What It Is Like to Find the Truth

[Nemra]

The illustrated illusion exists.

It's obvious in two ways:

• You see two faces.
• You see the details that make you assume that the illustration is composed of two faces.

Both exist.

The falsehood about that illustration is thinking that there are only two faces, which is true for you before noticing the falsehood. After noticing, the falsehood exists as a falsehood, otherwise if it isn't recognized as a falsehood, then you still haven't seen through the illusion.

If you define truth as a thing inside or outside of existence, your definition of truth will be arbitrary.

If you don't equate truth to existence, you will slip into infinite regress.

Edited Tuesday at 09:49 AM by Nemra

[Nemra]

5 hours ago, Nemra said:

If you define truth as a thing inside or outside of existence, your definition of truth will be arbitrary.

If you don't equate truth to existence, you will slip into infinite regress.

Which is why God, as the creator of existence, is either false or existence itself.

However, since nothing can be referenced outside of existence, God must be existence itself, given that God is the creator of existence. Because existence is truth, all existent things are self-caused; therefore, God creates by causing itself, as God encompasses everything that exists.

Since you rely on your own experience to refer to what exists, your experience encompasses everything that can exist, which is why your experience is self-evident and direct.

If God is existence, and your experience is what exists, you are God.

Edited Tuesday at 03:42 PM by Nemra

[Ziran]

7 hours ago, Nemra said:

I answered in an abstract way. It's not difficult to understand.

I didn't say that specific truths are obvious. I'm talking about truth itself. So your specific case does matter here.

Why do you think that people believe that they have the truth? They are fooled by the obviousness of existence, so they think what they believe is true.

Heard.  I'm still not seeing a connection to the example I provided.  None the less:  maybe it would help me to understand if I refer back to your original assertion:  "truth's properties are obviousness and existence."

If so, how can anyone be "fooled by the obviousness"?  If "obviousness" is a property of truth; then, how is it both "obvious" and "truthful" and "fooling oneself"?

If there is no good answer, or useful response, perhaps just leave my questions unanswered as fuel for further contemplation?

Thank you, 

[Nemra]

50 minutes ago, Ziran said:

If so, how can anyone be "fooled by the obviousness"?  If "obviousness" is a property of truth; then, how is it both "obvious" and "truthful" and "fooling oneself"?

Let's say you think that something is true and the next day you find out it isn't true.

Was that thing not obvious to you that it was true before finding out the truth? Doesn't that obviousness make you think that you have got the truth if you're not careful about your epistemology?

I'm not saying that you knew the truth.

It's just that, regardless of you knowing something to be true or not, that obviousness points to something deeper about reality that is absolutely true, without a doubt, beyond whatever you think about it.

If the truth were not beyond epistemology, how could you determine that your epistemology is truthful?

If an epistemology were to validate itself using its own criteria for truth, it would be inherently untruthful.

So, truth must be beyond epistemology.

Edited Tuesday at 04:36 PM by Nemra

[Nemra]

What I'm seeing is that different epistemologies use their own criteria for truth by splitting existence in their own ways.

They want to have a monopoly on what it means to be true. They define truth based on a specific partition of existence, and when something doesn't align with their definition, they call it falsehood by justifying their own pretzeled nature, ignoring the fact that they used existence to define truth.

It's mental masturbation.

People are doing epistemic gaslighting to each other.

Like @Leo Gura says, "it's a self-licking ice cream cone".

Edited Tuesday at 05:33 PM by Nemra

[Willy Phallicus]

5 hours ago, Nemra said:

They want to have a monopoly on what it means to be true. They define truth based on a specific partition of existence, and when something doesn't align with their definition, they call it falsehood by justifying their own pretzeled nature, ignoring the fact that they used existence to define truth.

Welcome to planet durp.  We give good jackboot.

[Ziran]

On 10/20/2026 at 9:16 AM, Nemra said:

So, truth must be beyond epistemology.

I hear you.  I'm almost certain we agree on the underlying mechanism and the ultimate conclusion.  I would phrase it a little differently, but, that's insignificant, imo.

What's I'm asking about are a category of things, concepts, symbols, etc whose inherent thing-ness is born from its not-thing-ness, from its lack of existence.  These outliers, in many ways, feel to me to be some of the most impressive, most influential in all of reality.  And.  When I contemplate these, they are not obvious, and that's what produces the impression, produces the influence.  It's from their mysteries, not from their existential obviousness.

OTOH , maybe I'm wrong, or misunderstanding what you've written.  But if I'm not wrong, then focusing one's awareness on the obviously-existential leaves out a precious few outliers which make life worth living.

Thoughts?  Has my point of view been clearly articulated? 

[Joseph Maynor]

It is not entirely pleasant.  

[Nemra]

2 hours ago, Ziran said:

What's I'm asking about are a category of things, concepts, symbols, etc whose inherent thing-ness is born from its not-thing-ness, from its lack of existence.  These outliers, in many ways, feel to me to be some of the most impressive, most influential in all of reality.  And.  When I contemplate these, they are not obvious, and that's what produces the impression, produces the influence.  It's from their mysteries, not from their existential obviousness.

I wasn't suggesting that people will discover the truth about something without seeking truth.

But obviousness is baked into reality, even if you are wrong about a thing. If you are wrong about something, you won't know it unless you are open-minded about being wrong, so it will seem to you that the truth of the matter is obvious. No matter what your attitude is towards knowing something, it will be obvious to you. It will be obvious to you that you are right, wrong, or don't know, regardless of whether you are being honest with yourself or not.

Whatever you assume the truth is, it will be obvious to you, even if you are wrong about it. People's assumptions are treated as true when not questioned and as matching to existence due to being true to them.

Now, I'm not saying that that attitude determines that you know the truth about something. Everyone has their epistemology, and however they do their epistemology, it will result in obviousness to them. E.g., if their epistemology says that the universe is numerical, it will be obvious to them why things are the way they are. If they are skeptical, it will be obvious to them that there are things that aren't obvious.

Because truth is existence, it won't restrict you from being wrong about anything.

You can only be careful about how your epistemology matches existence without creating criteria for truth.

Edited 10 hours ago by Nemra