'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

nothing
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by nothing »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm False, a unicorn exists is a definite assertion.
Thus either definitely true or false.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm Its existence as an abstraction is true.
No - its non-existence as an imagination is true.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm False, both knowledge and belief or rather knowledge as justified belief
The words "I believe" mean "I do not know..." hence
knowledge as "justified belief" is naught but lunacy.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm One can neither know nor believe something without first accepting the phenomenon.
Acknowledging precedes acceptance - one must acknowledge the reality before accepting it,
else: one may deny the reality and imagine what reality ought to be, rather than ought not (present).

Whereas one can not derive an ought from an is,
one can derive an ought not from an is, however
this implies the capacity to acknowledge what "is".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm Reality as existing through forms, is reality as a series of converging and diverging images.
No, that would be a local lunacy, such as a loopy form
unrealized that the loop is a locally imagined phenomena.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm A cyclical form transcends that of all being where knowledge, as the acceptance of forms, is an approximation of one cycle. One cycle is observed through many.
Replace "knowledge" with "belief" and you got it.
Your conflation of knowledge and belief is culprit
and always will be so long as it is so-embedded
causing a (local) loop.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm Reality as defining itself is reality as a self referential cycle thus necessitating it as conscious.
Yes. However note: there is no such thing as "my consciousness" and "your consciousness"
there is only consciousness. Hence: conscious knowledge of ignorance.
The more one identifies with their ignorance (rather than "justified belief" knowledge)
the more the universe opens up such to come to know. There is a reciprocity present there
and can be tested locally by any being, thus both witnessed as attained to by themselves.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm This self referentiality, which is the grounding of consciousness, necessitates the cycle as grounding of self awareness.
Adam could not account for his own actions "believing" it was the fault of the woman.
All who have a tendency to blame tend to blame the woman, yet the same reveals
to what degree(s) they are willing to associate the actions of one's own
as the fault of another. These degrees compose the 'Mark of Cain' and is visible
according to the degrees to which one is in a state of comparison to another
such to grow enmity and draw from the constituency of their own nature.

Self-awareness begins/ends with being self-aware of one's own actions,
thoughts, feelings, and certainly: beliefs which may not necessarily be true.
All false beliefs as acted upon as true results in a sense of separation from the whole
despite no such separation existing. The duality is merely local (if experienced) thus
the "believer vs. unbeliever" crises can be addressed (as is).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm Evolution requires involution given that, as stated prior, evolution as a universal form necessitates evolution evolving from itself as evolution thus necessitating involution. Evolution as self negating necessitates is as reciprocal to involution.
Self-negation is what involution implies, hence all one believes themselves to be which they are not
is only reconciled by way of involution (ie. inward process) such to yield the external "evolution".
"Belief" is not an evolutionary (or even conscious) process, hence the upcoming Age of Aquarius being
the Age of Knowledge. This Piscean Age still has the "believer vs. unbeliever" division wherein
the dividers go around in circles stuck in the same age.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm 1=/=1
I'll let that speak for itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm Suffering is still suffering regardless of the negotiated return. If suffering is defined strictly through terms of negotiation than the root of suffering as the breaking of a negotiation and the problem or morality is a problem less of understanding and rather of mutual consent.
Without negotiation there is no reciprocity, however you are (actually, surprisingly) correct
that 'mutual consent' is of concern. If consent is mutual (authentic) it doesn't matter what it is
the engagement is cordial until terminated. If not... therein lies the root of so-called "evil"
hence how/why reciprocity clarifies the need to sanctify such consent as a matter of
(what can be known to be) universal law (of reciprocity) given this relation is the same
as the nature of the relation between space and time as aspects of motion/energy.

v = s/t = speed
e = t/s = energy
s/t x t/s = 1

All speed/energy is immediately localized as a concentrated point in the ever-now (eternity).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm And your theory will not stop pedophilia, rape, murder or genocide.
It was/is not intended to, however the sentiment is noted as
it is not clear to me you have any regard for the victims of such.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm All forceful assertions, made by a tyrant, as well as the war and suffering which result necessitates the nazi archetype as stemming far beyond any religious beleif and reflecting the realm of atheistic communist governments.
I know you to be a fool if you honestly believe that (let alone you can not spell the word).

Male central figure orator who amasses power via oration,
weaponizes the state against his political adversaries,
expands militarily while signing and breaking peace treaties
and subsequently used the power of the state to carry out
mass organized genocide against "Jews" only to die cursing them.

Adolph Hitler, or Muhammad?

It takes a "believer" to ever "believe" themselves superior to others
and/or others are inferior to themselves. In any conceivable
"believer vs. unbeliever" situation, all Nazis are pinned (by necessity)
to the side of the "believers". The same is true for so-called "Satan"
hence Islam is both the root of Nazism and is actually satanic.
Their ideology involves scapegoating their own crimes against humanity
onto humanity (default: "Jews") and presently they are waging a global jihad
against white people, because Islam is also a racist/intolerant ideology.

In case others haven't figured it out yet: the "believers" are the real book-worshiping "Jews"
who were behind the rise of Nazism pre-WWII Germany. Adolph Hitler fell into the hands
of the Muslim Brotherood, not knowing they were the real book-worshiping "Jews"
he had set out to undermine. Hence the bullet Hitler put in his own head once he "knew".

Book-worshiping "Jews" divide the world.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm There is no knowledge without beleif given knowing is believing.
"knowing is believing" lol, wow.
Do you believe in gravity? Would it act any different if you didn't?

Knowledge implies the absence of belief.
Belief implies the absence of knowledge.
The presence of one is the absence of the other.

This maps directly onto
"believer vs. unbeliever" via
"belief vs. knowledge" thus
knowledge is evolutionary.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm You are ignoring the question... I asked "what" forum where you are viewed with agreement.
Yes, I am, and I know.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm As to the multiplicity of terms it contradicts the theory of unity given the theory, where all is unified, is part of the unity as an expression of it. A general theory of unity exists as part of the greater unity thus is self referential, however given the multiplicity of terms needed to Express it, the one is approximated through the many.
There is no more a contradiction in it than in yang and yin.
We have already solved for the physical universe which,
to even my surprise, shows the alpha/omega are actually
present in the equations describing, which means CKIIT chose
the right question to ask: 'from whence human suffering?'
such to derive the alpha/omega/beg/end axes. This axes
is the same defined by the four roots of the terminal function.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:06 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm False, a unicorn exists is a definite assertion.
Thus either definitely true or false.

No, true and false. True as an abstract context, false as empirical.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm Its existence as an abstraction is true.
No - its non-existence as an imagination is true.

It is true as existing through the imagination.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm False, both knowledge and belief or rather knowledge as justified belief
The words "I believe" mean "I do not know..." hence
knowledge as "justified belief" is naught but lunacy.

Knowledge as subject to an infinite regress, through ever expanding and changing contexts, necessitates knowledge assumed through a series of variables which exist beyond it


Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm One can neither know nor believe something without first accepting the phenomenon.
Acknowledging precedes acceptance - one must acknowledge the reality before accepting it,
else: one may deny the reality and imagine what reality ought to be, rather than ought not (present).

Whereas one can not derive an ought from an is,
one can derive an ought not from an is, however
this implies the capacity to acknowledge what "is".

False, acknowledging is to be imprinted by it given one must assume it exists if one is to first acknowledge it.


Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm Reality as existing through forms, is reality as a series of converging and diverging images.
No, that would be a local lunacy, such as a loopy form
unrealized that the loop is a locally imagined phenomena.

The common reciprocal nature which stems across phenomena, such as the revolution between thesis and antithesis, necessitates an underlying loop form which transcends all phenomenon.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm A cyclical form transcends that of all being where knowledge, as the acceptance of forms, is an approximation of one cycle. One cycle is observed through many.
Replace "knowledge" with "belief" and you got it.
Your conflation of knowledge and belief is culprit
and always will be so long as it is so-embedded
causing a (local) loop.

This loop exists across a variety of phenomenon as a phenomenon in itself.
The definition of phenomena, thus their reality which exists across the phenomena, is the grounding of its existence.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm Reality as defining itself is reality as a self referential cycle thus necessitating it as conscious.
Yes. However note: there is no such thing as "my consciousness" and "your consciousness"
there is only consciousness. Hence: conscious knowledge of ignorance.
The more one identifies with their ignorance (rather than "justified belief" knowledge)
the more the universe opens up such to come to know. There is a reciprocity present there
and can be tested locally by any being, thus both witnessed as attained to by themselves.

Consciousness is both individual and universal. The cyclic pattern of consciousness necessitates all consciousness as part of an integral loop, however how these loops manifest necessitates a dual process of individuality. Both individual and group consciousness exists.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm This self referentiality, which is the grounding of consciousness, necessitates the cycle as grounding of self awareness.
Adam could not account for his own actions "believing" it was the fault of the woman.
All who have a tendency to blame tend to blame the woman, yet the same reveals
to what degree(s) they are willing to associate the actions of one's own
as the fault of another. These degrees compose the 'Mark of Cain' and is visible
according to the degrees to which one is in a state of comparison to another
such to grow enmity and draw from the constituency of their own nature.

Self-awareness begins/ends with being self-aware of one's own actions,
thoughts, feelings, and certainly: beliefs which may not necessarily be true.
All false beliefs as acted upon as true results in a sense of separation from the whole
despite no such separation existing. The duality is merely local (if experienced) thus
the "believer vs. unbeliever" crises can be addressed (as is).

Self awareness begins with a loop, this loop begins with self referentiality as the self reflection of one's thoughts words and actions. The looping between the subject and object, necessitates a second degree of looping. The third degree is the looping between subjects and the fourth degree is the looping between objects.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm Evolution requires involution given that, as stated prior, evolution as a universal form necessitates evolution evolving from itself as evolution thus necessitating involution. Evolution as self negating necessitates is as reciprocal to involution.
Self-negation is what involution implies, hence all one believes themselves to be which they are not
is only reconciled by way of involution (ie. inward process) such to yield the external "evolution".
"Belief" is not an evolutionary (or even conscious) process, hence the upcoming Age of Aquarius being
the Age of Knowledge. This Piscean Age still has the "believer vs. unbeliever" division wherein
the dividers go around in circles stuck in the same age.

The believer vs unbeliever distinction is a false dichotomy. This is given that regressive nature of knowledge/belief where all knowledge effectively regresses to a belief and all belief is grounded in some form of knowledge
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm 1=/=1
I'll let that speak for itself.

And dually 1=1 given both measure a loop, regardless of the differentiation of the loop.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm Suffering is still suffering regardless of the negotiated return. If suffering is defined strictly through terms of negotiation than the root of suffering as the breaking of a negotiation and the problem or morality is a problem less of understanding and rather of mutual consent.
Without negotiation there is no reciprocity, however you are (actually, surprisingly) correct
that 'mutual consent' is of concern. If consent is mutual (authentic) it doesn't matter what it is
the engagement is cordial until terminated. If not... therein lies the root of so-called "evil"
hence how/why reciprocity clarifies the need to sanctify such consent as a matter of
(what can be known to be) universal law (of reciprocity) given this relation is the same
as the nature of the relation between space and time as aspects of motion/energy.

v = s/t = speed
e = t/s = energy
s/t x t/s = 1

All speed/energy is immediately localized as a concentrated point in the ever-now (eternity).


Mutual consent, as reciprocity, necessitates morality as subject to a loop.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm And your theory will not stop pedophilia, rape, murder or genocide.
It was/is not intended to, however the sentiment is noted as
it is not clear to me you have any regard for the victims of such.

Me pointing out the futility of your theory in stopping such acts only proves my interest in finding effective means for preventing such attrocities.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm All forceful assertions, made by a tyrant, as well as the war and suffering which result necessitates the nazi archetype as stemming far beyond any religious beleif and reflecting the realm of atheistic communist governments.
I know you to be a fool if you honestly believe that (let alone you can not spell the word).

Male central figure orator who amasses power via oration,
weaponizes the state against his political adversaries,
expands militarily while signing and breaking peace treaties
and subsequently used the power of the state to carry out
mass organized genocide against "Jews" only to die cursing them.

Adolph Hitler, or Muhammad?

This reflects across communist states, and there persecutions of religions as well. Atrocities are not limited to a religious belief but occur in spite of an absence of belief.

It takes a "believer" to ever "believe" themselves superior to others
and/or others are inferior to themselves. In any conceivable
"believer vs. unbeliever" situation, all Nazis are pinned (by necessity)
to the side of the "believers". The same is true for so-called "Satan"
hence Islam is both the root of Nazism and is actually satanic.
Their ideology involves scapegoating their own crimes against humanity
onto humanity (default: "Jews") and presently they are waging a global jihad
against white people, because Islam is also a racist/intolerant ideology.

Atheistic government proves persecution is not subject to religious affiliations but as a matter of fact persecuted such affiliations thus leading to suffering.

In case others haven't figured it out yet: the "believers" are the real book-worshiping "Jews"
who were behind the rise of Nazism pre-WWII Germany. Adolph Hitler fell into the hands
of the Muslim Brotherood, not knowing they were the real book-worshiping "Jews"
he had set out to undermine. Hence the bullet Hitler put in his own head once he "knew".

Book-worshiping "Jews" divide the world.

That is blatant anti semitism. You are blaming a specific group of people for the suffering of the world, when in reality these very same people where subject to persecutions under both nazi and communistic type governments.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm There is no knowledge without beleif given knowing is believing.
"knowing is believing" lol, wow.
Do you believe in gravity? Would it act any different if you didn't?

Gravity is a concept as a localization of some force in reality. With the recategorization of gravity comes some force within nature being reinterpreted in a new light.
For example magnetism, where an object is pulled towards another object, would put a new light upon such categorization.


Knowledge implies the absence of belief.
Belief implies the absence of knowledge.
The presence of one is the absence of the other.

False as this is an implication, thus "may or may not" occur thus necessitating the, as having some form of tie given they equal may not exist without the other.

This maps directly onto
"believer vs. unbeliever" via
"belief vs. knowledge" thus
knowledge is evolutionary.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm You are ignoring the question... I asked "what" forum where you are viewed with agreement.
Yes, I am, and I know.

And what forum is this? Or are you afraid that someone outside your closed little circle may disagree with your theory?


Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:23 pm As to the multiplicity of terms it contradicts the theory of unity given the theory, where all is unified, is part of the unity as an expression of it. A general theory of unity exists as part of the greater unity thus is self referential, however given the multiplicity of terms needed to Express it, the one is approximated through the many.
There is no more a contradiction in it than in yang and yin.
We have already solved for the physical universe which,
to even my surprise, shows the alpha/omega are actually
present in the equations describing, which means CKIIT chose
the right question to ask: 'from whence human suffering?'
such to derive the alpha/omega/beg/end axes. This axes
is the same defined by the four roots of the terminal function.

Your theory is an abstraction. All abstractions are imaginary, according to you, thus your theory is imaginary.
nothing
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by nothing »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:10 am
...
Recommended for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPJg5kR79Nc

1:07 "Now obviously, you believe - when you believe that something is the case, it implies that you don't know..."

Eckhart Tolle is 100% correct.

Belief implies absence of knowledge, thus
knowledge implies absence of belief.

Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYsR-ewHA28&t

0:41 "So surely... is belief necessary at all? Why do we have beliefs? Probably because mostly you believe in something because you don't actually see what is."

1:33 "The problem of belief seems to me so utterly erroneous - it has no place with a person who is actually observing the whole structure... belief appears as a means of escape from the reality of what is."

Jiddu Krishnamurti is also 100% correct.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:01 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 1:10 am
...
Recommended for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPJg5kR79Nc

1:07 "Now obviously, you believe - when you believe that something is the case, it implies that you don't know..."

Eckhart Tolle is 100% correct.

Belief implies absence of knowledge, thus
knowledge implies absence of belief.

Belief implies an absence of knowledge yet this implication necessitates it may or may not occur. Knowledge as knowing necessitates the awareness of a series of variables yet these variables are grounded in variables which are either unobserved and/or strictly accepted as is. All knowing knowledge is beyond the human condition in the respect we only observe things through a fragmented state. The one is approximated through many images. There is no manner in which one can observe all things at once without first accepting grounding axioms from which to build their knowledge upon.

Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYsR-ewHA28&t

0:41 "So surely... is belief necessary at all? Why do we have beliefs? Probably because mostly you believe in something because you don't actually see what is."

1:33 "The problem of belief seems to me so utterly erroneous - it has no place with a person who is actually observing the whole structure... belief appears as a means of escape from the reality of what is."

Jiddu Krishnamurti is also 100% correct.

No he is not. The assumption is that the whole structure can be observed without depending upon variables which are assumed. Even if the whole structure is observed it has to be assumed, ie imprinted on the individual, and accepted as is. The experience of the whole has to be believed that one is even experiencing it at all. It has to be accepted. Knowing is the belief in one's own experience.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/belief
nothing
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by nothing »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:15 pm Belief implies an absence of knowledge yet this implication necessitates it may or may not occur.
Hence: not knowledge.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:15 pm Knowledge as knowing necessitates the awareness of a series of variables...
Knowledge entails knowing (of) one's own being.
Variables have limited utility, they are not reality.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:15 pm There is no manner in which one can observe all things at once without first accepting grounding axioms from which to build their knowledge upon.
The grounding axiom is the being - one need not observe all things at once, but observe what is in peripheral as-is, rather than imagine otherwise.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:15 pm No he is not. The assumption is that the whole structure can be observed without depending upon variables which are assumed.
Your own assumption is that the structure of reality is composed of variables. It is a local one.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:36 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:15 pm Belief implies an absence of knowledge yet this implication necessitates it may or may not occur.
Hence: not knowledge.

Or knowledge, one may believe and be correct. Belief is necessary as part of the progress towards knowledge given one must begin with a starting point that is not fully justified.
Even complete skepticism requires one being skeptical of the skepticism thus having a starting point of knowledge to build upon be it sensory data or what not.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:15 pm Knowledge as knowing necessitates the awareness of a series of variables...
Knowledge entails knowing (of) one's own being.
Variables have limited utility, they are not reality.

The self as infinite, through the infinite consciousness, is subject to infinite regress considering one may not fully know the self. There is always some aspect of the self which exists beyond that which is known. What is known of the self is assumed given even awareness of the I requires a series of self reflective acts where the self is known by a beginning premise of I. The I as self assuming is the beginning of self reflection and necessitates a self referential loop. This loop is a form and this form is assumed as in imprinted on the psyche.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:15 pm There is no manner in which one can observe all things at once without first accepting grounding axioms from which to build their knowledge upon.
The grounding axiom is the being - one need not observe all things at once, but observe what is in peripheral as-is, rather than imagine otherwise.

And this being exists through multiple facets considering what is observed is that which exists and what exists exists through grades. Because being is observed through grades, the one being is observed through the many. Observation is existence. To observe through the periphery is to observe through the use of imagination where the imagination is a means of approximating what cannot be observed. Periphery is imagination.

Second the whole structure needs to be observed for an absence of belief according to the quote you presented. Observing the whole is impossible and can only be accepted upon belief.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:15 pm No he is not. The assumption is that the whole structure can be observed without depending upon variables which are assumed.
Your own assumption is that the structure of reality is composed of variables. It is a local one.

False, one always begins with a starting point. A variable is that which is composed of multiple relations and acts as a starting point given it represents an apex of relations. For example the equation of P=P observes a series of parts which may exist through the variable presented. This is given that P can represent anything. P=P is a series of relations as the apex of those relations and how they exist. P=P observes the loop nature of the phenomenon observed. This loop is the beginning point of awareness given self reflection, as the I observing the I, is the fundamental form of observation.
nothing
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by nothing »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm Or knowledge, one may believe and be correct.
That doesn't make it knowledge: only if acknowledged as correct
such that "belief" becomes redundant/irrelevant. If you started/stopped
"believing" in gravity, it will act the same either way.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm Belief is necessary as part of the progress towards knowledge given one must begin with a starting point that is not fully justified.
Belief is necessary to try/test/falsify such to graduate into knowledge.
All knowledge serves to negate what would otherwise be belief-based ignorance(s).
All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum, hence
all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers"
who "believe" evil is good / satan is god. "Unbelievers" may know all
not to "believe", thus not be rooted in "belief".

This would entail being able to tell the difference between them, as
conflating them is akin to conflating the two trees: of living, of death.
Each dies to their own according to their own degree(s) of separation
in an wheel of samsara until (if) broken. CKIIT provides a means
to break this cycle of suffering/death.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm The self as infinite, through the infinite consciousness, is subject to infinite regress considering one may not fully know the self. There is always some aspect of the self which exists beyond that which is known. What is known of the self is assumed given even awareness of the I requires a series of self reflective acts where the self is known by a beginning premise of I. The I as self assuming is the beginning of self reflection and necessitates a self referential loop. This loop is a form and this form is assumed as in imprinted on the psyche.
Self implies other (and vice versa).
Yes, there is such a thing as my body, your body.
Yes, there is such a thing as my mind, your mind.
No, there is no such thing as my life, your life.

If infinite consciousness (?) even exists, we are less than it, and
if there is always some aspect of the self existing beyond
then "believing" one's self to be something they are not
measures any/all degrees of separation from fully knowing
the (so-called) self.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm And this being exists through multiple facets considering what is observed is that which exists and what exists exists through grades. Because being is observed through grades, the one being is observed through the many. Observation is existence. To observe through the periphery is to observe through the use of imagination where the imagination is a means of approximating what cannot be observed. Periphery is imagination.
What is observed is not necessarily that which exists - perception is a local boundary.
Gradation begins/end locally, hence the need for one to know themselves
given the seat of one's experience of life is from within themselves.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm Second the whole structure needs to be observed for an absence of belief according to the quote you presented. Observing the whole is impossible and can only be accepted upon belief.
If you can't observe the whole of your own being,
this is a local condition. That which exists within
is indifferent from without, only distorted/backwards
according to the internal distortion of the one perceiving.

This is precisely what "belief" does: inverts perception up-to 180-degrees such
to pathologically "believe" one's own internal state of being is someone else's fault.
In reality, one must account for one's own actions, and "believers" are liable to "believe"
others are to blame, such was the woman, and the woman the serpent, and the fall,
and suffering and death, and here-we-are as it must satisfy any possible
Judaic/Christian/Islamic context whose integrity relies on the Abrahamic creation account.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm False, one always begins with a starting point. A variable is that which is composed of multiple relations and acts as a starting point given it represents an apex of relations. For example the equation of P=P observes a series of parts which may exist through the variable presented. This is given that P can represent anything. P=P is a series of relations as the apex of those relations and how they exist. P=P observes the loop nature of the phenomenon observed. This loop is the beginning point of awareness given self reflection, as the I observing the I, is the fundamental form of observation.
The adoption of a belief-based ignorance is a starting point.
The resulting loop(s) is the beginning point of unawareness
thus also the end of unawareness (if awareness ever comes).

Those who are ignorant tend to be unaware of the reality as-it-is.
Humanity having had the wrong π for over 2000 years serves as measure.
The golden ratio is what produces the 2r=1 circle such to concern
the square of the same side 1 by kissing the 4 sides equidistantly.
This is why π can not not be in relation to '4', hence 4/√Φ.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Sat Jul 11, 2020 1:43 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm Or knowledge, one may believe and be correct.
That doesn't make it knowledge: only if acknowledged as correct
such that "belief" becomes redundant/irrelevant. If you started/stopped
"believing" in gravity, it will act the same either way.

If one stopped believing in gravity then a new interpretation would come to
take its place. With the absence of belief in one interpretation comes a new interpretation in a different light. Either way one begins with a assumed interpretation as a starting point as a justification of their belief. One assumption builds upon another where the connection of assumptions accounts for the justification.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm Belief is necessary as part of the progress towards knowledge given one must begin with a starting point that is not fully justified.
Belief is necessary to try/test/falsify such to graduate into knowledge.

Not all knowledge is testifiable as the testing requires a further test beyond it to justify it. The test is an assumed series of variables meant to replicate natural conditions but these natural variables, as not completely observed given one cannot see the totality of nature, always have some degree of divergence from the assumed manner of testing. The hypothesis, that which is tested, always depends upon some degree of imagination where an interpretation of the natural elements being tested is projected by the observer as an approximation of the natural conditions.




All knowledge serves to negate what would otherwise be belief-based ignorance(s).
All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum, hence

All knowledge as negating ad infinitum necessitates belief, as negatable, existing ad infinitum. Knowledge as always negating belief necessitates a belief always being around to be negated. This is reflected in the fallacies of logic where the fallacies as applied to eachother self negate, but considering infinite definition, given the slippery slope fallacy, the fallacies are always around in a perpetually new form,
all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers"
who "believe" evil is good / satan is god. "Unbelievers" may know all
not to "believe", thus not be rooted in "belief".

This would entail being able to tell the difference between them, as
conflating them is akin to conflating the two trees: of living, of death.
Each dies to their own according to their own degree(s) of separation
in an wheel of samsara until (if) broken. CKIIT provides a means
to break this cycle of suffering/death.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm The self as infinite, through the infinite consciousness, is subject to infinite regress considering one may not fully know the self. There is always some aspect of the self which exists beyond that which is known. What is known of the self is assumed given even awareness of the I requires a series of self reflective acts where the self is known by a beginning premise of I. The I as self assuming is the beginning of self reflection and necessitates a self referential loop. This loop is a form and this form is assumed as in imprinted on the psyche.
Self implies other (and vice versa).
Yes, there is such a thing as my body, your body.
Yes, there is such a thing as my mind, your mind.
No, there is no such thing as my life, your life.

I never said there is such thing as "my" or "your" life. Rather that self reflection ,which is the grounding of awareness, is dependent upon a cyclical form which transcends the consciousness of the self into a universal consciousness which exists through this cycle. There is both individual and universal consciousness.

If infinite consciousness (?) even exists, we are less than it, and
if there is always some aspect of the self existing beyond
then "believing" one's self to be something they are not
measures any/all degrees of separation from fully knowing
the (so-called) self.

Consciousness as existing through an ever present now, as a series of converging and diverging phenomenon, is always infinite given it exists through this convergence and divergence.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm And this being exists through multiple facets considering what is observed is that which exists and what exists exists through grades. Because being is observed through grades, the one being is observed through the many. Observation is existence. To observe through the periphery is to observe through the use of imagination where the imagination is a means of approximating what cannot be observed. Periphery is imagination.
What is observed is not necessarily that which exists - perception is a local boundary.

Localization is approximation of the one through the many where what is observed is observed as an approximation of the one. Observation, as the assuming of a phenomenon, is a process of imprinting forms that necessitates what is imprintable as existing as some grade of the totality of being.
Gradation begins/end locally, hence the need for one to know themselves
given the seat of one's experience of life is from within themselves.

Gradation, as the universal expansion and contraction of phenomenon from a point 0, is the manifestation of being moving through itself as itself. The self, and all that one experiences internally, is expressed through this expansion and contraction of forms where the self is moving through itself as itself as an approximation of the higher self.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm Second the whole structure needs to be observed for an absence of belief according to the quote you presented. Observing the whole is impossible and can only be accepted upon belief.
If you can't observe the whole of your own being,
this is a local condition. That which exists within
is indifferent from without, only distorted/backwards
according to the internal distortion of the one perceiving.

The self as infinite, through the higher consciousness which is infinite, necessitates the self never being fully observed given one cannot assume the full experience of infinity without falling into a metaphorical or even literal abyss. Localization is approximation of the one through the many where even localization itself is the means of movement of observation where one phenomenon Inverts to another through a perpetual movement as the expansion and contraction of forms.

This is precisely what "belief" does: inverts perception up-to 180-degrees such
to pathologically "believe" one's own internal state of being is someone else's fault.
False, belief is not limited to a blame game of who is or is not responsible for one's experience strictly because belief is the acceptance of a phenomenon "as is". In these respects it shares the same base as knowledge which acts as the justification of beliefs through the connection of seperation of phenomenon.

Belief as observable is knowing that belief exists as a phenomenon in itself thus acts as knowledge. From a premise of everything being connected through the one source, belief and knowledge maintain an intrinsic connection where both occur simultaneously and one does not occur prior or after another.



In reality, one must account for one's own actions, and "believers" are liable to "believe"
others are to blame, such was the woman, and the woman the serpent, and the fall,
and suffering and death, and here-we-are as it must satisfy any possible
Judaic/Christian/Islamic context whose integrity relies on the Abrahamic creation account.
To make the statement one is strictly accountable for their own actions, in light of a non localized self according to you, is a fallacy. Dually with the intrinsic connection of everything then other's actions, which are assumed as experiences, effectively have influence over the self.
No man is an island and one's actions have a ripple effect on other's actions.


Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:03 pm False, one always begins with a starting point. A variable is that which is composed of multiple relations and acts as a starting point given it represents an apex of relations. For example the equation of P=P observes a series of parts which may exist through the variable presented. This is given that P can represent anything. P=P is a series of relations as the apex of those relations and how they exist. P=P observes the loop nature of the phenomenon observed. This loop is the beginning point of awareness given self reflection, as the I observing the I, is the fundamental form of observation.
The adoption of a belief-based ignorance is a starting point.
The resulting loop(s) is the beginning point of unawareness
thus also the end of unawareness (if awareness ever comes).

The act of "knowing oneself" results in a loop through self reflection where if and only if the loop is ignorance then any action of knowing oneself, as an extension of a higher loop, results in a contradictory state of dissolusionment according to your premises.

Those who are ignorant tend to be unaware of the reality as-it-is.
Reality as it is is a series of loops.

Humanity having had the wrong π for over 2000 years serves as measure.
The golden ratio is what produces the 2r=1 circle such to concern
the square of the same side 1 by kissing the 4 sides equidistantly.
This is why π can not not be in relation to '4', hence 4/√Φ.

False as self reflection occurs through a spiral of reasoning which necessitates a circularity. Knowing or not knowing Pi is not a limit to better self understanding given that Pi is an abstraction, thus imaginary according to you. One need not know Pi in order to observe reality.

Pushing a theory where all belief is negated if Pi is understood is crass at best.
nothing
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by nothing »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am If one stopped believing in gravity then a new interpretation would come to
take its place.
This is not necessarily true, as need not be.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Not all knowledge is testifiable as the testing requires a further test beyond it to justify it.
Testifiable (sic)? Do you mean testable?

All discretionary binaries are subject to/of a universal binary is∞not,
thus if one acknowledges all is as-is (all, in-and-of all, as all)
one may definitely try/test/falsify any definite proposition according to
that which is and that which is not: all∞not, hence real/imaginary.

This real/imaginary principle is reflected in/of complex (mathematical) analysis.
The roots of the function 4/√Φ is a root demarcating the alpha/omega/beg/end
as a symmetry intrinsic to the physical (and metaphysical) existence via
two real roots and two imaginary roots. This is how/why √5 is the "key"
to the universe: √(√1+2√4) indicates a discretionary choice-between-two as √1
in relation to their (2) possible outcomes, hence 2√4.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am All knowledge as negating ad infinitum necessitates belief, as negatable, existing ad infinitum. Knowledge as always negating belief necessitates a belief always being around to be negated... the fallacies are always around in a perpetually new form,
This is correct, yet of no consequence - the deeper problem is rooted in the nature of the relation between knowledge and belief.
A body of knowledge is composed of a conscious acknowledgement(s) of who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if not to "believe" (in) someone or something, for knowing them to be (at least) not necessarily true. Belief-based ignorance implies an absence of knowledge(s) wherein the constituency of a particular belief(s) is taken to be 'true', thus so acted upon, yet in reality is not necessarily true.

This includes books believed to be the perfect/inimitable/unaltered/inerrant word of a god, thus so acted upon, hence 100's of millions are dead.
Neither the Torah (implies: bible) nor the Qur'an are perfectly preserved/unaltered and/or inerrant.

Begs the question: who are the real book-worshiping "Jews" ?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am I never said there is such thing as "my" or "your" life. Rather that self reflection ,which is the grounding of awareness, is dependent upon a cyclical form which transcends the consciousness of the self into a universal consciousness which exists through this cycle. There is both individual and universal consciousness.
"Belief" is not a conscious process. Trying/testing/falsifying belief is.
Self-reflection entails the ability to account for one's own actions,
whereas it would take a "believer" to "believe" someone else
is accountable for their own actions. This is not different
from the Edenic dilemma - Adam could not account for his own actions
hence blamed the woman. This is the hijab/niqab/burqa reflecting
the immodesty of the "believing" Muhammadan men,
rather than the modesty of the "believing" women.
Sahih al-Bukhari 5825—Narrated Ikrima:

Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s messenger came, Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.
In reality, Islam is state-sanctioned systemic abuse of women/children,
hence "believing" Muslims can only point their fingers at others
because they can not account for their own actions, the same
is the original sin. This is what the global war is about:
scapegoat all of the crimes of the House of Islam
onto non-Muslims, as they have been doing
for 1400 years, hence the root of Nazism.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Consciousness as existing through an ever present now, as a series of converging and diverging phenomenon, is always infinite given it exists through this convergence and divergence.
"Belief" is not a conscious process.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Localization is approximation of the one through the many where what is observed is observed as an approximation of the one.
Like approximating a circle? Well we know what that leads to.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Gradation, as the universal expansion and contraction of phenomenon from a point 0
No thanks.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am The self as infinite,
This is not common knowledge - if true, it would take a "believer" to "believe"
themselves to be finite, a product of the identifying with/as the body and/or mind.
In the case of the former, this is materialism. In the case of the latter, this is lunacy.

"I think, therefor I am..." is thus upside-down (the same is Western philosophy).
"I am, therefor I (may) think..." is correct viz. "I think because I am."

One must have a conscious knowledge one is neither body nor mind, hence
conscious knowledge of ignorance addresses any/all body/mind identifications.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am False, belief is not limited to a blame game of who is or is not responsible for one's experience strictly because belief is the acceptance of a phenomenon "as is".
All blame games involve belief. It is possible to believe something while knowing one truly knows not,
however this is actually a knowledge (to know one knows not) consciously preceding any/all belief.
The notion that "belief" is the acceptance of a phenomenon "as is" is actually what knowledge is, not belief.
"Belief" is the acceptance of a phenomenon "as not" as in: not actually known, so rather merely believe to be so.

What light is to knowledge, darkness is to belief.
Light implies absence of darkness, darkness implies absence of light.
To conflate the two implies lack/absence of consciousness (discernment).

Losing the ability to discern is precisely what "death" is - loss of discernment.
Discernment is forfeit upon death, such that beings continue according
to their natural tendencies as accumulated by their choices/actions.

Manifestation occurs within a cyclical context(s) composed of day/year/great year.
These are the three dimensions of time as they relate to three dimensions of space.

s/t x t/s = 1 = Φπ²/16
s³/t ∞ (st)² ∞ t³/s

There is only "one" number in the universe which,
if/when squared as an irrational, produces itself back
in addition to one discrete rational: Φ² = Φ + 1,
the golden ratio. This is why it must be present
in any true solution for unity.

Knowledge would entail knowing this unique property of Φ as
the Φπ² viz. ((1+√5)/2)(8√5-8) coupling effectively couples space and time
(mathematical: line and curve, rational and irrational, real and imaginary).

Image

Even according to the distorted Western sciences, Φ is needed to describe the physical universe.
What they do not understand is that the expansion of the universe ie. the "dark energy" is measurably 1.
This is the same Φπ²/16 relation because this relation is a scalar/invariant, thus valid all times/places.

Again: there is only 1 number in the universe that accomplishes this, and it is Φ, thus
"as is" would entail knowing "as is" accordingly to the same integral.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Belief as observable is knowing that belief exists as a phenomenon in itself thus acts as knowledge.
This mental game you keep playing to conflate belief with/as knowledge is very tiresome.

Knowing that belief exists implies consciously knowing who/what/where/why/when/how/if not to believe.
As one becomes wise, they may use such knowledge to routinely deduce more and more fundamental axioms/laws
which underlies the whole of the experienced phenomena. This implies a conscious process rooted in active inquiry,
not passive belief.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am The act of "knowing oneself" results in a loop through self reflection...
The act of failing to know oneself results in a loop lacking self reflection.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Reality as it is is a series of loops.
No, that is your reality, hence a "loopy" one
as even I know one can not convince a lunatic
of their own lunacy. It is a pointless endeavor.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am False as self reflection occurs through a spiral of reasoning which necessitates a circularity.
That would be lunacy, not self reflection.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Knowing or not knowing Pi is not a limit to better self understanding given that Pi is an abstraction, thus imaginary according to you.
Again with the "according to you" - speak for yourself.
Pi is both real and imaginary because the qualities/characteristics of '4'
have both physical and metaphysical implications. The function 4/√Φ
is a root of makes this clear: two real roots, two imaginary roots hence
pi is relevant to both, and certainly not an "abstraction". There are real
properties of pi.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Pushing a theory where all belief is negated if Pi is understood is crass at best.
No such theory is being pushed, however the work is already being done elsewhere.
What I provided in the OP was a way to understand the nature of the relation
between knowledge and belief wherein all-knowledge negates all-belief-based ignorance(s)
ad infinitum, as it would certainly take a "believer" to somehow "believe" / argue otherwise.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:01 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am If one stopped believing in gravity then a new interpretation would come to
take its place.
This is not necessarily true, as need not be.

All principles are a means of interpreting a given set of relations of phenomenon.
The interpretation is the relationships between a given set of variables. Change the variables and the interpretation changes.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Not all knowledge is testifiable as the testing requires a further test beyond it to justify it.
Testifiable (sic)? Do you mean testable?

Yes, auto spelling.

All discretionary binaries are subject to/of a universal binary is∞not,
thus if one acknowledges all is as-is (all, in-and-of all, as all)
one may definitely try/test/falsify any definite proposition according to
that which is and that which is not: all∞not, hence real/imaginary.

False, the testability of a phenomenon is the manifestation of a series of variables meant to replicate some localized portion of the whole. Given the test is an approximation of a natural environment and the natural environment cannot be observed for all its variables the test is an approximation.

This real/imaginary principle is reflected in/of complex (mathematical) analysis.
The roots of the function 4/√Φ is a root demarcating the alpha/omega/beg/end
as a symmetry intrinsic to the physical (and metaphysical) existence via
two real roots and two imaginary roots. This is how/why √5 is the "key"
to the universe: √(√1+2√4) indicates a discretionary choice-between-two as √1
in relation to their (2) possible outcomes, hence 2√4.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am All knowledge as negating ad infinitum necessitates belief, as negatable, existing ad infinitum. Knowledge as always negating belief necessitates a belief always being around to be negated... the fallacies are always around in a perpetually new form,
This is correct, yet of no consequence - the deeper problem is rooted in the nature of the relation between knowledge and belief.
A body of knowledge is composed of a conscious
acknowledgement(s) of who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if not to "believe" (in) someone or something, for knowing them to be (at least) not necessarily true. Belief-based ignorance implies an absence of knowledge(s) wherein the constituency of a particular belief(s) is taken to be 'true', thus so acted upon, yet in reality is not necessarily true.

Belief exists ad infinitum given that knowledge negates ad infinitum. Belief always has, was, and will exist.

This includes books believed to be the perfect/inimitable/unaltered/inerrant word of a god, thus so acted upon, hence 100's of millions are dead.
Neither the Torah (implies: bible) nor the Qur'an are perfectly preserved/unaltered and/or inerrant.

Begs the question: who are the real book-worshiping "Jews" ?

Millions died under communist atheism. Religious works are not necessarily the sole means for warfare.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am I never said there is such thing as "my" or "your" life. Rather that self reflection ,which is the grounding of awareness, is dependent upon a cyclical form which transcends the consciousness of the self into a universal consciousness which exists through this cycle. There is both individual and universal consciousness.
"Belief" is not a conscious process. Trying/testing/falsifying belief is.
One must believe the test itself as correctly measuring the localized phenomenon given the whole cannot be observed fully for what it is.


Self-reflection entails the ability to account for one's own actions,
whereas it would take a "believer" to "believe" someone else
is accountable for their own actions. This is not different
from the Edenic dilemma - Adam could not account for his own actions
hence blamed the woman. This is the hijab/niqab/burqa reflecting
the immodesty of the "believing" Muhammadan men,
rather than the modesty of the "believing" women.

self reflection is a loop thus necessitating a cyclical grounding to the phenomena.
Sahih al-Bukhari 5825—Narrated Ikrima:

Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s messenger came, Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.
In reality, Islam is state-sanctioned systemic abuse of women/children,
hence "believing" Muslims can only point their fingers at others
because they can not account for their own actions, the same
is the original sin. This is what the global war is about:
scapegoat all of the crimes of the House of Islam
onto non-Muslims, as they have been doing
for 1400 years, hence the root of Nazism.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Consciousness as existing through an ever present now, as a series of converging and diverging phenomenon, is always infinite given it exists through this convergence and divergence.
"Belief" is not a conscious process.

Belief as accepting a phenomena is a conscious process.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Localization is approximation of the one through the many where what is observed is observed as an approximation of the one.
Like approximating a circle? Well we know what that leads to.

Actually we don't.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Gradation, as the universal expansion and contraction of phenomenon from a point 0
No thanks.

Yes.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am The self as infinite,
This is not common knowledge - if true, it would take a "believer" to "believe"
themselves to be finite, a product of the identifying with/as the body and/or mind.
In the case of the former, this is materialism. In the case of the latter, this is lunacy.

Finiteness is the approximation of one infinity through many. For example an infinite line divided into many line results in multiple infinities.

"I think, therefor I am..." is thus upside-down (the same is Western philosophy).
"I am, therefor I (may) think..." is correct viz. "I think because I am."

One must have a conscious knowledge one is neither body nor mind, hence
conscious knowledge of ignorance addresses any/all body/mind identifications.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am False, belief is not limited to a blame game of who is or is not responsible for one's experience strictly because belief is the acceptance of a phenomenon "as is".
All blame games involve belief. It is possible to believe something while knowing one truly knows not,
however this is actually a knowledge (to know one knows not) consciously preceding any/all belief.
The notion that "belief" is the acceptance of a phenomenon "as is" is actually what knowledge is, not belief.
"Belief" is the acceptance of a phenomenon "as not" as in: not actually known, so rather merely believe to be so.

Blaming does not ground itself in belief given one must first assume an experience in order to assign responsibility for it. Under these terms blaming is the delegation of responsibility for a phenomenon by assuming it from its source.

What light is to knowledge, darkness is to belief.
Light implies absence of darkness, darkness implies absence of light.
To conflate the two implies lack/absence of consciousness (discernment).

Losing the ability to discern is precisely what "death" is - loss of discernment.
Discernment is forfeit upon death, such that beings continue according
to their natural tendencies as accumulated by their choices/actions.

Manifestation occurs within a cyclical context(s) composed of day/year/great year.
These are the three dimensions of time as they relate to three dimensions of space.

s/t x t/s = 1 = Φπ²/16
s³/t ∞ (st)² ∞ t³/s

There is only "one" number in the universe which,
if/when squared as an irrational, produces itself back
in addition to one discrete rational: Φ² = Φ + 1,
the golden ratio. This is why it must be present
in any true solution for unity.

Knowledge would entail knowing this unique property of Φ as
the Φπ² viz. ((1+√5)/2)(8√5-8) coupling effectively couples space and time
(mathematical: line and curve, rational and irrational, real and imaginary).

Image

Even according to the distorted Western sciences, Φ is needed to describe the physical universe.
What they do not understand is that the expansion of the universe ie. the "dark energy" is measurably 1.
This is the same Φπ²/16 relation because this relation is a scalar/invariant, thus valid all times/places.

Again: there is only 1 number in the universe that accomplishes this, and it is Φ, thus
"as is" would entail knowing "as is" accordingly to the same integral.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Belief as observable is knowing that belief exists as a phenomenon in itself thus acts as knowledge.
This mental game you keep playing to conflate belief with/as knowledge is very tiresome.

They both equate through the context of "acceptance".

Knowing that belief exists implies consciously knowing who/what/where/why/when/how/if not to believe.
As one becomes wise, they may use such knowledge to routinely deduce more and more fundamental axioms/laws
which underlies the whole of the experienced phenomena. This implies a conscious process rooted in active inquiry,
not passive belief.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am The act of "knowing oneself" results in a loop through self reflection...
The act of failing to know oneself results in a loop lacking self reflection.
self reflection is a loop.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Reality as it is is a series of loops.
No, that is your reality, hence a "loopy" one
as even I know one can not convince a lunatic
of their own lunacy. It is a pointless endeavor.

Then your endeavor is pointless.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am False as self reflection occurs through a spiral of reasoning which necessitates a circularity.
That would be lunacy, not self reflection.

The I reflecting upon the I is a loop.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Knowing or not knowing Pi is not a limit to better self understanding given that Pi is an abstraction, thus imaginary according to you.
Again with the "according to you" - speak for yourself.
Pi is both real and imaginary because the qualities/characteristics of '4'
have both physical and metaphysical implications. The function 4/√Φ
is a root of makes this clear: two real roots, two imaginary roots hence
pi is relevant to both, and certainly not an "abstraction". There are real
properties of pi.

[/color]
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 2:48 am Pushing a theory where all belief is negated if Pi is understood is crass at best.
No such theory is being pushed, however the work is already being done elsewhere.
What I provided in the OP was a way to understand the nature of the relation
between knowledge and belief wherein all-knowledge negates all-belief-based ignorance(s)
ad infinitum, as it would certainly take a "believer" to somehow "believe" / argue otherwise.
Yes the theory is being pushed.

Dually, belief is inevitable if knowledge negates it ad infinitum. Beleif is thus infinite and a part of the conscious process of reasoning.
nothing
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by nothing »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm All principles are a means of interpreting a given set of relations of phenomenon.
The interpretation is the relationships between a given set of variables. Change the variables and the interpretation changes.
Interpretation of relations is a matter of principle, in particular: a matter of conscience.
The variables are irrelevant - the nature of the relation between them is important.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Yes, auto spelling.
Uh huh.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm False, the testability of a phenomenon is the manifestation of a series of variables meant to replicate some localized portion of the whole.
Testability is contingent only on the ability of the conscience, thus the only relevant variable is how conscious one is.
The seat of one's experience of creation is within themselves, thus knowing the self becomes necessary as
the degree to which one knows themselves is determines their ability to clearly see their own surroundings.

This is how/why knowledge first/last relates to one's own self.
The important factor is not knowledge, it is is consciousness.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Belief exists ad infinitum given that knowledge negates ad infinitum. Belief always has, was, and will exist.
Beliefs may be consciously acknowledged as uncertain/unknown, in which case knowledge underlies belief.
I believe x to degree y is thus a knowledge before it is a belief.
I believe x totally and absolutely is absent such knowledge.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Millions died under communist atheism. Religious works are not necessarily the sole means for warfare.
Pointing fingers at others again to protect the worshipers of polygamy, pedophilia, rape and genocide.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm One must believe the test itself as correctly measuring the localized phenomenon given the whole cannot be observed fully for what it is.
One must know themselves - the thing whence the test is being conducted/performed.
If one believes themselves to be something they are not, perception is distorted accordingly.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Belief as accepting a phenomena is a conscious process.
Knowledge as rejecting a belief-based phenomena is a conscious process.
Belief has no implicit mandate to try/test/falsify, hence the relative stagnation
of the "believers" who spill blood over books and male central figure idols.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Actually we don't.
There is a reason for that.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Finiteness is the approximation of one infinity through many. For example an infinite line divided into many line results in multiple infinities.
Infinity is not a real/existential phenomena. Neither is a "point 0".
Nobody has proven/measured/calculated an existential infinity, as
even the physical universe had a finite beginning.

If you are going to use mathematical devices to make a point,
if those devices have nothing to do with the existential reality,
neither does the point you are trying to make.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Blaming does not ground itself in belief given one must first assume an experience in order to assign responsibility for it. Under these terms blaming is the delegation of responsibility for a phenomenon by assuming it from its source.
The experience assumed is: someone else is responsible for the internal state of the "believer"
such to give rise to false accusation / blame. Adam had to believe his own actions were actually
the fault of the woman. This is what the hijab/niqab/burqa embody - men blaming women, and
it would take a "believer" to "believe" otherwise.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm They both equate through the context of "acceptance".
Belief is acceptance, knowledge is rejection.
One may reject a belief knowing it is not necessarily true.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm self reflection is a loop.
The opposite is true: lack of self reflection implies a loop.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Then your endeavor is pointless.
Convincing you of your loopiness is certainly a pointless endeavor,
hence I merely use the opportunity to expand on the OT.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm The I reflecting upon the I is a loop.
Yes, because the "I" is not real.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Yes the theory is being pushed.
There is no theory here, however the principle in the OP
will invariably prove itself to be true, probably to a degree
much too accurate for most to be comfortable with, esp.
the "believers".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Dually, belief is inevitable if knowledge negates it ad infinitum. Beleif is thus infinite and a part of the conscious process of reasoning.
So-called satan would require belief in order that a believer somehow be lead to believe that satan is god.
So-called god, if all-knowing, must by necessity know all not to believe, knowing satan requires belief.

In any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" situation, satan is pinned to the side of the "believers",
hence the "believers" in/of Islam worship polygamy/pedophilia/rape/genocide while pathologically
scapegoating their own crimes against humanity onto others.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:57 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm All principles are a means of interpreting a given set of relations of phenomenon.
The interpretation is the relationships between a given set of variables. Change the variables and the interpretation changes.
Interpretation of relations is a matter of principle, in particular: a matter of conscience.
The variables are irrelevant - the nature of the relation between them is important.

The change of the relative variables results in the change of the principle in question.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Yes, auto spelling.
Uh huh.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm False, the testability of a phenomenon is the manifestation of a series of variables meant to replicate some localized portion of the whole.
Testability is contingent only on the ability of the conscience, thus the only relevant variable is how conscious one is.
The seat of one's experience of creation is within themselves, thus knowing the self becomes necessary as
the degree to which one knows themselves is determines their ability to clearly see their own surroundings.

Testability is subject to the imagination where what is imagined as close to replicating natural events is used. Testing, specifically the hypothesis is subject to the imagination.

This is how/why knowledge first/last relates to one's own self.
The important factor is not knowledge, it is is consciousness.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Belief exists ad infinitum given that knowledge negates ad infinitum. Belief always has, was, and will exist.
Beliefs may be consciously acknowledged as uncertain/unknown, in which case knowledge underlies belief.
I believe x to degree y is thus a knowledge before it is a belief.
I believe x totally and absolutely is absent such knowledge.

All beliefs are subject to degree given they are justified by the assertions which connect to eachother. There is no total or absolute beleif which does not depend on degrees of knowledge.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Millions died under communist atheism. Religious works are not necessarily the sole means for warfare.
Pointing fingers at others again to protect the worshipers of polygamy, pedophilia, rape and genocide.

False, it is a historical fact that communist atheism has killed millions. Religious belief is not completely responsible for murder, rape, etc. If you call quoting history as pointing fingers, in order to divert the discussion, then I will not bother reading the rest. The accuser is accused, you point fingers at religious belief as the prime problem of murder, rape, etc when the evidence is that it is not strictly the case.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm One must believe the test itself as correctly measuring the localized phenomenon given the whole cannot be observed fully for what it is.
One must know themselves - the thing whence the test is being conducted/performed.
If one believes themselves to be something they are not, perception is distorted accordingly.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Belief as accepting a phenomena is a conscious process.
Knowledge as rejecting a belief-based phenomena is a conscious process.
Belief has no implicit mandate to try/test/falsify, hence the relative stagnation
of the "believers" who spill blood over books and male central figure idols.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Actually we don't.
There is a reason for that.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Finiteness is the approximation of one infinity through many. For example an infinite line divided into many line results in multiple infinities.
Infinity is not a real/existential phenomena. Neither is a "point 0".
Nobody has proven/measured/calculated an existential infinity, as
even the physical universe had a finite beginning.

If you are going to use mathematical devices to make a point,
if those devices have nothing to do with the existential reality,
neither does the point you are trying to make.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Blaming does not ground itself in belief given one must first assume an experience in order to assign responsibility for it. Under these terms blaming is the delegation of responsibility for a phenomenon by assuming it from its source.
The experience assumed is: someone else is responsible for the internal state of the "believer"
such to give rise to false accusation / blame. Adam had to believe his own actions were actually
the fault of the woman. This is what the hijab/niqab/burqa embody - men blaming women, and
it would take a "believer" to "believe" otherwise.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm They both equate through the context of "acceptance".
Belief is acceptance, knowledge is rejection.
One may reject a belief knowing it is not necessarily true.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm self reflection is a loop.
The opposite is true: lack of self reflection implies a loop.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Then your endeavor is pointless.
Convincing you of your loopiness is certainly a pointless endeavor,
hence I merely use the opportunity to expand on the OT.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm The I reflecting upon the I is a loop.
Yes, because the "I" is not real.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Yes the theory is being pushed.
There is no theory here, however the principle in the OP
will invariably prove itself to be true, probably to a degree
much too accurate for most to be comfortable with, esp.
the "believers".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2020 5:04 pm Dually, belief is inevitable if knowledge negates it ad infinitum. Beleif is thus infinite and a part of the conscious process of reasoning.
So-called satan would require belief in order that a believer somehow be lead to believe that satan is god.
So-called god, if all-knowing, must by necessity know all not to believe, knowing satan requires belief.

In any conceivable "believer vs. unbeliever" situation, satan is pinned to the side of the "believers",
hence the "believers" in/of Islam worship polygamy/pedophilia/rape/genocide while pathologically
scapegoating their own crimes against humanity onto others.
nothing
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by nothing »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm The change of the relative variables results in the change of the principle in question.
Not all variables are relative - some are fixed.
Fixed variables rely exclusively on the relationship
between them, and not the variables themselves.
This is how/why A and Ω may be used as a null binary
satisfying any/all possible binaries of the same relation.
In a given binary, if one is known to be A, the other must be Ω.
This is the "inference" factor - it requires conscious inquiry.

All relative variables are subject to conjugation:
presence/absence, causation/cessation etc.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm Testability is subject to the imagination where what is imagined as close to replicating natural events is used. Testing, specifically the hypothesis is subject to the imagination.
Testability is subject to/of the conscience. The imagination may be used, but the conscience integrally underlies.
Science is a faculty of inquiry. Conscience is one's own capacity to inquire (ie. try/test/falsify) thus
the truth of the way of the living is truth by way of negation:

TRUTH-by-WAY-of-NEGATION:
o. ...ad infinitum... consciously acknowledging all BELIEF(s)
i. TRYING both: to and not to BELIEVE
ii. TESTING both: true and not (necessarily)
iii. FALSIFYING all BELIEF(s) not necessarily true...
...ad infinitum ...

Truth/way/life is not a man - it is a methodology (a scientific one at that).
However Christians are overwhelmingly idolatrous and their worship of a man
has blinded both their eyes and their hearts. Some are outright loopy.

People who hate the truth grow enmity and desire to spill blood.
The truth is like a fire which, for those who stand in truth,
it burns not, but for those who stand in lies: the fire burns
and consumes wholly from the inside-out. Fire may bake or it may burn,
the question is how well one controls the heat over time.

INRI - Ignis Natura Renovatur Integra
"Fire Naturally Renews Integrally"
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm All beliefs are subject to degree given they are justified by the assertions which connect to eachother. There is no total or absolute beleif which does not depend on degrees of knowledge.
All beliefs are subject to/of one or more degrees of uncertainty.
"I believe..." implies both implicitly and explicitly "I do not know...".
Belief implies absence of knowledge. Knowledge implies absence of belief.

All knowing is by way of consciously trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of consciously trying to know all.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm False, it is a historical fact that communist atheism has killed millions.
Scapegoating the genocides of the "believers" onto "atheists" is extremely pathetic
and especially so given "belief"-based ideologies are at the root of communism.
Islam is the global root of Nazism - book-worshiping Jews divide the world, and
"believers" worship a single book while dividing the world on the basis of

"Believer vs. Unbeliever"

wherein it takes a "believer" to "believe" themselves superior to others
and/or others are inferior to themselves. Thus all Nazis are pinned
to the side of the "believers". Theologically: so-called satan would require belief
in order that a believer be somehow lead to believe evil is good / satan is god.

The problem/solution can be seen in the division itself, however
people who support/defend polygamy/pedophilia/rape/genocide
will endeavor to protect such things at the expense of so-called
"atheists" who do not conduct genocides based on instructions written
in a book they believe came from a god they don't believe in.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm If you call quoting history as pointing fingers, in order to divert the discussion, then I will not bother reading the rest.
This is exactly what you are doing - pointing fingers at atheists to divert the discussion.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm The accuser is accused, you point fingers at religious belief as the prime problem of murder, rape, etc when the evidence is that it is not strictly the case.
Yes, you once again satisfy that condition, as it was you pointing fingers at atheists.
In any event: both theists and atheists are in the same boat, as both believe something
that they do not know. When an atheists claims they are an atheist, implicit is the affirmative
"there is no god to be believed in" which is not a knowledge, but a belief.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6206
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:18 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm The change of the relative variables results in the change of the principle in question.
Not all variables are relative - some are fixed.
Fixed variables rely exclusively on the relationship
between them, and not the variables themselves.
A variable which is fixed is no longer a variable. What is fixed is the relationship between the variables as a variable in itself (considering there are many different variable relations the relationship can be a variable). For example P=P, where P can equal any assertion, shows a fixed relationship between P and itself as a cycle. "=" is a variable itself, however, considering it can equal "-->", "<--", "<-->" etc. Thus what is fixed is P(p)P where P(p) considering "P" equals a static state such as "Cat" and "p" equals a dynamic state such as "equals". A statement such as "Cat equals" observes "equals" as an extension of "cat" as a tautology of it where "equals" is a variation of "cat" for how "cat" exists.

This is how/why A and Ω may be used as a null binary
satisfying any/all possible binaries of the same relation.
In a given binary, if one is known to be A, the other must be Ω.
This is the "inference" factor - it requires conscious inquiry.

This is just the thesis/antithesis dichotomy. For every positive state a dual negative results. This dualism necessitates belief as relatively thetical or antithetical to knowledge depending on how it is viewed.

All relative variables are subject to conjugation:
presence/absence, causation/cessation etc.

And all conjugation is subject to disconjugation thus a cycle occurs.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm Testability is subject to the imagination where what is imagined as close to replicating natural events is used. Testing, specifically the hypothesis is subject to the imagination.
Testability is subject to/of the conscience. The imagination may be used, but the conscience integrally underlies.
Science is a faculty of inquiry. Conscience is one's own capacity to inquire (ie. try/test/falsify) thus
the truth of the way of the living is truth by way of negation:

Negation alone negates itself given a true negative only attitude necessitates even negation being negated through a double negation.

The conscience is determined by where its loyalties lie as a group of assumed axioms that are the premise from where one's resting beliefs exist. Conscienceness is determined by the beliefs one's premises originate.


TRUTH-by-WAY-of-NEGATION:
o. ...ad infinitum... consciously acknowledging all BELIEF(s)
i. TRYING both: to and not to BELIEVE
ii. TESTING both: true and not (necessarily)
The test requires that one believes all measurable variables are present in the test itself, there is not test to find all variables. It is merely a product of one's imagination, ie ability to give image to reality.

iii. FALSIFYING all BELIEF(s) not necessarily true...
...ad infinitum ...

Truth/way/life is not a man - it is a methodology (a scientific one at that).
However Christians are overwhelmingly idolatrous and their worship of a man
has blinded both their eyes and their hearts. Some are outright loopy.


A methodology is the means through which consciousness exists thus is dependent upon man as measurer where the point of assumption, man, determines how, when and where the methodology is applied. The scientific method is a revolution of concepts thus necessitates a cyclical form through which consciousness exists and exists as consciousness itself given a form determines consciousness.


People who hate the truth grow enmity and desire to spill blood.
The truth is like a fire which, for those who stand in truth,
it burns not, but for those who stand in lies: the fire burns
and consumes wholly from the inside-out. Fire may bake or it may burn,
the question is how well one controls the heat over time.

INRI - Ignis Natura Renovatur Integra
"Fire Naturally Renews Integrally"

Communist atheism, as grounded in absence of belief, spilled the blood of believers...does that make them haters of truth? Rome spilt the same blood of believers does that make them haters of truth.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm All beliefs are subject to degree given they are justified by the assertions which connect to eachother. There is no total or absolute belief which does not depend on degrees of knowledge.
All beliefs are subject to/of one or more degrees of uncertainty.
"I believe..." implies both implicitly and explicitly "I do not know...".
Belief implies absence of knowledge. Knowledge implies absence of belief.
Knowledge is grounded in knowing one's uncertainty as a series of variables which exist beyond the core variables assumed. All knowledge is uncertain in light of unknown variables which determine the relationship of variables assumed.


All knowing is by way of consciously trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of consciously trying to know all.

All knowledge must be tried in the face of new variables thus knowledge progresses to further knowledge through a spiral. One fact is effectively replaced by another in face of a new set of variables. Knowledge, as that which diverges from a centerpoint of reality, exists in grades.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm False, it is a historical fact that communist atheism has killed millions.
Scapegoating the genocides of the "believers" onto "atheists" is extremely pathetic
and especially so given "belief"-based ideologies are at the root of communism.
Islam is the global root of Nazism - book-worshiping Jews divide the world, and
"believers" worship a single book while dividing the world on the basis of

In regards to "pathetic" the accuser is accused. It is a historical fact that unbelievers killed believers and then blamed the Jews. The Jews where subject to such persecution. Judaism is a religious belief set, it is not atheism.

Militant language resulting in the slaughter of millions is a basic archetype which existed long before Islam or Nazism. Ancient Rome slaughtered and killed millions to promote their beliefs and government long before Islam. The same occurred with Macedonia during Alexander the Great's rule. Is Islam responsible for this basic archetype? No, as other governments existed under such patterns prior to Islam.


"Believer vs. Unbeliever"

wherein it takes a "believer" to "believe" themselves superior to others
and/or others are inferior to themselves. Thus all Nazis are pinned
to the side of the "believers". Theologically: so-called satan would require belief
in order that a believer be somehow lead to believe evil is good / satan is god.

Atheistic governments result in the same bloodshed.

The problem/solution can be seen in the division itself, however
people who support/defend polygamy/pedophilia/rape/genocide
will endeavor to protect such things at the expense of so-called
"atheists" who do not conduct genocides based on instructions written
in a book they believe came from a god they don't believe in.

You are just angry with believers, when the evidence shows war, genocide and murder are justified by a variety of variables not limited to religious belief. Even Buddhists, whose dogma is grounded by way of negation, have fought in wars. Dually, pacifists such as the Amish, do not commit murder, rape and genocide because of there interpretation of scriptures. You forget that not all interpretations of scripture lead to violence.

Any knowledge can be used to justify a belief.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm If you call quoting history as pointing fingers, in order to divert the discussion, then I will not bother reading the rest.
This is exactly what you are doing - pointing fingers at atheists to divert the discussion.

No, I am pointing to a historical fact that not all murder, rape and genocide is grounded in religious belief and you ignore this because it contradicts your premises.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:10 pm The accuser is accused, you point fingers at religious belief as the prime problem of murder, rape, etc when the evidence is that it is not strictly the case.
Yes, you once again satisfy that condition, as it was you pointing fingers at atheists.
In any event: both theists and atheists are in the same boat, as both believe something
that they do not know. When an atheists claims they are an atheist, implicit is the affirmative
"there is no god to be believed in" which is not a knowledge, but a belief.

Atheism is an absence of belief, as a strict negation of religious belief it is a negative dogma. God cannot be proven or disproven as any proof would make God as a subsidiary to proof itself thus necessitating proof itself to be higher than God as God in itself. God cannot be proven only believed in, this is considering the nature of proof.

nothing
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: 'Knowledge' and 'Belief' as Primordial Antitheses

Post by nothing »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm A variable which is fixed is no longer a variable.
The nature of the relation between any conjugate binary is fixed,
the two aspects of the binary are relatively variable
however do not change. If one is alpha, the other is omega
and vice versa.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm This is just the thesis/antithesis dichotomy. For every positive state a dual negative results. This dualism necessitates belief as relatively thetical or antithetical to knowledge depending on how it is viewed.
Not if/when subject to "all".
To know all... implies knowing who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if not to believe.
To believe all... implies believing all manner of nonsense.
All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum, god-or-no-god.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm And all conjugation is subject to disconjugation thus a cycle occurs.
Engaging with conjugation is discretionary.

Cycles occur only if/when eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ie. 'BELIEF'
wherein the constituency of a false belief is acted upon as true. This highlights the need
to extract the roots of any/all beliefs and try/test them for their validity/veracity.
This is done using the alpha/omega/beg/end wherein the end of any ignorance
can be inferred if/when the beginning of it is acknowledged. The alpha/omega
are a null binary satisfying all binaries (operators) whereas the beg/end are roots.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm Negation alone negates itself
No.
Let 1 be unity.
-(-1) = 1
not not unity = unity

All that is not not unity is unity.
All that is not unity is belief-based ignorance(s).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm The conscience is determined by where its loyalties lie as a group of assumed axioms that are the premise from where one's resting beliefs exist. Conscienceness is determined by the beliefs one's premises originate.
The presence/absence of conscience is determined by where the loyalties of the being lay.
One may be rooted in a knowledge-based premise rather than a belief-based one.
The quality of the conscience can be measured according to the quality of the question it can posit/address.
The level of consciousness is determined by the absence of belief-based ignorance (unconsciousness).
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm A methodology is the means through which consciousness exists...
Other way around: consciousness provides means through which method may exist.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm Communist atheism,
Here we go again, pointing fingers at others. Look here! Look there!
Both theists and atheists believe something they do not know.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm Knowledge is grounded in knowing one's uncertainty
Yes, knowing one knows not is a knowledge-in-and-of-itself,
something "believers" have no knowledge of. Knowing one knows not
is integral to ever coming to know anything at all, else: BELIEF.

"BELIEVER vs. UNBELIEVER"

Couple thousand years running now.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm All knowledge must be tried in the face of new variables
Applies to belief, not knowledge. The knowledge is the "new variable" to which old beliefs are subject to.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm In regards to "pathetic" the accuser is accused. It is a historical fact that unbelievers killed believers and then blamed the Jews.
Because you said it is? You have it the wrong way around:
believers have (and do) kill unbelievers and blame Jews.
Muhammad died cursing Jews. Hitler died cursing Jews.
Blaming Jews is woven into the fabric of Islam because
Muslims know not they are the real book-worshiping "Jews"
as they have no capacity to account for their own actions.

This is the same as the original sin, hence Adam blamed the woman,
hence the hijab/niqab/burqa - the truth is in plain sight, and it would take
a "believer" to "believe" otherwise.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm Militant language resulting in the slaughter of millions is a basic archetype which existed long before Islam or Nazism. Ancient Rome slaughtered and killed millions to promote their beliefs and government long before Islam. The same occurred with Macedonia during Alexander the Great's rule. Is Islam responsible for this basic archetype? No, as other governments existed under such patterns prior to Islam.
Pointing more fingers into the distant past. I prefer to remain in the here-and-now.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm Atheistic governments result in the same bloodshed.
More finger pointing.
Both theists and atheists believe something they do not know.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm You are just angry with believers,
The first victim of any belief-based ideology is the believer in/of it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm when the evidence shows war, genocide and murder are justified by a variety of variables not limited to religious belief.

Any knowledge can be used to justify a belief.
No evidence, and not limited to religious belief.
Belief implies absence of knowledge, thus the problem is absence of knowledge
to the same degree the presence of belief-based ignorance is.

Any belief can be used to justify a "knowledge".
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm No, I am pointing to a historical fact that not all murder, rape and genocide is grounded in religious belief and you ignore this because it contradicts your premises.
I ignore it because you didn't actually give any "facts" or "evidence" about anything - you are just asserting it.
You don't understand the premises of CKIIT - not even the first.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm Atheism is an absence of belief
No it is not, it is still a belief that god does not exist ie. is man-made.
This is not a knowledge on their part, this is a belief, hence again:
theists/atheists are in the same boat. Neither know.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:43 pm God cannot be proven or disproven...
Hence the existence/proof of god is outside the scope of CKIIT, instead the CKIIT solution satisfies both conditions: god-or-no-god.
Hence knowing all not to believe approaches any possible all-knowing god (if one exists) or knowing not to believe in one (if one exists not).
Which ever one happens to be more/less true approaches the cessation of human suffering of human origin, the focus of CKIIT.
Post Reply