Truth & Knowledge

Why what Is True May Become Disputed

Truth is generally assumed to be something that is factual and indisputably true. I have never found anything that is indisputably true because someone always disputes everything or anything we talk a lot about truth. Truth may not be clearly definable but lies can be and that is because what one can know is different than what one calls  truth. What one can know can be gained because  knowledge is discernible,  or something  you can seek it out and determine if  that is something that has happened, or an  event a you can determine for a fact whether or not it did occur, if you cannot determine if  an event has happened, then people can dispute the truth of whether the event happened or not, and that is the way in which we live, or at least the manner in which the truth of an occurrence is true or not true.

For instance, we can not know if people from other planets ever visited earth.  Some claim they have, some claim they have  actually encountered space aliens, some claim they’ve invaded human bodies, and some claim they actually settled earth and we are their progenitors.

The problem is that none of these can be knowledgeably discerned as having happened, and the fact that they are the ancestors of humans or that humans became “civilized” as a result of their appearance is rather discernibly untrue because it would have taken them more knowledge about interstellar travel than we possess–even now.  There are variations, they came, started civilization and then departed, or perhaps they somehow lost most, but not all, of their knowledge during the journey.

Now this becomes a problem, because just because something is not verifiable does not mean it couldn’t have happened.  We live in bear country.  If I lived in Lake Tahoe and spotted a bear I would have probably been accepted as telling the truth if I claimed to see one because sightings are not that  rare.  Tahoe residents have to follow strict protocols in handling food wastes to limit enticing bears into their neighborhood.  I was out running in western Reno one morning, in the section that has been growing up on the eastern slope of the Sierra, and I saw a bear.  Still at quite a distance, but on the eastern slope.  When I reported the incident to my wife and kids, they said I was making it up, i.e. they said I was fibbing, or making up the sighting because bear sightings in Reno are extremely rare.  But they have happened.  Especially that year where there was an extreme drought, and at least two bears were captured and returned to the mountains.  Those bears were tagged, and one returned and they put it down deciding she could not be dependably returned a second time.

The point is that the concept of what is true and what is not true can become a matter of what we believe to be true and we can easily believe unverifiable knowledge as truthful and others can easily claim verifiable knowledge is not truthful.  Because the truthfulness of anything has become determined not by verifiable knowledge but by a priori belief, then it becomes meaningless to argue the truthfulness of an ideology of any belief that formulates into truthfulness or untruthfulness of said belief.  

Anything that is not verifiable is possibly “mistaken” rather than a lie.  But if a gunman enters a school in Sandy Hook, if we verify that children died, if we verify parents lost their children to the gunman, if we verify the identity of the killer, if we verify the bullets and the weapon(s)--- then we know the event occurred. To then claim the event was staged, the parents were actors and the entire story was untrue, since we have verified the truth of the incident, then to dispute is no longer a matter of whether the event occurred, to claim otherwise is clearly false.  And to be allowed to raise money on such a claim is not really a tort, it is a fraud.  Frauds are criminal and should be prosecuted criminally. Especially if they lead to some doubting the veracity of the event and create harassment or other crimes upon the victims.  So not only has he fraudulently committed fraud for personal gain, he has responsibility for the actions of others who might think he is telling the truth, who otherwise would not have  considered the non-reality of the event.  Now I don’t actually personally believe that those who might have accepted the claims of Alex Jones about Sandy Hook actually of necessity believed him when they harassed the families of those who had lost their children had been “actors”, but what they did believe was that the government, the press etc., had ulterior motives of suppressing those who were already feeling susceptible to claims of Sandy Hook being a government fraud to take away people’s guns. 

We could repeat the same accusations about the “stolen” election of 2020.

But what we are dealing with are two issues here, and the problem has been consistently consolidated as one issue.  The first is an attempt by some to create an environment for perpetuating fraud for either political or monetary gain by those who are proposing verifiably false knowledge as opposing truths.  The second is the people who are susceptible to the claims and believe the false knowledge because the principles proposed are resonant with the feelings that make some people  become susceptible to these false claims.

If a person feels that his “vote” does not seem valid because his vote has no discernible effect in altering his importance to the government and the culture of the community he can become quite susceptible.  In the next few essays I am going to delve into the reasons he might feel elections are stolen in principle, and therefore those persons can become susceptible to distorted beliefs that there is a conspiracy against him.

But this is to say that the feelings that the individual personality, and the experiences that attempt to conform the personality lead to the feelings of distress that lend themselves to “conspiracy theories”; if those who feel conspired against reject the truth of certain subjects then they are susceptible to such theories that may explain the plights that have led to their distress. 

But those who use those feelings to gain from  individual distress, and in fact attempting to increase that distress, may or may not believe in their own theories, but more than likely have some knowledge that their ideologies are non-verifiable.  Legislators who say that nothing can be done about gun violence, for instance, are certainly aware something can be done but they also understand that undermining people’s feeling of security is very effective in undermining “voters” who do not necessarily “blame” the leaders who may be responsible for that insecurity by not doing anything to attempt to control the fear; but are just as likely to vote for those who accuse others for not doing anything, because their outspokenness on claiming something should be done often leads to being held responsible for not having done what they say should be done.

So while I’m not suggesting there should be no accountability for those who might be commit crime because they have acceded to suggestions of personal discontent, the actors who make the suggestions that lead to such criminal actions should be equally criminally liable for every crime committed because of their suggestions or inactions that led to the crime.  

Politicians cannot hide behind the first amendment right of speech because it is illegal, or should be criminal to do so.   The first amendment punishes fraudulent speech and it punishes criminal solicitation of crimes. If Marjorie Taylor Greene says “If I had been in charge of Jan 6 it would have succeeded because it would have been better armed” then proceeds to go the jail where convicted insurrections reside and tells them they should be pardoned, what is she doing but creating a clear and present danger by encouraging further insurrection. She was not in congress at the time so there is no speech and debate, no congressional business involved.  It is a direct call to encourage future insurrectionists and a direct call to unduly influence further volatility within the community and she should be criminally arrested and held accountable.

If politicians pass anti-drag legislation and crimes are committed against those in drag, or against people for any type of homosexual behavior, that those politicians who led the passage of such legislation are directly guilty of the crimes and should be equally responsible criminally for their actions of speaking out and creating an enviroment that suggests that it is permissible to commit such attacks.

Before the beginning of the civil war there were several southern senators encouraging the secession that followed.  William Pitt Fessendon, senator from Maine, suggested such comments from the floor of the congresses could not be shielded or protected by speech and debate because they were direct calls to encourage constituents to insurrection.  And if governors or legislators create an atmosphere that makes crimes against others are, or should be criminal, and should be equally responsible for criminal actions just as a mob boss or any other solicitor of a crime would be.

Likewise if legislators refuse to regulate guns, those legislators, or governors, or justices, should be equally liable for crimes that their words (or words that call for inactivity) that permits such crimes to occur. In essence, failure to act is an encouragement of the crimes that such actions or inactions lead to. There is no legislative purpose to encourage insurrection or to encourage murder, in fact, it is the opposite because the purpose is non-legislative and against all legislative purpose so they must be held criminally liable or stability cannot return.  I am not speaking of debates on issues like climate debates, foreign policy debates, fiscal debates—I am speaking only of politicians who use their position that results in crimes against others.  They are not representing anyone other than their own intentions of destabilization of society and their own intentions to consolidate power and to convince others by creating an environment of instability that resonates with those susceptible to such legislative intentions of creating and furthering havoc and the criminals that act upon such suggestions.  If we are all equal under the law, then we shouldn't need to assume that legislators that create a criminal environment are any less susceptible to prosecution than a mob boss who creates a criminal organization. If these mob legislators, governors, platformed personalities, and even supreme court judges are not held accountable for the mob environment they promote then the mob criminal environment of their rhetoric resonates beyond and endangers the very large possibility of increasing instability—and the lessons of history show a very resounding  success story for an unstable  society to become susceptible to a totalitarian takeover with the promise of a restoration to stability—even though it was an instability created by those who created the impasse of an out of control society to begin with.

Notes-I don’t know if there is precedent, other than Senator Fessendon’s remarks in the late 1858. But there are certainly precedents that the proclamations mentioned in this article have been criminally prosecuted. So it is time to set precedent that prevents rhetoric of disharmony and instability should be expanded against those who profess to use elected powers to create a disharmonious and unstable environment.