The Truth

[Age]

The Truth, to me, is just what every one agrees with and accepts, while the truth is just what only some agree with and accept. And, which one is an unambiguous irrefutably already proved Fact, and which one is not, would be almost instantly obvious, well to some anyway.

[Gary Childress]

The Truth, to me, is just what every one agrees with and accepts, while the truth is just what only some agree with and accept. And, which one is an unambiguous irrefutably already proved Fact, and which one is not, would be almost instantly obvious, well to some anyway.

If everyone but you "agrees" to something, does that mean that everyone (including you) is wrong or false concerning The Truth?

[Impenitent]

group ignorance is fun

-Imp

[Dubious]

group ignorance is fun

-Imp

It can also be deadly.

[Age]

The Truth, to me, is just what every one agrees with and accepts, while the truth is just what only some agree with and accept. And, which one is an unambiguous irrefutably already proved Fact, and which one is not, would be almost instantly obvious, well to some anyway.

If everyone but you "agrees" to something, does that mean that everyone (including you) is wrong or false concerning The Truth?

Sorry "gary childress" I 'stuffed up', severely, above here.

The Truth, to me, is just what every one 'could' agree with and accept. I use the word 'could' specifically because there are some human beings who will disagree, just for the sake of 'disagreeing'.

My answer to your clarifying question is 'No' by the way.

What 'it' is that every one/thing could agree with and accept is what is the Truth. Well to me anyway.

If, and when, I use a capital 'T' for the word 'Truth', then that is when 'it' is irrefutable. Like my Correct version above here is.

So, although I apologize for my huge 'blunder' and 'mistake' above here, I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

[Age]

group ignorance is fun

-Imp

It can also be deadly.

Here is a great example of some thing that is , irrefutably, True, and as such is the Truth.

[Walker]

The Truth, to me, is just what every one agrees with and accepts, while the truth is just what only some agree with and accept. And, which one is an unambiguous irrefutably already proved Fact, and which one is not, would be almost instantly obvious, well to some anyway.

I am is True. All else is inference.

Inference is based on sensory data and human senses are limited by form. Lots of folks used to think the earth was not a sphere because of inferences based on sensory data. Other folks took the sensory data of sailing ships disappearing over the horizon and made other inferences based on that obviousness.

[Fairy]

The Truth, to me, is just what every one agrees with and accepts, while the truth is just what only some agree with and accept. And, which one is an unambiguous irrefutably already proved Fact, and which one is not, would be almost instantly obvious, well to some anyway.

I understand what you are saying.

The TRUTH cannot be defined, spoken or conceptualised. Although it does appear as though 'defining' 'conceptualising' and 'speaking' looks like TRUTH.


'Truth' is never a lie, but a lie is always the 'Truth'. As there is only TRUTH

The truth is equally one. All things being equal. There is only one, we are one. There is no other one, if there is another one, then there's opposition and where's there's opposition there's bound to be conflict and paradox and contradiction, albeit illusory.

Oneness has no argument with itself, oneness appearing to argue, is only oneness boxing with shadows. Truth is often hidden in plain sight obscured only by it's own shadow, which is illusory, since any shadow cast can only be coming from it's own one light, and from no other source.


The image pointing at the mirror IS the TRUTH.

The image in the mirror is NOT the TRUTH.

Truth is a two way mirror, it's both truth and the lie simultaneously.

blob.jpg

[Fairy]

The Truth, to me, is just what every one agrees with and accepts, while the truth is just what only some agree with and accept. And, which one is an unambiguous irrefutably already proved Fact, and which one is not, would be almost instantly obvious, well to some anyway.

If everyone but you "agrees" to something, does that mean that everyone (including you) is wrong or false concerning The Truth?

Sorry "gary childress" I 'stuffed up', severely, above here.

The Truth, to me, is just what every one 'could' agree with and accept. I use the word 'could' specifically because there are some human beings who will disagree, just for the sake of 'disagreeing'.

My answer to your clarifying question is 'No' by the way.

What 'it' is that every one/thing could agree with and accept is what is the Truth. Well to me anyway.

If, and when, I use a capital 'T' for the word 'Truth', then that is when 'it' is irrefutable. Like my Correct version above here is.

So, although I apologize for my huge 'blunder' and 'mistake' above here, I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Well said, yes, it's important to be coherent so that we all can understand what is being pointed to when explaining The TRUTH by using the only tool available, which are concepts and knowledge.

For me personally, capitalising of letters is unnecessary - Words are generally and commonly known in their actual meaning, whether they are capitalised or not.
I'm not suggesting do not use them, by all means use them if it helps you get the message across more clearly. I personally don't think it makes any difference.

For me, The Known, as in knowing Truth, is a two-state knowledge, of both Not-knowing and Knowing, respectively.

[Age]

The Truth, to me, is just what every one agrees with and accepts, while the truth is just what only some agree with and accept. And, which one is an unambiguous irrefutably already proved Fact, and which one is not, would be almost instantly obvious, well to some anyway.

I am is True. All else is inference.

Which would mean, irrefutably, that the claim, 'I am is True', itself, is only an inference as well.

Inference is based on sensory data and human senses are limited by form.

Okay, but by your own logic and claim this is only an inference, which, obviously, by definition, would mean that it may not actually be true at all.

Lots of folks used to think the earth was not a sphere because of inferences based on sensory data. Other folks took the sensory data of sailing ships disappearing over the horizon and made other inferences based on that obviousness.

Okay, but obviously all of this may not be true at all, well according to your own personal logic and claim above here, correct?

[Age]

The Truth, to me, is just what every one agrees with and accepts, while the truth is just what only some agree with and accept. And, which one is an unambiguous irrefutably already proved Fact, and which one is not, would be almost instantly obvious, well to some anyway.

I understand what you are saying.

The TRUTH cannot be defined, spoken or conceptualised.

Yet, a 'truth' was just defined spoken, written, and presented, under the label "age" above, as well as conceptualized, written about, and presented under the label "fairy" just here.

Although it does appear as though 'defining' 'conceptualising' and 'speaking' looks like TRUTH.

Why would you say and try to claim this?

Also, what is 'truth', exactly, when written in all capital letters?

'Truth' is never a lie, but a lie is always the 'Truth'. As there is only TRUTH

The truth is equally one. All things being equal. There is only one, we are one. There is no other one, if there is another one, then there's opposition and where's there's opposition there's bound to be conflict and paradox and contradiction, albeit illusory.

Oneness has no argument with itself, oneness appearing to argue, is only oneness boxing with shadows. Truth is often hidden in plain sight obscured only by it's own shadow, which is illusory, since any shadow cast can only be coming from it's own one light, and from no other source.


The image pointing at the mirror IS the TRUTH.

The image in the mirror is NOT the TRUTH.

Truth is a two way mirror, it's both truth and the lie simultaneously.



blob.jpg

If you say so, then okay.

[Age]

If everyone but you "agrees" to something, does that mean that everyone (including you) is wrong or false concerning The Truth?

Sorry "gary childress" I 'stuffed up', severely, above here.

The Truth, to me, is just what every one 'could' agree with and accept. I use the word 'could' specifically because there are some human beings who will disagree, just for the sake of 'disagreeing'.

My answer to your clarifying question is 'No' by the way.

What 'it' is that every one/thing could agree with and accept is what is the Truth. Well to me anyway.

If, and when, I use a capital 'T' for the word 'Truth', then that is when 'it' is irrefutable. Like my Correct version above here is.

So, although I apologize for my huge 'blunder' and 'mistake' above here, I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Well said, yes, it's important to be coherent so that we all can understand what is being pointed to when explaining The TRUTH by using the only tool available, which are concepts and knowledge.

For me personally, capitalising of letters is unnecessary -

For me the capitalizing of letters is unnecessary, as well, and completely unnecessary, I will add. Just like the doing of absolutely ANY thing is unnecessary. BUT if 'we' Truly do want to understand things, then doing some things is necessary.

To me, because some words have very many different definitions, and even exactly opposite and opposing definitions, sometimes just writing the same word in a different format so as to distinguish between the different contexts and different meanings words can have and can give could be very helpful. I have, after all, noticed that you use different arrays of capitalizing words to present or express different meanings, different ideas, or differently contexts also.

Words are generally and commonly known in their actual meaning,

But, words do not have an 'actual meaning'. For example, I could say to you, 'I want to 'argue' this out with you', but you would have absolutely no idea at all what I was actually meaning. And, this is because words do not have their own 'actual meaning'.

And, to prove that you have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what I was actually meaning all I would have to do would be to ask you a clarifying question like, 'What was I actually meaning when I said and wrote, 'I want to 'argue'
this out with you'?

whether they are capitalised or not.

But, the WHOLE POINT of adding capital letters to a word is to signify some thing different. But obviously if one has not been taught, nor sought out, what the actual difference is, exactly, then they will never know.

I'm not suggesting do not use them, by all means use them if it helps you get the message across more clearly. I personally don't think it makes any difference.

So why then do you also capitalize some letters in words, here?

Like above, and below.

For me, The Known, as in knowing Truth, is a two-state knowledge, of both Not-knowing and Knowing, respectively.

Okay.

But is there any difference, at all, between 'Knowing', and' 'knowing', here?

If the capitalizing of letters is Truly unnecessary, for you, as you said and claimed above here, then why, exactly, did you do it here for?

[Fairy]

If the capitalizing of letters is Truly unnecessary, for you, as you said and claimed above here, then why, exactly, did you do it here for?

I said capitalizing of letters is unnecessary - not needed.

Not that capitalizing of letters is absolutely forbidden.

[Fairy]

Although it does appear as though 'defining' 'conceptualising' and 'speaking' looks like TRUTH.

Why would you say and try to claim this?

There is no try to claim. These words just come out like an arrow in the moment.

Also, what is 'truth', exactly, when written in all capital letters?

Same as the truth appearing in lower case letters. Doesn't matter how truth appears, it's all the same truth to me.

[Age]

If the capitalizing of letters is Truly unnecessary, for you, as you said and claimed above here, then why, exactly, did you do it here for?

I said capitalizing of letters is unnecessary - not needed.

Not that capitalizing of letters is absolutely forbidden.

But, that is, exactly, my point. If the capitalizing of letters is unnecessary, and thus not needed, for you, then what is the actual reason for why you do it, here?

I am just trying to find out and clarify what you do it?