There are two ways of understanding truth: as adjective and as verb.
We often use “true” as an adjective, whereby we qualify the degree to which a proposition adequately corresponds to a given state of affairs, about which the proposition is giving attention. That a statement is true, in this sense of the word true, indicates that there is a direct correspondence between what the statement says about the world, and how the world is observed to be.
For me, this form of truth can never be absolute, it can only be relatively adequate. Truths which are sufficiently adequate and constantly arise in the same way, may appear to be absolute, but are always dependent upon certain conditions to in order to be true. Even our “laws of nature” are dependent upon a set of background conditions that support our descriptions, which includes the mode of our inquiry (why are we seeking), means of measurement (how are we seeking), and the cosmological-historical vantage point (where and when are we seeking). The laws of nature may only appear to be constant, while in actuality we merely experience constancy through the manner by which different causal events come together to produce certain repeatable effects, a constancy which gives the illusion of total immutability. But inasmuch as our collective life, memory and development do not span cosmic time scales, we have no way of proving or disproving, that the laws of nature are absolute; all we can know, is that these descriptions are relatively meaningful and adequate for us.
The other, less common, use of the word “true” is as a verb: for example, when someone is being “true” to their principles. It seems to me that this form of truth cannot wholly be understood within the dichotomy of absolute and relative. This is because there is no way to actually give a measurement to ascertain the truth value of this form of practice. Since the reason that one can be “true” to their principles implies that one can potentially be false or against their principles, which itself also implies that principles themselves have no absolute determinacy, there is no actual scale that can be numerically or rationally divided. This means that the principles themselves are conditioned by the one who is following them.
Here the bearer of truth and the seeker of truth are interdependent and mutually constituted, like as if they are one and the same. And inasmuch as this truth is being true to itself, it will continue to be true: a continuance which is not just about being true all the time, but also about becoming more true as time goes on. For the one who is true to their principles will continue to ascend to higher expressions of their principles. Here, truth is truly truth as discovery, or the discovery of what it means to be true.
Holopoiesis 