Kindest Regards, RubySera!
OK, since I see my example is not being understood, allow me to try again.
Who owned the land before your great-grandfather? Who owned the land, named it and did anything at all with it or on it before it was "settled?" Who will own the land long after you are gone? How will they use it?
I have no way of answering these questions specifically, and I kinda wonder if you really can answer about the people before, I doubt you can predict who will come after. Let's say that before your little township was settled, it was a Native American encampment, maybe every couple of years or so. You call the farm by one name, perhaps the same name your great grand dad did. But what did the people your grand dad bought the property from call it? What did the Indians call it? Now, what will your grand kids call it? Will it still be a farm, or will it become a subdivision or a factory or a grain elevator? Relative truth is just that, relative, because it is relative to how we each as individuals view the world. As faithful to family as you may be, you do not see the world exactly the same way your mother or father or any of your siblings see the world. You do not see the world identically to what your grandparents saw, and you do not see exactly the same way your great grandparents saw. I guarantee, your children will not see the world the same way you do. And I guarantee you do not see the world the same way I do. Everybody sees the world differently, everybody has a unique perspective and outlook.
We all see the world through the collection of our experiences, and no two people's outlooks are the same. That is why and how each of our individual truths are relative, even if we are looking at substantially the same truth.
This is why I used the example of a piece of land, the land represents substantially the same truth. You may know that piece of land by a certain name, it may have a certain relevance to you, it holds certain meaning and value to you. That same piece of land may also hold certain relevance to me, but I call it by a different name, the meaning, relevance and value are different. We are both looking at the same piece of land, but that piece of land means different things to each of us. We have different truths regarding the same piece of land. This is relative truth. If you wish to equate in broad terms with the various religions of the world, OK, but it really gets down to the point of the individual, so that within each religion there are multitudes of subsets of varying degrees of truth.
An objective truth
must be the one and only truth applicable to all. This is the basis of "fact." This is the basis of "reality." We each may view that piece of land differently, but each of us agrees it is composed of a layer of good topsoil on top of a layer of mineral earth on top of a layer of bedrock. And it is located at longitude whatever and latitude whatever. These are things that are unmistakable, we all understand these things if we have any understanding of earth and land at all. This is objective truth. Objective truth is what evidence points towards, therefore one needn't be a "believer," so much as have a basic understanding or intuition, it can be shown to a complete stranger with absolute understanding. It helps to be able to read a map, it helps to be familiar with growing practices, there is other education that may come in handy, but the bottom line is that no matter what your subjective / relative view of that piece of land is, what value and meaning it holds for you, and no matter what my subjective view is, the objective reality we both understand is that there is a piece of land. We both can point to it, we both can describe it to others, we both know how to make productive use of it, it is there. We can grab a handful of earth from it and crumble it between our fingers. It exists, it is real, it is objective reality, it is TRUTH.
I used the analogy of land because land is an indisputable truth. It is there, we can agree. When we get into what that land means, what value it holds, then it becomes a relative truth because we attach our sentiments and experiences to it.
How can truth be owned like that? I can say "the way I understand the situation," or "as I see it," or "according to such as such records," etc. And I could swear to the truth of those facts in a court of law if for some odd reason it were required. Thus, it is my understanding. It is my view of the matter, etc. But my truth???
Of course its your truth, who else's truth are you going to hold? Unless you do not think for yourself, or have any unique experiences to reference in your mind and heart. If everythink in your mind was someone else's truth, we would call that "brainwashing." So of course you own your truth. And I own my truth. I will not impose my truth on you, although I will offer to share it (what is called "teaching"). You will not impose your truth on me, although I may be willing to listen and consider (what is called "learning"). We could grow up side by side as identical twins, and we would still have different views because our collective experiences would not be identical. Maybe I've got a mole where you don't. Maybe I took to trucks and you took to tractors. Maybe I took to sheep and you took to cotton. Maybe mom liked you better, and dad liked me. Maybe I went into the service and you became a pacifist. And on and on throughout a lifetime, but especially in the "formative years," our experiences form our personality and outlook, and through these we view the world, and it is this view that colors and frames our perspective of what is true and what is not.
Go and check it out for yourself if you don't believe it--it's that type of truth.
I'm not one of those "reality is an illusion" type people. The impact of fist on face is enough to prove reality to me. So holding earth in one's hand is easy enough.
There is a practical reality, in which a shared understanding bridges across a culture. But shared understanding alone is not sufficient to mark objective reality or objective truth. This would be reality by consensus, which as we know is not always correct. The consensus at one time was that the world was flat, and anybody who thought otherwise was heretical. The consensus at one time was that the sun revolved around the earth, and anybody who thought otherwise was a heretic. So even shared cultural "truths" that
everybody agrees about is still relative truth (and might not even be truth at all...).
