welcome to postmodern thought, which requires you to choose subjective coherence over objective truth; the "more-true-than-truth sense" is that which PMism elevates as the only real form of knowledge, denying not only that an objective reference point is useful, but even possible
---
RT @DKThomp
i "get" these balls are "the same color" but in a more-true-than-truth sense, they are absolutely not the same color, and i value the integrity of…
https://twitter.com/DKThomp/status/1389618108093149188

the interesting bit is that this isn't wrong; PM follows directly from Gödelian incompleteness

his theorem states that a given logical system can't be both complete & consistent; meaning that it can either be capable of expressing every true statement, OR free of contradictions

some historical context: the proof came as a direct response to the culmination of high modernist mathematics, in the form of Russell & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica, which was an attempt to codify the ultimate axiomatic system, capable of consistent universal expression

Gödel showed, to their great chagrin, that this was fundamentally impossible, using methods from {language, number} theory, due to consequences of recursive expressions and infinite spaces

this effectively spelled the end for high modernism and spurred the development of PM

w/o the ability to create complete & consistent semantic systems, it becomes crucial to learn how to reason usefully within these constraints

PM-based analyses function by making some tradeoff between the two; constructing complete theories by composing domain-consistent parts

or, by negating the assumption that completeness is even desirable; this is where the critical-theory denial of objectivity stems from

if you relax this constraint, you find yourself being able to make many useful statements, without them needing to agree. this helps one publish