Oh, I see. Well then, I can't interface nor understand the site. Far more reasonable than I anticipated. Ah well, shenanigans of excrement paintings of obesity presently engaged in shenanigans
.

Ah man, don't put yourself down like that. It goes like this, the moderators are honored and appreciate such privilege with you as their father that they are in a debt that may not be repaid, however, you'll be satisfied if they take out the garbage this time.

It is in all seriousness that I observe your enlightenment. Party on good sir.

This is an interesting perspective and I find it intriguing, I must admit I've had notions that culminated in ruminations of much the same revelation after a fashion. Do tell, with what perspective have you gained the scope to create such an assertion?

I cannot truly engage here formatively except to say that I am guilty of using robust meanings heaped upon the word truth itself and I fully understand the usage in a lax droppage. Isn't it interesting however, that your meaning rings loud and true laid exposed for analyzing? It is just common knowledge that a word itself has a plethora of senses and transforms due to bearing in the relativity of context in its proximity. I'd have it no other way. As it creates far more versatility, and hey, if you're understood, where is the problem to be had truly? On the other hand, I understand having strict rigidly agreed-upon definitions allows building blocks for creation. However, if we may not destroy we are denied a wealth of creation itself. I'd like to insert some of the things I've written here on the subject, they might fit in nicely. I'll begin with my old writing, a lot of it doesn't need to be said in a forum of such caliber, and the other half is cliche understandings, yet I still feel the urge to share.

Our beliefs and even our values should be tentative. Leaving space for the unknown is necessary. New information just might replace, augment, or transform what we know. It is ok to be wrong and to change our opinion upon new information. This is a sign of maturity and the lack of an inflated ego. Someone that will not admit they are wrong is infatuated with being right, not the truth. Truth should be our goal. If truth is our goal, we feel gratitude for being corrected. We should practice intellectual groundlessness for the most part. A narrow view and the assertion of understanding without an ever-present driving force that is the search for truth is stagnation. The question itself; is the fiber of truth. When we stop asking and assessing, it’s because we feel that we have found an answer, maybe the answer. The practice of the search, that is what the essence of what truth actually is. This is never-ending. When we stop that search, we wouldn’t recognize the truth if it smacked us in the face. The question is the fiber of truth, because even if the question is tangential, it is always leading, and leading in the generally same direction toward truth itself if our analytics and ear for the ring of truth are adequate; because the very question was generated by our desire to accurately understand in the first place. I’m not saying it’s not alright to assert what we believe. As long as we have this understanding and drive, rendering our strongly held beliefs, values, and information tentative, even as they are presently held in that firm grasp by certain agreement. Because we all must start where we are, ever-present. Admitting how firmly our beliefs are held helps us to see exactly where we are, and continue to assess honestly with less bias. Because we then feel the force of that clinginess, and we can then analyze the merit of the clutching. Of course, if you can practice non-attachment with most all beliefs, values, and information, this groundless approach which is conducive to truth-seeking is more readily practiced. Not that an edifice -a foundation of seemingly certain knowledge cannot help but take form in the pursuit. The point is to not give up the quest and always start anew from where you are, looking back for flaws in those chains of belief. When new information, values, or beliefs are assimilated as veritable or demonstrably evident, that means we have to look back and contrast the new knowledge with what we already valued and agreed upon. Roots or core knowledge must be held dearly for this reason. We need to remember the cause of our adherence. Because our foundation might easily become an ugly mess if our understandings aren’t congruent, as some things actually do occlude the relevance of others. What’s more, if our values contradict themselves, arresting discord arises until reconciliation. Unless of course those values are not operative, yet if we authentically adhere to the veracity of value it can’t help but be operative in your conduct and perspective.

The next part is the desultory and extricated excerpts of some of my writing. I am sorry if I'm so selfishly myopic and I seek to hijack the conversation, feel free to ignore me, I'll take no offense. I call the thing Didactic Wanderings, and I hope you're tangentially wandering enough to enjoy it.

Whimsical Belief: The problem as I see it, Lost Hunt, are belief systems themselves. A belief may destroy an individual, a family, a culture, or even a nation… from riot to self-immolation, the perspective belief engenders wholly transforms our perception and is operative in our conduct. In my belief, it is responsible for the emergent motive.
Biological Shame: Belief might explain emergent motive while not speaking of the desires and needs of the body which drive us.
Radical Mystery Acceptance: It’s funny Whimsical Belief should point that out. I’ve been wondering what the position of “no belief” might be. How it would transform ourselves.
Pragmatic Reason: So, just strictly observable and demonstrable then? Nothing extra held?
Radical Mystery Acceptance: It would extract much of this chaos that Lost is worried about. If it’s not known as positive, it’s suspect, and then likely not so operative in behavior.
Gestalt Glean: This would do away with the concept itself would it not? Doing away with belief. Language itself. Nearly all conveyance is contrivances.
Whimsical Belief: It’s not just language itself; It’s persuasiveness, the ring of truth. The ring of truth enthralling our sensibility. If we were to do away with belief, we wouldn’t be able to tentatively position ourselves in alien positions to analyze for merit correctly. I’m not saying we could no longer consider things, but that our incredulous position would create rigid stigmatism therein. If we’re not willing to believe anything that isn’t known for certain, we wouldn’t be available to assimilate the tentative and follow tangents to discovery adequately. The truth is only as we define it, and if we aren’t mutable in our consideration and in the least slightly impressionable, our development is stunted in progression to grave stagnation.
Creative Truth: Truth is true whether we define it or not. Whether we believe it or not as well. It may only be as we define in that’s all we know of it, but what is unknown still has an effect. Real and present cause, the observation of which just might lead to more definition.
Aesthetic Nurturance: Ah but doing away with belief would strike delusion along with it. There would be much less senselessness in actors. Striking belief would give a base of truth itself, what is, more apparent and unsullied.
Fantastical Reconciliation: So, since we in the least seem to agree to the position of no belief would be interesting, how might it be accomplished.
Tenuous Comprehension: We are inundated with propositions for belief constantly. Incessantly being proffered with opinion and worldview. We are steeped in a market of persuasive language. Would no belief be a stubborn oppositional defiance disorder? Or mere denial?
Radical Mystery Acceptance: I believe it would take the form of a lack of investment. Belief -well, some belief, has a clingy nature. So, non-attachment with its sticky action. If we simply aren’t concerned with what isn’t known as positive, it wouldn’t enthrall us into a state of persuasion. If we remain pragmatic with an eye only for concrete understanding alone, we would sidestep exposure for acceptance in the first place.
Peaceful Oblivion: This might be done with a meditative state. The practice of taming your mind.

...

Heuristic Certainty: Let’s not forget the weight values have on motive as well. Every motive has a goal and it is the value itself that spurs the pursuit. The attribution of worth is selected due to taste or utility. I’ve found that while I know not what to do with the role formative experience has in the development of selection, the flow of selected value may eventually have sway with the inexorable ebb of a new belief.
Indelible Memory: Nothing may be done with how we’ve found ourselves downstream in the past However, we may always start where we are with further reflection which might take radical unlike form than our previous consideration thereby shaping our present and future formative experiences in transforming light.
Only Counterpoint: I don’t see how this would make the Truth more evident. Yes, it would cut out some noise. Render our sensory relaxed without added monologue. Yet, when speaking of truth, you need a subject. Unless it is a personal memory of an event and even then, sometimes, a subject almost necessarily brings with it belief on the matter. Without a subject, truth is a latent amorphous amalgam that’s been homogenized into “what is”. So, if you desire non-duality “what is” by all means, consider nothing.
Creative Truth: It is my belief that Truth, no matter the subject is absolute. However, we’re dealing with subjectivity, and relative to that the Truth is somewhat mutable due to subject, as the deeper you delve into subjectivity Truth may become facile considering objectivity.
Peaceful Oblivion: I myself have achieved objectivity to the extent one may. Although the Only Counterpoint is critical of thinking nothing, I cannot express how fresh it makes your experience. It is a calming reprieve. This non-attachment Radical Mystery Acceptance speaks of, I’ve found, that in the moment, I am absent of any belief to consider. Only gentle acknowledgment of existence. Mindfulness is solace, yet a meditative state might fatigue after a time. While it might be said that critical thinking is a muscle to flex and build, excessive meditation might be a detriment to it. I’ve found both go hand in hand if used appropriately, however. I suggest a practice of coordinating meditation and extemporized critical thinking when problem-solving is necessary. As meditation creates space in the mind to better objectify.
Only Counterpoint: As if subjectivity were responsible for chaos on the world stage.
Delinquent Hardship: Subjectivity or the perception of a consuming organism vying for resource and prestige might very well be a listed reason for chaos. While it wouldn’t be at the top of my list, that nature of the beast that is chaos hardly lets you rule out a culprit.
Amplitudinous Examination: What might be at the top of the list Delinquent Hardship? We could identify belief in need of being struck down.
Absence Chasm: Why don’t you make your own list Amplitude?
Amplitudinous Examination: What I’d rather, is to know how Gestalt Glean believes language is struck while belief is struck.
Gestalt Glean: Meaning is contrived. A contrivance of agreement of shared concept. Language, beyond nouns, is merely a belief in the form of abstraction. If we didn’t believe in the form of concept and convinced it was shraed through recognition-response, we’d only have those nouns. The progression of recognition in conversation assures us of that sharing of form, however, language is a belief in intangible fabrication, and it is completely made up.
Amplitudinous Examination: If the concept is belief then all we know for certain is “what is” in the first place. The sensory experience. Yet, while we are feedback loops in response to our environment you might say we’re building upon our stimuli. Attributing meaning to our sensory intake. As you have said, Gestalt, language is agreed upon in recognition, I wouldn’t define it as a belief but more of a tool.
Gestalt Glean: I must admit I’m playing a bit of a troll. Yet, what do you build in an environment verbally besides a story? A narrative of which consists of meaning completely made up. Yes, not necessarily false, a story might be true or false. Yet, even down to who does the telling might merit its veracity or ostensible nature as it all comes down to perception. A concept, due to your own personal experience may- nay, likely is of an unlike conception to the next image. Our recognition is our own understanding and its more than a tool, it’s a belief that exact understanding is shared.
Spesiphically: Let me be specific. I can grant you even that much Gestalt Glean, and still, what is not lost, is the nature of the concept itself. Conveyance has an essence of form that is not only recognized, it may not be mistaken, notwithstanding how the concept shapes relative to perspective.