I put “truth” in quotes because who knows what’s really true anymore.

Not even trump, by the way, has been able to get the phrase “truth social” recognized as an official trademark.

 

 

And I must admit, when on the Truth Social site, every time I see the word “truth,” as if each drop by anybody is “true,” and “re-truth,” as if some “truth” is worth repeating, I start to fume internally. How dare anyone think they can claim the word “truth” for their own!

Or, more to the point: how dare any of us think we can actually mirrror, in part or in whole, point by point, either digitally or with words or other symbols, the infinitely mysterious reaches of reality? 

To me, using the word “truth” in this manner demeans and confuses the whole notion of truth, while not distinguishing, BTW, between various “levels” of truth, you might say.

For example, there is sense data, what the eyes see, or the ears hear. So far, uninterpreted. Or is it? Isn’t just about anything we see or hear automatically plunks into pre-set frames, those frames based on our experience of living with our open senses for many years.

They say the child is born into a world of “buzzing, booming confusion” where all sensations are swimming around, uninterrpreted; that gradually, via repetition of shapes and sounds, he or she learns to see and hear in a patterned manner. That roundish phenomenon moving towards him is a face, his mother’s face. He knows because he’s learned to see patterns in shapes — two (eyes) lit blobs parallel, set above (nose) another blob, itself set above (mouth) another blob that moves.

It may well be that, coming through liquid and several other living, gurgling layers, he heard his mother’s voice while in utero, and so is already very familiar. If so, then finding her face is something he naturally seeks when born.

And then, there’s language, something the child picks up over time, his giggles and oohs and ahs gradually transforming into words, names, which represent things, at first, in the outer world. Things which have forms which stick out from the mass, like plants, trees, rocks; forms which stick out and move, like people, birds and animals.

I know I’m garbling and simplifying this natural progression of the child’s inner representation of the world outside, which allows him to both communicate with others and to shape that outer world in his own manner.

What I’m attempting to convey is the idea that it’s really hard to decide when we should legitimately begin to use the word “truth.”

Positivistic philosophers made the question easy. Truths are “facts,” atomic bits of information that come in through the five outer senses.

But then, even “facts” picked up in our own experience of the world are seen through an (at least partially) unconscious framework, or context, that determines how we see them, the meaning we give to them. Taken further, we can say that facts, especially when combined, constitute an “agenda,” the “dot-connecting” meant to persuade that a certain pattern of phenomena is “true.”

Can you see where the whole notion of “truth” is beginning to smear?

So. I’m one of the foolish ones these days who is trying to make sense out of cascading impressions, factoids (my preferred word for them, since they tend to have half-lives), picked up from either the natural or artificial world. And who knows where one begins and the other leaves off? Our screens are all too “life-like.”

But what about big “truths”, the ones that “hit us over the head” with their apparent “veracity,” their way or re-ordering the entire world so it makes a new and, for a moment there, much more sense.

[I am NOT talking about those “truths” that hit us from within, that inner voice that tells us, when necessary for our survival, what to do or say next. Nor am I talking about those overall, supersensible truths that come to us gradually,  over time, as we discern the pattern of meaning found in our lived experiences of many decades. For frankly, I DO view these as TRUTHS, no question.]

No. I’m talking about more mundane mental activity and sharing with others of what we’d like to think as truths. What about, for example, the many “conspiracy theories” that attempt or pretend to make sense of an enormous hunk of phenomena at once, so as to “drive the narrative” in a certain way. What about them? Shall we say they are all wrong, because they have an agenda? Or because they’re all merely “hopium” at best? But what about the agenda itself? Can we call any of them “true”? Or should we just say that no matter how convincing it appears at the time, any conspiracy theory is, at best, a partial description of ever-changing, ultimately mysterious reality.

All this is to introduce a video, which “attempts or pretends to make sense,” larger than usual sense, of current geopolitical reality.

I was so taken with this 32 minute video, which cites sources that prefer to remain anonymous (here we go again . . .), that I even took notes:

Interesting view of The Plan: The father of Xi, a high ranking communist, was purged, killed by the communist party in 1962 when Xi was nine years old. So it would make sense that he’s out for revenge, but must pretend to be one of them until the time is ripe. The White Hat Alliance, consists of Xi, Putin, Trump, and Saudi Prince Bin Salman. Bin Salman functions as “the enforcer” for the alliance. On his visit to the U.S. in 2018 he met with many many figures at the tops of finance, business, entertainment. There will be no midterm election in November. Trump will be arrested, but not in a sordid manner. Next four months crucial. September 11 likely to be a big deal. Trump will come back. Biden died in 2019. the actor playing him is a white hat installation; his job is to out deep state actors — for example, when he issues draconian orders, who eagerly goes along and who doesn’t. 

Inside the Command Structure of the Alliance to Save the World