The Relevance of Truth

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.

I had that thought too, at the time when the early kinds of the so-called “social media” appeared.

The Internet recapitulates modernity. In the beginning, modernity was very promising, especially for the middle class, and later also for the lower class, although the negative sides of modernity also became clear, which later could not be overlooked at all, and soon the end of modernity will be reached. If the Internet recapitulates modernity, but at much shorter intervals of course, then the Internet will also soon be at its end, at least for most users, because most of them will no longer like the Internet.


All of that feels like a good analogy. And considering what the original Internet inventor is now proposing I suspect Anderson is largely right. He is proposing some way to make the internet more democratized - more privately distributed and controlled (I think that is what he was saying).

There is one issue I thought of. In that resolution debating there must be an active logic moderator - someone with a keen eye for deviation from the house rules and willing to step in immediately and demand correction. I’m not sure how that can be done on websites or blogs. I guess a moderator could be voted on by the debaters (if a good one could be found).

The end goal would be this -

It isn’t that anyone is dictating truth but that everyone can go back and see how any proposed truth was derived. And if they disagree, they can merely add to the prior debate which would lead to either an abandonment of the prior or an additional leaf or even branch on the tree of confidence.

Applied on a global scale the end result, I suppose, would be like a huge structured open data base of all of the thoughts recorded on every subject debated (a Wikipedia of structured logic debates). Each variation in belief or confidence would end up with a type of genetic code of confidence (similar to what I have been calling “bubbles of belief” except precisely defined and cataloged). It’s like a compendium of the whole world’s beliefs and understanding of everything - all organized and linked (zookers).

After a long period of debating, I imagine the categories would dwindle down as more people came to see which branches of confidence played out to be more factual.

So in the long of it, belief and confidence isn’t so much about the people involved but about the rationale - the logic and facts - politics totally removed (maybe that is why James didn’t get into politics much :-k ).

And does anyone here know how to make one of those in-post windows where larger pictures can be viewed (so I can bring James’ flow chart in for discussion)?

And that sounds like a good first debate in order to see what is justified to do - to continue debating or what.

And I just realized that if this kind of thing played out it would lead directly to James’ “Angel Network” and sub networks that leads to his SAM Co-op order for future society. This thing could be HUGE - bigger than the Internet and NY stock exchange combined. :open_mouth:

Then the issue of how to enforce secrecy becomes inherent - the best way to enforce anything.

If they want to talk about global communist reset - MEET the COMPETITION! :sunglasses:

Or is it that I just get excited too easy. :confused: 8-[

O’Biden’s answer to this is now a “Reality Czar” - US communist government Ministry of Truth.

How long should we guess it will take before the globalists provide the world with a USPPP -
Ugly Swamp People’s Party Pravda

That’s what you get when you don’t do anything better.

I stopped liking it long time ago. I believe it’s because it has become more difficult to find what I’m looking for. There is less and less variety. I have the impression that whatever I’m searching for, I always get the same exact results. That might be thanks to Google but I am not sure it’s entirely thanks to Google. In any case, a different way of browsing the Internet has to be considered (assuming there is relevant content to be found on the Internet.)

You simply ask someone to be a moderator. Suppose you present an argument on your website and invite someone (e.g. Ecmandu) to examine it for you. He accepts. You present him with a set of rules that both of you must follow. He accepts. Then you ask someone else (e.g. Magsj) to moderate the debate between the two of you by making sure that everyone is following the rules both of you have accepted; and in case a rule has been violated, to step in. You ask Ecmandu whether he’s fine with Magsj moderating the discussion. He either is and the debate starts; or he says he is not and then you either look for someone both you and Ecmandu are fine with or you simply give up. It’s more or less straightforward. What’s important is that you know what you want/expect from a debate so that you can devise a clear set of rules for you and others to follow. That helps you and others avoid unpleasant surprises.

Note that James’s concept of resolution debate was meant to be used by people who live together. The underlying idea, I believe, is that every member of a group must approve of every action of every other member of the group. I don’t think he ever put it this way but I am certain enough that that was the idea behind it. When disagreements arise, e.g. when someone says “I’m going to do this” and someone else objects, a process of resolution debate is initiated with the aim to resolve the disagreement. If no agreement can be reached, those who disagree are free to leave the group and start or join another one. Basically, it is a way to maximize group cohesion (something that seems to be missing in many, if not most, groups nowadays.)

It wasn’t meant to be used on the Internet. Though, as far as I can tell, he had nothing against the idea (he even encouraged it.) To use it on the Internet, however, one would have to adapt it. It’s a different environment, so slightly different rules are expected to apply.

Isn’t that exactly how you end up with what we have now - that thing you just said is disappointing for you? - not enough progress toward your aim?

Arbitrary moderating leads to insufficient or even absent moderating - regardless of good intentions (and sometimes because of good intentions). And arbitrarily choosing moderators is how the US Congress became so lame. Arbitrary moderating leads to arbitrary discussions and arbitrary conclusions (if any at all).

The debaters provide the drive and energy. The moderator maintains to course to resolution.

You are referring to his SAM Co-op, not merely the debating process. And in either case a unanimous vote was never suggested. I am thinking you don’t understand what he meant.

I think that option only applied to those who grew intolerant of newly developed amendments - like the US adding an amendment stating that white people are not allowed to vote (could be on the way over there). How any one group chooses its amendments depends on what the originators setup (assuming the basic constitution held intact).

That can’t be true. He actually setup a forum on another website (Reality something) allowing the admin to be the moderator. As it turned out that admin had no idea of what he was supposed to do so the whole thing looked a lot like me and Silhouette “debating” - nothing at all accomplished (ask a simple yes/no question over and over just to get paragraphs of distractions over and over). James commented to and about that “moderator” having to know when to correct the actions of the participants. But being the admin, he seemed to just say - “well this experiment didn’t work” and deleted the whole thing.

Perhaps rules would need to be refined but the first most important is to make sure the authority - the moderator - was actively involved and reasonably competent. Without that objections of the moderator’s objections (or lack of them) would just become the whole argument - the original debate probably forgotten - not any different than what you see around here.

I think that either you or I could manage the moderator task proficiently (any analytical reductionist type). Other than that, any adaptation of the rules could be easily handled I think.

My first concern when examining his SAM Co-op (different than the resolution debating) was that people generally could see no need for it (not that the need wasn’t there). I am thinking now after recent events, perhaps a few more can.

As long as a better method isn’t established - a global Ministry of Truth is destiny.