Reality is the central and the single most foundational concept for my system.
The word "reality" is merely a symbol and can be used to refer to anything. I am not interested in what a language or a person or a society may choose to have the word "reality" refer to. The word itself is only a tool. I am interested in a particular concept that I make use of, whatever one wishes to call it. Throughout this exposition I choose to use the word "reality" to refer to this particular concept.
It is important to realize that I am writing about a concept, not a word. The concept is right here in my mind, there is no mistaking it; it is what it is. No error is possible when dealing with the concept.
Reality is the concept of absolute totality. It is a vague concept that is directed to an all-inclusive, transcendental yonder or out-there that has static parts. Characteristics, as defined by concepts derived from experience, are: definiteness, stasis, permanence, substantive, all-encompassing and all-inclusive, independence from my thoughts and experiences, non-perspectival transcendent being. Reality is a concept refering to that, conceived as a static totality.
Possible origin of the concept
There are a number of simple thoughts found in experience. One simple thought is definiteness. The experience of definiteness asserts a particular thing to be a particular way. It acts as a lasso roping in a fact. It is obstinate and defiant. It makes something stand salient and erect. It is something I constantly experience, yet I constantly overlook its presence. It is always ignored yet it is always present as a background fabric holding other thoughts in their place for me to inspect.
All of these definitions must be defined in terms of simple experiences, since they are generalized abstractions of simple everyday experiences. I have the experience of directedness, which is a mental pointing at a thing. I have an experience of parts of totality. I have an experience of presence and absence. "Being" is presence within the totality. "Definiteness" is understood through our experience of a blinding flux without anything standing out, and the experience of something standing out as a something. Something is what it is. "Reality" is definiteness of being. I have an experience of definiteness in my experience of the world. Objects stand out as being a certain way, even if limited to being that way at a specific moment in time, and this concreteness screams out at me.
Reality could also be an abstract generalization of this specific definiteness of objects within the totality of a backdrop of the world. In other words, in my everyday natural experience of the world I may see an object and it is there, as it is, within the totality of the world, unquestioned and salient, and there is a very unique experience of its presence as a specific thing for me within that unquestioned world. Perhaps my concept of reality is an abstract generalization of this experience and understanding given to me in my everyday experience of the world. It does not make it invalid to subsequently question whether the world that gave me my concept of reality is itself real. The concept stands on its own, though it does seem counter intuitive since it is the origin of the concept.
The word "truth" is merely a symbol and can be used to refer to anything. I am not interested in what a language or a person or a society may choose to have the word "truth" refer to. The word itself is only a tool. I am interested in a particular concept that I make use of, whatever one wishes to call it. Throughout this exposition I choose to use the word "truth" to refer to this particular concept because it would facilitate communication with many readers since the word "truth" has been used in the language of others in similar contexts. I actively make use of this concept and this concept is what the content of this site is centered around.
In its simplest translation from how it is used in thought into ungrammatical English language, "truth" refers to the concept that "this similar that", or using correct grammar, "this is similar to that". I have an experience of a particular mental action of directedness, it is a pointing or intentionality in the mind that looks toward or accentuates other exact thoughts or experiences. Each element of this translated definition refers to a simple experience that one has that this directedness points to. "This" is the implementation of an action of reference to a thought or experience that is before one's conscious mind. "Similar" is a particular concept derived from a particular experience. "That" is the implementation of an action of reference to the concept of reality.
Altering this rough translation to be a bit more sophisticated in its English form, "truth" refers to the concept that "A particular thought or experience corresponds to reality."
Reality - is a vague concept that is directed to a transcendental yonder or out-there. Characteristics, as defined by concepts derived from experience, are: definiteness, permanence, substantive, all-encompassing and all-inclusive, independence from my thoughts and experiences, non-perspectival transcendent being.
Correspondence - is a concept based on the experience of similarity and then projected onto a selected part of reality, but it requires the utmost degree of similarity possible between two different types of things, their differences only being in respect to the differences inherent in each thing's type.
It is important to realize that I am writing about a concept, not a word. The concept is right here in my mind, there is no mistaking it; it is what it is. No error is possible when dealing with the concept. The concept involves reference to a thought or experience occuring right now before my conscious mind (this), which is what it is and cannot be mistaken for something else; a concept of similarity right before my conscious mind, based on experiences that I am familiar with as I frequently experience similarity as its own unique phenomena (similar), which is what it is and cannot be mistaken for something else; and an experience of directedness using a concept of reality to point transcendentally to a vague beyond (that), which is what it is and cannot be mistaken for something else.
The degree of similarity required for truth is vague and undefined. It obviously intends a very high degree of similarity and correspondence between my thought and the part of reality I am singling out and pointing at, whether such a part of reality is actually there or not, but it can be different to a minimal degree due to possible differences inherent in their types of being depending on what is being refered to.
A question may be asked of whether this definition of truth is true. The answer is yes without possibility of error. Given what was written above, this question could be phrased "Is there a part of reality in which particular thoughts and/or experiences correspond to a particular part of reality?" Since my thoughts and experiences are part of reality, it is necessarily the case that my thoughts and experiences correspond to a part of reality, i.e. they correspond to themselves at the very least.
Any other definitions of truth, and all theories of truth, are not dealing with what I am dealing with here. For whatever reasons or causes those thinkers have made their concern something other than the correspondence of a thought or experience to reality. They can use the word "truth" to refer to anything else they want, but they will simply be dealing with a completely different subject than what I am dealing with here.
So, for example, if I experience a red square, the impression I have of the red square is true if and only if I assert that there is a part of reality that corresponds in its redness and its squareness to the impression that I am currently directed at. In other words, I see a red square and while I point at this red square in my experience I assert this is similar to an almost identical degree with a part of what is out there, represented in a general and vague way by my concept of reality, and if part of that reality is actually a similarity of almost identical degree between the part of reality containing my experience and the part of reality I am attempting to point at, then my assertion is, in fact, true.
A question may be asked of whether my concept of reality is true. Perhaps reality is just an ever-changing, indeterminate flux, but my concept of it is the opposite of this. My concept of reality is an exact thought, and my concept of reality also includes all of my thoughts as being part of reality, so if my concept of reality is false then it would mean that my concept of reality cannot be in reality what it is to me, but I cannot have any thought of one of my thoughts being something other than what it is. So my concept of reality being false is incoherent to me. If my concept of reality involved its being an indeterminate flux then my concept couldn't be what it is to me, so that is also incoherent. So the only positions that are coherent are my original concept of reality, or that there is a complete separation of being between reality and my subjective states, in other words, that my thoughts are not facts in reality but are their own being separate from reality, but what then is the relation between the two realms?
Where one category of phenomena (thoughts) is found similar to members of the category of phenomena of sense.