I used the phrase 'all-knowing' because that was what John used to describe an experience that is felt to be powerful and meaningful, but subjective (my words).

If that is not what he meant, and he really did mean experiences that:

1) You feel at the time you know everything; and

2) Back in everyday life you still feeling you know everything as a result of the experience;

then my hypothetical question does not hold. In fact, I would be suspicious of such an experience.

I am discussing an experience that one feels is powerful and meaningful, and may well include a feeling of 'all-knowing' at the time, but in retrospect you feel able to put aside the 'all-knowing' aspect. In other words, how you function in the world and society in the days after such an experience is more important than any 'truth' you may think you have discovered.

Notice that both John, myself and yourself all put the word 'truth' in quotes in this context. This is because we are using it in an undefined manner, and I personally think it is pointless to try to define it in this grandiose sense. We are not talking logical truth (2+2 = 4 is true), nor everyday truth (in the trial did defendant X commit the crime he is accused of? True or false). Nor are we even talking about truth as existence (do unicorns exist? True or false).

Do you agree that the 'truth', in John's context, is none of these? And how would you define it in the context in which John originally used it? I don't even want to try to define it; it is like trying to define 'God' - a discusssion which goes nowhere - which was pretty much my original point.