Faking Knowledge and the Fate of Democracy
: Mental Truth and Power Manipulation
Most moments of our lives are not spent in “second guessing” ; What do I “really” know?
(When seeing the sky and guessing at the weather, is this the same as knowing some of the atmospheres meteorological elements of manifestation and how they relate in the real atmosphere dynamics being seen?)
Is it going to rain or become less cloudy by the cues in this image? Can this image answer that question? What happens to my personal sense of self honesty when I declare a truth under this and other kinds of environmental assessment?
Here (where I am ) in the desert southwest USA, these hints of upper air cloud formations will not indicate imminent or any precipitation. A meteorologist may be able to discern the locations of pressure systems, offer speculations of ‘gravity waves’, jet-stream movement, or suggest things such as orographic influence from what I might only see as curious cloud formations.
How much seeing is believing?, or more importantly, knowing? It is a truth that one can have an intuitive sense near the equal of scientific perception, as in the weather prediction ability many a farmer or other sky-watchers accuracy of atmospheric interpretation might attest. It is likewise a truth that many of us, on any particular subject, are relatively more ignorant than others. We may not wish to profess our lack of knowledge in the balance of a relationship with another too often, or at all. We may register the language of ideas to appear well informed, but not “know” the context and depth of the contextual paradigm of ideas meanings.
Oh! I don’t know!
This level of self ignorance on what is real, is a question of cognition we almost never ask ourselves for one simple reason–it would be unsettling to ponder too often. Our self identity needs a kind of confidence, usually, to function in a clear and productive direction. I can have emotion and belief telling me something is obvious and true, that I master a things context and interrelationship, but be mistaken, even completely wrong. Regardless, I forge ahead confidently in my assumptive interpretations, usually so I can move onward to the next thing. So I, we, live by many a presupposition, these often seeming as fundamental truths, perhaps “The Truth“, as emotion, our family, or friends and society, books and the Internet might insist is the case.
We then have a kind of inner guidance and misguiding/error system usually unquestioned as to its full integrity in perception. Many a belief system claims a prior (a-priori) endowment of truth, a “real” reality that cannot or should-not be tested/questioned. These “real truths” when embodied by human conceptual structures, institutions, institute kinds of non critical thinking mandates, where questions of validity are eschewed. Culture, society and ones closest community can contain unquestionable zones, whole areas of both presupposition and of the intent to not question the idea of the belief in ‘How things really are.’
The Rippling Outwards Of Error
We each are susceptible to misguidance, if not outright deception. When our thinking abilities are d-validated, for many degrees of ignorance and illusion can now glide right under the cognitive radar, in effect instilling a falsity into our “truth”. Here is where checking for facts becomes of paramount importance to an honest self, but under certain situations and circumstance, not where I am going. We humans create kinds of institutions, some of belief and some of physical persuasion, designed, for whatever reason, to keep us in line with the concepts manifesting the institution. We may be “corralled” by ideas that make us dependent upon the status quo, or, even by those that make us rebellious to an institutions perceived context as a position of a subcultural merit… We are not to question these ideas, the declaration will go, or else face the bad consequences of ostracism or otherwise be dismissed of truthful relevance by some form of shaming. Diversionary clichés will be offered to clear the way through the jungles of ambiguity, these, intended to load a judgment of being unwell, of “otherness” and exclusion to be tagged onto the holdings of some concepts. The reasoning, the rationalization, is not to be doubted for its is presumed as a reality beyond my awareness. Questions and doubts can become assessed as ones weakness, a failure, or even misguided deception indicating a sort of individual weakness and inferiority.
We point at these institutions in effect declaring; ‘They make this so. They make this truth itself.’, inferring true reality, while what these things are actually are conceptual constructs, kinds of formulations forwarded by other humans agreeing that these truths are in fact real an evident to common perception. This is only and always accomplished within the consciousness of one human being by one human being.
In childhood many concepts are automatically imprinted, such as with language containing its delivered concept definition. These definitions may, and often are, delivered by family and community interpretations. We “read” our family and communities “mind”, including peer communities emotional tags that hang on idea and conceptual interpretations, usually accepting most of these without question. Blame and shaming techniques are employed to keep us in-line or else face some sorts of troubled consequence.
“It Is What It Is” Or How Lies Can Be Called Truth
This is the domain of a priori frames; places intended not to be questioned for the health of the institution and possibly the health of society. However, the institution, with its claims upon actual real truth, will not include the; possibly of intrinsic error, instead it will say it is; The Way it is., period. No questions to be asked. This puts we human individuals at kinds of disadvantage, for not being able to challenge an institution is mathematically problematic, in that errors can accrue and we must remain oblivious, in denial, and, or likely more hostile as a believer, toward the source of these alleged errors, this challenging dissonant appearance. We can be, and by probability are, wed to error and mistake and not allowed to divorce them in places unknown to us. The voices of loyalty or other means of emotional shaming control will be used to keep us in a conforming confort zone of sorts if we quietly, or energetically, follow along.
In some respect Society or some branch of it, will create the hangmen to hoist up the individual, perhaps as a kind of example, to warn others of the risk of questioning its authority. This then manifest aspects of the nature of what is a character trait of conservatism, a feature everyone must deal with in their own lives or remain ignorant of the consequences, for we are all in ways conservative and liberal. We have mental/emotional mechanisms of self survival that move across a continuum of love and empathy to obloquy and misanthropy.
For me, as an individual consciousness, someone pointing out a fault of mine, even if I am certain the claimed fault is a sure mistake, is taken seriously by me, at least to a point. It is no different for our institutions, some of which we do not even regard or know as being an institution–a self perpetuation human endeavor. Politics dramatizes these “institutionalized misconceptions”, for it is opinion, one-ego-mindedness, in action. Ultimately, the conflict in politics involves opinion; things that are objectively unchallenged by its holders, all while their emotions are “seeking” to convince or force others to share their belief; to defend our reality constructs “turf”, for this is the land on which our life and livelihoods seem to be framed into existence. While the real objective Reality is functioning internally and externally to some degree, our human consciousness, with its pattern detection techniques at times filled in by emotional “data”, is not an infallible depiction. This is one reason we will look at something; lets say some a priori authorization narrative, and claim this story is the true one, the right one, the one not to be questioned, or else. A fear and insecurity narrative is at the heart of any disagreement, if this does not lead to attempts at comprehending another’s position honestly–as we would intend for ourselves from another. (“The Golden Rule”, Categorical Imperative)
Just Like A Liberal / Conservative etc…
When we invoke our ad-hominem debunking techniques towards others, these are often imbued with insinuation and down-casting phraseology, or buzz worded Thought-Terminating-Cliché designed to stop an objective-minded thought process in its tracks. In some circles; (circular logic circles), these negative tag-frames are literally one side of the emotive linkages that tend to bond adherents to the concepts towards one another. From this sharing of cognitive bias, we can go on to pretend we are actually having an unbiased overview of an issue, but actually we are buttressing our assumptions by the impressions of fellow-hood “a movement”, a “reality of common mind” where we associate the words or the numbers of others to the mass of our belief’s presence as an action factor in life.
Matrixing Emotions And Incidents Into The Bad Other Narrative
While we may wish others understood or even knew ‘our story’, it is often the last thing we intend to comprehend of another, perhaps outside of our emotionalized rationalizations of harmful narrative. We juggle ideas of the others opprobrium until a cohesive concept of their intent is rendered. Gossip is quite like this phenomenon, but in todays world-wide media, there are continuous sources of perpetuation of disrespect for others, complete with the disreputable narrative that denotes “their” unsavory character and their corrosive intent toward me, and or, culture in general. I am not saying that there is not truth to the things we humans do and to how helpful or harmful in respects our actions are. I am saying that negativity as a mindset is a relative value to certain interest, be it to the self medications of a disenchanted ego, or to interest groups who use the negative as an advantage over others for social and other environmental control that seems to benefit themselves FIRST and FOREMOST. It is this kind of poisoning of the language of Democracy’s drinking waters, of culture, that is a major source of the negative in individual experience that blocks full, or fuller cognition of fact from fiction.
Democracy does hang on the rope of imposed constraints on cognition.