the gusts, the pasture quakes bovines yelling in the wheatgrass the stink of flesh, stink of bile irises crushed, crackle of tiny bone colourful pulp flows down the grate drain the human shapes in pockets of dark in dust silhouette clouds hang over the Occident and a pangolin is roasted
The hills of Gondwana did not bear your hatred and split thereby. Nor did the species spread to your design, nor the arc of planets your geometry nor does your brain pump its heart for you, nor is a crimson skyline, the burning juniper, great canyon and the depth of wilderness perfect for your poem, your picture Those tears can never wet the desert, even the sun nukes skin. Even life is a metaphor for death and all written words, the colours on blank, a secret reconciliation with that death Yet still
Truth is fundamentally a judgement. A judgement on relations, an event, an idea, etc. So, Truth presupposes a judging being. There exists no Truth in the world as if it is an object waiting to be discovered. It has no "objective" existence because a judgement existing outside of a judger is absurd. A judgement is based on a way of understanding, or in other words, a knowledge-base, a set of principles, a rationale. In Thomas Kuhn's 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he claims that the determination of scientific facts needs a paradigm (a way of understanding), which enables the interpreting of data in order to find what is relevant from what is not - allowing facts to be established. Without the paradigm there is no way to order information; everything is relevant; interpretation has no aim; there's no way to judge. Likewise, Truth requires a paradigm in order to be declared as so. Using a generic example, there are two paradigms: Religious and Scientific. (Think of Classic Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics for something more interesting). The religious paradigm contains a world-view (another way to think of paradigm). It is set by specific beliefs and practices and values. Accordingly, it has a way of determining what is true from what is not. Science also contains a world-view. It determines its own version of truth based on its specific criteria. Which one of these paradigms is true? This requires a paradigm which not only has to contain the two mentioned but also another that transcends them. And is this paradigm true? This requires another paradigm. And is this paradigm true? This requires another paradigm... This does not mean there is no Truth, or that it is relative. The language we use to make these concepts (subjective/objective, relative/absolute) and the inherent logic of the concepts does not capture the full resolution needed to accurately talk about Truth. Any many other things. Truth has utility - not only for making sense of a complex world but also for guiding us. Ultimately the pragmatic approach is the only viable option when facing infinity.