THE LITTLE WHITE LIE
By Joshua M. Miracle – Orta
A language that wishes to be viable reguires an idea of what is honest and what is mendacious in order to sustain ifself through time and stand on its own legs – I speak in terms of balance. Today every modern language place the hyothesis of objectivity as its cornerstone of inegrity. Its now accepted without much question that the truth can be seperated from ist subjective soil without becoming wilted, warped and stunted. But this approach to truth hasn`t been solely relegated to the scientific and scholarly fields of thought.
The “scientific” mode of language and thinking has even been adopted or rather hijacked by the common people. To come across as being sound of mind, honest and spiritually clean everyone today anxiously strives to appear objective among their peers. Objectivity and honesty are somehow equated as the same thing by conditioned instinct. In comparison no one any longer trusts another who exhibits a heartfelt feeling or subjective pont of view, as if anything subjective is necessarily dishonest, indecent, even dangerous – or worse, inconsederate. Today most people are overly – sensitive and easily offended by any expressed opinion, anothers honest viewpoints are taken as an attack on one`s own: any expression of self a declaration of war on all others. One is more ready to forgive and actual transgression than a contradictory word. As result everyone is now full of an affected goodwill and consideration for his neighbor, even at the expense of one`s own interests and suppression of self, all in the name of so-called community.
And behind evey show of objectivity is the common man`s claim to superiority over his fellow man – the one who can simulate the most detachment from oneself is regarded as the most spiritually excellent.
Yet, despite this petty compitition of small minds, nothing has done more to maintain the peace that the practice of “objectivity” and none has done a better job of spreading the cood will thatn the mainstream media.
If there is any value in objectivity it lies in this: as a sterilizer for the people, a sort erectile dysfunction of the ego. And how does a state neuter an entire nation of competing interests?
With the cold “snip” of a myth ( I say myth because up till now no one has actually demonstrated the possibility of abjectivity. The truth of its existence has simply been posited, nothing more.) As for the mainstream media, it likes to make a show of presenting the people with a broad range of opposing viewpoints but even an absent-minded inspection would reveal that it suppresses a disportionate amount of information compared to what it actually offers to the public. Despite knowing this factr the people prefer this form of ochestrated objectivity because it makes them feel good, safe and reassured. However, the media`s prmary utility to the state is not based on it`s therapeutic effect, which is merely incidental. It serves its fundamental purpose as mediator beween the people and the state authority. It abstracts the party interest freom the personal and sublimates it to a socially acceptable level, and most importantly, redirects it in a manner that’s agreeable with the stat`s agenda. The media in its wisdom takes everything religious, personal, political, racial, nationalistic and raises it to a level considered objective, placing every paricipant on an idealistically elevated playing field. On this plane the people now feel free in all their “honesty” to spin their own interests to their own ends, as is only natural to begin with. Only now the personal is integrally tied to the party or coperate interest – even religion plays a merely secondary role on this national stage – and all strife and conflict is transferred to the management of a third party (the media) leaving the people free to be cheerleaders for favorite teams, safely herded to the sidelines.
Speaking for myself – that is subjectively – I can sit there and watch CNN all day and hear nothering other than what I want to hear., as if they were tailoring every word specifically to suit the exact measurements of my heart and mind, although in reality for the most part they`re not really saying anything I actuall agree with. The only difference between myself and the networks is I`m an honest disseminator because I never claim to be ofjective, which would be a little white lie coming out of anyone`s mouth. By contrast the pretense of objectivity is not such a little lie when its coming from the corporate media, who know they sponser only their own interests. They`re what I`ll refer to as “dishonest liars” – to borrow a term form Nietzsche – because they lie but they`re dishonest about it. On the other hand most people are honest liars because when they lie they sincerely believe they`re telling the truth. There is no conscious intention to decieve when they speak of their convictions about something. The corporate dissemblurs have nothing but conscious deception in mind and on the most massive scale: they decieve the masses. I don`t mind the honest liars; I was once one myself. Nor do I mind the master liars; their lies have no dominion over my mind. In fact, I have to admit I greatly admire them for the amount of cunning and coordination it takes to pull off such a systematic scheme of deception. And they do it in such a way that the people demand to be deceived.
Here is where the tyrant in every American begins to show himself, just as all consumers in a free market learn to dictate by demand an unlimited supply of commodities that provide a comfortable lifestyle at a bargain price. In these days of calculated crises, deception has become the #1 comocity on the market. Reassurance is available at the small price of not having to face reality; peace of mind objectively and conveniently provided by the mouth piece if the state.
So what is honesty in our language? It would seem that everything uncomfortable contradictory, conflicting and arbitrarliy subjective is a better determinator of the truth… so let this be the premise we begin with.
Note: this section is taken from a larger and on-going essay I`ve entitled
:”ON LANGUAGE AND MEANING”
By Joshua M. Miracle – Orta
A language that wishes to be viable reguires an idea of what is honest and what is mendacious in order to sustain ifself through time and stand on its own legs – I speak in terms of balance. Today every modern language place the hyothesis of objectivity as its cornerstone of inegrity. Its now accepted without much question that the truth can be seperated from ist subjective soil without becoming wilted, warped and stunted. But this approach to truth hasn`t been solely relegated to the scientific and scholarly fields of thought.
The “scientific” mode of language and thinking has even been adopted or rather hijacked by the common people. To come across as being sound of mind, honest and spiritually clean everyone today anxiously strives to appear objective among their peers. Objectivity and honesty are somehow equated as the same thing by conditioned instinct. In comparison no one any longer trusts another who exhibits a heartfelt feeling or subjective pont of view, as if anything subjective is necessarily dishonest, indecent, even dangerous – or worse, inconsederate. Today most people are overly – sensitive and easily offended by any expressed opinion, anothers honest viewpoints are taken as an attack on one`s own: any expression of self a declaration of war on all others. One is more ready to forgive and actual transgression than a contradictory word. As result everyone is now full of an affected goodwill and consideration for his neighbor, even at the expense of one`s own interests and suppression of self, all in the name of so-called community.
And behind evey show of objectivity is the common man`s claim to superiority over his fellow man – the one who can simulate the most detachment from oneself is regarded as the most spiritually excellent.
Yet, despite this petty compitition of small minds, nothing has done more to maintain the peace that the practice of “objectivity” and none has done a better job of spreading the cood will thatn the mainstream media.
If there is any value in objectivity it lies in this: as a sterilizer for the people, a sort erectile dysfunction of the ego. And how does a state neuter an entire nation of competing interests?
With the cold “snip” of a myth ( I say myth because up till now no one has actually demonstrated the possibility of abjectivity. The truth of its existence has simply been posited, nothing more.) As for the mainstream media, it likes to make a show of presenting the people with a broad range of opposing viewpoints but even an absent-minded inspection would reveal that it suppresses a disportionate amount of information compared to what it actually offers to the public. Despite knowing this factr the people prefer this form of ochestrated objectivity because it makes them feel good, safe and reassured. However, the media`s prmary utility to the state is not based on it`s therapeutic effect, which is merely incidental. It serves its fundamental purpose as mediator beween the people and the state authority. It abstracts the party interest freom the personal and sublimates it to a socially acceptable level, and most importantly, redirects it in a manner that’s agreeable with the stat`s agenda. The media in its wisdom takes everything religious, personal, political, racial, nationalistic and raises it to a level considered objective, placing every paricipant on an idealistically elevated playing field. On this plane the people now feel free in all their “honesty” to spin their own interests to their own ends, as is only natural to begin with. Only now the personal is integrally tied to the party or coperate interest – even religion plays a merely secondary role on this national stage – and all strife and conflict is transferred to the management of a third party (the media) leaving the people free to be cheerleaders for favorite teams, safely herded to the sidelines.
Speaking for myself – that is subjectively – I can sit there and watch CNN all day and hear nothering other than what I want to hear., as if they were tailoring every word specifically to suit the exact measurements of my heart and mind, although in reality for the most part they`re not really saying anything I actuall agree with. The only difference between myself and the networks is I`m an honest disseminator because I never claim to be ofjective, which would be a little white lie coming out of anyone`s mouth. By contrast the pretense of objectivity is not such a little lie when its coming from the corporate media, who know they sponser only their own interests. They`re what I`ll refer to as “dishonest liars” – to borrow a term form Nietzsche – because they lie but they`re dishonest about it. On the other hand most people are honest liars because when they lie they sincerely believe they`re telling the truth. There is no conscious intention to decieve when they speak of their convictions about something. The corporate dissemblurs have nothing but conscious deception in mind and on the most massive scale: they decieve the masses. I don`t mind the honest liars; I was once one myself. Nor do I mind the master liars; their lies have no dominion over my mind. In fact, I have to admit I greatly admire them for the amount of cunning and coordination it takes to pull off such a systematic scheme of deception. And they do it in such a way that the people demand to be deceived.
Here is where the tyrant in every American begins to show himself, just as all consumers in a free market learn to dictate by demand an unlimited supply of commodities that provide a comfortable lifestyle at a bargain price. In these days of calculated crises, deception has become the #1 comocity on the market. Reassurance is available at the small price of not having to face reality; peace of mind objectively and conveniently provided by the mouth piece if the state.
So what is honesty in our language? It would seem that everything uncomfortable contradictory, conflicting and arbitrarliy subjective is a better determinator of the truth… so let this be the premise we begin with.
Note: this section is taken from a larger and on-going essay I`ve entitled
:”ON LANGUAGE AND MEANING”