Taxonomy of knowing

knowing you know & intentionally trusting — authentically following the inquiry where it leads

knowing that you know without trusting — intentionally not following the inquiry where it leads (in bad faith)

knowing without knowing you know (this nixes the ability to intentionally trust on that basis)

intentionally trusting without knowing

unintentionally trusting because you know without knowing you know

intentionally trusting without knowing because you know without knowing you know

unintentionally unable to trust (due to mitigating trauma or a disability) despite knowing (or not knowing) that you know — unless the inability is due to reactance based on knowing you know … or being aware of a placeholder representing some thing you would react against, regardless whether or not you know it is the case … or you would react against it because you do not know it is the case (even though you know it is the case without knowing you know).

Have I missed anything?

and this… click down arrow:

& the whole thread

& this one

What specifically here do you mean by trusting?

It’s not necessary to “trust” anything when it comes to epistemology. Belief is already something of a false concept. Let alone now we smuggle in a strange imprecision and undefined notion of trust to further muddy waters.

Speaking of that, the notion of intention also needs to be clarified. Being aware of something or not does not equal intentionality. Intentionality is the component of knowing which leads to will, what separates knowledge from willing. Is that your intention (irony intended) ((that too)) here, to bring in this level of meaning to the epistemic question?

Sorry, I did read your post and will respond.

My response: Imagine we could not form/reach/approach a hypothesis and test it because we want to find out (seek/examine) if that hypothesis we formed is actually true (the case)?

Re trust… pistis:

Whenever you are dealing with probability, you’re dealing with trust. On another level, whenever all of your feelings rage against even a necessary certainty, ruling them requires trust.

Trust is a misnomer and non-issue here, more like a red herring. “Trust” so-called is always implicit in everything as part of the necessary background substance. Just like breathing. You might as well make a big deal about how it is necessary to breathe in order to know things. Yeah, since you can’t know anything if you die. No shit. But what does that actually mean, how significant is the insight? Not much, and focusing on stuff like that clouds and confuses the real issues.

Trust (red) is willful (blue) in that it is reflected in our choices (trust is intentional if aware it is influencing a choice, unintentional if unaware because running heuristically/habitually). It isn’t the same as “knowing (yellow) without knowing you know”.

Fake news, red is also distrust. In a big way. Depends on the shade.

Yes. Trust the good and true. Distrust the evil and false.

Good is good, bad is bad. Evil is evil, false is false. Truth is true.

Surprisingly very few people see how moral-ity and real-ity are clearly written into the bedrock of necessary logic itself.

It is good to be good. It is bad to be bad. Logic.

What is good? That which is good. How do you know? Because it is good. Logic.

This toddler level of knowing is, tragically, beyond most humans today.

“What is good?”

ahh ummm i dunno ah like well um society and like relativity and culturally relative and also like different perspectives and subjectivity bro the modern times and like um values are subjective um and like is and ought duh bro like liek

“How do you know”

deletes self from existing

So tell me: is that red or green?


Glad you could appreciate that.