The World As-Is
Our truths come from our interaction with the world as-is. The world as-is can be said to be Absolute Truth independent of us or our knowledge. We can see parts or glimpses of Absolute Truth “within-context” of our interactions.
The evidence for Absolute Truth is the smaller truth that we reach using our interaction with the world and the way these interactions are expressed (which themselves are truths).
One aspect to consider is the world as-is includes humans “as-is.” That is to say, you live your whole life with the world “as-is” and you’re included in that definition.
How you separate yourself from the world “as-is” is your ability to create context. This context is naturally blooming from our being. Our human capacity (ability to form abstract thoughts, ability to stitch those thoughts together using reason and logic, and a natural want to satisfy the will we have to escape bewilderment and seek comfort).
The world “as-is” is physical. There are mathematical principles that orient the physical and pushes it forward following pattern. We can chase the patterns and extract the physical so that we just have the “bare bones’ of the physical world. But we only know these principle “within-context.”
“within-context” is a spiritual/metaphysical/essence based reality.
Did I lose you?
“Within-context” is where God, the soul, morality, physics, mathematics, philosophy, your awareness, free will, music, literature, friends, art, games, life, pleasant smells exists and everything else you know.
Now it’s all make believe in the world “as-is” because all those things are just make believe in ourselves. There could be a God in the world “as-is” but we would only understand God “within-context.” The same sentiment can be said of everything else we understand.
The hard sciences, the soft sciences, math, grammar, UNO, baseball are only real “within-context.” But these are contexts with very strict and adherence rules to the world “as-is.”
We are judges and law makers in these contexts. Physics sets out goals “within-context” and those goals can only be achieved if you follow the rules that exist “within-context.” The judges of these contexts (peer-reviewers, referees, umpires) can be corrupt, or they can be honest. They can misinterpret the rules or misinterpret the world “as-is.” But they all exist as part of the world “as-is” and refer to the world “as-is” for the truths they seek.
Physics and chemistry are “within-context” but the goal that surrounds the context aims to achieve truth without subjectivity. And this is somewhat accomplished in these disciplines. Actually, it could be said that subjectivity in most instances of these activities is removed and objectivity is concentrated. But this is done by trivializing other instances of “within-context.”
If you’re a human being practicing physics at whatever level, you are entering “within-context” of physics but you don’t escape the “within-context” of every other context that makes you you. You’re still an existential entity with certain wants, desires, wishes, needs, expectations, goals, etc.
If you’re a 5'10", 220lbs, tango dancer, vegetarian, woman, lesbian, when you’re practicing physics, you’re “within-context” of physics and you ignore everything else that can be said of you “within-context” because those other things aren’t needed for you to achieve the goals of physics.
If you’re a French, Mandarin, English, Japanese speaker, when you speak English, you can ignore all the other languages you know or you can reference them in certain instances to communicate effectively. It doesn’t mean that “within-context” of English, you’re denying the other languages. It means that the context you find yourself in doesn’t need to reference all the other “within-context” you know.
Now you’re always within Absolute Truth. You are part of it. Your entire self. Your awareness, thoughts, physical and mental qualities. The world as-is exists within you. Absolute Truth exists within you. The same as it exists in a rock. But it can only be rationalized through you, “within-context.”
The key component of talking about “within-context” is that it allows you gain perspective of everything around you. You exist “within-context” of math, physics, biology, chemistry, sociology, society, the economic model your society exists in, your religious beliefs, your philosophical beliefs, your mental limits, your wants, etc.
Some of these contexts are hard to dismiss. It’s hard to dismiss the solutions that math and physics provide but you can choose to ignore those contexts.
It’s like knowing the concepts of French, Mandarin, English, and Japanese. Some things are lost in translation and can only be said in certain languages. But you choose to just speak English. It’s ignorant to the truths that can only be said in those other languages, but you can spend your whole life only speaking English.
The mathematician and physicist will slap their foreheads in frustration. HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT OUR METHODS REACH OBJECTIVITY! CAUSE AND EFFECT PRECISELY MEASURED IN THESE CONTEXTS!
It’s an existential choice which contexts you choose to embrace and which contexts you choose to give life to. Which contexts you decide to put your faith in. I don’t understand chemistry but I will put faith in modern Western medicine. Now this faith is more reasonable than faith in medicine that isn’t peer-reviewed and studied and accepted by various organizations and agencies but it’s still faith. Some people absolutely hate the word faith and will try to avoid it. It doesn’t change the context. These people have a distaste for the word faith because of the other context it’s used in; where a believe is completely dependent on faith in an unknown a lot bigger than my ignorance of chemistry.
To exist “within-context” means meaning. “Meaning” is something that only exists “within-context.” Language, grammar, games, science, etc only have meaning in context. Life only has meaning “within-context.” Meaning is in part derived from the phenomenological aspects of our existence. Our awareness of how our emotions and reasons are stirred with with our interaction with the world “as-is.” These interactions give rise to meaning and our reason and emotion push us to conclusions. From this we get order and expectations. To normalize this, we create rules and general wisdom. We create goals. And all this gives rise to context.
The nihilist argues that the world “as-is” has no meaning. Obviously this is the case. Meaning only exist “within-context.” The coins you get from playing a video game don’t mean anything out of context, but the objective is clear “within-context” if you want to play the game. The same concept applies to gold and money.
The nihilist is ultimately a hypocrite if they accept to live Life because Life is only viable if you decide to play the game. And to live you necessarily have to live “within-context” where meaning is unavoidable. The nihilist wants everyone to realize the world “as-is” is meaningless but for what?
The existentialist argues that “within-context” you’re forced to have free-will. You’re forced to decide. You’re forced to give meaning and prioritize the moments you exist to what you want to give life to. If you want to give life to science or math or a baseball game or a video game or a family or art. And in what context you want to be a part of those differents lives. You want to be a teacher of physics, a coach in baseball, a painter in art, teach your son math when he gets from from school.
The absurdist argues that any meaning “within-context” is ultimately meaningless in the grandeur scheme of the world “as-is.” And thus any narrative you tell yourself is not because you should or have to. But because you want to. You’re born a man in a particular culture and you’re told how to dress. It doesn’t matter in the world “as-is.” All this matters “within-context” and you can choose to accept that context or not. So you can live “within-context” acting and giving meaning to your man body however you please; even if it’s dressing as a woman. Or if you’re a lawyer, there’s no reason for you not dress like a firefighter or a chef (probably for cosplaying purposes; not for deceiving others). But if dressing up like a firefighter makes you feel a certain way, then reach that feeling by dressing up as a firefighter. You’re not being judged by anyone. Everything is meaningless without your input. CHOOSE THE MEANING YOU WANT.
The religious person says that Absolute Truth can be reached through faith alone. That knowledge can aide in knowing Absolute Truth, but that intuitive feelings guide us toward leaps of faith that connects to the ultimate reality; to God.
The cynic argues another thing. The atheist another. The mathematician another. The baseball player another. You choose to argue based on whatever context you put yourself in. But you can’t escape “within-context.”
It’s irrational because nature is irrational. Rationality only exists “within-context.”