...Is "no Truth", true ?

When it's dark means that the light is off? Yes & no...

(If you asked already about truth. I would like to Ask. if fact is the first point of truth?)

Dark simply means the absence of light, either from an emitter, or from a receiver standing point...and I guess that is true concerning the state of affairs that we functionally questioned in the first place...after all what else could we ask of it?

Fact is not only the first point, but rather the only point of Truth...

Is no truth, true?
Well the absence of truth could be true in the sense that it is not there. Or it could not be true in the sense that the truth is absent from the truth

I mean it is true that the truth is not there

Can´t you see the paradox right there ?
Without a true state of affairs there´s nothing you can say upon nothing...less alone about Truth not being true which is a contradiction in terms...and don´t think for a minute that this is only an annoying mere abstraction of no interest...

...the fact is that the absurdity of such theory´s undermine themselves...

The question rather is, why would there be, the true constant of nothing being true ???
Why not a random variation between true and not true states instead ?
...this given, causality itself is undermined in such a conceptual background...what would prevent things from being or emerging true ?
...what would they be if not true, that is ? hack, that does n´t even make any sense...so one needs to explain where the problem resides in all of this...

My opinion is, that there are true "Functions" instead of true "Facts"...
(The FACT, is the FUNCTION.)

That is, or translates to:

...that there are Functions in one "Holistic Fact", which is a final sequential Set, from which all subsets are functionally dependent, and therefore as subsets, only functionally or relatively true, thus different in nature from this Holistic Final Fact, since they are not true in themselves as independent systems, but only operatively truthful when with their interacting pairs, as forming or morphing algorithms...in opposition, the Final Set is "rigidly" True, or self cohesively true in itself at all times.
that is, the TRUTH as its was meant to be intuited...

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

For instance:

It is a true function that Quito is the Capital of Ecuador...
(Given the "property" or the definition of Capital, it is a cultural subset, of many other property´s Quito could have, many other operational functions...this one, being "Capital" regards Human beings conceptually operative outlook for that space...)

The same goes with the Moon..."Moon" is a conceptual operational bearer and not a thing in itself ! To clarify, a subset of (real) property´s, a morphological relational conceptual frame...A FUNCTION !
(...and so it is case to say, by by Wittgenstein, Asta la Vista baby !)

Above it should read:

The same goes with the Moon..."Moon" is a conceptual operational bearer and not a thing in itself as Moon ! To clarify, "MOON" as a functional subset of the "thing" with the Whole, which is the Moon in itself in all its relational potentials, that is, an exhaustive set of possible operative functions with everything else, composed of (real) property´s in the light of the final set, but which we cannot name or describe beyond functionality and symbolism from our standing point, therefore a relativistic and morphological relational conceptual frame...A FUNCTION in the System !