison deeper understanding, specifically NOT cosmetic. Way to get that completely wrong.

Again, and for the thousandth time in this thread it seems, I will say that the usefulness of the distinction is the problem. It IS an expression of probability and not truth.
— Chet Hawkins
Sure. Probability of what, however?
We all have to place our bets on the actions and beliefs of others, as well as ourselves. — Bylaw

And we should never say 'know' about a bet. You're proving my point for me.

It is no violation of trust to suggest that each of us is not perfect.
— Chet Hawkins
Sure, that's a given in my outlook. — Bylaw

I know we agree on that point.

Correct. And suffering becomes greater with awareness. Now that I have warned you and that situation exists in the world, you will begin to see and understand more where it comes into play. It will rankle and tease you as an idea from the sidelines, until you make a better choice on its veracity.
— Chet Hawkins
I think predicting my internal states - so, not even mindreading me in the present, but telling me what I will be thinking and feeling - is unnecessary and, in specific often confused. — Bylaw

Nonetheless, I stand behind my belief as stated. It's bound to come up and soon, in everyone's life reading this thread.

You seem to have met certain kind of resistance to your ideas and then assume you understand what anyone is like when you encounter them. — Bylaw

Granted, I, like everyone, makes assumptions. The difference is that I call that awareness and belief and not knowledge. You should to.

There are people out there who use the word know, but also rapidly realize that what they thought they knew they didn't.

So, when I encounter then, sure, they come at me with assumptions, but then they have feedback loops which lead them to rapidly get off their positions. — Bylaw

And I encounter almost nothing but that. Meaning the word know is no more useful in reality, and actually less useful in almost all cases than them saying they believe. I mean, really, you are proving my point over and over again. Don't you KNOW that?

You can have people who religiously avoid 'know' for example. But end up continuing the pattern of assumptions. They don't recognize anomalies very quickly, despite their epistemological position and use of language. — Bylaw

Some do and some do not. But neither one of them actually knows.

This is sets off warning bells in me. — Bylaw

Just like the word know does for me whenever I hear it. It becomes a lesson in humility for the speaker in almost every case. Nope, you didn't know did you?

I appreciate the situation's effects: online, words on a screen, philosophy forum - the last entailing tendencies to have positions on logic, reason supposedly versus intuition, what parts of the brain are honored and so on. — Bylaw

It's much less 'parts of the brain' and much more intent.

Your need for certainty comes out clearly in this suggestion that allowing for certainty in others that are equally deluded in its existence harmonizes with. You like those that are like you, all fear. The comfort of similar beliefs is dangerous.
— Chet Hawkins
Completely missing the point.
They do not have the same beliefs and this is reflected in their language.
To me it's like you want to teach used car salesmen (taking that metaphorically) NLP and more cognitive science.
And given that those people already exist, I get my warning bells despite whatever cosmetic dress up they are wearing.
To me focus on the dress up is fear based because it assumes we need people to use certain words. I get it: raising the issue around words may help some people begin to notice a pattern you and I notice. It can be a starting point to question not just practice but what is going on in them. — Bylaw

I just want them to understand two points really:

1) No one really knows things so just say 'I believe that ...' instead of know.
2) Just because no one knows anything does not mean that one person's ideas are not better than the other ones.

But the project is not actually noticing what is going on. It presumes this kind of reformative dialogue could EVER get at the roots of the problem. — Bylaw

You'd be surprised. Language effects great change. So changing language can do that as well.

I don't think you understand the fear not being noticed in your assessment of the situation. This approach is not going to get at the roots of the problems. — Bylaw

I believe that you are right in that. But that is not the point. The point is that my point is better, even if it will not be useful enough to work (and it still would slowly).

In part because they are not going to listen. But also the why, the what is going on ontologically that keeps them from listening AND why if they listened we just get a new layer over the problem. We get slightly more sophisticated problem makers. — Bylaw

Yes, but progress is incremental and we need to start taking steps.

I hear a lot of 'this is your fear'. But I experience someone who has not even faced certain fears, lecturing about fear. Fear denial is a problem. — Bylaw

I have no idea what you are referring to now. I embrace fear and since I have great anger, I can balance a lot of fear so it does not get over-expressed. Over-expressed fear is what I am arguing against. That is a fear approach with not enough balancing anger or desire.

And yes, I see that you are confident in you system of feedback. You'll hear those warning bells from fear also. But the denial is built into the model your presenting. And then the moment you are denying fear you are also denying anger and desire. For example. I am not saying that is the only direction these denials flow. — Bylaw

You are entirely incorrect about what I am denying.

Greater wisdom, greater balance, is actually more of each emotion. That part of the point of my model. And this higher fear, still in balance, is better. It IS more critical and more expectant, as you perhaps rightly point out. I am challenging people to be ... BETTER.

None of this means that I think nothing can be done or hands have to go up in despair or a sense of futility or that mine do. — Bylaw

If you give in to 'how things are', human delusions, as opposed to truth, that is exactly what that means.

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


Understood and agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since we do not know what reality is
— Chet Hawkins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are so not Jungian, at least to me.

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

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.

No, 'only' and 'mere' are PRECISELY the same (to me) in meaning and they are certainly no worse than 'subset'. So, I confess, I do not get this complaint. It's like saying to 'them' that 'OK, if you concede the main point about your door, we will agree to paint it chartreuse, as you direct.'
— Chet Hawkins
'mere' has negative connotations. — Bylaw

Colloquial or personal nonsense notwithstanding:

adjective being nothing more than specified
“a mere child”
synonyms:
specified
clearly and explicitly stated
adjective apart from anything else; without additions or modifications

That is the first AND second official definition of the word. I'm fine with that. And even so, I am now stating regardless of definition (because some of them are wrong) what I mean. It is the same as definitions 1 & 2 here, and nothing more.

Subset is neutral. British cities are a subset of the category cities. — Bylaw

Subset has the word sub in it. By bizarre personal or colloquial standards of the day I could claim you are trying to dominate British cities by the category cities and you expect sub drop and eyes lowered. Why? Why?

Yes, groups can do this. On the other hand, given their methodologies, I trust the information I get from some groups and some individuals more than others. I'm not exactly sure what you meant in the two parts I quoted here.
— Bylaw
Most 'grouping up' as a fallacious attempt to argue by mass or numbers, is cowardly, if you follow, an approach/need of fear and order. Anger does not care if others agree or not. It will hold the line to the balance of its own belief, regardless. At least that is GOOD anger.
— Chet Hawkins
I mentioned methodologies. This would include my own methodologies also, so really it has nothing to do with number. I am lying in bed and I think it's raining. I thought they maybe said something on the news that it would rain today, but I'm not sure. But I believe it is raining. Or, I get up, look out the window, see drops falling, hitting puddles. I now also believe it is raining, but the methodology I used in the second instance I respect more. So, it is when I evaluate how others reach conclusions: their methodologies - and perhaps past record, my sense of their trustworthiness and other criteria. — Bylaw

I suppose that sounds fine enough. You have SOME means of accrediting supposed authorities. But the only final authority is you, yourself, for your beliefs. Even if you choose to accredit or validate an external authority, your own nexus/locus of choice is still 'to blame' for your beliefs and you have to own those beliefs by way of moral responsibility.

This has nothing to do with fear or anger. — Bylaw

So, I WILL write in terms of my model to answer or post. That means, as in my model, there is nothing in this universe that does not ALWAYS partake of all three emotions, fear, anger, and desire. So, it is not factual at all to say that anything at all has nothing to do with fear, anger or desire. Of course such facts are only potentially facts to me, but they are facts by my definition. I have done as much due diligence as I can to validate these assertions as facts.

While there are bad dentists, I don't go with a toothache to prison guards or stock traders.
— Bylaw
Yes, on some of that we can agree. But we both know that in reality and especially human reality, there are many situations where the fox ends up guarding the henhouse. Why is that? I 'know' (ha ha) why. It's fair to use the fox's tricks against them, maybe (not really) The fox is likely to sell out truth. The fox is likely to call it doubters facetious when they are the serious ones. The fox was appointed by other foxes. It's there to corrupt the serious nature of truth, precisely to let slip things in a certain way. We are all beset by wisdom, by truth. It is too hard to live up to. The 'powers that be' have to make sure that some roads to truth are obscured. This aids in the pragmatic short cutting of truth in daily life. This aids in immorality, the opposite of wisdom.
— Chet Hawkins

Sure, I haven't said: if the experts say X, X must be true. — Bylaw

So, far, you have been ... excellent in your approach, as in: not just dismissive of a let's call it 'fresh' viewpoint and willing to temper what I usually get, a rudeness. The rudeness is fine to me. I don't mind a fight, of any type really, as it is the nature of reality. But the dismissiveness is when the fighter offers no argument at all for their side and just says 'you're wrong'. They lose when they do that, but, it doesn't mean they lose the public vote. This is just one reason why Democracy is a deeply immoral system. You cannot vote truth into existence, nor out of existence.

I agree experts are not always right. But I go further, amid honesty. Experts cultivate their position in order to sell out. It is the NORM, not the exception. The Capitalist system (and others but especially that one) foment a culture of sell outs. Fake it til you make it and then sell out. What a system!

In my olden times, the word 'drip' was not synonymous with personality or demeanor as it seems to be today on the street. Instead it meant a square, someone who was not street smart, a boring and unstylish person.

My ROTC detachment commander was a man I greatly respected. He had been a Pentagon consultant for decades. He understood communication so well, I suspected he was involved in inventing it. He referred to 'experts' in the following way: 'X is an unknown quantity, and a spurt is just some drip under pressure' I have to say, I agree with all my heart.

As an ENTP on the MBTI scale I am prone to upending experts at their chosen professions. They are not sufficiently 'perfect-aiming' in their own disciplines. They are used to the sell out angles. They prefer them. They want to make things easy and defensible. They are children in wisdom and in the pursuit of truth. I do not seek out this situation and it costs me dearly in all walks of life. Yet it has served me and the people I love quite well as a disposition. Do not trust anything at face value, especially authority. I still hold to that ... near truth.

But I recognize differences between beliefs. I use the word knowledge for beliefs that I consider very likely to be correct. It is a subset of beliefs that I have confidence in over other subsets of beliefs. I don't expect perfection, because I and we are fallible. We do our best. — Bylaw

I do not expect perfection either. In fact I dismiss claims of it. That is what this is about. Expose those that say, 'I know', for they do not, and they should not say that they do. Certainty is absurd. We should speak as if that is true.

I coined the (OK its obvious) phrase 'non-conclusion' for my book (upcoming). It means what people believe improperly that the word 'conclusion' means. Look at how hard truth is! I can literally change the phrase to ostensibly its opposite and still be NOT ONLY CORRECT, BUT MORE CORRECT. THAT is critical to understand. To continue to 'conclude' is a damning failure of wisdom. One cannot conclude. That word partakes again of perfection, too much. The assumption would be that 'our work here is done' and that is ALWAYS a lie. What is this need to wallow in the delusion of certainty? Did we not learn from philosophers of the past? Was Voltaire joking?

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you do know, for certain, that just ain't so." - Samuel Clemens

I disagree with Sam (or Mark) on that one. What you don't know is at least equally likely to cause you trouble, but, his point is along the lines of the MUCH BETTER quote by Voltaire.

Messi is a football player. He is one football player in the set of football players. But I would choose him to play on my team over three random players.

The parallel here is not that Messi is a kind of knowledge, though he certainly has that.
It's just I have no reason to say he is only a football player or a mere football player because he is part of that set. — Bylaw

This analogy is incorrect.

Knowledge is wholly subsumed into belief.
Messi is not wholly subsumed into football player.

You are confusing intersection with subset. They are not the same. And in doing so, you make again, my point for me, like so many have in this thread. For my part, it does not matter if others conceded the point that resonates BETTER with truth than those that they defend. Truth and falsehood ... you know (ha ha) the rest; or do you? Is the meaning actually lost?

You can rest assured of public support for the wrong choices, the wrong theories. That is only because they are relatively acceptable to the colloquial audience. Actual truth resonates more only with one side of this argument. That proximal resonation is not based in opinion.

Set's include better and worse members, given the purposes one has. — Bylaw

Incorrect. Reality is objective, so subjective belief does not matter to truth.

Sets include only members and set theory has no designation for 'lesser' and 'greater' until we redefine the set in those terms. You are wrong.

If I am interested in surprising beliefs, then out of the set of beliefs, many beliefs not considered knowledge and many considered knowledge will fit my needs. — Bylaw

Characteristics of elements within a set are a case for intersection, not exclusion. So you are burning a strawman. I do not know (ha ha) what else to say. More properly: I am not aware of how better to express this to you. That is a lie to some degree. I can go on and on. But I admit to not knowing, nor having the capacity to arrive at a conclusion (delusion). Therefore I am eternally engaged as is morally proper. I suggest a similar way. "This is the Way!' - Mando

If I am trying to successfully navigate the world, then those in the subset knowledge tend to work better. — Bylaw

Indeed, one should be able to depend more thoroughly upon one's beliefs that one has vetted well. Bu even the best is not knowledge, really. It is not to the objective standard and should be treated that way. I am NOT suggesting dismissal of moral duty related to judgment of which beliefs are better or worse. In fact, quite the opposite. I am saying that the dread finality of words like 'know' and 'certain', and even 'fact' and 'conclusion' are dangerous as colloquially used. They are used by choosers possessed of LESSER awareness only. They imply a perfection, an objectivity, that is NOT and CANNOT be present. They should be frowned upon as modes/tools of speech and writing.

But I see no reason to use mere or only, especially if the latter is considered a synonym of the former. — Bylaw

I used it because 'mere' IS only or merely a synonym of 'only'. That is a fact. Other beliefs are using tertiary and beyond interpretations of this word. I certainly consider it no less disparaging a word than any word with a prefix of 'sub' in it. I mean really!?

If it is not the certainty part of knowing that you are advocating for, and instead only that this 'knowledge' thing is 'special' in some way, then what way is it special? To me the idea that we (anyone) should credit anyone's knowing with something more impressive than only any other belief is dangerous and so prone to error that I almost can't believe I am having to defend the notion.
— Chet Hawkins
But you are prioritizing assertions. You choose a set of assertions that you send to me. You even called some of it wisdom. You may not label that group, but you have a group. You consider that group of assertions more likely than others that you or someone else might assert. — Bylaw

Yes indeed. And I understand why you think/believe that is a relevant response to my statement.

My choices are informed equally by anger and desire; relative to fear, because my model and beliefs show that to be more proper, more GOOD. So, the point I am making underscores that while fear and logic are useful, their very usefulness is often used as an immoral excuse, when other emotions and approaches to truth SHOULD be informing you that this need for certainty is leading you astray of truth and wisdom. This balance is actually logical, but only finally. Until that final step is realized, logic seems to fight against the truth of balance.

The label I used and I already DID use it, is the GOOD. Wisdom has resonance and equal resonance for all three approaches to truth. If any of my emotions is not ringing a low hanging bell of alert, but instead is ringing a highly hung bell, then I must attend that ringing.

An example of a low hanging bell is the need for certainty. A higher hanging bell that answers the same general problem domain within reality is the increasing awareness bell. This is why increasing awareness is BETTER than certainty.

It has served me so well in terms of efficient tracking of problems in almost all cases that I had decided and maintain that it is useful for others to adopt that strategy as a part of general wisdom.
— Chet Hawkins
In my world 'wisdom' is at least as loaded a term as 'knowledge'. — Bylaw

I simply agree and in fact, one is well advised that wisdom, being far trickier than knowledge alone, is something handled in far worse ways than only knowledge is. I admit that up front. This is the first such accusation levelled and I simply acquiesce.

But we cannot immorally throw our hands up and start just cutting bait. Fishing is the real task. The 'throw your hands up' and cut bait approach is only fear side Pragmatism. "get er done' usefulness IS NOT the way. The word way of course, is the root of the word wisdom. The range or domain of ways (that are right) is way dom, wisdom. Otherwise just means other ways, of course. Other wisdom.

I use that one also, but I notice a lot of people have a hierarchy belief, knowledge, wisdom. With the last term being the best. — Bylaw

Do you understand how that hierarchy is wrong? It is only really desire, fear, anger; as additive. That is the behind the scenes wrongness of that model. That is a fear-centric model. That fear admits to desire and places it lowly. Then it sees itself in the middle. It does not even acknowledge that anger is what finally causes wisdom in that progression. And keep in mind the error structure of that progression is still including all the elements in my model, just incorrectly juxtaposed.

Of course this is not necessarily a spectum of certainty and an indicate type. But It seems to me allowing oneself to categorize 'my beliefs X and Y are wisdom' is as easily misused as doing that with the category knowledge. — Bylaw

I agree.

But to say that some statements purported as wisdom are less correct, less wise, than others is agreed upon. So, great. Now, in with the real game. Are my statements of wisdom more or less wise than .. yours ... or the prevailing wisdom, and why?

You should not morally conflate the general case with this specific case. That is chaos-apology. From the order side that is over-expressed humility then broadcast back to the universe. It is the immoral assumption that because we are quintessentially equal our assumptions and beliefs are equal as well. That is the fungibility error of the left wing, of subjective morality. It is a anti-wisdom.

So the conundrum is solved by anger. We must do ... SOMETHING. Risk must be taken. The foolish believe that because power corrupts, all power is evil. The wise realize that power has only a tendency, a strong one, an exponentially strong one, to corrupt. And the trait least likely to succumb to that corruption is wisdom. Anger demands being. And there is no escape from it. You cannot actually be made to un-belong to reality. Time passes. A choice must be made with any assertion or set of assertions. Is this wisdom, or not?

We are guaranteed within humility and probability alike that we are wrong. But that wrongness is relative to each assertion set made by others. Therefore we can be wrong finally, and still BETTER than all other contenders for what is wise. This analysis must be rigorous. And it can never just throw its hands up. A choice must be made. And the goal amid humility is to get closer to the objective moral truth, perfection, the GOOD. We are not allowed to pretend that all choices are equal in moral value.

The trouble is that when most people say 'know' most others that have not already come to doubt their knowledge incorrectly assume that matter is settled.
I'm not close to anyone who does this. Assume it is settled, period, shall not be questioned. There are many situations where I just move forward with what they've said as the case. And I like having, for example, my wife using think and know - or some other similar categories. I don't assume when she says know that she cannot be wrong, but I work with it in a different way from 'think'. I think I shut off the stove. I know I shut off the stove. Yes, she might have hallucinated or shut off something else and been confused. But she's got a great record when sure and I find the distinction useful. I certainly don't want her walking around saying I believe regardless of her certainty. If she says she knows, but I am aware of things that put this in doubt, well, I may well go back up and check. She just got terrible news. She's had a couple of shots - she doesn't drink, but just showing some obvious examples of things that might affect me - and also might keep her from saying she knows also, given her self-awareness. — Bylaw

Again, and for the thousandth time in this thread it seems, I will say that the usefulness of the distinction is the problem. It IS an expression of probability and not truth.

The GOOD is the most improbable thing of all and it is truth. So at some point, seeking probable outcomes is a short cut that is immoral. This is either understood and admitted or the belief is immoral.

If you want to trust that which is merely more useful over the truth, you may do so. It WILL cost you.

We all have to place our bets on the actions and beliefs of others, as well as ourselves. It is no violation of trust to suggest that each of us is not perfect. It is in fact a suggestion that acknowledging this truth means questioning everything, and as we get closer and closer to truth, perhaps questioning EVEN MORE CLOSELY that which we trust. We are ALWAYS partly wrong in every belief. That means we are always partly wrong on what we choose to trust. The percentages LIE or seem to, because the good is so hard to get to, so highly improbable. This is the trap of fear.

The trouble is that most people stop caring or thinking when that word is used and they forgo the other 30-15% that is where the real value is - Chet Hawkins

I don't find it useful to follow rules that might good for most people to follow. — Bylaw

That is a horridly immoral position to take.

Also I think if most people stopped using those words, they wouldn't stop thinking they knew, nor would they stop conveying that they are right and you go against their belief at your own danger. — Bylaw

I agree. More errors on THEIR part.

The idea is the request from me, allows them to consider the failure inherent in the use of the word in the first place. I think that warning is wise and will continue to be, as a tautology. That is until some truly greater truth overturns that idea when we are well past being so silly that we clam to 'know' anything.

I mean, you responded to me by saying that in the future I will suffer if I don't do as you believe we all should here, advice you categorize as wisdom. — Bylaw

Indeed, an idea and assertion that I maintain. I have defended that position in the words of this post.

So, while adhering to your own guideline you spoke without qualification what you classify as wisdom and predicted that I would suffer in the future. — Bylaw

Correct. And suffering becomes greater with awareness. Now that I have warned you and that situation exists in the world, you will begin to see and understand more where it comes into play. It will rankle and tease you as an idea from the sidelines, until you make a better choice on its veracity.

I mean, honestly. I'd rather someone said 'I know.' I don't assume either one of you is correct, but in a sense of I feel like the other person is being more honest even if they are incorrect about being right and infallible. — Bylaw

Your need for certainty comes out clearly in this suggestion that allowing for certainty in others that are equally deluded in its existence harmonizes with. You like those that are like you, all fear. The comfort of similar beliefs is dangerous.

Instead choose to be uncomfortable, because it is harder and wiser. Do not be foolish with this pursuit either, like wearing a hair shirt.

You just honestly admitted your predilection for that immoral need. I get it. That is why I am adding the challenge of my warning. The trap of fear is hard for a fear type or even a person who is, in this specific instance, adhering too much to fear's approach, to admit, to avoid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morals are justification itself. — Kizzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The threat of all forms of immorality is many fold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes to both and that is always true.

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

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

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

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

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

I am assuming that is two sentences.

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

Maybe my view is obstructed on purpose. — Kizzy

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

I'd like to believe. — Kizzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can read your mind and I invented pants!

So, I think you misunderstood me here. — ENOAH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My statements are intended precisely to call this foolishness into question. A fact or knowledge, both, are only a subset of beliefs.
— Chet Hawkins
I wouldn't use the word only (or mere). It's a subset. — Bylaw

I mean that is just some sort of gloming onto 'their' sentiment. I would maybe see one of 'them' also suggesting that we not use the the derogatory word 'subset' implying inferiority. No, 'only' and 'mere' are PRECISELY the same (to me) in meaning and they are certainly no worse than 'subset'. So, I confess, I do not get this complaint. It's like saying to 'them' that 'OK, if you concede the main point about your door, we will agree to paint it chartreuse, as you direct.'

Even if (perhaps especially if) you assess certain groups (scientists, intellectuals) you will narrow that spread because all of them are closing ranks as a rep of the group DESPITE personal feelings or beliefs or 'known (ha ha) facts' to the contrary, because they would rather do that than let chaos get a toehold further into their protected spaces.
— Chet Hawkins
Yes, groups can do this. On the other hand, given their methodologies, I trust the information I get from some groups and some individuals more than others. I'm not exactly sure what you meant in the two parts I quoted here. — Bylaw

Most 'grouping up' as a fallacious attempt to argue by mass or numbers, is cowardly, if you follow, an approach/need of fear and order. Anger does not care if others agree or not. It will hold the line to the balance of its own belief, regardless. At least that is GOOD anger.

This yields a dynamic where only the most solid and anger standing type of challenger will come against the too set in 'their' ways authorities of any current span in time and location. History is full of such examples where individual challengers were called out as insane or just comically wrong, until that challengers new path was proven by some set of undeniable demonstrations of or overwhelming need for the new change.

All sorts of categories can have as subsets, members that work much better than others. — Bylaw

And this last bit is another appeasement of 'them'. It surreptitiously implies that maybe this application of the word 'subset; even works, but not well.

There are chess players. Magus Carlsen is a chess player. He's not only a chess player or a mere chess player (the word 'only' her taken in a similar sense to 'mere.' But he is an individual subset of the set of chess players. — Bylaw

Knowledge is ENTIRELY belief. Knowledge is ONLY belief because in the sense that I am referring to it is entirely belief. Knowledge is MERELY belief because belief itself is more interesting and useful than 'they' give it credit for.

The fact that there is an intersection for some people into knowledge that means 'beliefs that are believed to have been verified' can be stated, and EXACTLY like that. There is no need to state that statement any other way. There is no need to apologize for the fact that knowledge (colloquially) is only a subset of belief. But as mentioned previously to another user, what 'they' are calling 'knowledge' (colloquial) IS NOT knowledge.

Knowledge, to me must partake of perfection and its parts and its whole cannot be wrong in any way. I would wish to show that there are words that take from or partake in the absolute nature of the term perfection. 'Know' is one of them. 'To Place' would be another one. The implication is perfection inclusive and this should alarm the more accurate observer. It should alarm them because it is not possible so the claim set being made is spurious. We SHOULD doubt it (more) than a claim that humbly includes this doubt up front.

While there are bad dentists, I don't go with a toothache to prison guards or stock traders. — Bylaw

Yes, on some of that we can agree. But we both know that in reality and especially human reality, there are many situations where the fox ends up guarding the henhouse. Why is that? I 'know' (ha ha) why. It's fair to use the fox's tricks against them, maybe (not really) The fox is likely to sell out truth. The fox is likely to call it doubters facetious when they are the serious ones. The fox was appointed by other foxes. It's there to corrupt the serious nature of truth, precisely to let slip things in a certain way. We are all beset by wisdom, by truth. It is too hard to live up to. The 'powers that be' have to make sure that some roads to truth are obscured. This aids in the pragmatic short cutting of truth in daily life. This aids in immorality, the opposite of wisdom.

You claiming this with no explanation at all shows the depth of your intent or lack of it.
— Chet Hawkins
Dude, check out my posts on page three. I think I've set out enough to be getting on with. — Banno

Apologies, yes. As you might have surmised I DID NOT read all the pages that accumulated in my absence. That is no guarantee though that there is the answer there. I doubt that it is there, and for reasons. Some reasons that border upon what I will mention again here in this post.

That has no bearing on what we are discussing, except that knowledge is the same. Ergo knowledge is only belief.
— Chet Hawkins
I'll take that argument to be facetious. — Banno

As I do your responses of this ilk in meaning.

That is to say, the deadly serious idea of accuracy is not being treated properly at all when we say we 'know' something. Colloquial foolishness notwithstanding, WE, lovers of wisdom, should do better. It is MORE accurate in every way to claim some dearth of awareness by forgoing the term 'knowledge' and similar absolutes that partake of perfection by implication. Only a facetious person would do otherwise. And that facetious person is not me in this scenario.

Here's where I think we stand. You said that knowledge is just belief. I've pointed out that in addition to being believed, the things we know also have to be true. — Banno

Your adjective, 'true' is analogous to 'knowing' more so than to a measured awareness. True has that logical 1 or 0 finality to it, an error (in all cases). A floating maybe is more, not less, accurate. And that statement is ... true. Totally not being facetious at all. I can have fun writing something without it's being facetious.

You might come back by asserting that in that case we only have beliefs, and do not know anything; this because we don't know what is true and what isn't. My reply to that is that we do know some things - examples given previously; and that further you are treating your explanation as something of which you are certain, as something you know, giving only lip service to your doubt. — Banno

And now you are equating confidence with certainty. That is JUST yet another error.

Confidence is the anger based choice to STAND to all else and hold the line. When dealing with belief, which I acknowledge here and in every place before is where I am at with this idea, a person who speaks with dread confidence is only expressing their anger hold. That is NOT the foolishness of knowing. It is in fact yet another one of the paths to truth, the anger path, there being only three, fear, anger, and desire. Those are all my beliefs.

So, each of your points is wrong and all wrong based on the same type or quality of error, over-dependence on pragmatic short-cuts to truth. That is limited truth. That is actually delusional non-truth in every case. It is true (ha ha) that this effect does not make things, being, living, EASIER on us. It instead makes things appropriately harder. This is a BETTER way. It is more wise.

That would be much better than the alternate account, asserting in the face of evidence to the contrary that there is no difference between belief and truth. — Banno

No, these are disparate issues. As previously discussed in full. Truth is only able to inform choice. Belief is a form of choice. There is no choice we can make that is not just belief.

We are not perfect. We cannot be objective. We are wrong in some way, infinite ways actually, even on little niggling event statements that we take in as 'true', a dangerous lie. That lie is only used to facilitate the short-cut, to prevent people from pondering on an on because time is short and the climb via evolution to perfection, ... hopefully, ... is hard and long and we need to have some awareness short cuts. But let's call them THAT honestly. That would be wise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

So, on with the explanation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action is the realm of anger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. You miss the essence.

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

Again. I'm sincererely asking. — ENOAH

Hopefully that answer helps.

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

It is a delusion, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honesty about the vagueness is precisely the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is to say, the deadly serious idea of accuracy is not being treated properly at all when we say we 'know' something.
— Chet Hawkins

But we do know things, all sorts of different things, often with good reason. — Banno

This complaint has no quality. You are just repeating the same mistake. You offer no argument.

Science is not the world. Limiting your examples by presuming that science is the only, or even the best, way to determine truth will lead you astray. — Banno

I cannot tell who you are not quoting here. Quote for better responses.

I never said that science was the only anything. So, I will mostly ignore that statement. I tend to agree that science is not the only path to truth. That is something I would say. It is mostly a fear-order path.

You want a moral argument.

As I already pointed out, if all we have is belief, then there is no correcting ourselves. If there is only opinion, then one cannot be mistaken, for to be mistaken is to believe something that is not the case, not true. In the place of learning, there would only be changing one's opinion. If there is no difference between believing and knowing, one cannot cease to believe a lie and so know the truth. — Banno

And your fear here is correct. There is no other way than belief. It is the strength or quality of the belief that is critical. That strength includes elements of the other two paths, desire, and anger.

Desire is included because perfection casts a shadow upon us, upon non-perfection and we sense that very real effect. It causes desire in us and a sense of worthlessness meant to spur us on to greater effort.

Anger causes us to seek all balances. These balances will shove out non resonant beliefs. It will become impossible to stand (to perfection) until we are balanced.

Further, these disruptions of belief caused by desire and anger do show RELATIVE correctness. When an experiment is repeatable reliably it is in balance with truth. It may even break some desire. That is good. Desire is chaos and so many desires run off in immoral directions.

When reason (order) counters a belief or balance (anger) counters a belief they assist us in possibly more awareness. They cannot assist us in knowing. Knowing is too final, too prefect. And we confuse the unaware and the wistful that sense still that our knowing is not the whole answer. And that 'they' is correct. The best that we have right now, is still not perfect. So there is no 'knowing'. To suggest that there is, is to promote confusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

↪Chet Hawkins Meh. You are presenting a pretty stock pop version of pragmatism. You are unwilling to consider where it goes astray.

No helping some folk. — Banno

I agree that there is no helping some folk.

You are again precisely wrong, not just wrong.

Pragmatism is the philosophy that accepts and encourages practical short-cuts, the fear approach to truth. Pragmatism encourages the word 'know' as sufficient given some short cut or cutoff or less than best because its less than perfect approach to awareness. Pragmatism is the fiat-giver, order apology. It allows for wrongness via truth claims when such are not possible and thereby lies to ALL.

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.

My way encourages the more truthful position that doubt may be unpleasant but that certainty is absurd. And I can explain what that really means better than ANY group of order apologists have so far. It is in the nature of Pragmatism, its very definition, to fail at that explanation.

So you are again PRECISELY backwards in your assertion.

Oddly, I am not just an idealist either. I also stand up against their magical thinking in that 'all desires are equal'. Their fungibility error is epic in much the same way (just reverse) as Pragmatisms insistence that we can be certain or 'know' things. Both are unwise. Wisdom is the middle path and there is even more to wisdom than that because the middle way to be wise must also not be lazy, which is the sin of anger. Extreme moderation would be the lazy way.

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.