@benny. I'm still having trouble with your (2), maybe because I see it more likely that instead of "truth in context" it's "truth is context". In the sense that the only time you are certain about something is when you have no questions... ie you understand it... all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. But as soon as you have questions... ie there's an unexplained gap in the context... some relationships are unknown... then you feel doubt and uncertainty until they're resolved. So from that perspective I would argue that it's impossible to have an isolated truth in a context and instead the stable context itself is truth, and that's how I see it both phenomenally (as described above) and neurally. So where in (2) you allow for an isolated truth to have different values in different contexts and still be the same thing, I disagree and suggest that the truth includes the context that surrounds your isolated truths and therefore each context is a separate truth.
I will qualify this though to say that the above refers to perceived certainty, understanding, doubt etc. You can have all of those things at different times in a delusion (eg a Mafia game) but still be objectively wrong. So tying it up to objective truth, or whatever you'd call it, is a different matter but the perceptions of doubt, understanding, certainty etc, I hope we can agree, apply regardless... and therefore so should what I've proposed about truth-is-context.
I will qualify this though to say that the above refers to perceived certainty, understanding, doubt etc. You can have all of those things at different times in a delusion (eg a Mafia game) but still be objectively wrong. So tying it up to objective truth, or whatever you'd call it, is a different matter but the perceptions of doubt, understanding, certainty etc, I hope we can agree, apply regardless... and therefore so should what I've proposed about truth-is-context.
