Ziran

" ... While I like the statement and think I agree in total with it on one level, it still does not encompass the experience of living , the illusionary side of it all, nor the totality of it all. " The experience of living, the illusory side of it, is routinely described as "Awe".

Not mine. "Starting around 1940, university English professor S. I. Hayakawa (1906–1992), speech professor Wendell Johnson, speech professor Irving J. Lee, and others assembled elements of general semantics into a package suitable for incorporation into mainstream communications curricula. The Institute of General Semantics, which Korzybski and co-workers founded in 1938 continues today. General semantics as a movement has waned considerably since the 1950s, although many of its ideas live on in other movements, such as media literacy,[6] neuro-linguistic programming and rational emotive behavior therapy. Title of thread "no true nature of reality". I have been giving examples of objective truths which defeats the assertion. It's not true, and I've proven it. You don't need to like it. Truth isn't a popularity context. That's also not true. Gottfried Leibnez defined the absolute. Consistently. Coherently. You just defined the absolute. I'm not sure if I agree with the definition. But, this happens all the time. An online, self described, expert makes a claim about reality or the absolute without realizing it while at the same claiming that "No One Can Make Such a Claim." The simple truth is, this idea about the absolute is doctrine. But on one is willing to admit it. That's fine. But if these false notions are posted on the public internet, it's good to correct them. False teachings harm people.

By repeating the same assertion and lacking a valid example. Good work.

Repeating the same assertion is preaching to yourself. Enjoy.

What I'm trying to say is: When one inclines their ear to another, and the other chooses to speak, there's an implied social inclusion of shared set of linguistic rules. Sometimes there's a mismatch. A tourist visits a foreign country. Sure. But here, in this context, distinguishing between objective and subjective truths, there is a procedure which can be followed and has a proven track record of producing **sound** conclusions. That's the process of "classical logic". It's not without faults and limits, but for something like this, answering the question: "Are there any objective truths?" classical logic is ideal. Because. The word choice of the question is borrowing from classical logic. The definition of an objective truth comes from this school of thought. Therefore. it's unreasonable to exclude other aspects of this school of thought arbitrarily.

Semantics and grammar are objective. Example: "Pat is punching Sal" is completely different than "Sal is punching Pat" Agreed? When someone is so married to their own doctrine to the point where they deny that "UP" has an objective meaning... they're stuck in their own echo-chamber.

Your answers are in English. English has objective rules of grammar and semantics. If not, then, you and I would not be able to communicate. Using those rules, there is an objective correct way to negate a proposition. It's common to overlook this. Each english speaker thinks they are experts with the language. But, most are not. That's why there are college courses and entire textbooks on the subject.

^^ This ^^ This is the reason to adopt and include another view of reality within your awareness.

this realization will never change because it is rewarding you have suffered for this realization? If so, it's painful to consider the realization is wrong and the path and the corresponding pain was in vain.

...useful hallucinations, else our ancestors would not have consistently found water or avoided hazards like wandering off a cliff.

Yes! 100%.

There are as many paths as there are people. Even if someone's going the "wrong way" eventually they'll right themself, if they keep going. Because reality is spherical.

Zohar Prologue: Verse 7 בְּרֵאשִׁית. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פָּתַח, שְׂאוּ מָרוֹם עֵינֵיכֶם וּרְאוּ מִי בָרָא אֵלֶּה. שְׂאוּ מָרוֹם עֵינֵיכֶם. לְאָן אֲתַר, לַאֲתַר דְּכָל עַיְינִין תָּלְיָאן לֵיהּ. וּמָאן אִיהוּ, פֶּתַח עֵינַיִם. וְתַמָּן תִּנְדְּעוּן, דְּהַאי סָתִים עַתִּיקָא דְקַיְימָא לַשְּׁאֵלָה, בָּרָא אֵלֶּה. וּמָאן אִיהוּ, מִ"י. הַהוּא דְאִקְרֵי מִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם לְעֵילָּא, דְּכֹלָא קַיְּימָא בִּרְשׂוּתֵיהּ. וְעַל דְּקַיְימָא לַשְּׁאֵלָה, וְאִיהוּ בְּאֹרַח סָתִים וְלָא אִתְגַּלְיָא, אִקְרֵי מִ"י, דְּהָא לְעֵילָּא לֵית תַּמָּן שְׁאֵלָה. וְהַאי קְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם אִקְרֵי מִ"י. "In the beginning..." Rabbi Elazar began the discussion by quoting, "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who has created these things?" (Isaiah 40:26). "Lift up your eyes on high," to what place? To that place to which all eyes are turned. And who is He that created these things? He is the opening of the eyes ( or literally translated "nothing" ), And there you shall know that this concealed Ancient-One, to which a question can be applied. Who has created these? And who is He? He is called 'from the end of heaven on high,' as everything is in His domain. And since one can ask about Him, and He is concealed and not revealed, He is called "Who?", because beyond Him, one may not pose questions. Thus, the end of heaven is called 'Who?' Zohar Prologue: Verse 8 וְאִית אָחֳרָא לְתַתָּא וְאִקְרֵי מַ"ה. מַה בֵּין הַאי לְהַאי, אֶלָּא קַדְמָאָה סְתִימָאָה דְּאִקְרֵי מִ"י קַיְּימָא לַשְּׁאֵלָה, וְכֵיוָן דְּשָׁאַל בַּר נָשׁ וּמְפַשְׁפֵּשׁ לְאִסְתַּכְּלָא וּלְמִנְדַע מִדַּרְגָּא לְדַרְגָּא עַד סוֹף כָּל דַּרְגִּין, כֵּיוָן דְּמָטֵי תַּמָּן מַ"ה, מַה יָּדַעְתָּ, מַה אִסְתָּכַּלְתָּא, מַה פִּשְׁפַּשְׁתָּא, הָא כֹּלָא סָתִים כִּדְקַדְמֵיתָא. There is another one down below called "What?". And what is the difference between "Who" and "What"? The first one is concealed and is called "Who?". It remains a question: Once one has searched and inquired in order to understand and climb from one level to another, and has finally reached the end level of "All", he is asked: "What?" What have you learned? What have you seen? What have you attended to, since everything is still concealed and hidden as before! Zohar Prologue: Verse 10 מִ"י קְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם לְעֵילָא, מַ"ה, קְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם לְתַתָּא, וְדָא יָרִית יַעֲקֹב, דְּאִיהוּ מַבְרִיחַ מִן הַקָּצֶה אֶל הַקָּצֶה, מִן הַקָּצֶה קַדְמָאָה דְּאִיהוּ מִ"י, אֶל הַקָּצֶה בַּתְרָאָה דְּאִיהוּ מַ"ה, בְּגִין דְּקָאֵים בְּאֶמְצָעִיתָא. וְעַל דָּא, מִי בָּרָא אֵלֶּה. "Who?" ... the end of heaven above, "What?" ... the end of heaven below, And this is what Jacob* inherited, as he "shall reach from end to end" (Exodus 26:28). From the end above, which is "Who?", down to the lower end, which is "What?". Because he stands in the middle. And because of this, "Who" has created these! ( Isaiah 40:26 ) * Etymology of Jacob: "Forever clinging to the heel [of the foot]."

These teachings originated, in theory, from the God of Death, Yama. Naturally, the God of Death will assert that Dying is the highest virtue. https://upanishads.org.in/stories/a-dialogue-with-the-god-of-death

Patanjali, Yoga Sutra 4:15 वस्तुसाम्ये चित्तभेदात्तयोर्विभक्तः पन्थाः ॥ ४.१५ ॥ vastusāmye cittabhedāttayorvibhaktaḥ panthāḥ || 4.15 || (15) In spite of sameness of objects, on account of there being separate minds they (the object and its knowledge) follow different paths that is why they are entirely different. Source: WisdomLib.org LINK