Why write a new text when you can publish comments from the previous one? ;)
Not that something new was said here−all about the same thing, just with different words. Be warned: two technically-minded people have met here.
P: I believe that a person forms his own world around him and the truth of this world belongs only to himself. Its reality can change and the truth with it. And there is no contradiction.
Me: This is so, a person creates his own standards within himself, which he considers to be absolute and based on which his life is built. But these are relative truths that a person defines himself.
What about the absolute truth, which does not depend on individual opinions or even on the majority of people−which is not defined by man, but constitutes the objective reality of the world in which a person lives and creates his own version of the world? Do you want to know this truth?
P: Everything is simple for me−I do not believe in the absolute truth. I just did not introduce such an idea into consideration. There is my local truth that corresponds to my reality. If suddenly my reality changes, then the truth can be supplemented or revised. If it suddenly happens that my reality coincides with the “absolute reality”, then the local truth may have to be generalized, but it will also remain belonging to me.
Me: So, do you want to believe that there is no absolute truth, or do you want to know that?
P: If there is an absolute truth, then all the local truths of each person should be generalized to it. Since local truths can be contradictory, we cannot build something containing them. There remains the option that all local truths can be “redone” so that there is no contradiction, but for this it is necessary to sort through them all and correct them if necessary. Which makes the task impossible, and thus one really cannot deny that such an absolute truth exists. And then yes, I do not want to believe in something that should distort the local truths of people.
Me: You have just demonstrated what I described in the last text−you walked away from the question and did not answer it :)
It follows from your logic that a person cannot be mistaken, and if he believes in something that is contrary to the absolute truth, then his distortion should dominate what is original. Somehow you came to the conclusion that the absolute truth distorts the human truth, and not the other way.
This is the problem−most people want to stay with the truth that they have, no matter how distorted it is, no matter how far it stands from reality and how much suffering it brings to them, and therefore they are not searching for the absolute truth.
P: In my model of the world, there is a person who owns the truth, and there is an environment. Man has a method of interacting with his environment and receiving truth. If all people are identical and placed in the same environment, then they will have the same truth. Is this called absolute truth? Or is there something that can simply take and initialize all people with one truth?
Me: Closer to the second. There is an original consciousness, free from the illusions of human existence, which contains the laws of this world and the plan of its development. People are part of this consciousness, but most of them do not realize this and do not realize their true nature (which is not uniform, but also not so contradictory to the extent that there is any opposition), instead separating themselves from it, struggling with it, ignoring existing laws and imagining their own, creating and embodying a false nature. People who, on the contrary, return to their true nature, entering into harmony and oneness with the absolute truth, become saints and enlightened beings.
Image: dooder / Freepik