It is pertinent to consider that the truth of an organism enactively participates from the truth of the cosmos, as the reflexivity of the structure’s proper (“proprius”) reflexibility.
This is not a matter of exemplification of a property but of an enacting of a “proprius” of the systemic individuation as cosmic entity, which explains the sense of “enactively participates”.
In this sense, the truth of the systemic structure is not what is shown by reflexibility in the systemic structure’s own light, it is what is or can be seen about that which is shown. What is shown is the structure’s “proprius”, the truth is the to-itself of that “proprius”, which means that the truth is not the “ontos”, but an expression of that “ontos”.
What is in-itself/“ontos” cannot be constituted as truth to the others, since it is about an absolute, in the sense of permanence and of being of the “proprius” of the system, hence not subject to change, therefore, it is not perspectivically approachable, because it is a non-formalizable completeness, since it is without measure and written logos (how does one “figure out” an “ontos” and places it into writing?), one is talking about an endless in terms of permanence and permanent that remains, subsists and persists in a strange loop as absence and presence.
Thus, in this way, the truth of a systemic structure is the truth of a permanent making of itself as positions of a same structure in a same topos. And here one can think in dynamics of alterity.
A being or entity can be a to-itself as father, son, worker etc…, still maintaining his own truth as being/“to be”, and the truth is what can be seen in that permanent making itself of an in itself to itself as alterity of itself.
Because of that we can speak of the becoming of ourselves, of the becoming of the things, without dissolution. Difference and alterity are not lies, they are just aspects or positions of a same structure in becoming.
In this sense, there is no quantum truth, or quantum degrees of truth. What fails in the logics (classical, quantum, etc.) is that the logical truth(s) presupposes a falsehood and an ontological structure towards an epistemological statement of truthness.
But any statement of truth and/or falsehood fails, in that sense, to be a statement about the ontology of the system’s truth, because, unlike the logical truths, the system’s truth is about the integrity and about what remains despite the change. In this way, it becomes ineffective to speak of neguentropy, since there is to entropy towards the truth of the system as an in-itself and to-itself, because a system’s truth as an ontological fact cannot be reduced to information.
Following this line of reasoning, there cannot be a bit in the it. The bit arises only in terms of relations with and to the others (“mitsein”), the bit is “mitseined” from the it. Following this line of reasoning, one is never a bit to oneself (which frees us from looking for a chicken and egg problem in the systems’ ontologies).
The truth of a system is in the accordance of the parts to the whole of the system. In this sense, the system’s to-in-itself is the according of the nature of truth as its relation to the essence.
It is a mistake to state that a system has an essence, in the sense of permanence, the system (re)enacts its own essence through the enactive process that is linked to the “noumenon” and the “noumenic”.
The “noumenic” is to the “noumenon” the necessity of the truth in the essence. The essence is, to the “noumenon”, the link between the noumenic and the noumenon in accordance with the living structure.
And, in the end, this is all about life and existence: to be born, to die, and to persist in the existence as being that is, as presence and as absence. Socrates, the Greek one, was a presence and now is an absence. But Socrates remains as being, that was PresencePresent and now is PresenceAbsent, and that is Socrates’ freedom and autonomy and, thus, Socrates remains being with the others and that is about Socrates’ dignity (“mitsein”).
