A and B See X Differently

A knows that X is true, while B is not sure that X is true. A and B see X differently. For A, X is true because A himself has experienced it firsthand. Unfortunately, what makes B not easily slip into that belief is his “ignorance” of “what-experienced/known-by-A”.

B’s Knowledge represents ignorance; but for B, though unconsciously, ignorance of the truth of X is a form of “knowledge”. Basically, B, from A’s point of view, knows nothing. B, who has insisted that he knows X is not true, is actually supplied with “another kind of knowledge” which makes him believe that X is not true.

That “other kind of knowledge” comes from anywhere, for example, authority. Opinions/views of “authority” are often not tested, and frequently they are considered “untestable” for granted, especially if they are in the domain ‘close to the sacred’. That A knows X to be true is of course based directly on the experience that “so it is”. It’s just that, in this area, B doesn’t want to go in to investigate whether what A maneuvered is correct (or not). Suddenly B rejects “A’s experience”.

The first thing that happened to B, when he heard that X was true, was a sudden shock, and instead of daring to investigate further, he mumbled “how can that be!” (not with a question mark but an exclamation mark); and B himself does not agree that there is a tiny possibility that X is true. B puts forward the authority-supplied intuition that X is not true because the X’s appearance is not in line with “what I usually know” (or even what most people know).

Here A is alone, for he alone is immersed in the experience. Even if there are other A’s, all B’s won’t open up a slight room for investigation, even to just be suspicious of their own “knowledge/ignorance”. B is totally sure, and with that he assumes “knows”, that A is false, because X itself is a false statement. For B, because statement X is false, it means that what A said is just an accusation, condemnation, or “slander”.

A is unsteady even though he really ‘knows’, while B is firm because he knows nothing (as what A knows). Here, all B’s should dare to witness the evidences presented by A’s experience. Unfortunately, with an emphasis on the “untestable faith” exhibited by all B’s, everything that comes to insist that X is true, in front of B who with deliberately closed their own eyes, nothing more than the darkness of moonshine.

What is important to note regarding our (i)gnorance is (1) We know, (2) We don’t know, (3) We know that we don’t know, (4) We don’t know that we know, (5) We know things we don’t want to know, (6) We don’t know things we don’t want to know. Point number (5) is B’s stance to self-bigote that everything-contrary-to-what-I-already-knows becomes irrelevant for “my curious effort to know”.

Thus, B will continue to deny that X (as experienced by A) is actually true.[]