quoth me-self: so what if everyone exists in 'some truth' or partial truth, and this is a

pseudo- condition, in that it is ambiguous and variant in terms of how it can be and is accounted for. [truth] is not 100% absolute, instead it is embedded in frameworks and contexts that carry it and these can be in error in terms of viewpoint or beliefs or perspective or facts and even subverted or twisted, such that truth is aligned within a warped worldview that then becomes normalized and the basis for relations and exchange, as with today

abstract point requiring clarification: "truth in itself" is proposed true when removed of any known errors, contingently absolute (100%) yet when represented in frameworks of signs, there can be variability due to this embedded or nested condition where truth is being referenced or carried within or by the signage- thus a [sign] for truth, meant to represent it is not this actual truth, it is a conduit or circuit to it, yet may have other characteristics or boundaries as a sign- there may be relativistic aspects involved whereby the word [truth] does not equate with truth universally, given perspective and limits and literacy or its variability in a context of language- whatever is true about truth would be represented in other sign-based translations of this concept of truth, only the specific english-version... (perhaps this is not enough to clarify the many issues involved though they have been addressed elsewhere, where this condition of partial truth is refined into empirical truth, though it occurs conceptually, not just as a sign that represents the concept- and thus, the sign of truth given the observation could be a binary observation of only some part of it, yet equated with it, via its [word] for instance)... [truth] [لجنة تقصي الحقائق] [истината] [veritat] [真相] [αλήθεια] [האמת] [真実] [진실] [حقیقت] [pravda] [ความจริง] [Gerçek şu ki] [Істина] [سچائی] [sự thật] ...it is thus proposed that the fidelity with absolute truth is not a default condition of reading/writing such signs, and instead is minimal with regard to actual grounded truth, bound by the observer and shared observation, in whatever dimensions may exist, which can be arbitrary and minimal in comparison to what the situation actually involves, and that to get at that depth and breadth requires N-dimensional panoptic modeling of various perspectives of pseudo-truth, methodologically evaluated and removed of known errors and running as a working hypothesis of reality, versus a default belief that observations in and of themselves are accurate simply by processing reality in particular frameworks and sharing experience... this can be empirically ungrounded, reliant on limits or errors, relativistic and must be accounted for to validate the modeling, yet linear language itself does not allow this, which is why modeling and diagrams are necessary, to stop the flow of time to delve into the concepts and evaluate their accuracy in terms of structures and frameworks and dimensions and dynamics, versus assuming a non-existent common understanding validates 'beliefs' when they are shared yet these observations do not inherently ground into the same structures, such that a [concept] could be interpreted multiple ways via its superposition, thus the issue of representation in terms of its variability, the instability of language, perhaps best noted by the error or typo which breaks the illusion of perfect transmission of theorized truth that does not actually exist beyond the observer in a limited framework, beyond external accounting. language itself is rigged, a game. it does not map to truth by default. it is corrupted, an image-based pattern-matching exercise that covers truth and replaces it by hollowing it out. it is surface-level evaluation, allows and requires this, unless logic cracks it open and demands truth be accounted for in these statements. otherwise it is friction-free ideology, believe what you will, find others, create your own perspective, etc. truth is underneath or accessed by this insofar as it is accurately referenced, yet it is almost tangential to the language, to the description needed to recreate the world through a constant requirement of story telling and context in order to say anything beyond the shared limited boundary, which is inherently tedious and inefficient and ineffective. in this way also, millions of lines of code and issues of how 'truth' of data is parsed, based on how it is represented in terms of signs, concepts, patterns, relational dynamics. --- not sure unicode-8 will render various signage, thus attachment included...