‘There’s a make-believe quality to this vast spectacle of violent power and false innocence that baffles the mind. To see and hear the corporate masked media magicians’ daily reports is to enter a world of pure illusion that deserves only sardonic laughter but sadly captivates so many adult children desperate to believe.’ —Edward Curtin, Acting As If It Weren’t Really So
The Great Divide
‘It’s not just that my former friends and I disagree about Covid. It’s that they are so far behind and intellectually stunted — by censorship/propaganda, cognitive biases, and neurological injury from vaccines — that we now live in two separate universes.’ —Dr. Toby Rogers
Climate Chutzpah
The damning evidence for manmade climate change weather modification is real.
‘It doesn’t matter if fifty-two percent think climate change isn’t dangerous. This is unstoppable. Even if Trump is elected, this will go forward… regardless of the data.’ —Senator Chris Coons at COP28 (quoted by Elizabeth Nickson, The Epic Bullshit of Catastrophic Climate Change
The Art of Thinking
The only thing I know is that I don’t know.
That’s a fine thing to say if you’re a guru or philosopher, a quantum physicist or an honest climate scientist. But what about the rest of us? We must have been granted the gift of speech for a reason. Or is it only to spin yarns?
Let’s see… oh yeah, we needed language for cooperation in hunting. And, of course, social bonding while doing childcare. And, yes, passing on knowledge and tradition, a legible legacy for future generations.
Wait, now I’ve got it. The purpose of speech is to proliferate all the things we pretend to know through a plethora of social media: chat groups, forums, message boards, newsletters, subscriptions, comment feeds, podcasts, interviews, memes…
Amid all that flurry of verbiage and gossip, how much do we actually know? Can we define even a small, digestible slice of reality, in any meaningful way, commonly agreed on?
Sorry, but in the public square, consensus cannot be reduced (no matter how hard they try) to one formula. Two opposing viewpoints at a minimum are required for a truly inclusive public sense of what is real.
If our assignment is to think, it will help to assemble relevant evidence. For example, instead of parroting a party line, we might consider mustering some reliable science to support our notion that climate change is (a) an existential crisis caused by “carbon emissions,” or (b) a data-doctored boondoggle to remake the planet’s economy. But what’s reliable, and who decides? Do we enlist AI, and trust its objectivity. What about our personal experience, common sense? Alas, both machines and humans are all too susceptible to “hallucinations.”
Are conspiracies real? Was Covid real? Is the Covid vaccine a real vaccine? Is the Ukraine a real country? Is Israel a real country? Is Palestine a real country? Is the genocide in Palestine a real genocide? Is Putin really an autocrat? Is Biden really senile? Is Michelle Obama really a man? Is Justin Trudeau really Fidel Castro’s son? Is Trump really a king or a pawn in 5-D chess?
How do you know?
It’s rabbit holes all the way down.
But don’t look at me. I only report what I hear.
It’s not what you think, it’s how you think.
That’s a fine thing to say if you’re a liberal arts university in the 1960s—or one of its students neglecting to do the reading and hoping to get by on speed and BS in the final. But what about the rest of us? Surely there must be something to believe in, some bedrock truth to stand on, some trustworthy authority or ultimate database? This question deserves an answer!
All right, I’ll volunteer. It’s all about constructing a convincing model of the world. The keyword here is “model.” It bears repeating, the map is not the territory.
All I can know is what I assert, justification enough as long as we all know it’s provisional. Reading fiction, for example, we agree to suspend our disbelief. The trick is bringing that same discrimination to what we regard as nonfiction, the facts, unvarnished truth. Pressed to support and define, we might realize that our theories and beliefs, filtered through the sieve of our imperfect language, can never really pass the sniff test of reality.
And that’s okay. We can take comfort in the facsimile, the substitute teacher that is story.
In our attempts, whether for serious decisions or sheer entertainment, we admit language’s limitation. Couching every seeming truth in a cocoon of doubt, forever eluding consensus. In humility we continue our efforts to understand and communicate, rather than trying to evolve, like trees, in silence. Though we might admit, their wordless lifestyle must save them a whole lot of complication.
The strange thing is, while many are ignorant of our inherent blinders, some seem aware but not to care that they are dealing in deception, either as purveyors or consumers of fake news, propaganda, and the fifty-seven varieties of misinformation. The comfort of false belief appears better than no belief at all. And besides, it justifies the perks of that comfort, whether it’s skimming the cream of a scam, or being satisfied with bread and circuses.
What good is a one-sided truth if it doesn’t work for me, or you?
Thus the insidiousness of the crime of trying to impose one’s truth on another.
“For the good of all”—perhaps the most dangerous, self-serving lie of all.
Someone I love had that done, the robot arm surgery. I wasn't happy then and I am not happy now. It's tough out there. No one will take advise. All you can do if hope for their most successful outcome and never mention it again. Good gosh. And I guarantee you all they told this person is "you don't have to stay in the hospital as long".
Is there an assertion that we cannot know anything or obain any clarity on anything?If we cannot be certain about anything, how can decide that all of our efforts to understand, all of our conclusions, are meaningless? Isnt this called postmodernism? Is postmodernism absolute truth?