Recognised, not invented

To suppose something is recognised, involves that something already existing. Whereas, the invention of something does not presuppose of its existence; rather, it is made to be, via the act of inventing.

As has been outlined, elementary sanity consists in the recognition that truth exists. Hence, fundamentally, truth is something that is already in existence that the sane mind is forced to recognise it. The mind conforms itself to the reality of objective truth, which exists independently of the mind. Hence the mind does not invent 'truth', no matter what some may claim.

For example, 1+1= 2 : this is a necessary fact that is not invented. Rather, it remains true, even if no one were to recognise it. It would be absurd to suppose its truth is 'invented'. For to claim this, is to suppose that it is not necessarily true in the first place. We do not make it true; it is already true; and all we can do is to submit our minds to its truth, and to the liberating rule of sanity. It is indeed necessary to consider it true if sanity is to be maintained; and claims to the contrary display deep-rooted insanity.

But, how often do we hear basic sanity called into question, by claims such as : "I'll decide what the truth is, and you have no right to point it out!". Whereas, in point of fact, no one can decide what the truth is! They can decide what they would want to be the case, but since when does an insane want amount to that want being true? And whereas, the one pointing things out could simply trying to awaken his dear friend from delirium. Picture a drug-addict who thinks he has life under control etc, whereas, in point of fact, he is clueless, and his friend is simply trying to point the truth out to him, for his own good.

Or "what is true for you is not necessarily true for me". Again, a fatal misunderstanding about the nature of truth, and a fatal demonstration of an insanity lurking beneath. 1 + 1 = 2 irrespective of what one subjectively may wish or hope for. Or to be less mathematical (but nevertheless, just as real), for example, the torture of an innocent child remains wrong, irrespective of what an insane person may think. Even if a deluded person does not recognise it as wrong, it is still true that it is wrong. His deluded thinking that it is right, does not make it so.

Of course, it must be conceded, that some things are true in reference to some, but not, in reference to others. One may like chocolate ice cream, another may not. Hence, concerning 'likes' as such, truth is centered on the unique individual. Nevertheless, on questions that concern the objective reality which exists independently of likes and dislikes, then truth is not determined by likes and dislikes. To use the example above, it may true that one has the absurd idea of 1+1= 3, and it may be true that this idea is held. One may like the idea that 1+1=3; one may want it to be the case. Be all this as it may, it does not make the claim itself true.

Bow in recognition of the basic truths of reality, do not distort them, or refuse to recognise them. Or much worse, don't pretend to invent them, or make their reality contingent on what you think. For if your thinking becomes deluded, the basic truths of reality in fact do not change - they remain forever real.