well, in formal logic, a proposition that is true =1, a proposition that is untrue =0, and the logical operators perfom operation upon these.
lets take the statement now "the only truth is that there is no truth"
this is logically entirely meaningless. not true or untrue; meaningless.
why?
in terms of logic, it blows itself up. its premisse states there are no 1's. the fact that there are no 1's is a 1. no conclusion is possible from these premisses. purely logically, the premisses just keep flowing into each other, like in the Russell paradox.
now you can say, well this is just nonsense. it has no purpose. yet it does show us something. it does not name it, it points us to something. namely: the human being transcends logic. we don't get 'stuck' in the infinite loop of the paradox. we are able to transcend it and view it as a completed infinity (which is a very paradoxal statement). it points to something beyond the logic (and by extension all language). it points towards this vantage point we assume, yet we cannot 'see' what that point exactly is. this vantage point is clearly a 'truth', its there, we assume it when encountering such paradoxes. yet it cannot be accessed through logic, as it only shows itself to us 'beyond' the paradox this language. yet, we cannot take the vantage point of that vantage point; which would be the archimedean point (the viewpoint that is all viewpoints). we cannot transcend this transcendening itself, as it continuously escapes us when we do; it always throws us back unto ourselves. it becomes an infinity again, yet we can again take that as a completed infinity, but then the movement starts over. its an infinite 'calling' that calls through paradoxes of paradoxes forming paradoxes. an ungrabbable Nothing, or something continously and radically Other to ourselves. its completely unnameable, because it self-contradicts any name given to it, which only manages to grasp one (incomplete) side of the movement. it is this 'process' that bleedingheartcommie in his statement was pointing at. at a more defined abstract level, it is what the definition of phenomenological truth i gave here calls 'truthing'. it is the movement of rising and falling, growing and dieing. it is also the subject taking itself as a subject, and not as an object (which i have already talked about a two times in other threads here).
it is the way in which truth shows itself (yet at the same time hides itself as 'other' or 'more' then that. for scientific theory, this is the paradigm showing, yet at the same time hiding its 'more' because of that given paradigm. same goes for any form of language).
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
IMHO