“Give us the truth” > Truth is like the concept of Relevance: knowing that something is or isn’t is only relevant to judgments we’re trying to make; and something only appears relevant relative to the validation we’re looking for.
What “truth” — some relevant fact that supports some conclusion — are the leaks providing? That she seems to be saying one thing to one audience and something else to another audience? That’s knowing your audience.
That what she says to one seems to contradict what she says to the other? There’s a problem, because we don’t know where she really stands.
So we add other “truths” — she takes big bucks to say encouraging things to the other audience. Does taking big bucks imply that she’s telling the truth to that audience (and that, therefore, she’s not telling us “truth”) or that there’s more “truth” to that perspective than to the other perspective for us? That’s fallacy.
Then there is our tendency to see (or want to see) black or white. Is what she’s saying to each audience that appears in conflict mean that there’s nothing in between? Or maybe the apparent conflict means we prefer to see everything align perfectly, as though there aren’t legitimate perspectives on the same object depending on where you’re standing?
People on one side of the planet aren’t going to see the Full Moon that you’re seeing in your part of the world — that is, your perspective. But it’s the same moon.
This last point is the problem with the masses in general: The attitude that there can’t be different angles of the same truth and both be true. It’s too much work to triangulate on the truth, so it has to be simple with no apparent conflicts — and we thus blind ourselves to seeing how the actions she takes to treat each perspective can fulfill promises of both.
I think black/white concepts is reductive. I think that there are nuances to everything, and that when I watch adults deal with children, I see this differentiation of perspective without exception.
Filed under: Reflection |