CHATPRIVACYDONATELOGINREGISTER
DMT-Nexus
FAQWIKIHEALTH & SAFETYARTATTITUDEACTIVE TOPICS
PREV12
Void's Skepticism Delineation Options
 
Voidmatrix
#21 Posted : 6/11/2022 3:58:34 AM

Surrender and BE free

Welcoming committeeModerator

Posts: 2936
Joined: 01-Oct-2016
Last visit: 27-Nov-2022
Location: Rearranging the Void
And here's the rest Love

...

Some definitions describe knowledge with the use of the term awareness, but our awareness can be in error, just like our senses/perception (such as when we receive sensory input that there turns out to more likely not to have a cause we're used to attributing it to like phantom vibrations, or lapse in sight or hearing), reasoning (errors or contextual mistakes that lead to an “erroneous” conclusion or next phase of reason or action), memory (memory is already considered highly fallible, with one operative function being that when we remember something after the first time we tend to build or recall the memory based on previous builds and recalls of the same memory), practice (doing something wrong without realizing it), inquiry (errors in the manner, considerations, and execution into an investigation), etc (and it's already been established that there is a distinction between the two, with knowledge appearing more binary and awareness being more open-ended). They can also be described with reference to understanding, but there are also plenty of instances in which one may be confident and solidified in an understanding and it be a misunderstanding, which indicates falsity, and knowledge has already be established as necessary to be true. Point being, this doesn't seem to constitute “knowledge” in a truly cohesive way, though will invariably be linked to knowledge when knowledge is actually possessed.

With some of the examples above we have covered some common forms of knowledge: procedural (“knowledge” of skills and processes), descriptive (“knowledge” of facts and information), acquaintance (“knowledge” of persons, places, and things), and tacit (information learned unconsciously or subconsciously).

Another scheme for classifying knowledge, that is a bit more binary, discerns between a posteriori (knowledge gained from sense experience) and a priori (knowledge gained by understanding a system, often related to some abstraction, such as the definition of words).

There's a philosophical camp that asserts there's information that one just knows (innate knowledge). All other problematic mentions aside, what about the same sense to be had in matters where we were wrong and we thought that we just knew? I can see us having an innate capacity for what we call knowledge, but can't align myself with the idea that some things we just know...

With regard to our own thoughts, I will concede that we perhaps know some of the contents of our own thoughts. It was Descarte who paradoxically affirmed the existence of his own mind by attempting to deny it. Simply, he found a rationale for how he could be wrong about the existence of the outside world and items in it, including his own body. Once he arrived at his own mind he deduced that it must exist for it has to in order to be able to attempt to deny its own existence. He then went on to concede to knowing the contents of his own thoughts. My only distinction is that I'm not sure any individual can know the full contents of all of their thoughts... do we not seem to learn things about ourselves and our thinking often (at least if we're paying attention)?

Intuition seems to be more of a sense than it is a faculty of mind, appearing to need the same interaction with mind as sense data from sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell.

And instinct seems to almost be biological rather than of a mental faculty, being centered more on innate response to potentially increase chances of survival.

Learning doesn't seem to constitute knowledge. Learning seems more so centered around the acquisition and manipulation of information, regardless of being true or false. Potentially false information is likely “learned” all the time in any given paradigm and identified by the paradigms own parameters.

Our minds appear to make shortcuts in how it uses information in order to filter and save us time. These mental shortcuts are called heuristics or cognitive biases. When these are left unchecked and we are unaware of them, the mechanisms can often lead us to erroneous conclusions in many contexts. And they seem prevalent at almost every level of thought since they arise from the subconscious. Thus, they get in the way in regards to what we know, if we know.

Again, if no one knows everything and no one is right all the time, then we all have false beliefs and not just about things perceived as unverifiable, but in matters where we can employ a system for some sort of verification as well.

Considering the above as well as the post about assumptions we can see how the matter regarding knowledge seems to come down to a felt sense. So is it more apt to say that we feel we know, than simply that we know?

If there's anything we can/do know, the size of such a class is quite possibly a great deal smaller than we would like to think...

So, I'm still wondering, how do we know what we know when we know (if we can)? Or do we more often than not just think we know? Should we not keep in mind the abstract underpinnings to knowing and knowledge that perhaps make it more of an open-ended concept than how we presently treat and use it?

One love
What if the "truth" is: the "truth" is indescernible/unknowable/nonexistent? Then the closest we get is through being true to and with ourselves.


Know thyself, nothing in excess, certainty brings insanity- Delphic Maxims

DMT always has something new to show you Twisted Evil

Question everything... including questioning everything... There's so much I could be wrong about and have no idea...
All posts and supposed experiences are from an imaginary interdimensional being. This being has the proclivity and compulsion for delving in depths it shouldn't. Posts should be taken with a grain of salt. 👽
 

STS is a community for people interested in growing, preserving and researching botanical species, particularly those with remarkable therapeutic and/or psychoactive properties.
 
8-Serpent-Wind
#22 Posted : 7/19/2022 2:28:38 AM

Retired from Forum


Posts: 68
Joined: 16-Jul-2022
Last visit: 19-Jul-2022
Really?

That is my reduction of the topic and I mean it in jest.

I dig it though, I question a lot but it isn't some type of naysaying faith based denial that gets called skepticism these days.

Like calling an atheist a skeptic, atheism is a faith based claim that something does not exist, thus it is not skeptical at all, rather it is anti-theistic and is just another type of faith no less absurd than that of the believer.

To me atheists are just another type of religious fanatic who don't have the courage to say those three special and sacred words:

"I don't know"

I had to edit this to add:
Have you read Of Grammatology?
My mind went there when reading this thread, though likely just through association and not in a responsive way.




 
8-Serpent-Wind
#23 Posted : 7/19/2022 2:59:13 AM

Retired from Forum


Posts: 68
Joined: 16-Jul-2022
Last visit: 19-Jul-2022
I read the majority of the thread but much of the material was surprisingly familiar and I didn't spend too much time on it.

I do not consider myself a skeptic, rather I tend to dislike modern approaches to it, however according to the function of skepticism outlined in this work I am a skeptic.

I once said; Paradox is the Basis of Reality.

I also maintain opposing beliefs as tenable, regardless of their mutual exclusivity. As an example let us say I find a dollar just sitting around. It could have been placed there on purpose or it could have fallen by accident, those two possibilities are mutually exclusive yet both are tenable. Without more information I can assume they are both potentially true but I cannot assume they are both potentially false. But then nothing about that is inherently paradoxical, though it might feel that way to someone.

Speaking of paradox, you might like this paper I am attaching, it is about the Grandfather paradox.

You mentioned Buddhism and the Veda.
These inform my ontology as well.
 
Voidmatrix
#24 Posted : 7/19/2022 3:31:08 AM

Surrender and BE free

Welcoming committeeModerator

Posts: 2936
Joined: 01-Oct-2016
Last visit: 27-Nov-2022
Location: Rearranging the Void
Glad you were able to check it out.

One of the reasons I wrote it was for clarity; to distinguish this philosophic skepticism from the way the word happens to be used outside of a philosophical context, and to show what I find to be flaws in other forms of philosophic skepticism, such as positivist statements about not knowing.

8-Serpent-Wind wrote:
Paradox is the Basis of Reality.


On a lower (or higher, depending on how I'm structuring my mind for whatever recursive idea in question, ie, being sourced from (lower) versus superseding (higher)) level from my mode of skepticism, this is largely how I feel and see things.

Thank you for sharing the paper Smile

One love
What if the "truth" is: the "truth" is indescernible/unknowable/nonexistent? Then the closest we get is through being true to and with ourselves.


Know thyself, nothing in excess, certainty brings insanity- Delphic Maxims

DMT always has something new to show you Twisted Evil

Question everything... including questioning everything... There's so much I could be wrong about and have no idea...
All posts and supposed experiences are from an imaginary interdimensional being. This being has the proclivity and compulsion for delving in depths it shouldn't. Posts should be taken with a grain of salt. 👽
 
8-Serpent-Wind
#25 Posted : 7/19/2022 2:05:13 PM

Retired from Forum


Posts: 68
Joined: 16-Jul-2022
Last visit: 19-Jul-2022
What you basically define as good skepticism here is what I tend to think of as being open minded and aware of the nature of belief as subjective, relative and subject to change.

I think this type of approach can be quite healthy.

You asked how I define reality.
I do not.

Reality existed before I did and will when I am no longer.
I am a part of it but it does not come from me.

Reality defines me, not the other way around, and it does so regardless of what I believe.

(as for the paper, it is considered mathematical proof that time travel is possible and is a fun discussion unto itself, but it also relates to this topic in a number of ways. Many people claim to know time travel is not possible but the math says otherwise)
 
Voidmatrix
#26 Posted : 7/19/2022 2:31:26 PM

Surrender and BE free

Welcoming committeeModerator

Posts: 2936
Joined: 01-Oct-2016
Last visit: 27-Nov-2022
Location: Rearranging the Void
In that case, how are you able to say that something is not real or real then? Kinda see where I'm going here?

One love
What if the "truth" is: the "truth" is indescernible/unknowable/nonexistent? Then the closest we get is through being true to and with ourselves.


Know thyself, nothing in excess, certainty brings insanity- Delphic Maxims

DMT always has something new to show you Twisted Evil

Question everything... including questioning everything... There's so much I could be wrong about and have no idea...
All posts and supposed experiences are from an imaginary interdimensional being. This being has the proclivity and compulsion for delving in depths it shouldn't. Posts should be taken with a grain of salt. 👽
 
Voidmatrix
#27 Posted : 8/24/2022 3:28:20 AM

Surrender and BE free

Welcoming committeeModerator

Posts: 2936
Joined: 01-Oct-2016
Last visit: 27-Nov-2022
Location: Rearranging the Void
VI: Skeptical Form I; Doubt/Question/Query Pt. 1


It's one thing to take things at face value. It's another to investigate. And yet another to ask “how could I be wrong,” or “how could x assertion be in error,” or “how could things not be as they seem (before or after investigation)?” The distinction between the second and third is that with the second there is more often than not an expectation for a “satisfactory” answer relative to the investigation, and certain axioms and assumptions are fully trusted, where as the third such an expectation is absent; the end answer pertinent to the investigation is not of consequence, but instead, and very simply, how could it not be the case. With respect to the “truth” about “reality” I feel there is no deeper truth than that which arises from our own honest reflections and more so than any assertion about the “external world.”

What happens when we chase this rabbit in a tuxedo down the hole...?

Doesn't almost any question seem to have certain presuppositions that substantiate and hold it together? Can questions not be asked with regard to any question in question? Does a question imply something is known by having the capacity to be asked (see problem of the criterion)? Does a question always presuppose an answer? How can we evaluate the potential value of a question that has no answer? How often is it the case that there is no answer versus the answer cannot be known? What do we do to parse the instances in which we think we know and are “unjustified” from when we think we know and are more “justified?” What is the best way of questioning faith-based claims? What is the best way of questioning rational, logical, and sense based claims, exclusively? Does arriving at some answer to a question always terminate further questioning?

Doubt, questioning, and query, while being defined as distinct individual elements of this thought structure, undoubtedly work in concert. Doubt could be said to be the frame and chassis of the structure with questioning being the functioning parts, and query being the specific operations that can be performed by the structure. Another way to look at it is that doubt is the overall “attitude” or “behavior,” while questioning can be looked at as the reasoning behind the query, which can be view as specific actions. More distinctly, doubt is the state of curious uncertainty, while the questioning is the specific questions, that if answered in some “satisfactory” way would alleviate and dissuade uncertainty or reveals a breeding ground for further questioning, and query being the specific mode used to employ said questions.

I have doubts about what we can know, which is not to make the mistake of making the positivist statement of “we cannot know anything,” or any statement of the like. And as we've seen, this doubt extends all the way to our systems of thought and the assumptions, presuppositions, and axioms that support them.

The “truth” always seems predicated on some system of thought employed (faith based modes, rational/logic based modes, and empirical modes). And each system seems to have limits and flaws, so what does that say about the conclusions the system draws?

To restate, the state of doubting is the groundwork or foundation. Because of doubt, questioning invariably arises (unless one is simply doubting without attempting any further investigation), which then lends itself to how a given topic is questioned. There's active and passive doubt: active doubt entails a certain sense of wonder, of which specific questions lead to specific query sets. Passive doubt relates more to the admission of not knowing and leads to the suspension of judgment (to be covered in the next section).

Hume is commonly referred to as an empiricist and Descarte as a rationalist. I view them both as skeptics at heart. They were both brought to their practice by doubt. As we've already seen, through active doubt, Descarte was able to cast said doubt upon everything in a manner that left knowing of the nature and existence of such things in limbo, aside from his own mind. He then later, realizing that some system was needed to operate in a questionable world, defaulted to rationalism; he felt that any core concept that anyone would want to know could be discovered by sitting quietly and alone and immersed in a rational process. Hume cast doubt on just about everything as well but in a different manner, positing upon even simple ideas like cause and effect. Simply, he stated that we don't actually have experience of cause and effect, but instead only one thing happening followed by another. He thought that there wasn't really a causal justification and that our minds fill that in. He thought that we perhaps see one thing happen followed by another, and that within the apparent consistency we believe there is a cause-effect relation. But really, it may be that the “system” is designed so that certain things follow after others, and through the operation of a “system” the events are not causing another but simply following after. At the end of the day though, also understanding that we need something at least to help us move forward in our investigations, defaulted to empiricism.

I consider both of the individuals to be active doubters; they wondered and explored in a fashion that gave us information about a variety of things, but without giving us any answer that we may want.

It's important to question our desires relative to what we want to know, what we think we know, and how we think we know. For example, could it be possible that we project a desire or expectation onto reality in a way where we initiate biases in order to arrive at a “satisfactory” answer? To elaborate, is it possible that we in many ways project a desire and preference of “order” onto reality in some magnitude or degree?

I would say that the conclusions we draw are well described as a picture of the subset of reality we are trying to explain and are not actually the thing being explained (similar to Wittgenstein). So how much do we know about said reality from said picture(s)?

Socrates on the other hand was a more passive doubter. He spent his time going around and showing people how they were wrong or may not know what they think they do in the ways they think they do. Socrates never really had any positivist theoretical insights to provide other than explicitly what one does not know in a given context or scenario. He admitted he knew nothing, so his approach was sort of grounded in, “I don't know anything, so how can you?”

With regard to questioning, some questions will be more apt than others. For our purposes, we will work with questions that have acute valid applicability; the question having a formulation that allows for an application with whatever is in question. While using the term “valid,” I don't mean so in the traditional manner used in logic to speak of form (argument form in logic, question form in this discussion), but more in line with the questions' placement in a given query. There are certain considerations to be made aptly. This sounds somewhat arbitrary, and it is; instead of being some precise “point,” it is instead a range in which the question nests itself in. Simply, “sloppy” questions are unfavorable; well thought questions are preferred. What is assumed by the nature of the question? What factors are relevant to the question and its outcome, whether that be an answer, lack of such, or indeterminacy?

Because of my skepticism, I feel that some of the best formulated questions arise from the framing of a conditional; If x is the case, then [question y]? There is an acknowledged loose presupposition at the onset, denoting that x may not necessarily be the case, but if it is... As an example (one I am choosing because it's easy); “If God is all good then why does he allow bad things to happen?” First, there's a presupposition that God does exist (something I'm not in any way trying to explore, but instead exploring what implicit assumptions are made through the essence of the question). Another is taking for granted our capacity to understand the action and reasoning of such a being as well as the assumption that what is considered “bad” to us would also seem so to God. There's also the act of ignoring not only the nature of the relationship between good and bad, but also the implications of our experience of things we consider good and bad and how we understand that experience and how we understand good and bad based on that experience. This is an unfavorable question lacking in acute valid applicability.

It takes a good deal of imagination.

The query is our journey of the deployment of the questions that arise as a result of our doubt. Skepticism is predicated on response to propositions without developing any propositions of its own; only conditional observations. So our query will utilize the next question in a set of options based on some response to a previous question. Practically, skepticism is a refinement process of held ideation on different topics. Epistemicaly, it challenges what we know and how, if at all. This means, that regardless of whatever thing is being investigated externally, one will almost always end up with doubts, questions, and queries about one's own senses mind, experience, and nature of such therein. We are the ones attempting to know; existence will be what it is regardless of what we think about it, and how accurate we are in what we claim to “know.” Reality doesn't seem to revolve around us.

If our memories, senses, sense of reason, intuition, etc, and connections between all of these faculties can be seen to be flawed, limited, and wrong more than we realize, then how is there anything that we “truly” know about the whole of reality? Sure we have repeatability as a source of verification for some things, but we seem to be biased by controlling the ways and manners in which we receive such information. Is it possible there's a lack of veracity in the implicit assumption that repeatability constitutes the “basis of reality.” Could our interpretations of such information be biased in a way that leads us to perceive repeatability? Could our discovering of repeatability, which we interpret as order, be the finding of random subsets of “order” in an overall chaotic system? Could one posit how it could be that somehow the “senses” and “faculties” that we use to arrive at certain conclusions not be based in “reality” at all?

One might respond with, “this isn't practical,” to which a skeptic using this framework could reply, “is it not an assumption, one that we need albeit, but may be in error, that reality is rational or practical?”

Besides, I stated a while ago I don't care about practicality in this matter Twisted Evil

And none of this is to insinuate that reality is “relative,” “subjective” or otherwise, because on many “levels” that is not how it seems, and how it seems is all we have to go on it appears. Does it not appear that the whole of reality that we experience seems to have elements of seemingly objective phenomena, as well as relative, intersubjective, and subjective (the most inescapable of all), all permeating what could perhaps be called “layers” of reality? We tend to shrug off subjectivity in a lot of ways when it's convenient for us, but hold onto ours stringently when it benefits us; would it not be accurate to note that the subjective experience or reality of a single individual has an objective implication in the overall milieu of the world and reality, no matter how small? Does a fictional character not have a standing in some way to reality? I mean, Santa Clause is a pretty popular fellow, and though fictional, has impacted many parts of the world. Not just by affecting people's minds, but by extension; how people change the world based on this fictional character. A physical sculpture of Santa Claus is an alteration in the “physical” world based off the influence of a fictional character, it appears.

Could it be that different individuals are programmed to see certain things in certain ways (with the natural statistic of certain ways being more prevalent than others but not necessarily gleaning more information about what is reality and what we think we “know” about it)? Are our claims about what we claim to know steeped within the paradigm in which we happen to be thinking in, and delimited from reality by restrictions to such a paradigm? But then, how could we say what we know or what is known without some paradigm to work in and from? Twisted Evil This last one is an example of why I feel it's an error to say “we can't know” (though there are some things we can certainly admit to not being able to know) or that something is wrong, because some mode of thought appears necessary in order to take that first step in claiming and substantiating “knowledge.”

This is something that is meant to be used to explore attempts at elimination of bias, so any knowledge claim can be dissected, such as a claim for something being real or claim for something not being real; it goes both ways.

One love
What if the "truth" is: the "truth" is indescernible/unknowable/nonexistent? Then the closest we get is through being true to and with ourselves.


Know thyself, nothing in excess, certainty brings insanity- Delphic Maxims

DMT always has something new to show you Twisted Evil

Question everything... including questioning everything... There's so much I could be wrong about and have no idea...
All posts and supposed experiences are from an imaginary interdimensional being. This being has the proclivity and compulsion for delving in depths it shouldn't. Posts should be taken with a grain of salt. 👽
 
Voidmatrix
#28 Posted : 9/3/2022 8:16:21 PM

Surrender and BE free

Welcoming committeeModerator

Posts: 2936
Joined: 01-Oct-2016
Last visit: 27-Nov-2022
Location: Rearranging the Void
VI: Skeptical Form I; Doubt/Question/Query Pt. 2


Nothing escapes the predation of questioning and query; everything comes under the magnifying glass of scrutiny, from our assumptions (primal building blocks) to our conclusions (the structure). Since nothing is off limits, our convictions also get scrutinized, fully exploring as many facets and factors as possible (as we are limited).

With this application, attempting avoidance of bias and appeal (for bias seems to detract us from "truth" if there is such a thing to be “known”) and in consideration of the wide range of views and positions held (for almost any given topic there is a debate of the “truth of the matter” at some level; and for a given topic, different individuals can/will employ a disparate variety or permutations of thought systems for understanding, mechanisms for reasoning and thinking, and different standards of conviction to arrive at the “truth” of said topic), a special kind of arbitrariness or "emptiness" can be observed (notice, this is not a claim that things are empty, but its something that can be perceived; for all we know there's paradoxical polyvalency to things, so something can have have emptiness as a major aspect as well as content as a major aspect, or it could just be based on and steeped in perspective (further calling into question the nature of “truth,” with considerations such as the potentiality that “truth” is something mutable and based on the perspective taken in a given context on a given topic)); we position ourselves "on the line."

We enter a point in which the “world” is viewed through a varied lenses of hypotheticals, and explore the defining characteristics and claims through in-depth thought experiments that are predicated and built by hypotheticals that are take for granted on the surface of what is being explored.

Hm, emptiness... how Buddhist Pleased (more on this later).

How much of what we think we know is merely belief that we hope reflects reality (though many people seem to believe things more out of convenience and comfort)?

Throughout such a process, we end up outside of needing or having a position (as the need can be seen as its own kind of bias) which leads us nicely into a mental and epistemic free-fall and to the next format of skepticism: suspension of judgment.

A final note: Skepticism is just as concerned with “truth” as much as any positivist method of philosophic investigation, but is a bit more in depth and brutal about the endeavor by questioning the ontological nature of the idea of “truth;” does it even exist at all outside of a subjective/intersubjective framework? And unlike many other methods, skepticism is fine with the ideas that there may not be “truth” in the ways we think, that it may not exist at all, that we may never come to a conclusion in this method of investigation, and the possibility that nothing can be known; it remains suspended.

One love
What if the "truth" is: the "truth" is indescernible/unknowable/nonexistent? Then the closest we get is through being true to and with ourselves.


Know thyself, nothing in excess, certainty brings insanity- Delphic Maxims

DMT always has something new to show you Twisted Evil

Question everything... including questioning everything... There's so much I could be wrong about and have no idea...
All posts and supposed experiences are from an imaginary interdimensional being. This being has the proclivity and compulsion for delving in depths it shouldn't. Posts should be taken with a grain of salt. 👽
 
Voidmatrix
#29 Posted : 9/20/2022 12:34:15 AM

Surrender and BE free

Welcoming committeeModerator

Posts: 2936
Joined: 01-Oct-2016
Last visit: 27-Nov-2022
Location: Rearranging the Void
VII: Skeptical Form II: Suspension of Judgment


Now that we've acknowledged the observed detracting nature of bias and assumption from "truth," we apply ourselves to not having any biases or assumptions (aside from the bias against bias and the assumption against assumptions Twisted Evil ) as much as possible. As such, and following from, any assertions, claims or judgments we make will appeal to bias and assumption. So where does that leave us? Suspending judgment (especially absolute and/or definite judgments). In this philosophy of skepticism, judgment is relegated to claims, assertions, and arguments concerning knowledge and/or something being known. It does not preclude open statements, with inherent consideration and conceit towards potential limit or error (so, the framing and prose) in observation and belief. It allows for less weight and mental gripping to what is thought to be known and believed, making “changing one's mind” to more “accurate” measures easier. Despite potentially not knowing, we still seem to live lives and have occurrences in our immediate experience all the time.

Otherwise, we end up with stories and myths like that of Pyrrho, of whom stories are told where he was able to be so skeptical that he would walking in front of carriages without looking, almost walk off of ledges, and was able to have an intense surgery without anesthesia because of his uncertainty about if he was actually feeling any pain or not and if pain was even a thing to be felt.

There is both a practical application here as well as a more extreme application that appeals to things in a more “honest” way.

I would like to make a distinction in the realm of belief. We've already seen how belief is inherent to knowing, but there's also belief of unverifiables; interpretations of ancient things, religion, the nature of things we cannot systematically explore, things we can't double check, superstition, etc.

Belief revolves around and is concerned with the acceptance of something being the case or true. It is our trust and faith in something.

One believes they know x and/or knows they believe x.

One can believe something without knowing it, but one cannot know something and not believe for it's inherent to knowing to believe that which is thought to be known.

In our previous discussion around axioms and assumptions wherein we talked about the implicit nature of faith, the same can be said for belief.

It's also linked to our idea of conviction: many beliefs are held so tightly, including our ideas and beliefs in what we think/feel we know.

Belief outside of knowledge is a much looser type of concept despite our behaviors with it and why we aren't satisfied with just belief in discerning truth, and hence why we have the concept of knowledge.

A distinction we can make between the two is the positions held in regards to each. Typically our statements around what is known tend to emanate from more rigorous standards, whereas belief for many people doesn't entail a reasoning or justification and when it does it may (likely) be diminished in rigor and veracity.

Since we have been questioning knowledge this whole time, and we see how knowledge entails belief, it's accurate to say that our pursuit of knowledge is an attempt, but we never escape the nature of belief just like we never escape faith in these matters, so if we know anything, its may not be as concrete as we may think.

So to revisit, should our beliefs not reflect what we feel is true? Even if there's no way to verify?

The idea of “it was once known” is always kind of funny to me. If, as we've seen, stating a statement or argument as something that is known it is also to be true. However if it was once known but isn't because it was an error then it was never known it was something that was held as a belief with vehement conviction.

To state whats been stated before, if no one knows everything and no one is right all the time, then we all have beliefs (some of which we'd call knowledge) that are in error that are unbeknownst to us.
We seem to often choose to believe some things in certain ways as a way to fill in arbitrary gaps in understanding that an individual may feel is necessary to have some conclusion on in order to continue moving forward in some manner or other. Again, itt's concurrent with what we've covered with respect to faith.

Another difference we can observe between knowledge and belief is the degree of appeal to "consensus" reality... Things that are considered known often appeal to a larger subset than most things that are relegated to belief alone.

It also seems that many generate a belief and try to justify and support it as opposed to critically assessing whether they feel it's something that should be believed or not. Kind of the opposite of what would seem more appropriate to approach "truth"...

Some beliefs also seem to be derived more out of preference and convenience than as a potential framework that reflects reality (confirmation bias), such as upbringing, which is just a manner in which one is conditioned to think in certain ways, but none of those ways may lead to knowledge or knowing; rather instead, a set of beliefs and positions that one uses to move forward in reality while potentially (and likely) not reflecting things "true" about it.

Regardless, people seem to often generally draw conclusions from beliefs on varying degrees and layers of applicability in a given context and/or situation. In this regard, suspension of judgment is viewed as even more important.

I sometimes ask people why they're convinced by "x" which often upsets people, but it helps us to see more of why we think what we think and how we try to impose these thoughts on reality through the beliefs we generate about reality from said positions. A conviction in and of itself is not knowledge, though any "knowledge" held one should be convinced of (provided it such knowledge "exists"Pleased.

Belief is not knowledge, though anything claimed as "knowledge" is thus believed.

We can see why my personal position is devoid of belief and conviction in many fundamental and core ways; they're mutable and loose, if extant at all. I entertain concepts and ideas critically.

It seems apt to approach truth about the world through honesty with ourselves, which leads to unknowing due to faults in our overall approach and desire by acknowledging in what ways we may or seem to compromise the truth in order to find the truth; "truth" seems predicated on looking at things from all angles, which includes looking at how our systems generate information that we want, as well as their potential faults errors and shortcomings. In short, seeing how we could be wrong/in error despite appearance of a given situation or the appearance of accuracy in the approach to assessing and interpreting a given situation.

By observing these apparent fundamental faults in deriving knowledge and the nature of belief, there's a seeming uncertainty about truth-hood and our position relative to it. We suspend our judgment.

One love
What if the "truth" is: the "truth" is indescernible/unknowable/nonexistent? Then the closest we get is through being true to and with ourselves.


Know thyself, nothing in excess, certainty brings insanity- Delphic Maxims

DMT always has something new to show you Twisted Evil

Question everything... including questioning everything... There's so much I could be wrong about and have no idea...
All posts and supposed experiences are from an imaginary interdimensional being. This being has the proclivity and compulsion for delving in depths it shouldn't. Posts should be taken with a grain of salt. 👽
 
Voidmatrix
#30 Posted : 10/25/2022 12:35:35 AM

Surrender and BE free

Welcoming committeeModerator

Posts: 2936
Joined: 01-Oct-2016
Last visit: 27-Nov-2022
Location: Rearranging the Void
VIII: Skeptical Form III; Phenomenological Skepticism


I'm questioning myself in how I wrote this a bit, but wanted to get it out there to you all.

This concept is stated simply enough, but putting it into practice is another story...

We're at a point where we can readily and honestly admit to ourselves that we do not know (notice I did not say that "we cannot 'know'"), but can also admit that there are many conceptual structures and paradigms that generate information of various kinds in various manners, some (perhaps even many) of which aim to be knowledge, claim to be knowledge, or claim to have knowledge derived from them.

In interacting with these paradigms, bearing in mind our admission to ourselves, we simply shed our preconceived notions (using skepticism as it has been laid out here to do so), and jump into whatever paradigm we are curious about exploring. However, we don't just jump in, rather, we jump in with our tools of skepticism running in the background.

It's important to make sure that skepticism is put in the background for otherwise one may miss out on fundamental axis points of understanding within a given paradigm. The approach here is having an understanding of the topic before exploring it through skepticism; skepticism comes at the beginning in the removal of any bias and opinion of the topic on the onset, and then thereafter when we look to explore its nature and understand the underpinnings of axioms and assumptions that make it "work."

This type of approach is phenomenological (hence the term "phenomenological skepticism), and predicated on understanding more so than "knowing," and as such, as one engages in this way, while immersed, there's little criticism or invalidation. One saves that until a time when one is removed from said immersion. Be in the moment.

This can leave one in a state of limbo, on the edge, on the fence, etc. about many things, covering all faceted sides, but having a potential higher degree and magnitude of understanding in general. It's not about dichotomies or binary distinctions such as right/wrong, correct/incorrect, etc, though these kinds of dichotomies can be entertained; we transcend them when immersed in the phenomenological experience. Thus, aptly and appropriately suspending our judgment becomes a key component to our overall approach: when and where should judgment be suspended?

In applying this practice repeatedly across many different paradigm structures, the mind gains a different breadth, engendering the mind to hold, appeal to, and understand through ideas such as polyvalency and paradox within considerations of disparate paradigms.

"Beliefs" may become "sticky" and "tricky" as a result of this practice, but awareness in general invariably broadens and paradoxically becomes more specific.

Jump in, the water's fine Twisted Evil

One love
What if the "truth" is: the "truth" is indescernible/unknowable/nonexistent? Then the closest we get is through being true to and with ourselves.


Know thyself, nothing in excess, certainty brings insanity- Delphic Maxims

DMT always has something new to show you Twisted Evil

Question everything... including questioning everything... There's so much I could be wrong about and have no idea...
All posts and supposed experiences are from an imaginary interdimensional being. This being has the proclivity and compulsion for delving in depths it shouldn't. Posts should be taken with a grain of salt. 👽
 
Voidmatrix
#31 Posted : 11/14/2022 6:44:47 PM

Surrender and BE free

Welcoming committeeModerator

Posts: 2936
Joined: 01-Oct-2016
Last visit: 27-Nov-2022
Location: Rearranging the Void
Well, I think we're coming up on the end of sorts (only 2-3 more posts), though I have a feeling I may share adjunct notes later.

I'm thankful. This was something that I didn't think I could do. I actually almost gave up a couple times. However, I composed the majority of these posts much quicker than I thought I could or would.

However, I don't think it turned out bad and is a good schematic for refining the overall idea. I used this forum as a way to explore how to share this idea.

So, thanks to all of you, in a couple years hopefully, I intend on polishing this up in a manner that is more in-depth and polished and will see if I can get it published, just because.

My gratitude goes out to you, whoever you may be. I truly hope you've enjoyed.

Love

One love
What if the "truth" is: the "truth" is indescernible/unknowable/nonexistent? Then the closest we get is through being true to and with ourselves.


Know thyself, nothing in excess, certainty brings insanity- Delphic Maxims

DMT always has something new to show you Twisted Evil

Question everything... including questioning everything... There's so much I could be wrong about and have no idea...
All posts and supposed experiences are from an imaginary interdimensional being. This being has the proclivity and compulsion for delving in depths it shouldn't. Posts should be taken with a grain of salt. 👽
 
PREV12
 
Users browsing this forum
Guest

DMT-Nexus theme created by The Traveler
This page was generated in 0.110 seconds.