The Relevance of Truth

[Urwrongx1000]

Truth is always necessary to reveal who, what, and where the true threats arise.

I'm just pissed off that Western Civilization is collapsing and we are ending the age of Freedom in the West.



I certainly didn't expect to be living in this time period. Freedom will require space exploration and colonization, before a new Free society can form.

The US Constitution is nullified and destroyed, by this Communist insurrection. But you already touched on this.

[obsrvr524]

Truth is always necessary to reveal who, what, and where the true threats arise.

Good - I agree - but ---

Should credit be given to the idea that the real truth about this whole life on Earth (or elsewhere) is possibly something best NOT known? Is there a limit to how much truth should be revealed. I have to ask because many very influential people have declared that it should NOT be revealed. And that is a serious problem. And looking into the past that problem has really come up time and again.

I think we can all agree that some level of truth is necessary merely to live - to perceive hope and threat. But if we are to find out that the total highest truth of it all is lethal, the problem arises as to how to draw the line and stop the investigating - the critical thinking - the philosophizing.

All of the religions of the entire world do that (as far as I can tell). They all say - "this is enough - no more". In fact some religions appear to use full disclosure as a weapon to have societies destroy themselves.

A Ministry of Truth so easily becomes a propaganda weapon used in nefarious ways. I think there is a way to prevent that from happening but there must be an understanding that there really is a limit to what is good to NOT know about. All countries and religions do that (and all suffer a lack of confidence from their populous).

So as philosophers, can it be determined that a limit to knowledge SHOULD be implemented?

How to get it done is a different issue - perhaps next in developing a strategy to restore freedom - or whatever.

[Urwrongx1000]

Under a Free Society, no, there are no Arbiters of Truth that can represent the State.

If there are, then it is simply no longer a Free Society, which is the case in the U.S.

The explicit argument here is that it is the liberal-left Communists who want to establish themselves as the Ministry of Truth.


And when Conservatives/Republicans bail out of Twitter, they shut down Parler in response.

You can't get anymore lower and evil than these cretins.

[obsrvr524]

Under a Free Society, no, there are no Arbiters of Truth that can represent the State.

If there are, then it is simply no longer a Free Society, which is the case in the U.S.

-- 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.

[Urwrongx1000]

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.

[obsrvr524]

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.

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.

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

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.

[Urwrongx1000]

So the US government has never kept classified materials.

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.

[Mr Reasonable]

In fact, the trump fiasco might very well be the nail in the coffin of conservatism.

lol if u think
the majority of millenials
won't turn conservative
when they're 40

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.

[Great Again]

The Relevance of Truth

I thought it best to address this before continuing with the thread The New Dark Age Philosophy

Now that the greatest single experiment in all of mankind has come to a close – that of the global contest between truth of reality and public deception – and we see now that across the world in the final battle it is deception that reigns supreme, we have to give credit and consideration as to whether actual truth should ever be of concern.

Knowing that the victor will most often be the liar (proven world over by politics), is it properly loving of parents to teach their children to try to be honest? If we know that such a philosophy as "honesty is the best policy" will cause our children to be losers and possibly crushed by their competition in life should we, with their best interest at heart, teach such a failed life policy?

When we think about it, among the trillions of living creatures on the planet, not one ever actually knows the real truth of their situation. Humans come closer than other creatures, but after thousands of years struggling with trying to know and promote truth only to have it revealed as the weaker position to take, why continue to promote it as a philosophy?

Now world over there will be a "truth narrative" spread that is to be adhered to along with dire consequences for any who attempt to reveal or even privately believe any actual truth. So why fight it?

And additionally what if the real truth is that it isn't even wise to know the real truth at all? That has been often proposed throughout history it seems.

• In the long run actual truth fails to protect against competition
• Teaching our children to be honest ensures their weakness
• The world governance demands compliance with a preferred truth narrative
• Perhaps knowing actual truth is not healthy or wise
• Deception seems to be the basis of all life from birth to death

Those sound like good reasons to wisely choose to ignore actual truth and accept whatever lie best suits the situation – to be willing to tell one lie and then the very next day alter to another, possibly even the opposite of the first, and simply deny any wrong doing at all times. Is lying to even be considered "wrong doing"? Many on this board and throughout politics don't seem to think so.

Is it wiser to just accept and promote with just a sprinkle of truth whatever lie seems to be the need at the time even while believing that the apparent "need at the time" is probably itself a lie? Possibly "just go along to get along" is the wiser choice?

Is the real truth that the real truth is irrelevant and its pursuit unwise?

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.

[obsrvr524]

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?

[Urwrongx1000]

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.

[obsrvr524]

Truth without Authority has no power.

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"

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.

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?

[Urwrongx1000]

[obsrvr524]

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.

Resolution Debate Forum;

A) Present thesis in itemized assertions
B) Each item is approved by all parties or disproved by any party
C) Disapproval begins new thread resolution debate upon the item in contention (though not ending the prior thread for those who agreed)
D) Items eventually obtaining 100% approval become a "tree of knowledge".
E) All thesis are always left open for new challenges, but always require resolution debate.
F) Any axiomatic disagreement begins a new tree seed.
G) Logic-moderation is required for logic form, not truth content.
H) Each item must be addressed individually as well as any relevant corresponding question regarding it.

The end result is a forest of trees with identifiable members and supporters who know WHY they believe what they believe (no prophets required) as well as having an "open-source" reasoning for future correction, reference, or correlation; an ordered encyclopedia of thought.

Everyone learns with whom they agree, why, and to what extent.

Merely as an example;
With which of those items would you disagree and why?
As each was either accepted or improved, the resolution debating process would be resolved.

And if you want to get seriously technical, you could even assign a updating numbering system that would identify what each person believes although it might take a computer to keep track of it all; "My belief is, ILP 13.3.45.3.26.2.32.81"

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

[iambiguous]

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.

Resolution Debate Forum;

A) Present thesis in itemized assertions
B) Each item is approved by all parties or disproved by any party
C) Disapproval begins new thread resolution debate upon the item in contention (though not ending the prior thread for those who agreed)
D) Items eventually obtaining 100% approval become a "tree of knowledge".
E) All thesis are always left open for new challenges, but always require resolution debate.
F) Any axiomatic disagreement begins a new tree seed.
G) Logic-moderation is required for logic form, not truth content.
H) Each item must be addressed individually as well as any relevant corresponding question regarding it.

The end result is a forest of trees with identifiable members and supporters who know WHY they believe what they believe (no prophets required) as well as having an "open-source" reasoning for future correction, reference, or correlation; an ordered encyclopedia of thought.

Everyone learns with whom they agree, why, and to what extent.

Merely as an example;
With which of those items would you disagree and why?
As each was either accepted or improved, the resolution debating process would be resolved.

And if you want to get seriously technical, you could even assign a updating numbering system that would identify what each person believes although it might take a computer to keep track of it all; "My belief is, ILP 13.3.45.3.26.2.32.81"

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...

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.

...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".

[obsrvr524]

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.

[Magnus Anderson]

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).

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

[obsrvr524]

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).

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.

[iambiguous]

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.

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:

1] Noting the distinction between a frame of mind that revolves around a Real Me in sync and a set of moral and political values that are said to encompass objectively "the right thing to do", and "I" embodied subjectively/existentially in dasein, in moral and political prejudices...in the arguments I make for it/this in my signature threads; and specifically in this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529 .

2] Noting that when someone does change their moral and political frame of mind, they are acknowledging that they were wrong about something in the is/ought world around them. And that, once they acknowledge this, they are acknowledging in turn they may well be wrong about other things. Finally, they are acknowledging that, yes, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas, they might be prompted to change their minds again. And again.

3] As a consequence, what I then suggest is that we focus in on a particular moral and political truth of theirs and given a set of circumstances we examine our respective moral and political philosophies.

4] Here, however, I'm less interested in simply articulating what we believe is true in the way of moral and political truths and more focused in how we would go about demonstrating to others that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think and to feel the same.

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.

[obsrvr524]

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.

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.

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 -

The end result is a forest of trees with identifiable members and supporters who know WHY they believe what they believe (no prophets required) as well as having an "open-source" reasoning for future correction, reference, or correlation; an ordered encyclopedia of thought.

- 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".

[iambiguous]

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.

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.

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 -

The end result is a forest of trees with identifiable members and supporters who know WHY they believe what they believe (no prophets required) as well as having an "open-source" reasoning for future correction, reference, or correlation; an ordered encyclopedia of thought.

- 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.

[Magnus Anderson]

So now the only issue is merely how we (you [Urwrongx1000] included) could arrange that kind of forum.

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.

[Magnus Anderson]

But is making "intelligent choices" wiser than just being obedient and letting authority do the thinking?

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.

[Kathrina]

So now the only issue is merely how we (you [Urwrongx1000] included) could arrange that kind of forum.

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.

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.

S_E.jpg (12.9 KiB) Viewed 119 times

H.gif (7.37 KiB) Viewed 119 times

[obsrvr524]

So now the only issue is merely how we (you [Urwrongx1000] included) could arrange that kind of forum.

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.

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 this will also be the case with the Internet, but at much shorter intervals, 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 -

The end result is a forest of trees with identifiable members and supporters who know WHY they believe what they believe (no prophets required) as well as having an "open-source" reasoning for future correction, reference, or correlation; an ordered encyclopedia of thought.

Everyone learns with whom they agree, why, and to what extent.

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 ).



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)?