In trying the philosophical assertion (for an absurdity, now found and derived/outlined to follow):abstract.
Use of theorem CKIIT to approach and frame the widely-considered-primordial "problem" of good and evil by leaving them undefined from the onset. It derives an inference theorem which is used to 'infer' either side of any dipole if (any fixed characteristic(s) is/are) 'known' (of the other) which is used to "solve" for the problem-in-and-of-itself of good and/or evil as it relates to the so-derived-herein primordial antithetical dichotomous dipole of knowledge/ignorance which finds a knowledge-in-and-of-itself counter-part to an ignorance-in-and-of-itself by way of the belief-in-and-of-itself intermediary.
using CKIIT - a Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance (Inference) Theorem that is designed to address two problems:All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
(later begging to derive):from whence any/all human suffering?
and will briefly be summarized insofar as it serves the undermining of the assertion,what is the problem/solution to the long-standing M/E "believer vs. unbeliever" conflict(s)?
while highlighting the primordial problem-in-and-of-itself of so-called good and evil
beginning with the thought experiment that was the genesis of CKIIT:
It is certainly impossible. In so knowing so deriving:TRIP: The Relative Inference Problem:
Start with nothing.
Let there be a universe (if so willing it can be this one) and designate this universe as 'that I am'.
Let there be a being "I am" in/of 'that I am'.
Let 'that I am' be absolutely unknown: god, no god, satan, no satan, flying spaghetti monster etc. just absolutely 'unknown'.
Query: is it possible to infer 'that I am' if: "I am" is *also* unknown unto *itself*?
and returning to TRIP (now to earn its technical namesake):LORI: Law of Relative Inference
*0. It is impossible to infer any unknown by way of another unknown.
___
*'know thy self' is thus held as as an axiomatic necessary knowledge by CKIIT
Certainly: if any one pole is 'known', the other pole can be inferred via inversion. This inference via inversion principle will later be used to try the problem-in-and-of-itself of good/evil (equiv. god/satan). In the meantime, back to LORI:Let 'that I am' be a theoretical
*primordial antithetical dichotomous dipole
of positive and negative polarities:
b = k - k
as in:
(-/+) 0 = (1-1)
viz.
a folded circle: infinity symbol ( anumerically: 0 becomes 8 ) with +/- as its poles
wherein (0) itself can be positive or negative (moving up or down)
(+)
(8) <-*(any theoretical antithetical dichotomy can be inserted here)
(-)
______
*primordial as in: yang-yin; antithetical as in: inverses of one another
and let them annihilate at 0 ad infinitum...
Is it possible to infer one if the other is known?
which suffices for needed laws less a reference to the concerned (and apparently primordial) problem-in-and-of-itself:LORI: Law of Relative Inference
0. It is impossible to infer an unknown by way of another unknown.
1. If any one pole of any antithetical dichotomy is known, the other pole can be inferred via inversion.
so we will use LORI to infer:GENESIS 2:17
ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
(-)(8)(+)
to intuit-derive that knowing (of) the problem(-in-and-of-itself) is as fundamental to any potential solution(s) as any solution(in-and-of-itself), and therefor use the shared property 'in-and-of-itself' to infer a spectrum that contains any/all possible knowledge(s)/ignorance(s):problem-in-and-of-itself / solution-in-and-of-itself
(+) <-* solution-in-and-of-itself(+) knowledge-in-and-of-itself <-* definitely tends towards all-knowing indefinitely
(8) belief-in-and-of-itself <-* contains any/all knowledge- and/or ignorance-based "belief"
(-) ignorance-in-and-of-itself <-* definitely tends towards ignorance indefinitely
(8) <-* any/all
(-) <-* problem-in-and-of-itself
Now see regarding Karl Popper:
This is not necessarily true. Though what follows after is true, there apparently exists a knowledge-in-and-of-itself counter-part to ignorance-in-and-of-itself that can be (argued: must be) absolutely confirmed - that knowing any/all (ie. who, what, where, why, when, how and/or if:) *not* to "believe" is such a/the knowledge-in-and-of-itself, as any less than this: ignorance-in-and-of-itself proportional to any/all degree(s) to which any/all ignorance(s) might permit (according to the (un)conscious will of the being).(Biography) Sir Karl. 1902–94, British philosopher, born in Vienna. In The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), he proposes that knowledge cannot be absolutely confirmed, but rather that science progresses by the experimental refutation of the current theory and its consequent replacement by a new theory, equally provisional but covering more of the known data. The Open Society and its Enemies (1945) is a critique of dogmatic political philosophies, such as Marxism. Other works are The Poverty of Historicism (1957), Conjectures and Refutations (1963), and Objective Knowledge (1972)
It is certainly needed of "belief"-in-and-of-itself to ever "believe" that which is not true, to later knowingly discover that what was once "believed" in, is in fact *not necessarily true*. And if this has not occurred even once in the experience(s) of any being, believer, unbeliever, atheist, gnostic, agnostic etc. one must conclude that they are either certainly all-knowing thereby absent any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s), or are rather only merely believing to be all-knowing, thus perpetually ignorant-in-and-of-themselves while believing over and over of themselves the same falsity ad absurdum-infinitum!
Thus, at least one knowledge must be (argued: is) absolutely confirmed as acting/serving towards any/all matters relating to 'knowledge(s)' as to any/all, simply, *not* to "believe". This accomplishes much in the way of overcoming the hurdle otherwise imposed as follows:
which brings us to a point to be able to try the assertion:set:
k to knowledge-in-and-of-itself, hence {knowledge}, with a candidacy of "positive"
b to belief-in-and-of-itself, hence {belief}, with a candidacy of "neutral net ad infinitum"
-k to ignorance-in-and-of-itself, hence {ignorance}, with a candidacy of "negative"
for:
b = k - k
k = b (+) k
{knowledge} = {belief} + (inverse of) {ignorance}
viz.
Knowledge is any/all negation of any/all belief-based ignorance(s).
candidate: positive (+)
-k = b - k
{ignorance} = {belief} - {knowledge}
viz.
Ignorance is any/all belief absent any/all knowledge.
candidate: negative (-)
b = k - k
{belief} = {knowledge} - {ignorance}
viz.
*Belief is any/all state(s) between knowledge and ignorance.
candidate: (n)eutral net ad infinitum
___
*because belief-in-and-of-itself (ie. (+/-) 0, between 1 and -1) can be either positive or negative (ie. allowing for so-called good/evil but still leaving them undefined as per GENESIS 2:17) it would be a blunder to render "belief is knowledge less ignorance" because this assumes the presence of knowledge a priori. It is possible to relentlessly (ie. militarily) "believe" a problem-in-and-of-itself is a solution-in-and-of-itself which is an ignorance-in-and-of-itself wholly rooted in (a) "belief"-based ignorance(s) absent knowledge(-in-and-of-itself) to *not* believe such to be so.
viz.
Knowledge is any/all negation of any/all belief-based ignorance(s).
Belief is any/all state(s) between knowledge and ignorance.
Ignorance is any/all belief absent any/all knowledge.
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
vs.
Knowledge-in-and-of-itself is the negation of any/all belief-based ignorance(s).
____________________________________________________________________
If:
Knowing *to* try/test/negate
any/all "belief" for any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s)
is a knowledge-in-and-of-itself,
then:
is falsified - its inverse can be confirmed, thus it can be inferred (as shown) and confirmed, andknowledge cannot be absolutely confirmed
-Popper
is falsified - "belief"-in-and-of-itself can certainly be a/the obstacle(s) to knowing any/all *not* to believe.All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
An argument rendered to falsify them both:
CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF IGNORANCE ARGUMENT (CKOIA)
P1 Knowledge (ie. 'knowing') is certainly attainable to, and/or made accessible by way of use of (the) (con)science(s).
P2 Any/all belief-based ignorance(s) exist(s) in, as, of and/or by way of belief-in-and-of-itself.
P3 Knowing to (try to) consciously falsify belief(s) for unknown ignorance(s) (ie. to consciously 'know' if *not to* believe in someone or something) certainly exists as (a) knowledge-in-and-of-itself.
C1: Any/all knowing is definitely approached by indefinitely trying (ie. to falsify) any/all "belief(s)" ad infinitum.
which, if the argument holds, begs that:
incorporate the knowledge-in-and-of-itself particular:All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
which (still) allows for belief to be a subset of knowledge (but not the other way around as the backwards "believers" would "believe" as it suits them and their "belief"). This backwards nature will prove to be a fixed characteristic of the confusion of so-called good and evil.All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but
not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.
Now recalling LORI:
If a good/evil (equiv. god/satan) dipole were assumed for the sake of inquiry:LORI: Law of Relative Inference
0. It is impossible to infer an unknown by way of another unknown.
1. If any one pole of any antithetical dichotomy is known, the other pole can be inferred via inversion.
are there any fixed qualities/characteristics of either than can be used to infer the other?good
(8)
evil
If an all-knowing god is assumed:
must this not include knowing any/all *not* to believe?
would any all-knowing god believe in anything? is this question even coherent?
would any all-knowing god know satan would *require* belief-in-and-of-itself in order that any/all believers believe:
belief-in-and-of-itself is a virtue (...perhaps it is not?),
evil is good / satan is god (without the need/inclining to define them as per Gen 2:17)
what is the inverse of belief-in-and-of-itself such to negate any/all potency of so-called satan?(?)
(8)
(satan *requires* belief-in-and-of-itself)
what justification(s) is there for any "belief" in any god(s) in such a case?
how does one know any/all *not* to believe?
Try:All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
Can one not, know-to-believe-*not*, absent underlying belief?Absurdity is: all knowing is belief.
Can one not, know-one-knows-*not*, absent underlying belief?
Does it not take a believer to believe themselves to-be-a-something-
they-are-a-*not*, thus are themselves certainly *with* underlying belief,
thus in belief-based ignorance(s)? How would they ever know?
Would it not take knowledge-absent-belief for any such believer,
to know, they are really not what they once
believed themselves to be?
Does it not take a believer to believe evil is good? <-*catastrophic question to any/all believers
If one stops believing in knowledge,
would they themselves stop knowing
what they already learned? If one stops
believing they need water to live, does
2/3 of their body disappear?
Is this turning into another one of Descartes' blunders?
These are both, equally, absurdly ignorant statements.I think, therefor I am.
...I believe, therefor I am.
One can not think/believe less they exist, and
one could not think/believe less knowingly
have been born, by way of mind-belief,
as a THOUGHT-BELIEF-in-and-of-themselves!
Imagine the Genesis of such a creation!
viz.THE HOLY B'eliev'ABLE
In the beginning God "BELIEVED" in
the heavens and the earth.
BELIEVABLY, the earth was formless...
...And BELIEVING God
to be light, and light was
to be BELIEVED in...
...
belief-in-and-of-itself is always a problem-in-and-of-itself, and never a solution.
******
CKIIT derives this prediction as the root of
any/all major ongoing conflict(s)
(ie. war/fascism/socialism/suffering/death):
when any problem-in-and-of-itself
"believes" itself
to be a solution-in-and-of-itself
(esp. militarily; ideologically)
this is ignorance-in-and-of-itself
manufacturing suffering/death
in an ongoing/indefinite state
in accordance with the warning of
Genesis 2:17 re: good/evil.
CKIIT predicts that belief-in-and-of-itself
creates problems-in-and-of-themselves
that universally lack conscious knowledge of
(their own) ignorance. This gives rise to a
pathological tendency to project/scapegoat
the ignorant 'state' of-the-same-ignorant onto whoever
is perceived as their own adversary. CKIIT
equivocates this to the Biblical 'mark of Cain'
which satisfies the expression 'accuser is the accused'.
******
is thus immensely absurd. Knowledge certainly negates belief thus:All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
and the primordial antithetical dichotomous dipole is inferred/found:IF (god *requires* knowledge-in-and-of-itself) to reconcile good and evil
(8)
THEN (satan *requires* belief-in-and-of-itself) to confuse good and evil
now recall:KNOWLEDGE vs. BELIEF(-based) IGNORANCE
wherein:
...any/all knowing negates any/all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum...
in consideration with:All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying any/all belief, but
not any/all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.
and number accordingly allowing for "by way of indefinitely trying any/all":Knowledge is any/all negation of any/all belief-based ignorance(s).
Belief is any/all state(s) between knowledge and ignorance.
Ignorance is any/all belief absent any/all knowledge.
let knowledge = 1 and let it tend towards any all-knowing god(s)
let belief = (+/-) 0 to reflect the potentialities for indefinitely trying to know any/all good/evil (again, without the need to define them)
let belief-based ignorance be = -1
now let one more (co-)primordial dipole: creation/destruction-in-and-of-itself (counter-parts)
let creation be 2 by way of ANY/ALL (ie. to be! or...) (allowing itself to modify the others)
let destruction be -2 by way of NEGATION (ie. *not* to be!) serving as a direct inverse of ANY/ALL
thus constructing a basic 'primordial framework':
and mapping:-2: (ANY/ALL)
-1: ANY/ALL KNOWLEDGE(S)
0: ANY/ALL BELIEF (+/-)
+1: ANY/ALL BELIEF-BASED IGNORANCE(S)
+2: (NEGATION)
produces:0 as any theoretical 'I am' with equal capacity for good/evil (ie. I am willing to...)
-1 as any/all knowledge as it tends towards any possible all-knowing god(s)
(equivalent: tree of living forever)
-2: (any/all)GENESIS 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
+2: (*not* to)
+1: BELIEVE less: the knowledge of one or more ignorance(s)) <-*knowledge-in-and-of-itself "singularity"
(equivalent: tree of the kg/e)
GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
and reading from 0 both ways:-2: (any/all)
-1: KNOW <-* TREE OF LIVING
0: I am (willing to (+)/(-))...
+1: BELIEVE <-* TREE OF KG/E
+2: (*not* to)
graphic: https://ibb.co/3dG6Sk7******
Tree of Living:Tree of KG/E:I am willing to KNOW, any/all (*not to*) BELIEVE...0 = 0 -1 - 2 + 2 + 1 = infI am willing to BELIEVE, (*not* to) any/all KNOW...
0 = 0 + 1 + 2 - 2 - 1 = inf
(+/-)
******
which finally derives the conclusion of CKIIT vs. (Good vs. Evil):
so:A-B-C's of GOOD and EVIL
A = WE BELIEVE B is EVIL (while unknowing of C)
B = WE BELIEVE A is EVIL (unknowing also of C)
...
___
*A and B annihilate*
C: If only they knew the problem-in-and-of-itself is belief-in-and-of-itself.
is absolutely absurd.All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
Now think about this message from Nike. What if what (ie. everything) is sacrificed, is done so over a false belief?Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.
-Nike
What if one is willing to believe their "religious" leader who tells them that if they strap a bomb to to their own person and take out as many of "THEM" as possible, their sins will be forgiven and they will secure a place for them and their family in "paradise"? Is one really willing to "believe" this doesn't actually happen?
So to close: belief-in-and-of-itself is a problem-in-and-of-itself, and certainly not a solution(-in-and-of-itself).
The first step/ingredient of any problem-in-and-of-itself is to know *of* the problem-in-and-of-itself,
which is a/the universal knowledge-in-and-of-itself: (ie. to acknowledge the problem in/of belief-in-and-of-itself).
And this requires knowledge as distinct from mere belief, as the same knowledge is needed to negate any/all belief-based ignorance(s) (both known and/or unknown). Else: belief-based ignorance(s) indefinite.
__