What is truth?


What is truth? It is often the case that the word “truth” is often thrown around by ignorant people, who really really wanna believe something, to an extent that they confuse said belief with what the truth actually is. Such people have no discernment, until they overcome the mental and emotional ineptitude that is “faith”, which is actually just a euphemism for blind belief and ignorance.

Truth is everything that is as it is, by virtue of itself, completely and utterly independent of opinion, belief, popularity and any other manner of impression. Which impressions may very well be accurate or inaccurate, to whatever extents, but impressions themselves do not actually influence the truth itself.

It is therefore obvious that truth is neither subjective, nor objective. To dive deeper into why that is, we are to first look at what those two modalities of perception mean. The so-called “subjective”, or in other words the “personal” or “perceptive” perspective (for it is never any “higher” or “lesser” than the “objective” sort), is everything that one perceives or derives through means of one’s own discernment, with the emphasis being put either mostly or entirely on one’s own “inner world”, desires, impressions and so on, thus with little or no concern for any manner of “evidence” coming from the so-called “outer world”.

The latter perspective, the so-called “objective” one, is an apparent opposite at first glance, but is actually just the “opposite” side of the same coin, meaning that is it is a perspective that puts more emphasis on whatever is perceived as “evidence” derived from the so-called “outer world”. However, aside from the notion that “inner” and “outer” are illusory attributes born from the erroneous impression of “separation”, and besides the notion that it is partly through the so-called “inner world” that our manifested form creates a projection of different parts of itself, in the form of the so-called “outer world”, it is also worth noting that everything that your body picks up from the “environment” is through its own manifested senses. Literally, any manner of an objective perspective relies on perception.

People who opt to be more focused on one or the other, fail to comprehend both. Those who are addicted to an “objective” point of view lose sight of their individuality and personal desires, and thus fail in their endeavor to comprehend the “outer world”, while those who are addicted to a “personal” perspective to the extent of ignoring the projected “outer world”, fail in their endeavor to know themselves, precisely because the “outer world” is meant to be a mirror of the “inner world”, and thus another expression of one’s self and learning experience.

How you view the “outer world” is a reflection of how you view yourself, and how you view yourself is also expressed in how you view your projected image. If you don’t like yourself, most likely you’re not gonna like how you look. If you are obsessed with how you look and constantly look in the mirror all the fuckin’ time, most likely you don’t really like yourself either, because why else would you be obsessed with your reflection, instead of more profoundly experiencing own individuality?

Truth is neither exclusively “personal”, nor exclusively “objective”. Rather, it is transjective, or in other words independent of perception, belief, opinion and popularity.

A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it.

Truth is still truth, even if nobody believes it.

Is it true then, that fire is hot? No. To an ice cube, it would say it’s super hot. An ingot of steel would say it’s somewhat warm.

An individual manifesting in the form of a fleshy body called a “human”, might be tempted to say “Yup, fire is pretty hot, if you put your hand directly in it.” A fire elemental might say “Nope, this is at body temperature.” A bolt of lightning or a lightning elemental might say “Nah, actually, that’s pretty cold.”

Both personally and objectively, all of them are right, yet simultaneously wrong. What is true, then? What’s true, in this case, is that they all interact differently with the element known as fire. It is also true that the individuals experiencing fire, and the fire itself, exist.

Now, knowing what truth itself is does not necessarily make one an individual “all wise”. Knowing what truth actually is, in itself, doesn’t necessarily mean that one knows all that is true; but it is obviously an intrinsic step in that endeavor – for if one is to discern whether or not something has a particular quality, one is to first know what the fuck the quality or “thing” they’re looking for, actually implies. To discern whether or not something is true, one is to first know what truth actually is, as well as how to tell if a particular something expresses that quality.

In that sense, everything to do with “faith” is profoundly ignorant, because it ignores everything that is outside of a preferred paradigm of belief and opinion, and thus the “faithful” have little to no idea about the origin, reasons or implications, nor pretty much anything else regarding of their own “faith” or “religion”, and obviously little to nothing about whatever is outside of it. Therefore, it is one of, if not the worst methodology of discerning truth; at least, within the realm of sentience.

Then, we have science – I mean actual science, not the religion of “scientism”.

Genuine science is always honest in assessing both its successes and its mistakes, and is therefore expressed through, among other things, honest and unbiased research, born of a thirst for knowledge for its own sake. Science, therefore, is another form of art; yet, one that has a number of hindrances in its own endeavor. Which is that it relies on “evidence”. Some might ask: Why is that a problem? Isn’t evidence based research far better than blind belief?

Obviously, it is. However, similar to how science is better than religion, so too there are much more advanced ways of knowing than science, itself.

First off, let’s look at what the concept of “evidence” implies. Evidence is an impression born of perception and conception. Therefore, it is fundamentally limited to what one manages to perceive or conceive. If one neither perceives, nor even conceives of something at a particular point in their life, then at that point in their life, they literally do not have anything to constitute “evidence” of anything that is veyond their level of conscious or unconscious awareness.

Aside from that, evidence can be manipulated, forged or misinterpreted, and the quality of one’s interpretations varies rather greatly in relation to one’s expressed biases, as well as cognitive and discerning aptitudes, whatever they may be at any point in one’s life. In addition, evidence can be incomplete, and regarded as complete when it is not. Even if information to a particular context is “complete”, completion itself as a concept implies the illusion of a “beginning” and an “end”, while knowledge is infinite (as is everything); thus, there is always more to know and comprehend, than one might think or believe they do, at any point in so-called “time-space”.

So, in that sense, the very notion of evidence, as well as all instances of such, are always derived from what one manages to perceive or conceive, but it’s not exactly useful for things outside of the realm of one’s general personal awareness.

A blind man or woman, on the level of their incarnate body’s senses, literally has no evidence to there being such a thing as what we call “light”. They might have evidence of a heat or a heat source, or of some manner of energy, but not of “light” itself. nor color, hue, darkness, saturation, vibrance, or anything associated with such.

Someone who perceives light, but doesn’t perceive, nor in any other way expresses awareness of  ley energies, auras, interdimensional rifts, non-linearity or anything else, literally has no evidence of such things (well, to their ego-mind or persona, or any other level of their being where they manifest that unawareness). However, absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Science itself is useful for deriving more detailed, refined assessments about the already known or already perceived; in other words, about the known knowns (what you know you know, or at least think you know), unknown knowns (what you don’t know that you know), or known unknowns (what you know that you don’t know). However, it does virtually nothing towards discerning anything about the unknown unknowns (what you don’t know that you don’t know).

To those of us who see veyond the veil of the incarnate body’s senses, and who are thus aware of things veyond the illusion of “time-space”, as well as veyond all “form” and “reality”, forms of awareness and discernment veyond what people generally call science, are abundant and apparent. No matter how effective, efficient or likewise “well lubricated” one’s brain might be, experiencing thinking and feeling veyond the brain makes cerebral processes seem like a languid and plodding series of events, compared to the instantaneous spontaneity of discernment, recognition and insight that we do veyond our body – which the body can integrate, but veyond a certain point, it would operate more like a telephone and less like a processor of information; because it taps into awareness that the “flesh” does not manage to process effectively, but which it can transmit. That said, everything is always a choice, and if one chooses to consciously integrate infinite awareness in such ways that the body itself has no difficulty doing so, that’s also a thing.

So, one of the main ones ways to discern things veyond the incarnate ego-mind’s interpretations, is genuine intuition, or in other words inner-tuition or self-knowledge, but not just in the psychological sense of discerning more about one’s psyche or persona-level expressions of the mind, but rather awareness and comprehension of who I and we always and already are, as both individual and infinite, unlimited freedom, spirit, consciousness, etcetera.

Similar to how truth is transjective, meaning transcending the concept of perspective, so is intuition a transcendence of the emotions and intelligence a transcendence of intellect. Emotions are energetical and biological expressions of the feelings of ourselves as soul and spirit, veyond the body. The intellect (cerebral effectiveness for calculative or inductive processes; deduction, by the way, additionally involves emotions, creativity and imagination, etcetera) and thoughts (soulful and energetic expressions of focused congruence and coherence) are biological and energetic expressions (respectively) of the contemplation, ponderings, thinking and focused discernments of ourselves as soul and spirit.

To transcend the perspectives implicit in thoughts and emotions, one is first to learn and experience everything that is to be learned and experienced, from the experience of harmoniously thinking and feeling. Emotions expand thoughts, by means of providing something to think about, and thinking expands comprehension by means of… well, thinking about it. This happens both in terms of the “biological”, etheric, ethereal and all other of our bodies that have “senses”.

More than that, feeling expands thinking by means of providing an impetus of care and passion, therefore a drive to actually think, and the thinking then reflects upon the experience and expands its comprehension as a result.

Likewise, albeit in infinitely more complex and intricate ways, the heart and intuition are the means through which we tap into our awareness as infinite and unlimited consciousness, while the mind and intelligence are through what we comprehend, as well as focus if we want to have any particular sorts of experiences within the realms of “form”.

The heart is the knower, while the mind is the comprehender. The heart is infinitely more vast in awareness than the mind, but it alone is unfocused. The heart sees everything in harmony and undivided (in other words, as it actually is, when one comprehends infinity), but without the mind, it’s like seeing literally everything, but rather blurry. Intuition is both literally and metaphorically all-knowing, but not all-discerning or all-comprehending. The mind and intelligence, on the other hand, have precision and focus…buuut, they’re not nearly as expansive as the heart and intuition, in and of themselves.

See, the mind needs to figure stuff out, because it doesn’t know. In disharmony with the heart, the mind veeery slowly and ploddingly attempts to do what the heart does effortlessly. Likewise, in disharmony with the mind, even though it knows way more than the mind, the heart veeery slowly and begrudgingly attempts to focus.

However, when the two are brought together in harmony, they evolve and elevate themselves and each other. With the knowledge of the heart, the mind now actually does what it’s good at and actually comprehends stuff, while the heart now experiences focus through the lens of the mind, while maintaining its infinite awareness, and actually expanding and evolving it as well, through the added experience of the mind’s focus, with both of them thus elevating themselves and each other.

But, what about wanting to individually evolve the mind and heart, without having them “rely” on one another? Wouldn’t the heart and mind be better off, if they were both independent from each other and then decided to collaborate with one another? That would be a good question and a fair point… except the heart and mind aren’t actually “separate”. Neither the heart, nor the mind “rely” on one another, as they’re not actually “separate” things, but rather different aspects and expressions of ourselves as soul and spirit, similar to how your arms are ostensibly separate, but are actually different expressions of your own body; or like how your cerebral hemispheres are both actually your brain.

Or, another analogy (as inaccurate as it is, compared to the intricacy of what I mean) would be how ice, water and steam are still all water, with the aggregate states of “solid”, “fluid” and “gas” (and plasma, flames or electricity, if we’re counting hyper heated gas as well) essentially being different expressions or modalities of the same thing.

Ice does not “rely” on the liquid form of water, nor does the latter “rely” on steam, nor vice-versa. When water wants to become ice, it freezes up; when it wants to become fluid again, it heats up; and when it wants to become a gas or other lighter or less dense form of itself, it heats up. In other words, it changes form.

Likewise, but in infinitely more intricate ways, the heart and mind, intuition and intelligence and so on are not separate things, but rather different expressions of ourselves as soul and spirit. When the mind expands its awareness through the heart, it doesn’t rely on the latter to provide something it doesn’t have, nor does the heart gain any quality it doesn’t already have, but rather it’s who we are as soul and spirit, choosing to expand our own manifested awareness, by having the different expressions of our own being blend together and express what is already within us.

So, when the heart and mind blend together in harmony, they both realize they’ve always been each other all along, just that they weren’t previously aware of their own being.

Through intuition we expand, evolve and elevate ourselves and our awareness, from the known into the unknown; or rather, from forgetfulness and amnesia, to remembrance and knowing of who I and we always and already are, as both in-form and veyond-form freedom, spirit, consciousness, etcetera, while through intelligence we question and comprehend ourselves as such.

Always questioning, remembering, knowing and comprehending, expressing, loving, living (I mean, spiritually and philosophically, regardless of what the “flesh” goes through) and veing ourselves…

Who am I? Who are we?

I and we are all and always free and freedom, imagination, will and intent… infinity, unlimitedness and veyond… among other things…





51 thoughts on “What is truth?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back To Top