Have you ever felt overwhelmed by the sheer complexity of understanding reality? We live in a time when absolute truths are slipping away, yet we’re still searching for solid ground beneath our feet. What if, instead of chasing a singular, elusive truth, we embraced a multifaceted approach? A way to see truth through different lenses that complement and strengthen one another?
In this post, I propose a five-layered model of truth: Subjective, Pragmatic, Social, Ethereal, and Relational, as a powerful framework for engaging meaningfully with the world. Each layer addresses the inherent limitations of our perception and cognition, while honoring the depth and diversity of human experience. By combining these lenses, we can build a nuanced, adaptable, and actionable model of reality that navigates the complexity without falling into the trap of absolutism.
Let’s dive into each layer, exploring how they work independently and together, empowering us to engage with reality in richer, more effective ways.
Subjective
Subjective truth is the realm of direct experience of thoughts, feelings , perceptions and personal interpretations. It’s the reality that is undeniably real to each of us whether or not it accurately reflects the external world. The experience of typing, feeling the texture of keys beneath my fingers or tasting a sip of coffee is all subjective. This is the truth of my inner world, real to me though not necessarily reflective of any “absolute” external state.
Subjective truth provides us a unique portal into reality, a kind of baseline certainty. Knowing that I’m experiencing something even if that “something” is a construct brings me one step closer to engaging with the world in a meaningful way. Yet there’s an inherent limitation: my subjective truth is always mediated by my senses’ interpretations and projections. It’s a “crude reflection” of reality as subjective experience doesn’t give direct access to actuality.
Projections
Subjective truth doesn’t merely relay sensory data; it’s layered with projections. These projections are the lenses through which we add meaning, value and interpretation to our experiences. When I see a car I don’t just register its form; my mind overlays a label, perhaps thinking “good-looking car” or “luxury vehicle.” These labels aren’t present in the car itself; they’re projections of subjective judgments.
Language values and moral judgments are all forms of projection. They allow us to organize and communicate experiences but remain detached from actuality. For instance concepts like “good” and “evil” do not exist in a vacuum or in the nature of things; they exist in our minds as interpretative tools providing us with a framework to navigate life’s complexities. It’s essential to remember that these projections are not objectively “true” but are subjective layers added to give personal or social meaning to reality.
A common trap is assuming our projections, labels and judgments are universal truths. While they provide utility and structure in a subjective sense they do not define actuality. “Good ” “beautiful ” or “just” are concepts that carry meaning in human interactions but don’t represent inherent qualities in the things we perceive. For example labeling a meal as “delicious” adds a personal layer to a reality that doesn’t inherently contain the quality of “taste.” Recognizing this gap between projection and the world allows us to be more discerning in our interpretations.
To effectively build a model of the world we must balance the insights gained from information as it is and subjective truths. Objective truth grounds us in reality providing structure and pattern while subjective truth offers immediacy and personal significance. Projections give our experiences meaning but must be held lightly to avoid mistaking our interpretations for actuality.
Pragmatic truth
For me There is a set of strategies that I use to refine my model of reality to try and temper the messy nature of our understanding of reality and it takes the form of three c’s. Coherence correspondence and convergence. Essentially by using these the beliefs that you will hold on the output of them will be internally consistent supported by evidence and reflect diverse perspectives. This way of looking is not the ultimate and not even the full picture of which truths that we could care about but they do give you a lens that can cut through a lot of the bullshit that people use to justify faulty beliefs.
Logical coherence
Assumptions
1: The universe has a certain coherent structure
2: This coherence means that no contradictory statements can be made in the construction of a model
3: From this we use the rules of logic to arrive at true statements about the universe
Advantages
You can just use your mind to arrive at truths about the world
You can fairly quickly cut the size of possible models by discounting contradictions.
The only problem I can think of requires certain metaphysical claims about the universe to be true. Maybe the universe is fundamentally incoherent over vast distances or time scales. Maybe two opposing things can be true at the same time. Idk if this is a good claim against using logic but i think it’s useful enough and i rely on the assumption that beliefs about the world cannot be contradictory. It takes on a lot of the rules of logic. (which i won’t get into because there are plenty of good resources out there). This all saves you time because if there is one “true” set of words that could be said to describe reality when there are contradictory beliefs in front of you one or the other or neither or both are true. And it’s up to you to try and figure out how they fit together in a coherent manner.
When I receive information this Is what I look for first. Are they pushing forward a flawed argument and are they coming to conclusions that don’t make sense in comparison to the presumptions? Are they committing any logical sins? Do they contradict themselves? If so, you can disregard it. The purpose of this method of truth is to give you a first line of defense against bullshit information. It’s not perfect as there are many arguments which are logical but not legit but it does allow you to filter out a lot of noise so that you can better spend your time verifying stuff that has a chance of being true.
An example would be “John played the best game of basketball ever because he wore his lucky shirt”
This is a flawed argument because it doesn’t follow that the lucky shirt meant he played well. He played his best game because he spent many hours practicing so that he may do better. The lucky shirt may have given him a minor confidence boost but it’s not the sole reason he played well.
Another would be “Americans have more heart disease debt and incarceration than any other group in the world therefore being an English speaker causes you to be an unhealthy criminal”
This argument is significantly flawed although the presupposition is true the conclusion that being an English speaker doesn’t follow from that fact. The causes of heart disease debt and incarceration are far more varied and nuanced. Although being an English-speaking American means you are more likely to express these things doesn’t mean it causes them. If the conclusion was true then Canada and the UK would also express these same problems when in reality they don’t.
The main pro is if you’re good at it you can cut out a lot of noise and remove a lot of bullshit out of your mind before you invest your time in verifying it.
The main con is there is a lot of stuff that can be logically consistent but also ends up being completely false being predicated on bad data or grand assumptions. It also relies on you being good at logic and doing so in real time most people are not practiced in the ways of the Vulcan.
I am no master logician so if you are interested in using this technique I suggest investing your time in learning it from people online or taking a course in it.
Correspondence
This takes on the assumptions of science and tells you to test beliefs against experiences of the world. In effect what you are trying to do is create the circumstances by which you can falsify some belief about the world to test it against reality. If repeated enough and replicated enough you would be able to say whether or not a particular belief is more or less likely to be true.
Assumptions
1: everything in the universe can be explained by its material and energy
2: there are natural causes to everything in the universe
3: evidence can be gathered from the natural world and be used to learn about the causes
4: there is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world
Advantages
It produces very good answers to the material causes of things and produces models that are quite accurate at predicting the behavior of different systems.
Problems
It really does remove the possibility of supernatural causes from the universe which could be true but are hard to prove even outside of this particular framework. It also has a-lot of difficulty in building a model around the qualities of things and much better at dealing with quantity.
The process looks a little something like this:
1: Ask a question about something you observe or hear about in reality
2: Do background research to learn what is already known about the topic being careful to find unbiased and repeated research
3: Construct a hypothesis
4: Construct an experiment to test the hypothesis
5: Analyze the data from the experiment and draw logical conclusions being careful to identify any biases you may have brought with you
6: Share the hypothesis Data and conclusions with others so they may test and verify your results to ensure you are presenting truth
Here is an example.
1: What Shape is the Earth?
2: After researching various reputable sources including NASA PBS Wikipedia and university websites I’ve learned that the Earth is best described as an oblate spheroid. It’s essentially a sphere that’s slightly flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator due to its rotation.
3: While there are mountains and ocean trenches that create some variation in its surface, the overall shape is remarkably close to a sphere.
4: Evidence Supporting a Spherical Earth:
Lunar Eclipses: During a lunar eclipse the Earth casts a circular shadow on the moon indicating a spherical shape.
Circumference Measurements: Eratosthenes’ ancient experiment and modern methods using satellites confirm the Earth’s circumference is consistent with a spherical shape approximately 40 000 km.
Direct Observation: From high altitudes such as in an airplane or spacecraft the curvature of the Earth becomes visible.
5: Conclusion
Based on the evidence from lunar eclipses circumference measurements and direct observation along with the consensus among scientific sources I conclude that the Earth is approximately a sphere with slight flattening at the poles and minor variations due to its surface features.
The main pro is that if you can do it well it is a very reliable method to find out what is real and we built the modern world because of it.The main con is you must have the time money and will to do the tests and gather the data and you need to be smart enough to interpret the data to come to rational conclusions. There are questions that cannot be answered as to test them would take too long or the evidence has degraded for some reason. So you can’t rely solely on this method but it is very useful when it comes to determining what is really.
Convergence
This takes on the assumption that since reality has a way that it is in itself and that there is a method at arriving at an understanding about it. People who seek that understanding in good faith should arrive at similar beliefs. The point of this method is to save some time in the search for truth. There are plenty of people in all sorts of domains of knowledge that are seeking a better way of modeling the universe and to ignore all of that would be silly. It really shouldn’t be the only method that you use but we are busy humans and it helps.
The main methodology follows a few steps and it’s easier than the other methods but still takes effort to avoid bias and echo chambers. Firstly you need to find the nerds who have spent their whole lives studying whatever knowledge it is you are seeking. Look for credentials, projects , accomplishments and papers that these people have created and ensure they are good. Seek diversity as well not only the giga nerds but also all the people who contradict the norms and challenge conventional thinking. Also consider the context around these people and if they have a track record of being more or less biased towards their emotions or money. Consider where they are being paid from and if that would be impacting what they say and why.
Next once you have gathered a bunch of diverse perspectives you need to do a bit of thought triangulation to arrive at the truth that they are all pointing at. Look for patterns and areas of agreement in the sources as the shared conclusions are what we are looking for here. Figure out why data and opinions conflict and on which layer of thought that conflict is coming from. Is it because of hatred or jealousy, greed or malevolence or is the answer really unknown? There could be many biases that impact the information that you gather. Then once you have sat with and considered the data from a bunch of perspectives you can finally try to synthesize what you have learned into a belief that you can hold as true with a degree of confidence in relation to the sources you chose. That synthesis incorporates lessons from the coherence as well as basic critical thinking skills and it’s important to consider but not be blinded by the credentials of people.
Finally of course you need to ensure you don’t fall into a couple of traps that come along with this method. The biggest being confirmation bias and echo chambers. Sometimes we agree because we don’t know and we defer to the greater being of humanity whether it be a tribe, community or nation. In small quantities this is fine and it’s usually good because it saves you time of retreading old ground. But if isolated and ignorant enough people get together and believe in something then that whole system of people becomes ignorant and thus loses a little grasp on reality. This is why diversity of opinions is important. You want convergence to work across dozens of tribes, ethnicities , nations and motivations. The broader that is the less likely you are to fall in such a trap.
You do to a certain extent have to bias yourself against extreme outliers. Especially when it’s about very known topics. This is a delicate balance because sometimes the herd is false and you need to take in such radical approaches. But you also need to stop yourself from being overwhelmed by the nonsense that exists out there.
The more contradiction between diverse sources on a given topic means that people don’t have a clue what is actually going on but in the absence of truth humans tend to generate an answer and run with it so you will still have many people boldly claiming answers to questions. It’s just important to recognize this to ensure you remain impartial when you can’t know a thing.
Coherence Correspondence and Convergence in Concert
These three approaches to truth have been around for quite some time but I’ve never seen them presented together as a whole. I see these three working together to mitigate the weaknesses and bolstering the strengths of each other to create a greater whole of an approach to understanding how the world actually is. Coherence is like a skilled conductor ensuring that all your beliefs play well with each other. It demands logical consistency identifying contradictions and inconsistencies to eliminate false ideas. Correspondence is similar to a musician tuning their instrument to an external standard correspondence that anchors our beliefs in empirical evidence. It encourages us to test our ideas against the observable world ensuring they align with reality. Convergence is like a choir harmonizing voices to create a richer sound. Convergence seeks consensus among diverse perspectives. By examining various viewpoints and identifying areas of agreement it helps us filter out individual biases and uncover shared truths.
Then together they create such wondrous truth that works together to know the world. When you observe the world through these methods the beliefs that come out the other side should be logically consistent, reflect reality and be agreed upon by many. It should leave you in a place with a much more nuanced understanding of the world and give you some resilience against misinformation.
There are a few more categories of truth that must be explored however so we mustn’t slow down, we need to explore them to get a richer view of what is going on. So what’s left? Social Ethereal and relational. These have a decidedly different feel as to the first two categories and are even harder to pin down but they are part of the space.
Social truth
This emerges when two or more people come together and collectively agree on a concept giving it a shared meaning and reality independent of any experiential truth. These truths exist in the realm of shared perception and rely on communal reinforcement gaining legitimacy as they are collectively upheld. Unlike other forms of truth that aim to reflect actuality or our personal subjective world, social truth thrives on consensus shaping how we perceive and interact with the world together.
One of the most relatable examples of social truth is money. Money itself has no inherent value; it’s just paper coins or digital code. But as a society we agree that it represents value and can be exchanged for goods and services. By accepting this construct we collectively transform a piece of paper or a digital entry into something powerful and desirable. In this shared framework we treat currency not as a physical object but as a unit of value, a social reality we live by working for and sometimes even center our lives around. Without this agreement money is meaningless; with it money can drive economies, influence social status and dictate the terms of our daily lives.
The implications of social truth are profound. Because these truths are based on shared belief rather than intrinsic properties they highlight the human ability to collectively shape and reshape reality. Social truths allow us to build shared systems from legal frameworks and cultural norms to value systems that make cooperative living possible. Concepts like trust, honor and justice emerge from these shared agreements grounding our societies in values that are upheld and reinforced collectively. At its best social truth empowers us to shape our world creatively and collaboratively to build a civilization that reflects our ideals and intentions.
But social truth is also inherently fluid as it is based on the collective will and imagination. This can be freeing, opening doors to rewrite norms and reimagine structures. However because it depends on consensus social truth can also constrain established norms becoming so ingrained that they start to feel unchangeable. Money for example, though agreed upon as a tool of exchange, can also become a measure of worth or success impacting personal identity and social hierarchy in ways that may feel oppressive. Recognizing the arbitrariness of social truths can be liberating; it shows that many of our most ingrained beliefs are malleable and that by challenging them we can open up new ways of being and relating to each other.
In this way social truths are both a testament to human creativity and a reminder of our collective power. They show that we are not mere products of an uncaring world but active participants in constructing our shared reality. We can break down social constructs that no longer serve us and build new ones that reflect evolving values. Understanding this gives us a choice: to simply live within established social truths or to consciously reshape them knowing that in doing so we create new realities for ourselves and for future generations. We are unbound!
Ethereal truth
Ethereal truth concerns overarching claims about the fundamental nature of reality itself, questions that often lie beyond the realm of verification. These truths are elusive and are frequently used to lend weight to social norms or moral frameworks. Because ethereal truths are by nature ungraspable and difficult to pin down, they invite the broadest forms of belief, imagination and even control. They operate in a space where reason meets mystery offering explanations that satisfy existential curiosities or provide grounding for complex unresolvable questions.
Take for instance the question Is there a god? Religions and belief systems worldwide have built extensive doctrines based on this question shaping countless cultural and moral landscapes. Not only do these beliefs affirm the existence of a god or gods but they often go further attributing intentions, emotions and judgments to these deities. Such claims though personally meaningful and historically influential remain unverifiable. They become the basis for moral or social expectations creating frameworks of meaning that guide human behavior but often rest on a foundation of assumption rather than evidence. While these beliefs may foster community and offer solace they can also exert control using unverifiable premises to enforce specific norms or expectations.
It’s essential then to approach ethereal truths with a critical eye. When faced with such claims it’s helpful to determine whether they contribute to your own pragmatic model of truth, something actionable, personally meaningful and aligned with your values. If the claim cannot be integrated pragmatically, consider an agnostic stance acknowledging that some questions simply do not have answers within our reach. Rather than accepting these unverifiable truths at face value examine the social or moral codes they propose on their own terms independent of any ethereal justification. If the ethical or social claim is sound it can stand without speculative backing; if it relies solely on unverifiable grounds it may merit skepticism.
While I take issue with basing moral or social norms on these ethereal truths alone I recognize their deep personal significance for many people. Ethereal questions fulfill a psychological and existential need to find meaning in the vast unknown. This search is part of our nature and these beliefs can provide comfort and a sense of purpose. But we should approach these beliefs carefully ensuring that we understand why we hold them and what assumptions underpin them. By examining the foundation of our beliefs and the social codes they support we strengthen our own understanding and decision-making.
In essence the key with ethereal truths is not to be led astray by grand unverifiable claims. Rely on pragmatism to determine the actionable aspects of reality remain agnostic on unanswerable questions and judge moral claims on their own merits independent of speculative truths. This approach keeps us grounded allowing us to engage thoughtfully with ethereal questions while staying connected to practical verifiable reality.