So... sometimes, people claim objective truths about metaphysical questions. Like, "god exists", "jesus is the saviour", or "the universe is conscious".

I can connect to some of those, and not to others. If I just hold up one, and deny the other, conflict arises, because objective, universal truths can not all be true at the same time. Plus, since they're metaphysical, they're neither verifiable not falsifiable, so no one can prove anything to the other person.

Because of this (among other reasons), for a very long time, I have favoured a concept of truth that is more subjective. Where it is my truth, or your truth.

Of course (and this is not especially new either), I cannot but claim this as an objective truth. So the conflict just changes levels: Instead of fighting over whether god exists, I fought over whether there are objective, universal truths or not.

The fact that over time, I came to the buddhist-y view that metaphysical truths cannot really be conceptualized, didn't help a lot in that respect (it helped in many others, though, and it simply feels true to me). Whenever I'm talking, I'm conceptualizing, and when I'm conceptualizing, I tend to generalize and create abstractions which sound an awful lot like claims to objective truth.

I tried to only talk about personal experiences. That didn't help either, because it didn't take long until I found myself generalizing again. It's just the way the mind seems to work - my mind, at any rate.

But is this really so important? Is it a problem to state objective truths that aren't objective at all? I could dive joyfully into the paradox, or just shut up. (Okay, I couldn't actually do the latter, I'm afraid.)

Whenever I was able to be in the Now and empathize with the person in front of me, those problems simply didn't arise. So currently, I really think the only thing that can bridge the gap is empathy.