Here I’m going to rephrase this truth claim as, “arising mental phenomena isn’t an accurate representation of reality”. Here’s why.

We here will be working from an idealist point of view, which itself can be factual if its conceptualization is properly articulated, and in doing so it asks of us to delimit certain caveats in order to fully express the intricacies of mental phenomena and their relation to the truth. We can only trust the content of our experience to the degree to which it is a representation of the truth, it always lies in relation to the truth. What the mind creates includes the totality of our experience, and is presupposed in the perception of scientific data, including its intention towards discovery, the application towards revelation, our intuiting the results, and the conclusionary remarks which stem from the scientific deduction of said results. The entire process is presupposing an understanding of the Being which we are, and of our perception system in its modification. The mental comprehension that is embodied through automatic intuition into the nature of phenomena is itself mediated by our perceptive system, it is not the actual experience of the content as it is in actuality. The only mental content which can be trusted as to accurately representing an aspect of reality, is mental content that concedes a framework of its manifestation in the conceptualization, or intuited pre-conceptual thought, which, I believe, isn’t explicit in a non-conceptual intuition or mental experience. The ability to conceptualize a framework which relates the infallibility of conclusive claims as to content as it is perceived, must contain some form of linguistic representation in order to make explicit that a framework is being operated within in the truth-claim of its content. For example, the mental phenomena which arises in conscious experience which has the content of non-exclusionary claims, such as the experiencing of the visual field, and intuits seeing an object as it is “in itself” doesn’t take into account the limiting ability of our visionary capacity to see the other characteristics which make up the object in itself, or the being which it is, the experience towards which the object is embedded within. In the making explicit of the caveats which course through such an experience, phenomenologically, we can create mental content that can be trusted to a higher degree than our initial intuitions. The recognition of the phenomena, explicitly, such as, “the experience of the gaze of conscious awareness towards the visual content as it is perceived by the being which I am, made an object appear to exist in a manner which oriented my being towards a certain making sense of the object in my intuition of what it is”. In this manner we recognize the experience from the perspective which it is embedded within, recognize the absence of the thing in itself, and properly frame mental content that is, itself, conceptual in nature, but a more accurate and trustworthy description of the mental phenomenon that occurred.

In our experience everything is presented into conscious awareness through the filter of the mind, tempered by an inherent value structure, and developed through internal representations of perceived content. It all is a representation of the actual phenomena in itself, not as it is perceived by our perceptive faculties, but as the faculties are modified in perceiving. The very presentation towards our embodied ability to receive sensory stimuli is modified in its uptaking as our organisms data set by a structure of evaluation in the perceive abilities. Secondly, the content which is perceived, which enters into the perceptual grasp of our embodied system, is itself modified by our value structure. This means, the content which is intuited as meaningful, is meaningful intuited after its uptaking into our orientation which is dependent on prior experience, genetic modification, our environment, learned instinctual response, and in turn we are naturally oriented towards a certain mode of being in relation to the digested datum which was perceived. Thirdly, the manner which we embody in relation to the perception and integration of our Being in relation to the perceived content, furthermore rarely makes its presence known to the gaze of conscious, and is filtered by the value system which we have developed (either covered, uncovered, consciously directed towards its development, or not) that “decides” if the content actually makes its way into conscious awareness. Fourthly, the content thus appearing, is itself filtered by the embodied system which is the totality of our Being, from a lower resolution image, by the very mode of being which is present in the acquisition of mental content in the moment of being consciously aware of it. One way or another, what we are seeing in our conscious gaze, that which arising in mental experience, that which is presented subjectively to us in our momentary awareness of the content in consciousness, has been modified multiple times, and the very system which lies at the basis of its modification, is itself limited in its scope and accuracy. Our biological organs which produce the initial inheritance of perceiving content is itself limited by necessity of evolved selection, and thus itself, in the first place, is not accurate, in totality, towards the actuality of the world as it is itself. What we react to is merely the trained response to the world as it is perceived, the world as we find it, as we are able to find it, in relation to ourselves, which are part of it. We act accordingly.

While this explains the process by which content is instantiated into the realm of consciousness, which our gaze can become aware of in its shifting from content to content, it also leads to the necessary formulation of created representations of embodied action and speech. IF the very content which we experience itself is only a fragment, or a piece, or a perspective, of the world as it truly is, how much more so is the representation of our being actualized in our speech and actions? We ought not trust the conceptualizations, the speech we utter, and if so, how much even more so ought we lack conviction towards the accuracy of representations of Being produced in the perception of interpersonal reactions? If the content of our own experience is heavily mediated before coming into conscious awareness, and the conceptualization, thoughts, ideas, speech, and actions, which henceforth are actualized, are themselves mediated by the structure of our Being which is wholly outside of our control, and wholly outside of what is most optimal, or what is most in-itself- the actuality of our being, how ought we to ever believe another person? We must solely conclude that we do the best we can, to the degree that we can, in understanding ourselves, in representing ourselves, in understanding reality, in representing reality, and conclude that the perception of others and our extrapolations of it as we perceive and analyze it, are the best intuitions we have to work with in relation to uncovering the actual truth. While these representations, often in the form of thoughts, intuitions, and conceptual descriptions, are fallible in their accuracy and are presupposing knowledge of our Being which, absent a clear phenomenological analysis, are wholly covered by what our conscious has been ingrained to relay to our conscious gaze, we can make use of that which is presented, and we can strive, to the degree we are able (based on experience, intellect, time, and competency), to move closer to an accurate representation of the truth, and an accurate representation of ourselves through authentic actions. While they always remain a degree removed from what is optimal, that which is produced by our understanding is the most optimal we have available to us in the given moment, the system of the totality of our Being which produces the content in the present moment, is necessarily the only thing we have, and it is, the best we currently have. The training, discipline, improvement, and optimization of perceptual systems, value structure uncovering and optimization which course through our experience, and the conscious directed skill and its actualization in concrete action and movement, speech, thought, etc. (Phenomenological Analysis of Conscious Direction, Value System Instantiation) all can be modified, the very being which we are, and its capabilities, can be modified. This modification can take place towards the goals and aims which we wish to actualize, for which we contain the potential of actualizing.

On the other hand, the accuracy of the internal representation which we experience in the moment, varies in degree to being more or less an accurate model of reality. The more knowledge and experience tempered by wisdom and insight, the more accurate representations we can “create”, or “arise as thoughts”, and the closer it is to the “truth” of the thing in itself, or the content of the idea as it actually is. We must merge both intellectualism and empiricism to a transcendental unity towards which the explaining of its characteristics are an entwinement of both systems of thought.

The arising mental formation stating “the content appearing in the mind, isn’t an accurate representation of reality” is itself a logically correct statement, and can be trusted. Mathematical and formal logical proofs, while arising in the mental gaze, themselves are infallible in being true, and can be trusted, for all intents and purposes (at least from our place in the universe where logic appears to be on solid ground – we cannot extrapolate to the totality of space and time, but merely can conclude in our corner of the universe it appears to be valid). But recognition of the temperance of our experience by the underlying cortical processing system is an insight which holds us to be fallible in our notions and ideas, which is truly beneficial for psychological growth and wellbeing, in moving us closer to the “truth” as well as – in Buddhist terminology – aiding us in removing delusion and keeping us in line with the dharmic universal truth of impermanence of phenomena.