(untitled)

consider a truth as a conceptual item that is logically sound and coherent within its own domain’s rules. there are several domains of truths and some are stronger than others. you can count legal, cultural, historical, natural, and divine truths, as example categories. thus in all these categories you can have truths that make logical sense. we may appreciate a truth's category of power by how it is anchored to reality. for example, a legal truth is anchored to reality by legal archive papers and institutional enforcement. the way to kill a truth is to destroy its anchor to reality: a legal truth becomes destroyed if it is voted out or cancelled, or if we burn the legal archives and collectively forget the law existed. we find that the truth that humans are mammals is harder to eradicate. you would need to turn all humans into another categories of species somehow (or into ash) as that truth is a natural truth, because it is anchored to reality by biological factors, which makes it stronger and harder to destroy. the higher in domain the truth, the harder it is to destroy. sometimes, some truths contradict each other. in that case, we must look at their truth category and tell them apart to establish which is stronger than the other. we can do this by contrasting them with higher truth levels. a cultural truth might be at odds with a natural truth or even a divine one. what happens in that case is that the truth of lower reality level becomes an opinion, and opinions are always false. this leads us to better thinking because we might realize a few things. i counted legal truths as pretty weak but honestly it's kind of a tie with cultural truths and those are probably even lower. what binds cultural truths to reality is just what people feel like thinking, such as fashion among other things (changes all the time) in the end we find more insights, such as how theoretically easy it is to kill a legal or cultural truth such as the united states of america. if we burn all the books and change our mind, it will all be gone. we can study this in order to find the weak spots of truths in all entities we encounter. see how hard it is to destroy the truth that chlorophyll makes leaves green, compared to say a cultural truth like frogs are funny where people need only collectively change their mind. the idea also stems from the belief in a conceptual archetype of truth itself, from occultism, platonism etc. truth is hierarchical. higher domains of truth emanate into the lower domains. lower domains base themselves on the higher ones. truths can only be contested by those of a higher domain; you discover an overrule, or expose the truth as belonging to a lower order. lower truths cannot influence higher ones; they can only obscure or ignore them. opposing truths never belong to the same domain lest they cancel each other. we will see a case example. "trans women are women" is anchored primarily in cultural (social consensus) and legal (government recognition) truths. natural truth (biological sex) contradicts this, as sex is binarily observable in reproduction, genetics, and endocrinology (observation only helps us determine the anchors to reality and thus the domain which the given truth belongs to). result: the cultural/legal truth collapses into opinion when confronted with natural truth as it lacks a stronger anchor. in that example, a truth of a higher order invalidated one of a lower order. this occurred because the two were contradicting each other. however, some truths of differing domains can override lower ones without fundamentally being at odds; the lower law survives only because it does not contradict the higher one. we look at this example. a law is passed that blocks a particular subway's electronic gate. following that law, the gate is now locked shut. it appears that a lower truth, that the gate must be shut by law, originated a higher one, that the gate is now impassible. did it truly? let's look into this. the fact the gate is closed is not a legal or social law (if the gate is physical) but a natural one. the reality anchors are the physical arrangement of the matter constituting the gate and its gateway – as closed. it all operated under the natural principle when the gate was closed (machine or human physically moving the gate in place) and the physical blockage didn't emanate from the fact the law was passed. furthermore, the legal truth does not collapse when the gate breaks and people move through it, because the law is still there in principle and passing the gate is still illegal. that is because the legal truth was dominated by natural truth, which is that bodies can move through broken gates. it's called truth domain domination and usually, "crime". the most dominant domain of truth is the divine one. divine truth is tricky because it's beyond human (natural) perception. if it's real divine truth, it overrides everything below. the issue is that you cannot prove something of a certain domain by using truth from a lower domain. so you cannot put god under a microscope as you would the gametes and have to resort to emanation study. you could argue for compound truths, where a claim spans multiple domains. in that case, the highest anchor determines its origin and thus its resilience. math is a strange case. is it divine because 2 + 2 = 4 exists even if all minds vanish? or is it just a description of natural parameters? maybe it's both—divine in essence, but expressed through natural law. and no, we're not talking about the mathematical symbols and alphabet (cultural truth) in any contradicting argumentation, the key is to find the anchor. if someone says "you can't say that, because that is offensive" they're appealing to cultural truth. but if you counter with natural truth (or "yet i speak it with my mouth"), their claim collapses into opinion. the higher the truth, the more metaphysically violent its destruction would be. the strongest truths are also the hardest to destroy: legal? burn the books. cultural? change minds. natural? you'd have to rewrite the universe. divine? impossible. so when you hear a claim, ask: what would it take to erase this? if the answer is "just a vote" or "just forgetting", it's weak. if the answer is "you can't" or "doomsday", it's strong. be careful in choosing which domain you follow.

there is a divine truth: power decides all lower ones. all you need is power over someone else (their sustenance, their life) to turn your opinion into reality. for a while anyways

>>46845 so a meta-truth? i didn't include it but i though of the corpus hermeticum, all is mind, etc.

>>46844 your whole definition of truth is kinda nonsense to be honest. pooling stuff like legal truths with natural truths is like a lawyer trying to beat a case using quantum mechanics. this whole post is one big category error

Using logic as the main test of truth is what kept us in the dark ages for a thousand years. Scientific method got us out of that poophole.

>>46848 perhaps because they belong to different domains? lainon did not read

People assume words have static meaning and operate under that assumption while schemers frequently redefine words to shape perceived reality. And thats how what people believe to be true is generally false. I.E.: look at how governments steadily redefined unemployment - they kept adding exemptions for unemployment status to keep unemployment numbers low. Media spreading such redefinition of words enables conformity on lies shared by the public as common reality.

>>46852 they're completely logically disconnected aside from the word truth, you could honestly refer to legal and cultural truths as rules or even opinions

>>46849 >Using logic as the main test of truth is what kept us in the dark ages for a thousand years. Scientific method got us out of that poophole. That's an over-simplification. Scientific method naturally involves the use of logic. What you rather should've said was that it was the limited conception of and application of logic which partly contributed to the stifling of intellectual progress during the middle ages when Scholasticism reigned supreme. Specifically, that limited conception of logic was logic as Aristotelian syllogistic logic wherein deduction and analysis are seen as the only viable routes to truth, in contrast to newers strains of logic that comprises of many-values, induction, synthesis and so on. It was during the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment when people began to move away from this "old method" and embraced the "new method" which involved the aforemention conceptual and a bunch of other experimental methods.