Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou're just creating a straw man.
That's not a great way of substantiating your bald assertion that 'There exists an ultimate truth that is reality'.
If I restate your sentence, I get 'reality is truth' or 'truth is reality', which I find tautological.
Take the entire assertion all together:
"Just that it isn't relative like many seem to believe. There exists an ultimate truth that is reality."
If you're going to restate it, then restate it in such a way that it captures the essence of the entire assertion.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe nature of "truth" is experiential and is related to all intentional activity carried out by whoever tries to find the so called "truth".
Is there a reality that is not reality?
Thus: no intentionality for such an action means no activity within the fundamental cognitive-experiential field of reality; and then, the potentiality of the so called "truth" to emerge into full experiential reality is out of order😵
Originally posted by black beetleI'm not sure because I found some of this worded awkwardly, but aren't you basically putting limits on what 'truth' can be and then drawing conclusions from that?
The nature of "truth" is experiential and is related to all intentional activity carried out by whoever tries to find the so called "truth".
Thus: no intentionality for such an action means no activity within the fundamental cognitive-experiential field of reality; and then, the potentiality of the so called "truth" to emerge into full experiential reality is out of order😵