Ziran

maybe it's the learning from another, not the language itself

happy to help

... it's a different case which requires it own evaluation. As it was written, it's unconditional. When it's unconditional a paradox is produced. It's not contradicting. It's looping. The liars paradox is different, but is essentially the same due to the underlying irrational looping. It's too ambiguous to be contradicting. It's "babbling", like a brook or a baby.

They're both reflexive, but in different ways. The reflection is producing a loop. Paradox. In thought, it's true. Once articulated, it's false.

The context is talking to others. Why ignore the context? Context matters. Knowing beyond individual knowledge, yes. Knowing beyond collective knowledge, no.

If true, there's at least one person who knows. If: Nobody truly knows what he/she is talking about = True Then: Not ( Nobody truly knows what he/she is talking about ) = Not (True) Then: Negation of Nobody = Somebody Then: Negation of Truly Knows And Is Talking = Truly doesn't know Or Isn't Talking Therefore: Somebody Truly Doesn't Knows OR Isn't Talking = False Under what circumstances is the term "Or isn't Talking = False" while engaged in talking with others?

Of course. In what form is the proposition, "NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT"? The first, the second, or neither. It's neither, right?

There is disagreement whether or not the proposition in question necessarily entails true knowledge of "what they are talking about".

Best wishes to you and yours

On success, there is no pursuing. No desire to pursue another path. There's also the common Chinese axiom: it's very difficult to navigate with "one foot in two boats".

A detailed answer depends on the circumstances, a case-by-case evaluation. In general, a sorcerer is able to interact with primal and primordial energetic principles which universally co-exist within each individual. These energetic principles go by varying names: demons, spirits, gods, angels, messengers, guides, aliens, Elohim... Because the energetic principles co-exist, within and without, a competent sorcerer can locate a root or "vestige" of it within themselves or among the others which strongly corresponds, like hand-in-glove, with its vestige or root within the afflicted. But, to be clear, accurate correspondence is culturally specific. It's usually a version of scrying within a doaist lineage. Some lineages have a patron/matron diety or dieties. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrying Most often they're referring to self-defeating-cognitive-traps. A daemon, pre-computer-science.

Zooming out: Unconditional language on its own is relatively harmless, because, most automatically preface or append the conditionals to the statement otherwise communication breaks down. However, when unconditional language is coupled with criticism, that's the root of stereotyping. Unconditional language, is a "tell". It's usually exaggeration. Then, the question is: "why exaggerate?"

Please compare: The first is unconditional. The second isn't. Not all propositions. That's unconditional. This specific proportion and others like it. 1) In this specific proposition, the subject, "nobody", is "talking about" stuff. 2) The constituents of the proposition are in the form "not (truly knowing and talking about it)". See below. For it to be "true", the consequent is "or". Or is unconditionally ambiguous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan's_laws A proposition can be ... but this specific one is special. For example: "NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT, including me" Is it rational to listen and take advice from someone who openly admits they don't know what they're talking about? Someone approaches and says: "I'm lost." Would you ask them for directions? " ... is true OR not ... " Are these two the same? "NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT" "NOBODY TRULY KNOWS WTF HE/SHE IS TALKING ABOUT, OR NOT" ^^ it's non-sense ^^ Why listen to words that necessarily require "or not" appended to the end in order to retain their truth value? Minus the exasperation, it's equivalent to a shrug?

Yes. Truly free open source products are referred to as "free-like-beer".

The subject, "nobody", is unconditional. That's the problem.

If that specific statement is true then it's simultaneously false. It's a special case. Lacking great care, unconditional assertions in most casual conversation are almost always false. "Nobody knows what they're talking about" If this is true, then someone knows what they're talking about, because making an assertion is a declaration of knowledge. In this specific proposition, the one proposing it is included in the proposition. It's reflexive. Like the liar-paradox. The lying is reflexive. It applies to the statement itself. Here, the not-knowing is applied to themselves while at the same time declaring their own unconditional knowledge. not the unconditional

"This statement is a lie" defeats itself because true communication requires fidelity. "Nobody knows what they're talking about" defeats itself because a true assertion requires knowledge. If nobody knows what they're talking about, then no one can make any assertions about anybody.

" ... can be true ... " Maybe it was intended to be written this way? Idk

It's essentially the "liar's paradox". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox If nobody knows, literally nobody, then the author of the assertion is included and is equally clueless. If the author of the assertion is equally clueless, then the assertion is not an assertion. It's a coin-toss in disguise. When an assertion unconditionally asserts unknowing, the assertion is inverted into unconditional ambiguity.

The question is the answer

Again, new age spirituality is much closer to nei-dan, inner-alchemy. The spirituality practiced by Daoist exorcists and sorcerers is folk-magic passed down through lineages.

^^ Paradox ^^ If this is true, then: Nobody truly knows... or not. It's a nonsensical statement.

It's not complicated. Third party verification is external. Insight is internal. If the realization is internal, then it's reasonable to expect an inner outcome. Whether or not this leads to 3rd party verification depends on other factors beyond simply "enlightenment".

Because insight is an inward-probing. It happens between the ears, within the grey matter.

Not "turn into" nor "shapeshifting". It's adopting roles and attributes.