Pilate asked 'Wass is warheit?'. I prefer the German because it seems starker than the English 'what is truth', although it means the same thing. What is it? This is a perceptual and existential question.
If we assume there is a factual reality of any kind, the first issue in truth is whether that reality can be perceived. High pitched frequencies are unquestionably real, but they are not real to people because we can not hear them. They are quite real to dogs. We must be able to perceive facts to find truth.
Second, vantage point makes a big difference. Truth, as opposed to simple, isolated facts, implies complete perception. It is quite possible to be able to perceive, but not perceive all the facts or elements of a problem. A common example is the perception of an elephant by three blind men. None of them feel the whole elephant, and so one thinks it is a snake, one a horse, and one a rhino.
Third, we must be able to process facts, data, images, touches, etc. A mound of facts does not make truth. It is necessary to integrate them into a cohesive whole. Some people can do this. Some can not.
Fourth, we must accept the facts and process them free of selection bias and personal assumptions. This is the hardest problem of all. So often, it is not vantage point that affects our perception of facts, it is our prejudices and assumptions. If we assume water is always liquid, we can not understand ice no matter how much we touch or see it.
It is this last issue that so often leads to conflict and violence. When we believe Iranians are trying to harm us, we will not be able to interact with them. If we believe atomic waste is dangerous and impossible to dispose, we will not support nuclear energy no matter what its advantages. We all have assumptions and prejudices. It is so sad to me how much of our lives and interactions they control.
A related and difficult problem occurs when a person or persons discerns a problem that others do not. Here I am thinking of those who can process material better, quicker and/or more completely. No one likes a naysayer, whether it is about a football team, a town, a business or a movie. Common perception is popular by definition, and those who perceive differently through greater integrative ability are not usually appreciated. The Greeks got at this nicely in their mythology, as they so often did with psychological and behavioral issues. Cassandra is given the gift of foresight, but because she denigrates it, she is given the curse of never being believed.
This gets even more complicated when governance, politics, money and organizations are involved. The bigger the stakes, the greater the desire to silence dissent and contrary analyses. In Barabra Tuchman's book 'The March of Folly', she defines this as one of the great features of folly- an unwillingness to hear other ideas, and a willingness to quash dissenting ones.
History is full of terrible examples that should lead us to do better, but so often do not. Before the War of 1870, the defects of the French military were known. Various fine solutions were put forward, but were voted down as being inconsistent with French social values. There is nothing consistent with anyone's social values about being crushed in war, but that is exactly what happened. The French professional army was destroyed in only 6 weeks of fighting.
Sometimes defeat is a very good teacher, since older ideas are swept away in the pain and self criticism of loss. Tanks and mobile warfare were well developed in Germany after WW 1, despite being based as much on the ideas of the Englishman Lidell-Hart as on those of Guderian. Thesse ideas were readily available to both the English and the French, but they, having 'won' WW 1, opted for an army and strategy 20 years out of date. When it came to a fight, the Germans crushed the French and English, cutting through to the English Channel in less than three weeks.
In both these examples, voices within the government and military plainly identified the problems and solutions needed, but were ignored. This occurs at a personal level as well, and in corporations. Most commonly, a contrary voice is considered disloyal, or obstructionist. Such individuals are silenced in various ways- denial of promotion, outright firings, ostracism within the organization or peer group, humiliation.
Most people are not stupid, and they do not want to experience these negative events. People therfore generally keep their mouths shut in the face of employers, superiors and friends, keeping in mind Mark Twain's advice that when a person is determined to commit folly it is best to let them. Rather than speak and be punished, they simply walk away.
It is in this way that society, governments, individuals and organizations suffer from their own desire to achieve conformity. Dedicated, able people stand by or walk away as friends get drunk, use drugs or waste money. Capable, concerned employees leave rather than face criticism for their analysis, and yet it is their very ability to anylyze and speak that should be of value. The terrible paradox is that the attempt to impose conformity, whether among peers of sexuality and habits or within corporations of values and support, leads to the loss of the most thoughtful, capable individuals.
It is a brave, and rare, individual, government or company that can truly hear criticism and dissent with an open mind, using it to improve and grow. We have a crushing example of quashing dissent and unity of message in our current politics, to our terrible detriment. I have made clear I will vote purely republican in November, if for no other reason than to send a message to our arrogant, close-minded, formulaic liberal governors.
I do hope they will hear the dissent of the governed, and perceive and respond to facts rather than their pre-formed assumptions that verge on delusion.
Ted
If we assume there is a factual reality of any kind, the first issue in truth is whether that reality can be perceived. High pitched frequencies are unquestionably real, but they are not real to people because we can not hear them. They are quite real to dogs. We must be able to perceive facts to find truth.
Second, vantage point makes a big difference. Truth, as opposed to simple, isolated facts, implies complete perception. It is quite possible to be able to perceive, but not perceive all the facts or elements of a problem. A common example is the perception of an elephant by three blind men. None of them feel the whole elephant, and so one thinks it is a snake, one a horse, and one a rhino.
Third, we must be able to process facts, data, images, touches, etc. A mound of facts does not make truth. It is necessary to integrate them into a cohesive whole. Some people can do this. Some can not.
Fourth, we must accept the facts and process them free of selection bias and personal assumptions. This is the hardest problem of all. So often, it is not vantage point that affects our perception of facts, it is our prejudices and assumptions. If we assume water is always liquid, we can not understand ice no matter how much we touch or see it.
It is this last issue that so often leads to conflict and violence. When we believe Iranians are trying to harm us, we will not be able to interact with them. If we believe atomic waste is dangerous and impossible to dispose, we will not support nuclear energy no matter what its advantages. We all have assumptions and prejudices. It is so sad to me how much of our lives and interactions they control.
A related and difficult problem occurs when a person or persons discerns a problem that others do not. Here I am thinking of those who can process material better, quicker and/or more completely. No one likes a naysayer, whether it is about a football team, a town, a business or a movie. Common perception is popular by definition, and those who perceive differently through greater integrative ability are not usually appreciated. The Greeks got at this nicely in their mythology, as they so often did with psychological and behavioral issues. Cassandra is given the gift of foresight, but because she denigrates it, she is given the curse of never being believed.
This gets even more complicated when governance, politics, money and organizations are involved. The bigger the stakes, the greater the desire to silence dissent and contrary analyses. In Barabra Tuchman's book 'The March of Folly', she defines this as one of the great features of folly- an unwillingness to hear other ideas, and a willingness to quash dissenting ones.
History is full of terrible examples that should lead us to do better, but so often do not. Before the War of 1870, the defects of the French military were known. Various fine solutions were put forward, but were voted down as being inconsistent with French social values. There is nothing consistent with anyone's social values about being crushed in war, but that is exactly what happened. The French professional army was destroyed in only 6 weeks of fighting.
Sometimes defeat is a very good teacher, since older ideas are swept away in the pain and self criticism of loss. Tanks and mobile warfare were well developed in Germany after WW 1, despite being based as much on the ideas of the Englishman Lidell-Hart as on those of Guderian. Thesse ideas were readily available to both the English and the French, but they, having 'won' WW 1, opted for an army and strategy 20 years out of date. When it came to a fight, the Germans crushed the French and English, cutting through to the English Channel in less than three weeks.
In both these examples, voices within the government and military plainly identified the problems and solutions needed, but were ignored. This occurs at a personal level as well, and in corporations. Most commonly, a contrary voice is considered disloyal, or obstructionist. Such individuals are silenced in various ways- denial of promotion, outright firings, ostracism within the organization or peer group, humiliation.
Most people are not stupid, and they do not want to experience these negative events. People therfore generally keep their mouths shut in the face of employers, superiors and friends, keeping in mind Mark Twain's advice that when a person is determined to commit folly it is best to let them. Rather than speak and be punished, they simply walk away.
It is in this way that society, governments, individuals and organizations suffer from their own desire to achieve conformity. Dedicated, able people stand by or walk away as friends get drunk, use drugs or waste money. Capable, concerned employees leave rather than face criticism for their analysis, and yet it is their very ability to anylyze and speak that should be of value. The terrible paradox is that the attempt to impose conformity, whether among peers of sexuality and habits or within corporations of values and support, leads to the loss of the most thoughtful, capable individuals.
It is a brave, and rare, individual, government or company that can truly hear criticism and dissent with an open mind, using it to improve and grow. We have a crushing example of quashing dissent and unity of message in our current politics, to our terrible detriment. I have made clear I will vote purely republican in November, if for no other reason than to send a message to our arrogant, close-minded, formulaic liberal governors.
I do hope they will hear the dissent of the governed, and perceive and respond to facts rather than their pre-formed assumptions that verge on delusion.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment