Fake Truth

What is the relationship between opinion, the interpretation of experience, conviction and Truth? That's gotta have something to do with how we sort our and arrive at conclusions, doesn't it?

 Well, these ropes...are they a circle?

OK, to start out, some terms:

Empirical reasoning: the observation ability that science is based on, but done by you and me.
Personal observation: what YOU subjectively notice because it's important for you. This may contain your vested interests, perhaps tainted by confirmation bias...(which is selectively finding what you expect to find, and dismissing anything else.)

Both of these are considered to be at odds with the golden standard of scientific observation and the definition of "Truth." Technically, things aren't true until a proper science procedures have been followed and documented and published and reviewed by peers. Of course, then there's the other Golden standard of Legal Truth too we might consider... Then there's "Your Truth," there's "What All My Friends Say Who I Believe," and there's "What the News Says." Except now, there's "Fake News." And since the RICO Act, no authority has to tell the truth unless sworn into a court of law.

It gets complicated who's version of Truth applies.

Our culture seems to be getting lost in the effort to reconstruct meaning for themselves. Even if we only speak one language, all of us must take in words and then reconstruct the meaning for ourselves. The way that we put together meaning might not be what was meant. The blame might be on either side - clumsy communication skills or our ability to misunderstand...

For me, personal research is closer to the Truth than most would consider. For me, the sum total of my experience is an operational truth that can always be updated...and does get updated. I'm proud of the fact that I can revise my convictions in the light of new information or experiences. But it frustrates me that when I trot out my findings. People don't listen because they don't have any idea of how much of my life has been devoted to my own pet research subjects. When they get a tip that improves the quality of life for them or solves a problem, they don't appreciate it. It appears that most people must pay money in order to pay attention.

So - what is "proof" of reasonable, operational truth that could be revised if needed?

Why - it's the sum total of my ability to integrate the conclusions and insights I've gathered and how I have made use of them. It's the collection of experiences I've actually had first hand, assumptions I've decided to believe, what other people have told me that they believe, what I've read that I can remember. Also it's some of what I've decided to believe purely because it sounds reasonable to me - even though it's probably not factually true.

In other words, you and I could be wrong, purely through ignorance and faulty reasoning. A field of specialization exists called Cognitive Bias. I find it a very handy field to study and keep in mind when coming to conclusions about the nature of the world and people in it.

So, how do we deal with the accusation of being wrong? How do we revise our convictions? Certainly you aren't a person who says, "Don't bother me with facts when I've already made up my mind!"

Actually, you probably are. (At least in some areas.) More commonly, people don't bother with revision of their opinions and values. Once their mind is made up, that's that. Some people are actually proud of embodying the conditioning of their cultural upbringing. Also, some people are in a situation where they hold convictions because it's a survival strategy so they can't afford to revise their convictions.

What's to blame? Partly, our English language has victimized us. The very usefulness of English is also its downfall when it comes to revising Truth.

I've observed that describing reality seems to be one of the irresistible assumptions inherent within the structure of English...and the nature of reality will differ depending on perception, attitude, and prior conditioning... AND culture, yet people don't consider this. They think what they think is "true" merely because they "thunk" it. 

One of the culprits for rampant miscommunication is that English doesn't have an adequate way to indicate subjective experience and frame uncertainty. English has... "seems to be," "from my point of view" or "IMHO."  Words like "Sometimes" and "Maybe" as examples of qualifiers or frames that attempt to serve this function of describing subjectivity. But these "frames" are scoffed at by the writing professionals. There's a reason for that.

When using those phrases, there's a danger that a writer's motive will be too easily misunderstood about exactly why they are uncertain. These qualifiers are questioned as indicators of uncertainty by editors. Writers will be admonished by editors to come out and dare to boldly say the declaration. It makes it less likely that the writer's challengers will attack.

So what if I wrote what I just said like this: ...describing reality IS an irresistible assumption inherent within the structure of English...? Would stating that sentence with conviction and certainty make it more likely for you to believe me? Would it matter how old or how beautiful I happen to appear? Are you thinking of questioning my right to say such a thing without a linguistics diploma or membership in your favorite political party?

We cannot open our mouths without someone questioning whether or not we have the "RIGHT" to define the nature of what we're talking about.

Everyone is trying to figure out how much other people are LYING!

It's gone too far: Scientists work to prove what's True that goes on whether people believe in it or not. Lately, our culture seems to have the conviction that every fact is merely another opinion.

It seems as if everyone has their agenda. Those with an agenda have gone too far to have assigned questionable truth to professionals who specialize in a field. The idea is because these scientists are specialists - they have "vested interests" in being right - despite this being a convoluted accusation!

Think about it - why did our culture evolve qualifications of education and specialization? If you're a professional, you are not supposed to imply uncertainty when you're attempting to add to the sum total of knowledge. Then if you're certain - you have vested interests...

This example of blatant Cognitive Bias drives me NUTS! 

What about when conclusions are based on many factors? Without these qualifiers, a writer's motive of an open mind won't be adequately conveyed.

What if the writer's subjective attitude is not meant to be considered a rhetorical point delivered with uncertainty, self-effacement or as a disclaimer? "From my point of view" is not necessarily another way of saying "I haven't taken a poll or conducted my research properly." It might be an indicator of being proudly humble - one of those paradoxes of culture that women express, for instance.

For me, using a subjective qualifier is a proud expression of conservatively stating my own open uncertainty toward the possibility of being wrong and openness to change.

But there is a backlash from holding this attitude. Guys like to challenge, they relish jockeying for position as a sign of respect. It just gets old when you HAVE the degrees and professional status to have the right to be believed to say what you're saying and people STILL try to fight you with outdated assumptions. In fact, it's a Top Gun problem - if you're number One, more people imagine you're the person they need to take down so they can take your place as Number Uno. 

Look at the life of Edward de Bono for instance. He wanted to call his last book: "It's Too Late To Think." He had written about 80 books on thinking skills, and was never able to get thinking skills as a subject into UK or USA schools during his lifetime. Bureaucracy is designed to resist innovation.

This resistance has had an effect on me too. Some readers have reacted to my using language in this way because they imagine I'm obligated to talk this way legally. Because otherwise I'm "making claims" that could be proved false. They imagine I'm afraid that I might be sued for making promises I can't keep.

Huh? This whole topic just stupefies me!

Horrifying October

Partly the reason I love October, is that in most places, fall makes dramatic changes. It makes me feel like getting busy. This is probably a squirrel-like urge to sock away food for the winter. I still enjoy fall in Hawaii, even though there isn't much evidence of change. It's making me think about getting ready to paint holiday windows in the San Francisco Bay area again.

Of course, as as artist, I find that it's also fun to mess up people's windows during this time of year - as I did here for a "Fright Shop" in Hawaii. It's so much fun for me to just draw big, improvising along as I see what happens in front of me. 

I enjoy the images and themes of Halloween; the magic and the unexplained happenings. I love the idea that it is, for one night, socially acceptable to assume and act out as another persona - even if it is just for a costume party or an evening of dancing.

But strangely enough, I really cannot watch horror films. I'm just too impressionable. Horrifying images make it into my dreams and haunt me in ways that aren't at all fun or even have a purpose. Movies are intentionally designed to get an emotional reaction from movie goers; in a horror film this is overkill. 

This doesn't make much sense to me, because I do enjoy taking chances and being adventurous. It seems like a strange purpose to look for horror on purpose, when so much real challenge is available in the world.

But extremes are entertaining to some people.
If you enjoy horror, what is it about the experience that you enjoy?

In A Fight

In brain science and in hand-to-hand combat, the person who has the ability to calm themselves while under the threat of fighting has the upper hand. A person who can calm themselves can use an incidental strategic advantage collected by their slower upper brain as well as their faster reactions of their reptile survival brain. 

A friend of mine was once in a bad situation where a group of thugs were threatening to roll him and rob him. He looked around, figured it would be easier to defend himself if he were in a small space where one person at a time was going to come at him. So he backed in between two parked cars against a dead end wall and proceeded to wait. The thugs taunted each other to go in after him; but eventually one of them said, "Look at him - he's too calm. He's got a gun. Let's go."

Defending oneself in real fight is a whole different matter too, but again - calm observation and questioning one's own assumptions can pay off...

At 24 years old, I was once walking uphill on a one-way switchback to the little Mesa to a party in a remote place in Bolinas near the beach at night. As I walked, I began to suspect that someone was behind me, matching my footsteps. Was it in order to sneak up on me for some nefarious purpose? I shuffled my feet. The person behind me matched my footsteps again. The houses I was passing had occupants who were on vacation, or gone to bed and locked their doors... So I decided my advantage was that he did not know that I suspected what might be going on.

At fifteen paces, I turned around, still walking backwards and started blabbing to him in an over-friendly way in the dark silence. "Oh, hi! Were you at the beach like I just was? I didn't notice you there. Did you get that shirt at the freebox? I love the Freebox... I'm going to a party; are you going there too? "

He stopped, somewhat shocked...not answering me. Which indicated to me that he might have the nefarious intentions I imagined. Now I knew how he was dressed. But there we were...walking along, twenty feet apart. So I kept blabbing to him and decided to choose my battle ground to conduct a little test. I wanted to control where I was going to allow him to get closer to me to see what he might do when we came to a steep switchback.

When I reached my chosen spot, at that point I said, "Oh shit! Forgot something at the beach, gotta go back..." Sure enough, he ran the last ten feet uphill across the street towards me and pushed me down. But because I was smart to think ahead, I was on the ground parallel to the outside edge of the road; next to me was a steep drop off. I had a significant advantage of familiarity with the terrain.

While I was on the ground as he was coming close to me, I realized that my legs were a whole lot longer than his arms. I remember thinking, "Some part of me must have been planning this." As he loomed over me, still saying nothing, I crouched in a fetal position, saying, "Oh, you're going to help me up." He still said nothing. As he bent over me, all I had to do was extend my legs and plant them in his crotch to toss him over the steep edge of the road. I got up and ran. When I breathlessly arrived at the party, I explained what had happened. The guys in the part all went out looking for this attacker. But there was enough time to for him to disappear.

Later in the daytime, I went back to the scene of the crime. I saw that what I had done to evade the attack was an even better plan than I imagined. Where he'd landed off the side of the road, there were many poison oak bushes...

Scapegoats

Blame is an interesting activity that is worthy of study. When there is something wrong, it's very curious why people first have the urge to go looking for someone else who can be the reason for their problems.

Have to admit, this same thought of being a victim often happens when I must look for something that I have misplaced. What really happened was that I found a "secure" spot for it in a remotely "safe" location. In an attempt to foil possible theft, I hid the item from myself! Nobody stole it from me. But this is what I begin to fear as I frantically look for it.

No wonder people look for scapegoats. Someone to blame is so convenient to have around.

Sophie Lhoste Are polite relationships draining your energy?

Read: http://bit.ly/co9kuH

Reading this article leaves me to wonder how those energy vampires feel about people who label them.

Beyond the judgmental conclusions of name-calling, what do loving people constructively do about this situation? Couldn't people who complain and label just learn more gracefully and tactfully to ask for what they need or want as a questionable point continues to happen routinely? Why do we need to resort to name-calling to demonize others for allowing some room to adjust to each others evolving needs?

I'm asking these questions because I really want answers. A mark of true friendship is to be able to hear other points of view without imagining it is an attack. I don't intend to deliver my opinions veiled as questions. I want to let the spin cycle come to a close before we open the oven to see if the souffle fell. Divorce seems to be a rite of passage, rather than a last resort. People are too quick to come to a conclusion that writes off others. They could look for new ideas about how to deal with a new situation that is unfamiliar.

Let's think for a moment from the point of view of these people you want to blame for taking your energy. 
What would they say they are doing to deal with how you are acting?
The first platitude that makes sense is "live and let live." 
Can it be OK to say: "if you can't say something constructive, don't say anything"...?  
What about the tolerance and compassion of, "OK, whatever floats your boat"! 
Isn't it supportive to indicate," I'm gonna leave it up to you to call me when your available again."

Is it a requirement that those closest to us should ALWAYS read our minds so they can provide exactly the support we need in the moments they determine that we must have it? 

Isn't that a bit self-involved to expect from the mere humans who happen to have already been loving us?

Why should every moment, every support, every activity be so much drama that we must come to a resolved conclusion about What It Is and arbitrarily determined we should cut off the relationships that we have decided must be "draining us"?

It's the empty spaces that get left up to us to provide content.  Leave some dead air for a change and have it all be OK. Assume love. Those people who used to love you might want you to be happy, but are they could be innocently clueless about what you want them to do because you're not being all that articulate. Get a little more proactive and indicate what is appropriate and constructive.  Just...take a nap or go for a walk; play with the pet or the kids. Nobody is sucking you dry, just stop expecting there is a trade or tacit agreement of exchange as you give.

Any Questions?

 A kid and a Jehovah Witness came to my door last week. Before they started in with their religious invitations, I engaged the youngster in learning to juggle. He was a kid of around ten years old. Because I'd given him something of value in learning juggling, the kid wanted to give me a booklet that was a digest of their bible. I took it and read some of it.

In this condensed Bible there was an admonition where followers were urged to burn the books of "evil" false prophets such as Tarot card readers, psychics, astrologers, etc. It got me thinking how threatening it is to religions to have competition to their cornering the market on interpreting answers to spiritual questions. Probably nowadays, anyone who dispenses advice and wisdom based on their personal experience is going to be threatening to a church. Made me wonder what definition of "evil" this threat would actually include. Pretty much whenever you decide certain people are "evil," it's only a matter of time before many more people end up in that same category.

I thought of all the people in social networking who are urged to "brand themselves" and be the number one special version of the dispenser of value gained by their followers. In a flash of inspiration, I saw every social networker on Twitter as having their own religion...and respective followers...  How would threatened religions and churches burn e-books...?

In the time of Christ there must have been quite a few people out preaching "Truth." Probably there were lots of swindlers who were looking for followers who would pay them money to support their efforts, just as there seem to be now. In that era to perform the miracle of raising the dead, all you had to do is have the skill of recognizing someone in a coma who is might wake up eventually.

That Bible held up as the "word of God" was written by "psychics" who probably did not have much means to advertise - but they could write. Just getting materials to write something down must have been challenging. Probably being someone who knew how to read and write was something you had to keep secret, because people in that era were threatened by it. Creativity was probably low on the list of those cultures deliberately designed to control huge classes of people. Urban myths about anyone, translated numerous times and painstakingly hand-written and copied by those who could READ - it must have been such a privileged, rare gift to be literate in that era. Maybe all those stories in the Bible were about many people, and they all got lumped together into being about one person. (Bait and switch was a common historical tactic of religions.)


Now anyone can have their blog printed on demand. Anyone can dispense "wisdom" and write their own Bible. No wonder religions are being threatened.

Some people believe words have a firm, factual reality in themselves. They think words "mean what they mean." But this is not true. Words shift and flicker depending on context and expression, just as symbols do. This is what makes poetry and the symbols of religion and belief interesting.

Many people have an ability to think, but their ability to express their thinking may not reach the listener or reader for many mutual reasons. The topic or context may be incomplete or indistinct. Or the communicator's natural style of thinking may be so different from our own that it is difficult to figure out the communicator's intent. What is their associative pathway from point to point and how can I follow? It may be tricky to follow thinking paths - especially if thinking is original thinking.

In this way creative thinking is similar to religion - in that really original ideas must be carefully interpreted for the listener.

So often religious bureaucracy seems to want to control how people think because they invest in being the interpreter for the public of their respective "holy scripture." Religious leaders want to be the ONLY interpreter for the believers, claiming "all others are wrong or evil."

Each time they read or listen, each person is reconstructing meaning from reading what someone else has written or said. Someone who has written is pointing at...something about what they intend to say. Their skill and familiarity with their language use is a factor, in addition to their ability to think - but also their ability to articulate and guess at the assumptions of their listener. They try to answer the virtual question: "What would the listener want to know?"

It is up the person listening or reading to fill in the blanks, follow the traces or indicators while the listener reconstructs the thinking pathways of the communicator. In this way, listening is almost a spiritual practice. It is a spiritual question when a person seeks a way to express that which cannot be directly expressed. Spiritual, intuitive, or virtual questions often beg for symbols and indirect ways to express their messages and intent.

Of course, the way you frame a question structures and points to the answer. Have any questions now? Hope so.