On certainty and the feeling of certainty

First, I will preface by saying that there is no certainty in anything (except for this principle itself).
Second, emotion has no meaning in this context. Emotions don’t mean anything. I love someone and you don’t. Are we arguing? Absolutely not. Arguments are tested by reason, not emotion. Sometimes when people say emotion, they mean intuition, but intuition is reason.
If you call reliable knowledge certainty, that’s semantics. Call it what you want. —————————————————————————————— Asks: In the emotional sense, I meant that just as one can be angry at someone else’s opinion or love, and in this sense it is due to the alignment of my opinion with someone else’s opinion, so certainty is an emotion that can be developed due to self-convincing.
The previous comment is not just semantic, because otherwise why wouldn’t there be a fundamentalist tinge to a synthetic view (or however you write it…). —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Being angry is a result of disagreement and not identical with it. Therefore, I don’t understand what to feel and discuss here. I am dealing with certainty and agreement or disagreement, not the feelings that arise as a result of them. —————————————————————————————— Asks: The very use of the word consent and not a word from the root of knowledge assumes something other than dry knowledge. It also concerns the concept of thinking or thinking, which according to the concept you bring up is almost impossible, either I know or I know this way.
I don’t insist on the word emotion. I just insist that it is not knowledge in the intellectual mind, but an external reference (who is outside?) to knowledge that already existed in one way or another of certainty. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I didn’t understand a word. Please define the concepts better and explain what the claim or question is. —————————————————————————————— Asks: peace.
I mean that.
After all, before or after all the logic and feelings of the heart, there is someone who felt them.
That someone (hereinafter “I”) can contain imperfect knowledge and also serious logical errors, superstitions, baseless emotions, go to bed with them, and also die with them.
You say that “I” cannot believe in logical inevitabilities because they are not logically possible, but logic is also just a tool in the hands of the “I”, and belief is an action of the “I” and not part of the structure of logic/reason.

Below is my opinion,
There is an “I” that is first of all, it is not committed to anything, it can “know” lies, it can believe against its opinions, it can do actions against its beliefs, and it will still remain an “I” without commitment to anything.
So there is an “I” and in his hands are tools that he can will, mind (logic), emotion (faith, certainty, etc.), and body (active and passive actions).
The “I” does not have to know what it does not want to know, and does not have to feel what it does not want to feel, and certainly does not have to do what it does not want to do.
Somewhere the “I” is missing in your entire system.
Thanks in advance. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Hello.
I lost you.
1. It is quite clear that there is an I who possesses the qualities and performs the actions and is endowed with the skills. Your faithful servant has written about this more than once (about the mistake of identifying a person with his collection of functions, and an object with his collection of qualities). Why did you decide that this central element is absent in me? I did not get to understand.
2. Furthermore, a person can think that he believes in a contradiction. After all, I will not deny that many believe in things that I think are contradictions (such as knowledge and choice). Who said they don’t? Where did you see in my words that this is not so?
Still two comments:
A. For these two agreed-upon claims, the distinction between man and his mind that you opened and agreed with (assumption 1) is not required. His mind contains nonsense or a contradiction and he thinks he believes it. This is an error of the mind and not of the man beyond the mind. The mind can be mistaken, since the mind is an organ like any other organ. The perfect theoretical mind is an idea and not an object, and it cannot be mistaken. A man’s mind can be mistaken and is also quite mistaken. It can even believe in contradictions (or feel confidence in contradictions).
on. But that’s precisely why the existence of this possibility doesn’t mean anything. It just means that there could be some kind of hallucination within each of us. So what does that mean? The lack of crazy people myself?! A person can both be insane and dance in the moonlight in the middle of the night. So what? What are you trying to claim? That’s why the moon shines during the day, or that this field is a dance hall? —————————————————————————————— Asks: Thank you very much for the response.
A few comments using your response
I lost you.
It’s okay, I’m a lost cause.

1. It is quite clear that there is an I who possesses the qualities and performs the actions and is endowed with the skills. Your faithful servant has written about this more than once (about the mistake of identifying a person with his collection of functions, and an object with his collection of qualities). Why did you decide that this central element is absent in me? I did not get to understand.
Discussing the issue of distinct identities is not relevant here, because here we are not talking about some being that exists for itself despite being the sum of attributes, etc., but about a single influential factor in the entire system, and even in your second book in the quartet that deals with these things, you did not give enough space to the distinction between the “I” and reason/emotion. It existed in the atmosphere (free will, etc.) but the extent of its importance was not clarified, and perhaps the understanding that every logical/philosophical book is actually a kind of preaching to choose the path of reason.

2. Furthermore, a person can think that he believes in a contradiction. After all, I will not deny that many believe in things that I think are contradictions (such as knowledge and choice). Who said they don’t? Where did you see in my words that this is not so?
Not only can he think that he believes (a term of contempt…), there is no contradiction in this with respect to the “I”, because he can look at the two different pieces of information and contain them, and there is no deviation from the power of the “I”, because he is not within the field where there are logical laws and physical prohibitions, etc., he has no laws, he only has desires (desires = something that I still have no idea what).
Still two comments:
A. For these two agreed-upon claims, the distinction between man and his mind that you opened and agreed with (assumption 1) is not required. His mind contains nonsense or a contradiction and he thinks he believes it. This is an error of the mind and not of the man beyond the mind. The mind can be mistaken, since the mind is an organ like any other organ. The perfect theoretical mind is an idea and not an object, and it cannot be mistaken. A man’s mind can be mistaken and is also quite mistaken. It can even believe in contradictions (or feel confidence in contradictions).
This is exactly my problem, the mind can perhaps correct itself, because in short, if you lead it from the premises to the conclusions, and show it how to proceed in the ways of the mind, it will stop believing (if it sees the mind as the semblance of everything) in what the mind cannot tolerate, but after all, we are talking about the “I” who is not at all interested in the logical laws of the mind, from its perspective it is like the rules of the game in soccer and it even wants to play basketball without rules, it is not “wrong” because a mistake is an internal calculation of the mind, and it sees things differently.

on. But that’s precisely why the existence of this possibility doesn’t mean anything. It just means that there could be some kind of hallucination within each of us. So what does that mean? The lack of crazy people myself?! A person can both be insane and dance in the moonlight in the middle of the night. So what? What are you trying to claim? That’s why the moon shines during the day, or that this field is a dance hall?
Here too, you assume the mind to be the source of everything, “crazy” is a derogatory term for someone who has chosen not to use the intellectual tool (an organ like any other organ…) as a data on which he relies in his decisions, the “I” is not a cosmologist! Determining the time of moonrise is none of his business, he does not determine facts.


I’m not laying out a systematic explanation here. I’m struggling, and combined with the lack of conceptualization, I hope you’ll be able to understand something.


Who am I and what is my name?

Thanks in advance. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Unfortunately, I was unable to understand. I say again that it is clear that there is an ego, but this ego uses several functions, among which is the intellect. Its beliefs are in the intellect (the ego believes through the intellect, just as it walks through its legs). I also said that the intellect can make mistakes, and it is still an error even if it is in the intellect (see the first notebook on the website regarding the ontological view, where I deal with this following Anselm).
I (?) fail to understand the claim that the “I” is not subject to logic. Even God is “subject” to it, since subjection to logic is not really subjection (unlike subjection to the laws of physics, where it is subjection and therefore God is not subject to them). The use of the term “laws” of logic is confusing because of the similarity to the laws of physics or the laws of nature. Logic is a collection of conceptual constraints and not external constraints like physics. A mass can in principle stand in the air in a world other than ours (where there is no gravitational force). But I am always me and the law of contradiction is always avoided in every possible world. The reason for this is that it is not a “law” that someone enacted, but rather the very definition of things. God cannot make a circular triangle either, because there is not and cannot be a circular triangle. This is a logical contradiction and not a physical one. God can split the sea but cannot make a dry sea. He also cannot make a ball that penetrates every wall and a wall that stops every ball at the same time. The reason for this is that this inability is logical and not physical.
And hence the “I”, even if there is a meaning to the thinking of the I not through the intellect (and in my opinion there is not), cannot think contradictions and is subject to logic. And if by chance it has the consciousness of a round triangle then it lives in a hallucination (i.e. crazy in some sense). —————————————————————————————— Asks: Thank you very much for your response.
I will try to discuss one point that is the crux of the problem.

You say that the beliefs of the “I” are in the mind.
I say that faith is the meaning that the “I” gives to what it has received (or decided not to receive) from the intellect.
I mean that the mind, like the body, has no meaning except the meaning that the “I” wants to give it.
I really like the example you wrote regarding a computer that can be described entirely in a physical/electrical sense, but this description has no connection to the meaning of a person when he plays some game on it. Thus, the “I” is the one who gives meaning (intellectual in your understanding) to intellectual inferences. From the perspective of the “I”, any proven intellectual inference (to the extent possible) is like raising an unproven claim in relation to intellectual logic. Just as the intellect understands the claim but has no obligation to perceive it as intellectual truth, so the “I” sees the intellect after the inference regarding logical avoidance or logical necessity, and has no obligation to perceive it as “mental” truth (a new word).

Just as “I” can decide to love someone even when all my senses (including my emotional ones) tell me there is no reason to love them, “I” can verify (in the strong sense of the word) things that reason prevents.

I think the big difference that emerges between us is the judgment of a decision that goes against reason. You call such a person crazy, and I see him exactly like the one who decided yes, just like reason, because he does see the moon at night and not during the day, and reason leads him on his way to understanding that the moon does not shine during the day (by the way, the rational truth is that the moon shines during the day too…), and in any case he wants otherwise, and he is the true decider, and there is no testing value, or point of reference other than him, and he is sane or crazy just like anyone who decides what to want, and these and those are the words of a living “I”.

***(I use the word desire towards the “I” because it’s hard for me to find another word)****

PS I see that you don’t understand me and it’s probably because of me, but I need you to try to understand because I don’t think I have the ability to explain more than that, and at least try to use my claims to refute them and then maybe I’ll understand,
You continue to demonstrate the rule of reason over the “I”, and even over God (a super “I”??), and you point to physical reality (a sphere and a wall, a triangle and a circle, wet and dry) and explain that it is a prior logical avoidance, but why do you arrive at physics through logic? Physics in this case is not the result of logical architecture, but of God’s will.

If there is no “I” for me, who is there for me, and when there is “I” for myself, what is “I”? —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I’m sorry, but we’re stuck. If you’d like, you’re welcome to talk to me face to face and maybe I can understand you better (or you me). —————————————————————————————— Asks: Woe to the generation that is stuck (Taanit 24:1).
Okay, so I can’t explain, and seeing your face, I didn’t lie.
Maybe you can try to organize your thoughts hierarchically, maybe that way I can use your concepts.
Of course, if your heart is on the subject, you will see it as closed. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I tried to the best of my ability. If it is important enough and if in your opinion I can help, as stated, I would be happy to meet and talk. —————————————————————————————— Asks: And anyway, Shai, a poem written after reading your book.

What does it say for such a time, what era is destined for this,
How could I give praise to heroes, and to the beloved,
Shall I die, and with a spear, shall I break a yoke,
Maybe I’ll be able to stop and put away, and sheathe my sword.

I dreamed a dream and it came, or will I dream it now,
The man is a fool and prophesies again, will I follow him?
My head is oval and square, and how will I get into line,
Whether to be tormented and come, or to be upright and crowned.

I knew my mind, and where my face would go,
I will even command them to my house, such is the light of my son,
I will lower my face and gaze, I will secretly wink with my eyes,
Maybe they will understand my purpose, or understand my face.


With thanks —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Thank you very much. Atzvaham should probably be Atzvam or Atzvam. I didn’t understand everything, but it looks impressive.