There Is No "True Nature" Of Reality

[Ziran]

5 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

We’re all stuck in our own echo chamber. There’s nothing known outside of human language. Period. 

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.

[Ziran]

4 hours ago, Hyperion said:

Yes I agree, what you are saying here is relatively (un)true.

🙃

Repeating the same assertion is preaching to yourself.  Enjoy.

[Ziran]

4 hours ago, Hyperion said:

The whole point of this thread is to point out the inherent limitations of language.

By repeating the same assertion and lacking a valid example.

Good work.

[Breakingthewall]

6 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

We’re all stuck in our own echo chamber. There’s nothing known outside of human language. Period. 

You can know everything easily. You are, being is everything. Open yourself to this fact without any barrier and that's it. Nothing else can be known because that's everything.

Not knowing by language, being it without limits 

[Mellowmarsh]

7 hours ago, Ziran said:

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.

Be that as it may for your personal logical left brained reasoning.
But that’s not the point of this thread topic. 

What I’m trying to say is: All perspectives as to the true nature of reality are relative - therefore cannot be absolutised.

On a level of meta logical reasoning: The absolute = undefinable and cannot be different from all of reality itself.The aggregate of all of reality itself is not isolated from all individual fragmented things, events, and experiences, but are interconnected parts of a single, all-encompassing reality.Therefore, all assertions are relative, and relative assertions about the absolute are absurd. 

Human knowledge/ based on conceptual models of reality, in this artificial conception, is relatively ( un ) true.

Edited Tuesday at 05:58 AM by Mellowmarsh

[Ziran]

On 9/7/2026 at 10:57 PM, Mellowmarsh said:

your personal logical left brained reasoning.

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.

On 9/7/2026 at 10:57 PM, Mellowmarsh said:

that’s not the point of this thread topic. 

Title of thread "no true nature of reality".
I have been giving examples of objective truths which defeats the assertion.

On 9/7/2026 at 10:57 PM, Mellowmarsh said:

All perspectives as to the true nature of reality are relative

It's not true, and I've proven it.  You don't need to like it.  Truth isn't a popularity context.

On 9/7/2026 at 10:57 PM, Mellowmarsh said:

The absolute = undefinable

That's also not true.  

Gottfried Leibnez defined the absolute.  Consistently.  Coherently.

On 9/7/2026 at 10:57 PM, Mellowmarsh said:

The aggregate of all of reality itself is not isolated from all individual fragmented things, events, and experiences, but are interconnected parts of a single, all-encompassing reality.Therefore, all assertions are relative, and relative assertions about the absolute are absurd. 

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.
 

[Mellowmarsh]

16 minutes ago, Ziran said:

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.
 

Okay, if you personally say all that is so, then it must be true.

[Mellowmarsh]

19 minutes ago, Ziran said:

Truth isn't a popularity context.

It’s a popular subject that desires to be put into true context. 
 

Carry on…

[Mellowmarsh]

29 minutes ago, Ziran said:

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."

We can all objectively agree that nothing is permanent , including the mind that defines the absolute.

A relative consciousness points toward an underlying absolute awareness or universal truth, but the absolute awareness universal truth is never experienced by a relative consciousness. The concept “absolute” is just another word for this “unchanging source” of all things changing.
 

Relative consciousness knows only the impermanence of things, including its own construction of things in this conception which is this conceptions only experience. While the absolute unchanging source of experience is never experienced. Yes, absolute unchanging source is a concept known, but all known things are impermanent and know nothing of their unchanging absolute source.