*copy* *paste*

From what I believe:

The objective truth is that, for various subjective reasons, there is no objective truth, which is in itself an objective truth, proving the existence of at least one kind of objective truth. This neverending loop can be safely ignored. Within the context of reality, the objective truth is the sum total of all forms of subjective truths, not limited to humanity, or life, but all forms of existence. Right now I exist as a living human male, and I experience the subjective truths, or reality, of males, humans, and living things. However, that is not to say that nonliving objects do not also have a subjective truth - it's just that, to us, they have no "view". The context of whatever produces a "view" is missing from inanimate objects. So all things have a subjective truth to them, and the sum total of all subjective truths is the objective truth.

That would seem to suppose that there are things from which to draw a sum-total. However, this is not so. The things that exist for certain can be narrowed down to one: yourself. Cogito ergo sum. This, too, is arguable, because reason isn't necessarily a valid system, but I haven't thought about that one too much, and I'm not sure I can. Anyway, if you are bothering to interact with the world around you, you acknowledge the importance of the world outside of yourself. The world outside of yourself has an importance to you that is equal to the amount of energy you invest in responding to it. So, whether or not it is real, it is important.

Draw back for a minute. What is perfect cannot be imperfect by definition. Therefore, all that exists, which is you, is perfect. Theoretically, one day you eat oatmeal. The next, you may decide you dislike oatmeal and remove it from your diet. However, there was a response to oatmeal, and therefore an importance to oatmeal. A lack of investment in something would seem to be contrary to the view that you are perfect, which is the sum-total of all things important. However, perfection is static and singular. Since perfection is the sum-total of all subjective realities, then contained within perfection is the subjective reality of time and change. Time and change as experienced by yourself are mechanisms by which perfection may be viewed in slices, as incomplete. You are perfect, but perception of time tends to interfere with that realization. So in the case of the oatmeal, you have always liked the oatmeal, and you have always disliked the oatmeal, because perfection, the sum-total of all views, is static.

Also, the breadth of your perspective that extends across "time" is similarly perfect in that it is a limited system, and limited systems are perfect within themselves.

Pie. Mental break.

Okay. Limited systems are perfect within themselves in that any input fed into the system is limited by the system itself, and only reflects the system. Think domain and range on the graph of an equation. So even if you tell me something new, I will interpret that as it is my nature to interpret it. There is no other way for me to understand it than in my own fashion. Even were my views to change, they would still change according to me. Again, cogito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am. I am alone in my existence. Therefore, I am omniscient of myself, it's just that the mental representations I use to amuse myself (that would be "you" and everything "outside" myself) bring me to my own further realizations about myself. Even these realizations are just reflections of myself anyway, bringing myself closer to a realization of my own perfection.

Obviously, so-called entities outside myself are engaging my interest right now, because I'm bothering to write a response to this, so I am assigning an importance to them. So despite their reality outside of myself, they are important. Furthermore, due to time and change and the ideas of distinctions, it is possible to invest energy into anything. Everything is important, and everything has the capability to be realized as part of perfection by the limited system.

Take a rock. In being acknowledged as important, you are acknowledging the possibility of being included in a point of view larger than the rock itself, being the limited system. However, you are also acknowledging the rock, because if two limited systems don't acknowledge anything on similar grounds except for the rock, there is something unique about that rock that both systems agree on. Two limited systems may be compared operating on grounds somewhat outside of the limitation of time - that is, comparing two points in time.

So everything does have a subjective reality.

And the Truth is all of this. Limited and unlimited systems.

And to answer your question no, none of this matters. The Truth is outside the context of humanity, and therefore useless to us. Now if you're asking for human truth, then things get interesting. I have no real working system to explain human truth. Although I did start thinking of working on that...

*written in response to Daria's xanga post, making me too late to go to the bank and deposit a check. All to reach the conclusion that none of it matters.

Also, this theory is shaky in some places.