Originally posted by LemonJello
I guess I do not really understand where you're going. You started out asking something like "If P, then is it a fact that P?" or something along those lines. The answer is yes because if the supposition is that P is true, it follows that the proposition P picks out a fact. That seems straightforward to me.
But then you seem to indicate it may not ...[text shortened]... the proposition references a subjective state of S). I guess I do not see any problems here.
I will have to read your post again before responding ,(or trying to respond properly), but I guess what I was trying to get at is what Huxley described as people seeking the "good,beautiful,true" in a (spiritual) "true" sense. (Seeing an objective reality and calling it "the Truth" where it really is just an observation of there and then, and even then subject to all manner of other linguistical problems presented by the simple terms-beautiful,good,true. There seems to be a paradox at work here)
So he's saying that there is no such thing as the beautiful-good-true in any absolute sense, and it is only an opinion based on their interpretation of reality.
It's bad to drop a rock on my foot, but is it really? Is it possible to attain absolute truth ,(in an experiential way), while still adhering to the universal laws that we must all work with.
(For you lay people gravity is a universal law on our planet (more or less), whereas the interpretation of the Bible,for example 😀, is only an opinion, no matter how sound an opinion. )
So I'm thinking, according to my interpretation of Zen and other literature, that what I perceive as bad is only bad for my ego and may actually be good for my "soul".
I'll give it some more thought, please excuse this blathering.