Anything that is true, was true long before there was somebody to believe it. It also remains true if everybody ignores it or if there’s not a soul who cares. It’s still true when people oppose it through misunderstanding and even when people intentionally lie about it. None of these factors alter the reality of truth.
The truth about gravity for example was there before it was understood, despite not yet being discovered it was still there. Worlds on the other side of great oceans, tiny living creatures so small they’re naked to the human eye, the possibility of human flight, transmitting invisible data through the air, electricity, light-bulbs, radar, atoms, quarks, vaccinations, antibiotics, even long fresh cream doughnuts. All of these things were available for our use pending only the right know-how, long before we discovered them, understood them, or brought them into reality. People knowing, understanding or even believing a truth doesn’t effect its existence. All truths must exist before they can be found and even their existence itself must be predated by the truth of the possibility of its existence.
Context is the only variable. The ‘largest number’ in a data set might be X but the moment the data set changes the truth about the ‘largest number’, also, might have changed. “X is the largest number” then is a truth that only exists within the context of that specific data-set and therefore would be better defined as “X is the largest number in Y data set” if it’s a truth we intend on taking with us to new contexts. The moment the context changes the relevant truth may also change. The existing truth has not become false, merely the context where you’re looking for truth, has changed. The more specific we can be about any particular truth, the more refined, pure and functional we make the truth and therefore greater applicability and utility then exists. The more vague or unsure we are about a particular truth, the more difficulty we’ll experience in trying to utilise it in alternative contexts.
The reason why world records are date-stamped is because time itself is constantly changing the context. Just because Javier broke a record this year doesn’t mean Tony didn’t break the record last year. Things that are true can become were true once a little time has been added. Neither truth has changed, simply the context one is looking in.
Truth is self-revealing. Meaning the moment one’s looking in the right context, it tends to shine forth and stand out like a sun in it’s own little world. The ‘aha’ moments of life often being described a new-found perspective of an already familiar concept. As though the light has always been shining and despite having seen it many times before we’ve simply lacked the appropriate context to view it in that we might better appreciate it. It’s therefore only a question of sufficient exposure to relevant contexts, to find any particular truth. If a truth is insufficiently clear, one can pursue additional exposure through overlaying varying contexts or experimenting to obtain a clearer understanding of its function. The longer and more broad the exposure, the more obvious the truth can become.
Considering the truth is already out there and we’re constantly exposed to more than we can consciously handle, it’s debatably more helpful to pursue exposing ourselves to the truth instead of trying to expose the truth to ourselves. It’s common place that straight up lies, false ideas or simply even misunderstandings within ourselves, are keeping us from sufficiently relating with or appreciating new/more truth. I propose that refining the truth within us is potentially one of the best ways to prepare for and acquire new truth. Perhaps balancing the exposure of both the internal and external truths, allows us to eventually see the contradictions.
It’s for these reasons that truth requires no defence. It’s true whether people believe it or not. Defending it makes it no more or less true. Those that don’t want to bother finding it are at least pragmatically not ready to receive it. Those that do honestly want to find it, will be willing to experiment with the required exposure to obtain it. For these reasons any hostile argument is very debatably useful and I propose it’s nearly never useful to ‘argue’ truth. Debate it, sure, but the moment anybody is being contentious, walls are going up which means nobody’s really exposing themselves to truth anyway. It’s a pointless exercise in nearly all instances. Instead, love them. I don’t care if it’s cliche because it’s true. It’s my experience that loving people is the best way for everybody involved to be willing to engage in exposing themselves to truth and vice versa. Truth can never be forced in or out of us. We have to be willing to pick it up or let it go.
It’s also for these reasons that when we’re trying to bring our best selves into reality, it’s more about discovering preexisting truths related to our specific potential, than it is about needing to force something new into existence. Once we experience the light of those preexisting truths, it illuminates a path of possibility that has already begun unfolding, thus providing us with some starting momentum as well as the ability to begin moving confidently in a trusted direction.
Since those truths already exists, it’s just a matter of discovering where. And since those truths are specifically unique to us, they’re going to be connected to us in some way which means we likely already have access to a number of threads we can start pulling at that could lead us to those answers.
Impossible and inevitable both live on the same continuum with probability as the only differential. When it comes to finding the truths required for us to improve ourselves, that’s something that we have more influence over than we usually appreciate. In this realm, we hold the power to change the odds, tilt the favour and increase the likelihood. The deciding factor is usually more related to a determination to try than it is a determination of capacity to succeed. This is because in the trying, both odds and capacity, increase.