Optionality versus the Truth
Abstract: This is one in the series of articles in the concept of optionality is compared with other concepts.
This time the comparison is with the truth.
The article shows that the illusive truth is merely a devious piece of rhetoric used to throw dirt on opponents.
A. Who speaks the truth?
There are many people who put the truth on a pedestal as the concept that overrides all other concepts in importance.
What use are other concepts, so they ask, if they do not tell us the truth?
People who think like this prevail among judges, teachers, public servants, police officers, scientists, religious moralists and naive journalists.
These people claim not to be biased by personal opinions, prejudices or their own interests;
they claim to have developed a methodology that puts them above any such bias.
The police can extensively search, in collaboration with forensic scientists and judges, who use juries, the law, the treath of force, etc, to come to the truth;
scientists claim the ability to discover reality due to their impeccable scientific research methods;
while religious people have contact with the super-natural, naive journalists claim that the facts can be found by taking an objective position in their search for the truth.
But, of course, all of them have vested interests, in most cases they work for a monopoly that is given a privileged position by the Government.
Their bias is towards the Government.
It is in their own interest that they make people believe that something as the truth exists.
Talking about the truth is a way of thinking that fits their cause.
B. Alternatives to the truth
People who do not submit to this dictatorship of fabricated honesty are quickly labelled as self confessed liars, deceitful hypocrites or misguided pagans.
Tolerance is not a quality of those who chase the truth.
Few people dare to openly admit that instead of searching for an illusive truth, they follow other principles.
The problem for most people is that they do not know many alternative principles in the first place.
There are many scientists who reject the idea that 'nature' can be explained in terms of Laws of Physics, etc.
They instead point out that 'reality' appears to behave more at random.
Or they point out that 'reality' appears to imply chaos rather than order.
Unfortunately, people who claim to search for a Single Law that holds the Universe together receive more attention in the media.
They cannot find it, of course, yet the media appear to favor their views.
Literacy is of course a favorite subject for schools;
schools teach children linear thinking by fixing words and meaning.
An alternative to this semantic truth was developed by Jacques Darrida, who seeks meaning by deconstruction of texts, rather than by using a dictionary.
And Ayn Rand bravely attacks the Government and its vasals for their hypocracy, but still prefers to hang on to the concept of truth, be it only at personal level.
Unfortunately, such views do not fully challenge the truth.
C. Optionality is the Answer
Alternatives to the truth cannot get much attention in the media at present, because the media are supposedly searching for that very truth.
The media take this position in the hope that the Government will continue to support their privileges, monopolies and cartels.
In many cities, there is only one newspaper.
TV-broadcasters are carefully selected by the Government for their patriotism.
The education system is held together by Government funding, protection of qualifications and the compulsory nature of school.
Churches and political parties are given tax and other privileges.
Artists who glorify partriotism or otherwise walk in line with what the Government wants to hear, get subsidies.
The Government has surrounded itself with a smokescreen of collaborators.
Alternatives such as Quantum Mechanics, Chaos Theory, Deconstruction and Objectivism are not really alternatives to the truth anyway, as they still believe in some kind of truth.
Quantum Mechanics claims that the truth incorporates some element that is random, while Choas Theory claims that in reality there is no truth at all.
Both hang on to a true reality that can be discovered by scientific means.
Darrida searches for the hidden truth, while Ayn Rand believes the truth to reside in the individual.
Political doctrines such as Plurality feature multiple truths next to each other, but as Plurality dictates this view to everyone, it is truly in contradiction with itself.
By contrast, Optionality can ignore the entire question of the truth, as it does not dictate any specific views as the only truth.
Optionality can expose a truth as a fabrication, not by denying it, but by letting another 'truth' co-exist, thus exposing the myth of singularity of the truth.
Optionality appeals to logic and reason, it does not need to prove itself as the 'truth' by conforming with the 'laws of nature', nor does it derive its vision from supra-natural inspiration.
Optionality does not dictate rules, it is open to suggestions made by alternative views, including those claiming to know the truth.
Optionality, by its own implication, is not the only view, nevertheless there is no better one.