"Your truth" v "the truth"

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

Hi all, this is my first post on project Avalon, other than the introductory one to set up the account. So please let me know if this post is -- for example in the right place -- appropriate to forum protocols etc.

As it goes the same day I was accepted onto the project Avalon forum I was also accepted on another group.

Anyway the reason I'm posting, is that they are constantly saying 'please share your truth <3".

I believe dissinformation takes many forms. It might seem irrelevant to some people - I don't know. But to me this is a particularly pernicious type of mis-information.

It's sounds all warm and fuzzy but what they're actually doing is denying the truth. It's new age psychobable designed to pull the wool over peoples eyes. If you accept the notion that anyone can make up the truth that's exactly the same as saying truth doesn't exist. In essence putting any lie on an equal footing to the truth.

If you think about it there is only one truth, which is the actual reality, call it what you will -- all that is -- the totality.

The truth in fact is both infinite and etternal.

I don't believe anyone has undiluted access to the truth in totallity, we all have partial information, and our perspective on it.

So no one can be expected to be right about everything (myself included) and we all have a) things we don't know b) things we're wrong about c) things we're not totally sure about but have an intuition or gut feeling about. d) personal bias.

and as it's true for all of us I don't think we should be condemning each other for it, which is what does seem to happen in society at large to anyone who attempts to speak the truth.

which I guess is why people say 'speak your truth'. As a way to circumvent such 'judgementalism'. The problem is it also circumvents any kind of objectivity whatsoever.

going back to the root cause of this, I think it's peoples tendency to put on a pedestal -- i.e. to become worshipful -- of those who speak the truth.

This is highly problematic in a number of ways. Firstly putting someone else on a pedestal for speaking the truth is not the same as valuing the truth. It might seem like it but if that were the case then why is the truth speaker seen as above the listener. If the listener values truth so much why don't they speak it themselves.

The other problem is that it creates an unreasonably stringent circumstance for the truth speaker -- who after all is mortal and has all of the same limitations as everyone else.
If one thing that person says is even slightl wrong then everything they say is disregarded.

It also becomes personality lead instead of truth lead. In other words it's not down to the validity of what is being said but whether that person is a 'good person' or a 'bad person'.

In short we demand perfection from the truth speaker, and in doing so, effectively eliminate all truth speakers. At the same time total liars rarely face such scrutiny.

People look at the world and seek to change it by lobbying their politicians or taking to the streets, but I think in the end we can depersonalise it entirely and simply ask do we want to live in a world governed by truth or by lies.

And the root of what determines that is the modus operandi of communication -- the way in which we interact with each other.

Really i think the actual rules are quite simple but the exact opposite of what is being propagated (by a manipulative media which will often seek to reduce things to personality - make hit pieces on those trying to speak the truth - and limit any 'debate' to the mere repetition of the narrative given to us to repeat (a version for each side- which has become increasingly polarised).

correct -- and i'm guessing we all know it already -- is:
a) the person get's to speak -- (rather than censored prior to speach)
b) if the listener disagrees -- they state their view in the positive (i.e. what they think and why). --(rather than attacking/condemning)
c) each person having heard the perspective of the other -- is then personally responsible for forming their own judgement about what they believe - based on the evidence avaliable to them. --- (not cornered into stating otherwise.)

This is the 'two men on a mountain' approach, both on different peaks. Where the purpose of discussion is akin to each saying to the other --"hey what do you see from over there" --- as opposed to two stags fighting for dominance.

But the basis for all of this is that for the two men on the mountain, there is something actual for them to see, to which they refer.

I.e. and understanding that there is truth, and even if we can't speak it exactly -- we can share our perspective on it.

None of that is really possible if you accept the notion that truth is simply something each person makes up. That there is my truth and your truth -- where no discussion or growth can occur because truth itself has been thrown out the window.

[palehorse]

Welcome to Avalon :D

I do not know if I understood well the thread, but here it goes as i see.

Nowadays people tends to "follow" instead of research and learn from experience, I think this explains a lot.

People in general could have a better life quality if they stop listening to mainstream lies and start to question things by themselves and have their own experiences of life instead of buy the pre-programmed experience sold by the globalists.

I would say we have 3 main categories:

1 - Most people goes with the media consensus, easy and painless, just obey like a good sheep, in my opinion they are doomed.
2 - Some are really in great doubt, on top of that dam wall, didn't decided yet which side to jump, one thing is sure, that wall won't last longer.
3 - Not so many (but growing sharply now) that broke away from the media consensus and are now verifying thing by themselves using their own brains and having their own experiences in order to get answers.

These are big decision on an individual level, most people are attached to society in a way, that they care too much how people will be looking to them.

There is paradigms to be broken in order to evolve. Big decisions and every thing comes with a price.

[Harmony]

Thank you for starting this thread and welcome to the forum weAllMustLeanToNavigate!

'Truth' is indeed an important topic and will hopefully bring interesting and thoughtful discussuions from the very good members here.

[norman]

Always be 'True'.

[Patient]

This is the topic that we are dealing with on a daily basis now. What is the truth? The two main subjects weighing heavily on the world - the truth of the pandemic and the truth of the U.S. election.

Interestingly, a few hours earlier I was considering starting a thread about how could we go about finding the truth of the covid-19 numbers. I suppose it is not really possible to know the real truth of how many people have even had the real virus.

So there are things such as this that we will not be able to find the absolute truth about. This alone tells its own truth about our societies and the world we live in today.

Another thing we have now are "influencers". I suppose we always had people like this, but now as there is the internet as their stage, they are much more prominent.

[Bluegreen]

"What's true for you is true for you."

– L Ron Hubbard

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

@palehorse thanks for the first reply (breaking the ice as it were) and I like the tagline in your profile picture. indeed the only true religion must be the truth. Yes big decisions on the personal level for all of us as it becomes increasingly obvious that we at a fork in the road. The only inevitabiliy IS change. The Buddhist principle of attachment and suffering springs to mind -- for some people it will be easier to let go than for others. But also it's not a passive process as individual and collective decision are all part of one holistic process.


that's true @Bluegreen, but unless we contextualise that in a wider picture how can there be interaction between these viewpoints of experience (which is what they are).

@Patient very good point -- we have very large diverging views between beliefs on both these issues (Covid & Trump). And for most of us (myself included) it's difficult to be completely certain. We do have our direct experience though -- how many serious cases are happening arround you. This is actually a statistical sample. Direct experience even if it seems small does tell you something. Then if you talk to others what is their direct experience. -- these are the starting point. If there are 'official numbers' from varying sources - to what extent they can be believed, it's also possible to guage how well do they reconcile with direct experience.
I was thinking about this after making the initial post -- I was thinking about a pub quiz program that's on here in the UK called Egg Heads (terrible name -- and I'm personally not a general knowledge guy) but anyway there are times when one of the quizers knows the answer definitely and the others will defer. There are other times where they don't know the answer, but one of the quizers will share a hunch, or some information, then that will change/update beliefs in one of the other quizers and by a process of successive approximation they arrive at a reasonable answer given what each of them knows. -- it seems to me that if in society at large this is what we were doing, things would be very different, and that actually what's happened is the very idea of conversation or debate has been coopted by a simple 'two sided narrative -- where both parties unwittingly are simply repeating the talking points they've been sanctioned and are reacting as they've been cued to' --- why so many 'discussions' (like atheism v theism on fb --- have continued ad nauesium almost indefinitely without any real progress.) . The reason this is able to happen is precisely because of a lack of understanding that a) there is such a thing as truth b) what information actually is (i.e. can people distinguish between information and noise/entertainment) - it seems like they can but if you try it peoples reaction to either is pretty much the same (like a spectator of x-factor -- they think what's pertinent is whether they find it entertaining or not -- and don't really engage with veracity). I don't really blame people for any of this b.t.w. I think it's been rather carefully constructed that a kind of 'relativism' has pervaded -- which like the apparently benign "your truth" -- has really thrown the anchor point of objectivity out the window.


Thank you @harmony

[Vangelo]

Posted by norman (here)
Always be 'True'.

Thank you norman, your post is a great example of a picture being worth 1000 words... There is a nuance inherent in the picture that I hope people are aware of i.e., 'perspective' and/or 'context'. This picture illustrates perspective well and places it within the context of the one truth i.e. the cylinder and multiple perspectives of the truth.

Each perspective is valid in its own right BUT each perspective is incomplete. And that is the point I wish to highlight. The problem we often face is when we argue validity and truth solely from one perspective without knowledge of the truth and without recognition of the other perspectives. Many arguments use this method of focusing only on one perspective, either naively or overtly to deceive others and there in lies the point of this post and in the OP (I suspect your point as well).

I learned how to draw these illustration when taking an engineering class in mechanical drawing decades ago. All objects have 3 dimensions, and in the case of the cylinder, the 3rd perspective is identical to the blue truth when the object is viewed from the top down. Most objects are more complex than the cylinder and the 3 perspectives look very different. A cube however, will have 3 identical perspectives as will a sphere.

People often choose the perspectives and contexts that strengthen their argument while ignoring the other perspective(s). Some may even argue that their position has to be true because 2 of the perspectives are true without acknowledgment of the third.

I end with the fact that most arguments are not limited to just 3 dimensions like objects on our 3D world. If one wants to deceive others, all one has to do is eliminate one or more of the perspectives, a technique the mainstream media does all to often.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

@Vangelo I agree but it's not just the mainstream media - i think it goes deeper than that to the philosophical underpinings of the world view which we are fed. The standard so called 'rational' perspective really sees only what is physical as real. As such thought, and particularly higher awareness are not well integrated into one one picture.
" If one wants to deceive others, all one has to do is eliminate one or more of the perspectives" -- the standard behaviourist perspective does precisely that. By seeing the brain only in terms of inputs and outputs, and specifically precluding mind from the model (the result of reductionistic thinkng -- like how we assume in applied maths that there is no friction etc -- but much more catastrophic -- because the model tends to become the view. (for example when we talk about physics we're really talking about mathematical predictive models - and we tend to think of that as 'reality' -- but don't consider that being able to predict some aspects of something doesn't really tell you it's nature) ---- on the other side -- people who regard themselves as 'spiritual' -- disregard mathematics from their picture of reality. So both pictures are seriously empoverished.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

This is cut and paste from my application to join project Avalon -- but might explain better where I'm coming from:

I eventually reached the realisation that even though I thought I was awake, that I am living in a world in which mass mind control, and mass hypnosis, are in opperation.

So I realised, how many even of my own thoughts have been influenced by this. In what ways am I being guided without my even realising it.

A thought came to my mind: "the only true religion is the truth" --- actually almost no one would disagree because this is a tuatology.

Even though I was outspoken atheist for many years, I also realise how these movements are being lead and manipulated. Not only that --- that there literally parts of reality which they are blind sighted to. That the conventional 'rational' perspective is actually delusional.

A delusion is a mis match between a belief and reality. I realised this is a direct consequence of a reductionist approach.

Where the model --- is simplified --to be more manageable mathematically. So by definition fails to match the actual. But pretty soon people confuse the model with the real --which of course is a type of mind trap.
In particular the biggest mind trap of the rationalists stems from behaviourism. Which actually makes the very worste simplifying assumption of all. It disregards MIND.
So I'm listening to Christians arguing with Atheists, and realising that a lot of what the Christians are saying is correct. Heart and introspection are part of their picture --- scoffed at by the 'rationalist'.
So there's only on true religion the truth.
Like any mathematician I go back to first principles --- what is actually true without making any metaphysics assumptions. And I realised the correct starting point.
That is the navigation system perspective. The brain is the navigation system for the body.

A fundamental property of all navigation systems is that there is a decision process. (for example a thermostat is a simple navigation system and it can be described in terms of a decision process whereby if it is not warm enough it heats up if it is, it doesn't).
Well the decision process of the navigational system for the body -- is considerably more complicated. But it has a decision process. And that decision process IS the first person perceptual perspective. I.e. that the first person conscious self IS the navigator.
When I say YOU are a navigator. The you I'm referring to is not your brain, because the YOU is the decision process.
b.t.w while I'm not making metaphycs assumptions about what we are beyond this -- regardless of what those facts may be this simple fact remains true. That the I we identify with and as, IS the deciosn maker, of the mind.
This is fundamental in terms of having an integrated perspective of what we are. It's also fundamental to integrating different reality perspectives. (in this world in which like the tower of babel -- we all speak a different language --- and so the great deceiver divides and conquers).
People say things like we are the conscious observer -- or we are all our peceptions -- or we are all our memories --- but actually none of those statements are true because all of them are only aspects of the navigator --- which doesn't just observe - perceive - or remember.
Also you can't in fact define terms correctly without having some definition of self. The meaning of anything is contingent on what it is doing the observing.
---------------------
In the absence of metaphycal assumptions, the statements that can be developed from a navigational system perspective are in some sense uncontentious. (in fact it's even formalisable --in such a way that --correctly expands the rationalist view --- from it's mind cage).

Coming from this viewpoint also it's way clearer what's relevant or not. The physical reality viewpoint sees all of physical reality as real, but doesn't really tell us what's relevant or not --- why we don't all remember everything like rainman. --the closest we get to relevancy is proximity. But even that doesn't really cut it. And when you think about the way in which we talk, we don't describe literally the physical state of the world.
From the navigational system perspective --- it's much clearer what's relevant or not.
It's relevant if it pertains to a decision in the decision process.
Also it's extremely difficult if not impossible to talk from an intentional perspective -- using only a literally physical description. Again, intention has a very clear definition --it's intended direction of the navigational system.
-----------------------------------------------
so why all this abstract theory??? I guess your probably thinking that.
In maths to move away from a point ---- is not the same as to define a direction.
I realised that under the mind control, in fact nearly ALL of what I thought of as REAL was actually part of the lie. That there is a kind of SIMULACRUM which passes itself off as reality to blind us from the truth.
We might all agree that we don't want some evil government --- but if we lack the common ground to define direction --- the simple negation of evil is not sufficient.
to use an analogy it is like a battery hen, when first released from a cage it must learn again to navigate.
................................................................
b.t.w this navigational system perspective came to me in a moment of lucid realisation -- at which point I realised that it's ramifications actually constitute a set of truths --- which are potentially formalisable -- applies to all species -- and constitutes a core almost meta religion. (meta in the sense it doesn't comment on metaphysics -- as such probably wouldn't technically constitute a religion) --it would however be consistent with any relgion that is true.
...........................................................
so yeah my interests are kind of essoteric, to do with unlocking the mind control, being grounded in truth --- which can be the only basis for correct navigation.

I very much believe it's not enough to know what you don't want but to have a correct and well founded vision, of what you do.

[WeAllMustLearnToNavigate]

This is cut and paste from another email -- which extends the idea:

The key feature of a navigational system is that it has a decision process.
This is true even of the simplest navigation system -- such as a thermostat --- at any instant it has data from the external and makes a decision.

Any physical system follows the rules of physics, which are ultimately mathematical. So any mathematical theory can be expressed as a function from observation to prediction (possibly probabilistic).

The physical system of the brain is the navigation system for the body. All navigation systems have a decision process. In the case of the decision process of the particular navigation system of my brain, the first person 'I' -- IS that decision process. (more precisely is part of it).

So I the conscious me --- what I actually perceive as me -- is the navigator. The notion that we are all that we observe, or the sum of our memories, is not the true identity --- and both those things are fundamentally passive. The I is the navigator which has the perceptions, the memories but also acts.

There are three basic levels ---level --1 reflex level 2 --value/survival level 3 -- informational
level 1 is self explanatory.
level 2 ---- is our main seat of intelligence --- which is the mamalian (which for most people is conscious) and the reptilian (which for most people is unconscious).
level -2 thinking is characterised by answers to the question --- is this good or bad i.e value judgements.
level -3 thinking -- which i guess is cortical thinking (i'm not a neuroscientist and am guessing about brain areas ) answers factual questions. E.g. have I got my keys yes or no. such binary yes no questions form a big part of this thinking but there are also non binary knowledge based questions -- such as what is the capital of Spain?

So in the overall decision process of the navigational system level 1 thinking is really the top level because it allows fast response time, however not everything can be processed at this level.

leve 2 thinking is the survivor --- it's interested in whether something is good or bad, friend fo, food, or mate etc.
level 3 thinking acts as a map --- better level 3 thinking can improve our decisions by telling us more about the world.
......

So the navigational perspective is a level 3 thought --- which can act as a map for core understanding of reality ---- without making comment on the metaphysics --- which various relgions ascribe to.

[Agape]

Only remember that the weight of the doubt rests upon the questioner and right to the top leading philosophers of past, presence and probably even future fell under the burden of their doubt,
at some point of their history,

even that much as falling for the false side of truth perspective
if not for the sheer beauty of that perception.

In the midst of current “pandemic calamity” many people stand around, out there, watching out for the Christmas Star, asking the same question, “what’s wrong here ?”


Some would like to go somewhere else and others miss their endless evening parties.

But the question still rests upon the questioner and “what’s wrong ?” is a doubt about our existence here that we have either developed or someone has given it to us,
doubt about ourselves and what we know and who are we, in the Universe.

If you know answers to your questions , you are free in silent harmony with all.


But protesting habitually all the times, asking questions , habitually too, some people never leave the burden of their doubts behind keeping them pinned to uncomfortable places.


Questioning others more than ones self brings no benefit indeed


Merry Christmas


🙏🌟🙏

[palehorse]

Posted by weAllMustLearnToNavigate (here)
This is cut and paste from another email -- which extends the idea:

The key feature of a navigational system is that it has a decision process.
This is true even of the simplest navigation system -- such as a thermostat --- at any instant it has data from the external and makes a decision.

Any physical system follows the rules of physics, which are ultimately mathematical. So any mathematical theory can be expressed as a function from observation to prediction (possibly probabilistic).

The physical system of the brain is the navigation system for the body. All navigation systems have a decision process. In the case of the decision process of the particular navigation system of my brain, the first person 'I' -- IS that decision process. (more precisely is part of it).

So I the conscious me --- what I actually perceive as me -- is the navigator. The notion that we are all that we observe, or the sum of our memories, is not the true identity --- and both those things are fundamentally passive. The I is the navigator which has the perceptions, the memories but also acts.

There are three basic levels ---level --1 reflex level 2 --value/survival level 3 -- informational
level 1 is self explanatory.
level 2 ---- is our main seat of intelligence --- which is the mamalian (which for most people is conscious) and the reptilian (which for most people is unconscious).
level -2 thinking is characterised by answers to the question --- is this good or bad i.e value judgements.
level -3 thinking -- which i guess is cortical thinking (i'm not a neuroscientist and am guessing about brain areas ) answers factual questions. E.g. have I got my keys yes or no. such binary yes no questions form a big part of this thinking but there are also non binary knowledge based questions -- such as what is the capital of Spain?

So in the overall decision process of the navigational system level 1 thinking is really the top level because it allows fast response time, however not everything can be processed at this level.

leve 2 thinking is the survivor --- it's interested in whether something is good or bad, friend fo, food, or mate etc.
level 3 thinking acts as a map --- better level 3 thinking can improve our decisions by telling us more about the world.
......

So the navigational perspective is a level 3 thought --- which can act as a map for core understanding of reality ---- without making comment on the metaphysics --- which various relgions ascribe to.

I did read about the Eight-circuit model of consciousness (a.k.a. 8 circuit brain model) long time ago and the levels you are talking about just fits in there, it was "developed" to the western world, I've seen the same model in very old writings in Asia (can't remember book name) and I know Timothy Leary studied Tibetan Buddhism in many details, including "the Tibetan book of dead" which he later turn into something bizarre called "The psychedelic experience", it is some sort of psychedelic manual based on the original Tibetan book. Antero Ali developed the Eight-circuit model of consciousness further, after Leary passed away.

He gained knowledge from "Lama Anagarika Govinda" who was a very influential monk in terms of linking knowledge from the orient to the occident (west), Dr. Leary also wrote "Your brain is God", "High Priest" and "Start your own religion" both very interesting, but the late one was used and abused as a complement to start small sinister cults in US based on satanic stuffs like the ones written by Crowley.

Without any doubt Dr. Leary navigated in many levels of consciousness, he was extremely intelligent human being, he knew the root of evil and good, if you read his books you will know what I am talking about but of course he was just a man with knowledge like many others.

I started reading Dr. Hyatt a while ago, not finished yet one of his books, but it is scheduled to do soon. Dr Hyatt is the best I know to exposes every hypocrisy we have in ourselves and push us extremely hard to face ourselves as we really are. It is definitely not for everybody, but since the thread says "the truth", this 2 authors are the ones on top of my head.

I would also give a try to Madam Blavatsky, despite what many people refer to her as the creator of a new age movement, in the very same sense I heard about the enneagram used by Gurdieff being just another new age satanic tool or a satanic symbol of the occult or whatever they are calling it nowadays.., and many other "theories" behind the knowledge Blavatsky try to expose, I started with "The Secret Doctrine", but still not finished the first volume, it is a very extensive book and just for the records I am NOT a Theosophist and I am not preaching anything or pushing anything here and I will never do it.

We are all free to make our own choices and the references I put above are just interesting people that knew a lot about our world, it is just another perspective, a raw one! I learned many lessons from them, some practical lessons to apply to daily life.

"We are all handicapped by our traditions and conclusions"
Dr. Hyatt

Here is a brief explanation of the Eight-circuit model of consciousness I am talking about https://web.archive.org/web/20081016...g/8circuit.htm

[Agape]

One truth about life and consciousness that needs to be acknowledged beyond the cube thinking of scholars,

they’re both a flow more than a model, they’re river displaying reflections of many patterns including the most miraculous ones,
they are a wave more than a particle or static phenomenon,
and they’re always bigger than we can contain in our thinking
or words.

Every truth is part of a flow with evolution trajectory and timeline of its own merging with countless other patterns.


And while we always try to develop forecasts and models like mandalas applying them to our consciousness and no matter how many beautiful life plans do we develop 😀

Life and its bigger truth always proof bigger not smaller than we thought ( kindly notice that 🙏 ).

And it’s going to be so ahead, we will experience selves and reality as even more complex and complicated beings than we seemed to be yesterday ,
with each day adding some new information to the “truth model”

we have built or manifested

only for it to crash day after Xmas.


But life WILL continue with or without us manifesting new models of Chevrolet’s


⛩

[Deborah (ahamkara)]

Thank you to all posters here.

Trying to come to terms with "truth" is critical. The sheer weight of data, facts, information, opinions and perspectives is overwhelming. We are hard wired, in an evolutionary sense, to pay attention to new information. In the past, the information about what was happening in the neighboring village was critical to your survival. News traveled slowly and each bit of information from afar was precious. We are now drowning in information and sensory input. We have not evolved, physically, to keep up with this information flow. It often creates stress and anxiety trying to sort things out. This, to me, is the insidious appeal of Transhumanism to so many bright young minds.

Anyway, thanks for the introduction to a critical topic.

[Open Minded Dude]

Avalonians and generally 'conspiracy' researchers or whatever are also called (or call themselves):

Truth SEEKERS.

Who seeks has not found yet, right? It's a process, constantly revised, evolved, changed.

And yes, it is subjective for sure. It is personal.

I know as a sure truth that I do not know the truth.
But at least that is for certain.
And truth.

[daddy-keith]

Welcome weAllMustLearnToNavigate.
Excellent post. I am reminded of a question that I was asked many years ago when I joined a certain society. The question was "Are you Prejudiced?". In other words "Do you have preconceived Ideas". We often seek truth based on our own belief system. There is also the story of a wealthy upper class young lady who went to India many years ago, seeking enlightenment from her eventual teacher. She was given every menial task for months in order to break down her ego so that she could learn. In the East you have to "un-learn" before you can learn.
I have a note on my computer which asks the question "What is your motive?", which reminds me to think about my motives for doing things.
As "palehorse" says, do your own research. Trust your own intuition. Truth is relative to our conditioning.

Peace to all.

[Mike]

This is a real problem. It feels like I've been ranting about it for ages.

Subjective "truths" have become something of a plague. Problem is they're often not true at all - they're opinions at best and delusions at worst.

Even that wouldn't be so bad if the people harboring them kept to themselves. But we're all now being required, sometimes with extreme social pressure and sometimes by the law, to not only recognize the subjective "truths" of others but to treat them as the actual truth, with a capital T. I don't think I need to explain why this is an enormous problem.

Well I'll explain just a little: There are so many f#cking groups now, so many subjective truths, so many identities, and they are all demanding equal outcomes. How do you equalize outcomes among a long and ever expanding list of identity groups? It's impossible. When you try to do that, in earnest, you get nothing but tyranny. And Marxism, which is basically the same thing.

[Soullight]

Interpretations depend on experience and definitions, and who subscribes to those definitions.

I've heard that since everything exist, no matter if it's actual (manifest) or conceptual, or spiritual, or potential, etc, that it is TRUTH. In other words, since everything IS, and no one can claim to know or argue against anything Absolutely (including what I am saying here), this means everything IS TRUE.

I think this scriptural statement rings TRUE. ~Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial~

I also think as far as the human experience is concerned, the Golden Rule works pretty well as far as applicable Truth is concerned.

[Mike]

Posted by Soullight (here)
Interpretations depend on experience and definitions, and who subscribes to those definitions.

I've heard that since everything exist, no matter if it's actual (manifest) or conceptual, or spiritual, or potential, etc, that it is TRUTH. In other words, since everything IS, and no one can claim to know or argue against anything Absolutely (including what I am saying here), this means everything IS TRUE.

I think this scriptural statement rings TRUE. ~Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial~

I also think as far as the human experience is concerned, the Golden Rule works pretty well as far as applicable Truth is concerned.

Yes, there are a million ways to interpret the world but there are only a few ways that actually make for a coherent society and world. If we desire order and sanity we all have to be playing some version of the same game. If we have large groups of people all playing different games then you get nothing but chaos and disorder. Subjective truths become problematic when they begin to seriously challenge our most fundamental truths...which is to say, things that are really, objectively true. Things quite literally become insane. Men declaring they are women and women declaring they are men is one obvious example. Even 2 + 2 = 4 is being challenged, by serious academics no less!

There are still plenty of ways to be different and original while still staying within the bounds of rationality. But you have to stay within a reasonable structure. It's like a game of chess. There are countless moves one can make, but flipping over the board and swallowing the chess pieces isn't one of them....not if you have an interest in keeping the game going in a mutually productive way, that is