is that a fact? a brife mention of the state of reality

Life is expression, fact is merely a recording.
Thus facts are as relevant as a photograph of a tree while making supper.

To clarify these statements I’d have to subject my self to a degree of boredom that could only find its equivalent in trying to teach a stone elementary math. I wish not to undertake such an emotionally painful task.
And because these things are fact, they are irrelevant. Thus my understanding of them is only as worth while as the pleasure that they can enlighten on my face.

The relevance of fact is the central lie in the oppression of the self.

I believe that oppression is painful, and an unwelcome expression. Thus I reject the lie of your truths in favour of my enjoyment.
Fact; facts are false.
Proven

Facts are derived buy scientific method. That is to say, facts are the observed results of experimentation. Observations are made from phenomena and then recorded, (written down ect.). From my own experience of being me, I can not actually prove the existence of another. I have proven that my eyes, my ears, my smell, my touch, and my taste can all be tricked, and so are unreliable as to a definitive proof. My emotions however, have never proven to be untrue. At the most they have proven to be impermanent. Thus I must conclude logically, that my emotions are of more reliability than that of any other stimuli. Or at least are more difficult to be detected as false. With no other information to base my decisions on I must deduce that my emotions are more factual than more conventionally defined facts.

Science now must face the same type of criticisms that religion faces in the face of theories of equal debatable arguments. for science and religion both use un-provable and un-testable theory’s to attempt to explain the world in which we appear to be living. Using science to disprove fact creates the above rant as a viable scientific theory; I don’t expect the institutions of science to accept defeat any more than the Catholic Church accepted defeat in the face of Darwin. So I issue this challenge: using any logical means disprove the Sincontroll first theory that fact is false. Using a previous definition such as a dictionary is unacceptable because repeating false information in no way alters the fact of it being false information.