Problem of Induction

One reason is that, because of philosophical disputes over the nature of 'reality', its bedfellow 'truth' is a grey area. Pragmatists, for example, argue that 'truth is what works' or 'truth is what is good to believe'. Once you deconstruct 'truth values' as used in traditional logic, and once you understand the transient and contextual nature of epistemological progress, then formal differences between logical forms become a secondary consideration.

When you say " once you understand" you appeal to logic... funny !
Also "truth" is not grey, experiencing is what it is, crystal clear...talking about it second hand is what is hard.

Spoken like a regular believer !

And just whom is not a regular believer ? Being alive is about believing in every second you experience. Denying that is no less then sheer absurdism. The very process of denial raises existence out of its supposed burrial ground. Your ALL philosophy mate, all of it is nonsense...

In fact when we talk about the deep nature of consciesness we are indirectly talking about the aknowledgement of true experiencing. Truth no less at the root of counsciousness.