Rationale of The Counterpoint Pages
Perhaps we live in a world where propaganda is everywhere, and the powerful recognize that propaganda is one of the best ways to influence others to conform to their wishes and have their beliefs align.
I think it is reasonable that every media that is ingested (writing, talks, videos, music, etc) should be evaluated to determine what bias and agenda the creator(s) of it have. The book Never Pure deals with issue as well, that as we are all human, every work has some element of inherent bias and agenda built in, and that even those who aspire to open exploration will bring their beliefs with them.
I can likely never know truth, and the best I can do is to rely most on the things which I can perceive most directly and with the most perspective and duration. A person cannot however be limited only to a small network of trust. If a flash flood is miles upstream and heading down towards me, my direct senses will likely not give me indication of it until it is too late. We need to be able to rely on the senses and judgements of others while not blindly trusting others, especially when others can have much to gain by our manipulation (and recognizing that sometimes misunderstandings happen). It seems that trust given limit or audit will tend to be abused, and this seems to be a condition of our current times, that we trust implicitly and without verification or audit much of the information we are presented. There has to be a balance; if we are so cynical and distrustful that we will not believe others at all than we will be limited to being only small groups living in primitive ways, but if we trust every statement ever made than we will be constantly being duped into buying the Brooklyn Bridge.
I take the view that I think many others do, that I can never know the truth, all I can do is refine my understanding of reality to have a better but always inherently imperfect and small understanding of it. I am something of a believer that the only thing I can know is that I know nothing (that is, that human knowledge, even in its highest forms, still knows almost nothing, and that a mark of a wise person is that the more they learn the more they recognize how little they know).
Some elements of the discussion of truth are semantics. If ten people witness an event and describe it the same way, there is an element of truth to that. Some people might call this instance “facts”, but I generally call it an accurate report (that is, if an impartial observer were to describe a limited set of events, this is how they would describe it). There is also the element of repeatable and therefore generally predictable events, which I would call patterns, the truth of which can be viewed by how broad and repeatable these patterns prove to be.
I once heard it said that a good liar mixes easily verifiable facts with harder to verify facts, and thus having gained credibility mixes in the harder to verify lies. I suppose I might add to that the concept of group lies and speaking in code to indicate the one knows of the group lie and is prepared to perpetuate it, and therefore speaking in certain language and manner to indicate xes awareness of this. Lies (deceit and subterfuge) are also viewed as endemic to war (both sides lie like they breathe), and since we view are ourselves as in something of a permanent war footing, lies are an endemic footing to our life. For the liar, telling a lie is low risk and can be effective, and so therefore it perpetuates (low risk in that a good liar will not be caught in a simple lie, but will rather be able to fall back on complexities that provide a credible basis for why they could have reasonably believed the lie, and generally lying is much less effort relative to other means of influencing people). The challenge is when lies and deceit became so pervasive within society social trust breaks down (where we seem to be headed). When only a few people lie, people can view these outside the norm and are not generally caught in the lies themselves. However, as people see the benefit of lying, more people start doing it more people get caught in the lies the perception of widespread dishonesty is increased such that people’s cynicism is increased, the dishonesty of our society becomes apparent, and general social trust is lost.
Much of what I might consider “falsehood” in the current media is achieved by what some might call the sin of omission, or the power of leaving out. Consider a simple example. Tom was seen exiting a factory building a few minutes before smoke and fire appeared. Tom was known to dislike working at the factory and had expressed a desire to improve the factory or to have it closed. Tom has had a history of violence in his past with charges being brought against him for assault. From reading these set of facts one might conclude that Tom likely had something to do with the fire, and that he was the type of disgruntled agitator that would do this sort of thing, and might convince some (or perhaps many) that Tom was guilty of arson and a bad person. Furthermore, all of these facts could be correct in that Tom himself would agree with them. While the report given above may be accurate, the lack of context and telling of the broader story can lead the reader to conclusions that may not be valid. Consider if the more complete report of this event were as follows. A fire alarm went off this morning at a local factory, and all the employees exited the building. A few minutes later smoke and fire were seen. There had been substantial unrest within this factory, with a recent interviews of employees concluding that over half of them would rather see it closed if conditions weren’t improved. The factory was unusual in that it hired largely ex-convicts and those who had been falsely convicted or tried of crimes. This report does not contradict the first report. Tom did leave the building, fire did appear, and he had been once charged with a crime. What has been provided however is additional context that makes conclusions one might draw from the first report seem questionable. By highlighting certain elements and not telling others the reporter is able to paint Tom as a likely suspect without having to resort to lying. If questioned on this, the reporter can simply say that there was not enough time to include every observation in xes report, and that no reporter is ever able to do so. This seems to be the power that much of our media uses, of (seemingly) intentionally not providing a broader context and selectively presenting facts to leave the audience with a desired impression. Selective telling leaves the reporter in the good position of never being caught in lie, but while still being able to push and anti-Tom agenda.
A recent article defined misinformation as anything I disagree with. In general, that seems accurate to me, but I would also add the idea that I use for fraud, that is, when you are telling or presenting things to others that you yourself don’t believe. I suppose in some ways we are all frauds, myself included, in that to understand the message of others you must also have the background and context of others, and that without this context the message being presented is not what the author xemself believes, and that there is certain information which a person of conscience considers not fit for sharing with others, even if that omission results in less context, perspective, or understanding.
Perhaps we need to come up with better terms for truth or facts as well as falsehood and lies. The semantics around this discussion are challenging in that some words such as truth and misinformation have such a broad and weighty set of meanings that it limits specificity in the conversation. For now, for laziness, I have used many of these terms as they are commonly understood.
What we seek, and what (perhaps) helps us is the best understanding of reality that we can have. The scientific method says the way to do this is to question, test, and observe/measure. The philosophical method says the way to do this is to examine thoughts, logic, and ideas to determine which are consistent and coherent. The humanist says the way to do this is to explore the reality of others around you and to enlarge your reality by by bringing in their experience. Perhaps one could argue that the spiritual or mystical method to do this is rely on feelings, emotions, and visions as pathways and glimpses of reality beyond understanding. And perhaps the simplest and most basic is to rely on the senses and instincts given to you by birth, and to understand the world not through logic, tools, words, instruments, or visions, but rather through the inherent senses. It would seem there are many potential ways to attempt to better understand reality, and that likely none are perfect nor that any or all will ever leave to total conscience or omniscience.
One of my largest frustrations is the sense that I have been lied to, and brought up on a set of beliefs based on falsehoods for the apparent purpose of subordinating and manipulating me. What I perceive as dangerous in our time is the power of the demagogue and the mob, that people can quickly be turned in any direction, even if that is against what they recently beleived (as in 1984 when the enemy is suddenly changed from Eurasia to Eastasia and everyone goes along with it without questioning). Our society needs to be able to follow legitimate authority (and what legitimate authority is I need to explore more, but to be left for another time) and to react quickly and effectively in times of emergency, but it seems unhealthy to me that our society be unthinking followers who can be turned in any direction without questioning or without memory of how the new beliefs being laid out may contradict those of the past. Perhaps, however, the reality is that we need to be compliant masses because if we are not we will be overrun by societies that are set up in such a manner and can more efficiently carry out the plans of the leaders. Perhaps, and the risk is worth considering, but it is not compelling to me. As long as there is not infighting (or at least excessive infighting) an open and diverse society should be much stronger than an unthinking one in that many more modes of living can be tested, no uniform systems of living can be turned as a weapon against the population, and the decisions that are made should be better founded for having gone through the pain of questioning, comparison, and debate, and perhaps most importantly the people shall be most invested in its continuation and be happier and better off than those who oppose it. There likely need to be some unifying principles of an open society that bring it together so that they cannot be divided and conquered, but I think a basic element of it is “don’t tread on me”, that is we are united in our opposition to tyranny and that any who attempt to impose tyranny on any of us should be treated as an attempt to impose tyranny on all of us.
I do not think it worth spending all our time (or even a substantial amount of time) responding to others, but I do think it is worth attempting to provide context, perspective, and to alternative options and avenues of understanding, even if one doesn’t believe in them xemself. I think much of our media is a replacement for the soap opera, designed to provide drama to its audience, a sort of infotainment that is largely irrelevant and detached from anything related to reality or decision making. However, it is perhaps worth occasionally noting and contrasting some elements of our infotainment system that seem more misguided and potentially pernicious than others. It is also worth considering that much of what we see or hear through the media may have little grounding in reality (such accurate reporting is required for people in power and is very valuable, but there is no reason to assume any media source would share this valuable information for a few dollars). While the aforesaid may be true, at least in some cases, there is generally some grounding to reality (or else they would have no credibility) and more importantly the perception that is created can have its own power. I may not be able to know what is going on, but I should at least be able to be aware of the percerptions and agendas that are trying to be conveyed (since they will be through generally public sources) and should seek to respond to those perceptions that seem harmful to the common good. It is to these ends (and likely perhaps because I like the soap opera myself) that I am adding some space here to providing differing and diverse points of view to what I believe are some of the more pressing topics of the day.