(BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(6)])[5th April 1987]

[Redbook3:123-124][19870405:1057f](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{1}[continued(6)])[5th April 1987]

19870405.1057

(Sunday)

[continued]

Inner Direct Knowledge* is, at the moment of perception, and if properly accounted, absolutely true. If I say that the transfer point from the Outer to the Inner Circle is by xS, that is a matter of Indirect Knowledge (not Belief: my view of the pattern is open to change in the light of evidence, and everyone is entitled to treat it sceptically)**. But if I say that as I write I feel the quality of xP's presence, or see the intense, dynamic innocence of xS's blue eyes***, with an inner sense: then this will be absolutely true****. To the outsider, objectively, only doubts of my veracity, or problems or interpretation of what I have written (not of what I have felt or seen, as for Outer Direct Knowledge), should cause problems of acceptance of this as being absolutely true.

This is not perhaps sufficient to describe them as absolute truth, because there is a view that Absolute Truth is the same as Ultimate Truth, i.e. the One, concerning which these statements can only be expressions of what they describe, and #what they describe can only be manifestations of aspects of the (Ultimate) Truth. But in the context of this discussion it is sufficient to describe them as absolutely true.#*

*[See last previous entry.]

**Curiously, this (religious) Belief may end up stronger than (Indirect) Knowledge; philosophers' Belief seems to be a weaker state ('I believe it to be so, but I do not know') – I think I have used it in this sense myself.

***{cf. 103 [[Redbook3:103-104][19870404:1005l](INNOCENCE{:[xS]})[4th April 1987]ff]}

{But see p.184 [[Redbook3:184][19870414:1003](BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE{2})[14th April 1987]]}

****[Presumably only because xP and xS as such have no complete fixed external reference point? -- This seems to be implied by what has been said before about them (and see next entry, first sentence; and next entry but two). <20160216>]

#{See [III] p169-170}

#*{Speculation starts here [i.e. after this point].}[See [Redbook3:132][19870406:1710](MORBIDITY))[6th April 1987].]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger16022016]