The Relevance of Truth

– unless they, with full understanding and knowledge, agree to it.

Secrets are always necessary. The issue is always how those secrets are being used. No society can ever be totally free - that is just anarchy.

I think if educated properly a society could gain confidence that the national secrets were definitely not being abused. That doesn’t at all reflect what the former USA did, but I think it is possible - and necessary.

I disagree with that.

US has done fine so far with the CIA and NSA keeping secrets. The difference is that they don’t arbitrate “truth” to the public.

US has not had a “Ministry of Truth” up until the last 5 years. This monopolization has only recently overcome the traditional cultural blockades.

It would have never been acceptable for Social Media to restrict speech, or regulate political speech, or elections, before 2016 among the liberal-left.

Trump changed this because he was/is an existential threat to the (Deep State) Establishment, which is a good thing.

Populism needs to gain more victories in the years to come. The Establishment is too corrupt to continue to lead USA.

So the US government has never kept classified materials. That is certainly news to me - and quite a few Congressmen and Presidents. Perhaps you should let them know too.

I know the US didn’t have a designated Ministry of Truth but that doesn’t mean someone wasn’t choosing when to tell people things and when to keep secrets. The FBI has been being sued for information for decades that they refuse to release.

And other than that, we are not talking about inventing truth narratives although the US has certainly been doing that forever - as has every country. You really believe that Epstein committed suicide? You might as well believe that JFK committed suicide. Or that the Twin Towers collapsed and evaporated due to a lack of oxygen and Iraq was filled with WMDs. Or that Mr Obama was an honest man.

Nice thought but it is about like saying, “The South shall rise again”.

I don’t know what makes you think there is going to be a “next time”. You really believe that voter fraud was only used this once? And that it will never be used again? Or that media will now stop oppressing and manipulating information so that all voices have a chance to be heard?

The USA stopped being any shade of democracy on Jan 6, 2020. Democracy DIES in darkness - not sleeps. And it doesn’t just wake up again the next morning. You are NOW living under an oligarchy. You know that. And they don’t just fade away.

I just said they did and do keep secrets… via the CIA and NSA.

What I said is they did not try to “administrate the truth through a government agency”.

The US Media never even thought to go as far as it is now with its control on public speech, especially censoring the US President.

That is the development of “Social Media” and the “Tech Oligarchs”. It’s new, historically.

im 41 and the of the same political leanings that i was in my 20s, its just that in the us the overton window has shifted so far right that people call me a leftist now. its insane.

Again: very good thoughts. The topic is very important, contemporary and relating to the future. Thanks.

Sometimes it is cleverer (not wiser) to live with the lie. In the past, one could keep the truth to oneself or talk about it in niches (see: terror after all succesful revolutions since the end of the 18th century, last in communism). Now, we are dealing with communism of the last kind, which eclipses the communism of earlier times, because the latter was not yet capable of using the technology of the last three decades. Today’s communism is capable of doing it (see: China). Because China is now even ahead, other nations (especially the Western ones) want to become like China because they have realized that slaves make it easier to keep up or even take the lead again.

I think I have come to some conclusions concerning this subject. The first being that due to the possibility of indiscriminate broadcasting of literally all truth known to mankind being unwise/unhealthy for sake of mankind, there definitely should be a type of truth protectorate in one form or another. But that immediately leads to serious questions - not easily resolved.

  • How are the categories of the truths to be hidden ever chosen?
  • Which categories of truths should be absolutely hidden from whom?
  • How can confidence be maintained that the system isn’t being abused?
  • What enforcement mechanisms can be tolerable and effective?

How are categories of secrets to be chosen in the first place? - by whom? I am certain that the categories of secret information must be very very well defined and seriously and continuously scrutinized. But how do the categories ever gain their status?

And since social confidence is a must for reasonable living, there must be a means that instills full confidence in every sector of society that secrets are not being abused for any reason and that disinformation isn’t being mishandled. I imagine that different means would be utilized for different social groups (by however they are defined). And this gets back to the first question of who exactly is choosing the categories and why.

And finally it seems as though some form of speech and information monitoring and control is a must if secrets are to be kept (an unfortunate and disturbing truth in itself). And if leaked, there must be some means of capture and restore. That seems to be an easily offensive task to attempt.

We can see from history that prophets and priests used to gain faith from their followers which takes care of the first issue of who gets to know the secrets in order to choose whether they need hiding. But that is a very crude method and rife with suspicion, distrust, and eventual disruption. Keeping the secrets is reminiscent of Cherubs of old and current ruthless socialist fascism of late.

There must be a better way.

These questions are already being haphazardly addressed by very powerful people. It doesn’t seem that public confidence is ever really going to be achieved so they are now exercising fascist style force - giving up on civil harmony for sake of social hierarchy.

But what are the best answers to these critical and pervasive concerns?

Truth without Authority has no power.

The US has lost its Authority in almost every core area and aspect of Government, especially through the MainStream Media. Even if some of these were to sprinkle a bit of truth here and there, it wouldn’t matter. When somebody betrays a certain core level of trust, then they can no longer be believed or trusted, even if they speak truth or not. At some point, the people just stop listening. And that is the point we are at. The Authorities have no Authority. All previous forms of Legitimacy are denied and disputed.

This is why Censoring the POTUS, depriving Trump of his First Amendment Right is pivotal and the crux of the matter entirely.

It’s not “oh Twitter is a public platform he can go to another” when they destroy Parler right after. But everybody knows the plot now. The Left never had any intention of playing fair, abiding by Law & Order. They never cared about the Constitution to begin with. They are driven and motivated by hate and hatred for this country and its people. At this point, with the breakdown in discourse as well, there is no more reason to continue Dialogue, reasoning, civility between right & left. They only use violence and threats, because they lost the rational and philosophical debates decades ago. Back in the 2000s, they committed to domestic terror and treason, and now their efforts are coming to fruition.

The right did not realize before it was too late. But there is still plenty of time to defend and fight back. These are Fascists, Communists, and Traitors.

They have no loyalty to America, the Bill of Rights, the People.

Citizens without authority have even less power. And as a US citizen your government’s authority is now run by the worst kind of social elements - extortionists, scammers, traitors, liars, thieves, nepotists - the whole trash barrel. You have a military socialist occupation of your capital. Obviously any truth cannot be expected from them nor entrusted to them.

But there are authorities that are inherent and subtle - not ordained yet still exist. So the idea that government authority cannot be repaired or the truth cannot be reestablished is not entirely out of the question. The issue of concern is How.

In wondering how a trustworthy information source can be obtained (forget about a trustworthy government for a while) I think we must look at the exact goal. We cannot say just any ole “truth” will be held up to the general public. And we cannot arbitrarily assign a truth manager to restrict exposure of improper truths.

The goal seems to be to establish, at least on paper, what a ministry of truth SHOULD look like - outline the exact goal. Once the design is settled the next step would be to work out how that model can realistically be cast into reality.

To do that, I think we have to look at the structure of a system of protections - a type of constitution - perhaps very similar to what the US used to have although not for governing everything, but merely for governing secrets and truths. It’s a tough call - “but” - “someone has to do it” O:)

Yes but we might as well move past that unfortunate reality. If there is to be something better, something better must be designed before it can be implemented. And I think that starts with listing the necessities and addressing the possibilities. The first necessity being some form of trustworthy communication and source for truth. If led by a false reality - failure is the reality to come.

An example for the US might be for Mr Trump and others to simply build a very powerful and independent social media network that cannot be hacked. He has supporters who know exactly how to do that. Why he isn’t doing it - I’m sure there is a reason.

But even given a social media for communication - how is it decided what categories of truths shall be hidden? - How are the users to trust they are not being scammed or brainwashed as the MSM and social media people have obviously been doing for years?


Urwrong, I’m really glad you posted that. I think it led to an answer to one of those critical questions (along with a treasure chest of other answers). It reminded me of how I would have loved to have seen a debate between James and Ben Shapiro - but I couldn’t think of anything for them to debate about (maybe some ancient Hebrew interpretation). Then I tried to imagine how such a debate might go.

Both of them would back off from statements they couldn’t strongly support. And Shapiro is all about politics while James was all about everything except for politics. So I figured that any debate would end up in one of only 3 categories -

  • Shapiro was right and James agreed
  • James was right and Shapiro agreed
  • They both conceded that neither was certain with different opinions.

The first two categories would get resolved in only moments - leaving only the third for any ongoing discussion. And that reminded me of something else James did.

On a different board years ago he proposed a social “decision making” method involving rational debate (he put a flow chart for it on his blog and discussed it in several threads here). Every debate would end up with one of two endings - both very relevant to this topic - either both parties would agree to a resolution of the issue or they would each be assigned a flag type or code that designated their difference.

James proposed that after that kind of debate process was maintained there would be far more agreement on issues and perhaps more significantly there would be a type of genetic opinion coding that everyone could use to characterize their view of the world - their current bubble of belief. It would be a bit like a character analysis except not about attitudes rather only about current knowledge and opinions - any of which could change (the code wasn’t some kind of permanent stamp or anything - just a coding after their name). If their opinions on issues changed their signate would change.

In that way people could know where people stood on issues (including themselves) and what kind of concerns were already believed and trusted by whom.
From there the issue of how to gain trust in the category assignments for secrecy and how to manage it securely and rationally could be quickly established. And that answers the third critical question and gives a path to answer the others.

So now the only issue is merely how we (you included) could arrange that kind of forum.

We’ll need a context of course.

A set of circumstances in which those on the left construe the “relevance of Truth” re MSNBC, CNN and Fox very much at odds from those on the right.

Anything other than another one of these “intellectual contraptions” above in which in a “world of words” almost nothing ever actually seems relevant to the lives that we do live.

In other words take this…

…and note its relevancy to a discussion and a debate that we come across all the time here between the liberals and the conservatives.

Agreement and disagreement about what in particular given one or another set of conflicting goods? Agreement and disagreement between conservatives. Agreement and disagreement between liberals and conservatives.

And [of course] agreement and disagreement given the arguments that I make here.

All in order to pin down more exactly what it means to speak of the “Relevance of Truth”.

Truth has no relevance to those on the “Left” - those having no regard for it.

We are discussing (the context you always have trouble identifying) the issue of providing trustable information to those on the “Right” - those who believe in logic, truth, rationality, civility (those “intellectual contraptions” you can’t seem to comprehend) – and actual progress.

How about whether or not 9/11 was a hoax? Or whether or not the middle class is dissipating?

I imagine they would just present their evidence and rationale to each other. And that ending up with them agreeing on some part of it all and reserving opinion on the rest. But also it would hint at what information should be investigated by those wanting to find out.

Rational people rarely have problems getting along.

Oh yeah, I forget. Unless you are a bona fide member of the Coalition of Truth [you and Wendy, right? ] nothing you say has any relevance to the Truth at all.

And how do you know this? Well, as with James, you merely believe it. What encompasses the optimal or the only rational “trustable information” in regard to it. What encompasses “progress” in addressing it? Obviously: whatever you assert it to be.

But, okay, in regard to MSNBC, CNN and Fox News, what is the Truth in regard to a conflicting good that we are all likely to be familiar with here. An issue that is debated over and again between liberals and conservatives at ILP.

Now, James was always chickenshit when it came to bringing his own moral and political value judgments down to earth. The things he would do in order to keep the exchange up in the clouds when he reconfigured his own TOE from the world of science and math to world of moral and political conflicts.

And so far [with me] you are no less a chickenshit here yourself. I’ve even provided you with an intellectual scaffold in which to explore your own values:

Or, sure, a scaffold of your own.

Just name the issue – re MSNBC/CNN/Fox – put it in a set of circumstances and let’s finally get this thing started.

That issue gets into James’ SAM Co-op - where everyone gets to live in whatever bubble they have faith in - not needing to worry about what other people choose to believe.

In this case though, since we are only talking about the issue of information and confidence in it (not necessarily living conditions) everyone involved gets -

  • Problem solved and rational people don’t have to worry about your irrational issues and you don’t have to worry about their “intellectual contraptions”.

See, didn’t I tell you: chickenshit.

Just like the master.

How about each person creating their own website where they host their own arguments and invite others to examine them? It’s easy and it’s cheap, even if you’re from a developing country; but if for some reason you don’t want to pay for a website, you can get a free blog.

It’s much more desirable to have your own website (paid or free, blog or forum) than to write on Internet forums and social networks owned by people you know nothing about for the simple reason that it allows you to be your own boss. You have a lot more control over your content as well as over who gets to participate and how.

Each person chooses the rules (i.e. what’s allowed and what’s not allowed on their website) and how to enforce them. It’s completely up to them. Others are free to accept the terms and participate or leave.

Once enough people are doing that sort of thing, people will start organizing all of the available information in useful ways (e.g. by creating catalogues of arguments on various subjects – encyclopedias that are alive.)

It shouldn’t be too difficult.

But before one can do that, one must have an argument. And in order to have an argument, one must 1) become aware of why one thinks what one thinks, and 2) find a way to express it in language.

It might be the case, and I actually think it is the case, that the best way to survive in modern times is by believing in lies.

If that is true, and if the highest goal of each one of us is to survive, then we really should stop doing what we’re doing (which is believing what is true) and start doing what we’re not doing (which is believing what is false.)

The problem seems to be that we cannot adapt to reality. We simply can’t help ourselves. So there must be something wrong with us, right?

But before we can say there is something wrong with us, we must first compare how we perform in relation to other people.

Are we the only ones who have trouble adapting to reality? Perhaps we’re not. Perhaps it’s a universal phenomenon. And if it’s a universal phenomenon, then it’s a problem that characterizes human species as a whole and not merely us.

But what we’re going through is not a universal phenomenon, isn’t it? So I guess there really must be something wrong with us? ):

Well, not necessarily.

Other people might be doing what is necessary to do in order to survive without necessarily doing it because they want to do it.

And if that’s the case, if they are doing something they do not really want to do, how can you say they are victors?

In fact, how can you say they are doing better than us?

How is it desirable to do what they are doing?

Who wants/desires to do what they don’t want/desire to do?

Isn’t that an obvious contradiction?

People don’t merely want to survive. They also want to perceive they are surviving. So even if the former is achieved, they are not victors if the latter isn’t achieved as well.