Apologies for not responding till now. This site, for some reason, refuses to send me an email notification of replies to the subscribed topic. I inquired and got no response.
So in other words you do define knowledge subjectively.
I define 'memory' subjectively. We have the 'memories' that we have in each and every moment of existence. Some moments see us with similar 'memories' with other moments, some moments find us without certain memories (what we interpret as 'forgetting'), other moments can have those memories again (which can be seen as 'remembering').
I define 'knowledge' as an egoic attachment to, and identification with 'memory/thought'.
We each just know what we know based on our own, unique perspective.
I may be color blind and see green as red
Then, for you, in your world, your 'reality', the 'red' that you see is 'red', not 'green' being red.
Therefore, you are writing to yourself on this forum. You aren't responding to what people write, you are resonding to what you read and how your unique consciousness interprets it.
Yes, in a way, that is the case. This keyboard, this monitor, this body, this room, the people that I talk to, the moon, etc... all have their existence, to me, in my mind. Like you, but you, perhaps, posit that they/we are 'out there' somewhere. I cannot see it like that.
You (generic) ask questions of me, challenge my words/thoughts/ideas. 'You', thereby, make me think critically (to be able to answer as lucidly as I can). I posit 'thoughts' and 'concepts' and examine them fruitfully in this context. Perhaps 'other' 'selves', Perspectives, can also find fruitful 'food for thought', in the same manner.
Under these circumstances do you think it would be possible for you to change my mind?
I would not even attempt to 'change you mind'. 'Your' (that) Perspective is of value in it's uniqueness.
The best situation that I can imagine is that we both leave a discussion with a better understanding of another Perspective, having thoroughly cognitively masticated some 'food for thought' (and, perhaps, saved some for later in a mental 'doggie-bag').
Interesting. I can't really refute your point of view, but I think it does discredit the word 'know'.
Good. I don't give as much 'credit' to what is considered (egoically) as 'knowledge', as those who 'identify' with the whisperings of ego. I 'hear' ego, I just don't 'believe' it.
What distinguishes the word 'know' from word 'belief'?
I see them as inextricably interrelated. The greater the 'belief', the greater the 'surety' of 'knowledge' (don't bother me with 'facts', I KNOW the TRUTH!).
What would be the value in telling somebody I know something?
Wouldn't that be the fallacy of an 'appeal to authority'? Would you not, in that circumstance, be claiming some 'authority' in 'knowing' rather than 'positing/thinking/opining/describing' 'your' Perspective, at the moment?
Perspective perceives a different 'existence' from moment to moment.
I did not post this topic to establish an objective view of reality. It was to invite someone to establish the credibility of the concept of knowledge in the face of my proposed unreliability of memory.
Well, I guess that is not me, as I find the egoic concept of 'knowledge' to be 'incredible'.