The Truth and it's capability to have typos

If a predisposition to a state of mind is false by logic, it is a disorder. By false, it is implied as a disposition to behaving incorrectly. By incorrect behavior we imply that the person or thinker may act in a way that is unhealthy to others, whether or not all people see this behavior, or experience this behavior would not be known to each person at the same level of observation. as that exists in your mind, there are several things to consider: 

1. Is logic the answer?

2. Does it matter?

3. Is ignorance an excuse or a right?

4. Does language warp your opinions?

5. Does the truth rely on language?

6. How many times have you heard the truth?

7. Do you understand what the truth is?

8. Does the truth hurt?

As it sits, the truth is not necessarily a fact. But as the truth exists to each person, it is a fact that there is a truth to that situation per personal endeavor, group consciousness, or collective, or individual situation.

As delusion is available to being interpreted as a right, there is no chance it is correct thinking. To prove delusions as false, we need to understand the word 'deluded'. As a deluded person convinces themselves they may be wrong, they usually go insane. Even though by definition, as the word 'delude': to be delusional; or to be wrong and believe you are right, is the exact definition of why logic is correct. Next, we will discuss religious delusion.

If we or you or them or the other person were to sit still and observe their surroundings, one would understand how simple life truly is. If there are things you don't know about life, maybe scientifically, which includes chemistry, and through philosophy includes deconstruction, which by logic is how you disseminate how an object got there, wherever that is. Through the internet, these things are readily available at a moment's notice.

Doctrine requires indoctrination, which is a religious term used to indoctrinate a person into a dogma or a set of rules to follow. The main understanding about dogma is that it is a belief system and that requires believing there is an enemy to your belief system because if there was, they are a threat to your dogma. If you disbelieve they are your enemy, what do you have?

If there is a single way to live, in the rightness of logical, right-minded, sane, self concerned thinking and behavior, while obeying the law, you are aware of being above common sense. Law is a different story and requires your participation for it to exist. As with any belief. If the Law isn't in your personal power to resist, most likely you will be arrested, depending on the country. So for instance, the term Above the Law is used when someone believes the Law does not apply to them personally. As it is, the Law is there to keep us safe, and in some countries, it is tyranny with bad leaders in the humanitarian spectrum of thinking and use orthodox religion to inflict the law on others, while other, free countries enforce law with the collective in mind as a social evolution and allow the people to think freely within the law when the law never says it. If the law were to say that, for instance, "free thinking is now legal?" it would people think they are always correct. The problem with most laws is the idea that they prevent free thinking. So if we were to understand what free thinking is, as it is meant by the definition itself, it means unconstrained by the environment, which includes your ability to move around freely, educate yourself freely, eat freely, survive within the law freely, obey social norms freely, and get to choose your future, freely.

As the truth, it is not up for debate. As it sits, the truth is absolute. Although it is fleeting, per situation, it is not debatable. Anyone can see the truth. Someone is smart enough when they have, as in with the proper level of intelligence can see at least partial truth in any situation, no matter what. All you need to do is educate yourself on the basics of how reality works. As an example, there is science, philosophy, social sciences, and anthropology and if needed world or national history. With those basic ways of seeing the world, a person of any intelligence that is capable of reading or listening and comprehending words can understand their own reality, which is not debatable to that person and should not be a debate with another person. Every person has a separate sense of perception, and as perception is a physical force in the human body, it does in fact prove itself as the individual process we call perception. There are, through my research, filters in perception. These filters prevent a person from acting a certain way. Subjectivity is not an illusion and neither is objective form, that is to say, you cannot act a way that you cannot act. That is called basic intelligence. This is usually a blindspot to a person or living being, as their entire body and life does not know what that looks like to itself. Though with enough emotional intelligence, a person can sense how they come across to another person and see themself in the reflective reaction of that person and will sometimes become extremely socially paranoid about why that person reacted that way. If they do not react against the persons predisposed understanding of themselves there is social comfort. The truth is not so scary but it is in fact hard to see sometimes.