The truth is never in the middle of opposing viewpoints...

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Someone said that "The truth is somewhere in the middle" recently and I believe this commonly held and quite reasonable sounding idea needs to be discussed, especially in light of the revelations in the book Political Ponerology.

"Some excerpts from Political Ponerology:

"Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. "
Page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski

I believe this paragraph above is so important to deserve a separate thread, to merely discuss this one idea. This idea above explained so much to me at the age of 60 years, I wish I'd grown up with this in mind...

In Scientology litigation, $cientology depends upon a judge taking the safe, policitically correct route through opposing views, tending to compromize, believing that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.(note)

In the middle of what?

Let us say A says the sky is blue, but B says the sky is black

If the truth were in the middle, then they sky would be adjudicated as grey...

In RTC vs Lerma and BPI vs FACTNet the consternation that we felt cant be described. One side is telling the truth, the other side, emulating a sociopath, is telling BIG lies, most of which were cloaked by use of IMPLICATON and omission... like six inches of verbosity in an ex-parte pleading to get a RAID that fails to mention the document in question was an unsealed copy of a public court record at that time.

But, see how a psychopath deals with truth:

"In their paper, "Construct Validity of Psychopathy in a Community Sample... Salekin, Trobst, and Krioukova write "Psychopathy as originally conceived by Cleckley (1941) is not limited to engagement in illegal activities, but rather encompasses such personality characteristics as manipulativeness, insincerity, egocentricity , and lack of guilt - characteristics clearly present in criminals but also in spouses, parents, bosses, attorneys and politicians, and CEOs, to name but a few. (bursten. 1973; Stewart, 1991)...As such. psychopathy may be characterized...as involving a tendency towards dominance and coldness. Wiggens (1995) in summarizing numerous previous findings..indicates such persons are prone to anger and irritation and are willing to exploit others. They are arrogant, manipulative, cynical, exhibitionistic, sensation-seeking, Machiavellian, vindictive and out for their own gain. With respect to their patterns of social exchange (Foa & Foa, 1974), they attribute love and status to themselves, seeing themselves as highly worthy and important, but prescribe neither love nor status to others, seeing them as unworthy and insignificant. " Page 89, Political Ponerology, footnote

===

I have observed that two people can always work out their differences but only IF neither side is lying (includes lying to oneself) and only if neither side has been fed enough lies about the other party, to cause sufficient dehumanization that pathological blindness becomes the solution to the pain of consideration.

"Defamatory suggestions are used particularly often by individuals who are not entirely normal, whose behavior tends to be a projection onto other people of one's own self-critical associations. A normal person strikes a sociopath as a naive, smart-alecky believer in barely comprehensible theories; calling him "crazy" is not that far away" page 180

I always believed that the truth can NEVER be found in the middle.
Truth does not have shades of grey.
The truth stands alone.

What do you think?

Arnie Lerma


(note) An exception might be divorce proceedings when both sides are willing to lie to keep their kids... then the with both sides lying, the truth might be in the middle. But the only cases where the middle might be true are if both sides are lying.

“That hatred springs more from self-contempt than from a legitimate grievance is seen in the intimate connection between hatred and a guilty conscience. There is perhaps no surer way of infecting ourselves with virulent hatred toward a person than by doing him a grave injustice. That others have a just grievance against us is a more potent reason for hating them than that we have a just grievance against them. ……Self-righteousness is a loud din raised to drown the voice of guilt within us.” Eric Hoffer, "True Believer" More like this in my Essential Reading thread HERE
 
Last edited:

WildKat

Gold Meritorious Patron
If A says the sky is blue and B says it's black and C says it's white...they can all be right depending on time of day or weather conditions.

But yes, to say the truth is always in the middle is just plain silly. SOMETIMES the truth is in the middle of two disparate views. A says Joe is a good guy, B says Joe is a jerk.... He may be both as well as somewhere in the middle, at different times.

How bout another example:

Scientology is ALL evil
Vs
Scientology is saving the planet

Both views are a tad simplistic.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
When reasonable people form strong opinions from experience, there's usually at least some truth to their point of view. There's still enough room for mistakes that two such people can disagree strongly. When this happens, combining the true parts of each one's view will give a more accurate picture than either. It's not unreasonable to describe this situation by saying that the truth lies between the two extremes.

Not every view has any element of truth in it. Truth lying in between does not apply in that case.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Personally Arnie I think it is just an expression used to describe a process at arriving at the truth.

When you hear the truth, there is no mistaking it, it is an Ah Hah moment.

In a court case truth is mixed with lies on both sides which makes both sides sound illogical to some degree or another and in that court case the object of an honest judge s to strip away the lies that cloud the truth.

It is not a position of where the truth is or a compromise of the lies. The truth is the truth, cleaning off the lies is the trick which may require great skill to get at but "The truth lies somewhere in the middle" is just a figure of speech and not a location of the truth or a compromise of lies IMO.

There is artful lying where one changes the ordinary meanings of words to mean something entirely different from their ordinary meanings, but the recipient of those words doesn't know that and thinks with the common meaning because he doesn't know the special meaning.

They are called "words of art" and you can find that term in Black's Law Dictionary.
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
Personally Arnie I think it is just an expression used to describe a process at arriving at the truth.

Exactly,

I used a buddhist expression about the middle path. (in the thread about conspirancies)

Often, our mind tend to seek for a position sticking on one specific side, viewpoint, opinion... but when we look deeply into things, we soon discover that there is many shades of grey.

I shall say that it is, at least, what I discovered.
Looking for the many shades of grey keep my mind out of a fixed idea, viewpoint or position, an more open.

Only my humble opinion :wink2:

* what led me to realize it, was in the context of meditation classes, the teacher told us a story about people witnessing a scene, and them speaking about it - they had a totally opposite viewpoint, depending the place they hold in space.

Both were right
both were wrong
thus their story were half right and half true
:confused2:

I came to the conclusion that ultimate truth, about phenomanons of existence, don't exist, thus when I think I own the truth, I shall be vigilent that I am in the realm of lies.
What is considered a relative truth, comes from agreement.

Concerning viewpoints, one may try to get the truth, other may give up on truth and try to get a right view.
 
Last edited:

Gib

Crusader
I think it's worthwhile to get ones wits around the two links I posted here:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ted-Under-Oath&p=996810&viewfull=1#post996810

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/topics1.htm

http://www.journallegalwritinginstitute.org/archives/2010/3.pdf

"One of the most ironic features of the current revival of interest in rhetoric and narrative in American legal scholarship has been its relative neglect of the classical tradition of rhetoric. This neglect is ironic for three reasons. First, the classical tradition of rhetoric was not understood as something foreign to law--and therefore a possible subject of "interdisciplinary" study. Quite the contrary, the art of rhetoric was seen as organically related to the practice of law. Indeed, what we would today regard as legal education was to a significant degree education in rhetoric. Second, many of the problems that fuel our contemporary interest in rhetoric-- the importance of pathos or emotion, the significance of personal testimony and narrative, and the role of metaphor, figure, and fiction in shaping the persuasive impact of an argument and in assisting or misleading the audience-- were all subjects of intense practical and scholarly concern in the ancient world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponerology is but a refined or narrow focusing of rhetoric. IMHO
 
Last edited:

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Exactly,

I used a buddhist expression about the middle path. (in the thread about conspirancies)

Often, our mind tend to seek for a position sticking on one specific side, viewpoint, opinion... but when we look deeply into things, we soon discover that there is many shades of grey.

I shall say that it is, at least, what I discovered.
Looking for the many shades of grey keep my mind out of a fixed idea, viewpoint or position, an more open.

Only my humble opinion :wink2:

* what led me to realize it, was in the context of meditation classes, the teacher told us a story about people witnessing a scene, and them speaking about it - they had a totally opposite viewpoint, depending the place they hold in space.

Both were right
both were wrong
thus their story were half right and half true
:confused2:

I came to the conclusion that ultimate truth, about phenomanons of existence, don't exist, thus when I think I own the truth, I shall be vigilent that I am in the realm of lies.
What is considered a relative truth, comes from agreement.

Concerning viewpoints, one may try to get the truth, other may give up on truth and try to get a right view.

But the truth stands alone. I don't believe it comes in colors.
Arriving at it can be difficult under the best conditions...

And yes I understand different views of a scene creating a messy pastiche, but despite all the different descriptions there was only one thing done...
which is why Solon in 500BC or whomever said, if you want the truth follow the money...

And Freethinker: Okay, so Im reading too much into it, which is why I posted to get a 2nd opinion... (which is sometimes why I post weird shit, to get that 2nd and 3rd opinion) especially where the path is not well marked...
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
Arnie, you're o.p. suggests the premise that one of two parties is a psychopath or psychopathic using some form of manipulation for ulterior motives. What if neither is, just average everyday people who disagree? Must one party be manipulatively psychopathic? Isn't that an assumption? Or are you talking strictly about the cult's deceptive methods?
 
Last edited:

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
But the truth stands alone. I don't believe it comes in colors.
Arriving at it can be difficult under the best conditions...

And yes I understand different views of a scene creating a messy pastiche, but despite all the different descriptions there was only one thing done...
which is why Solon in 500BC or whomever said, if you want the truth follow the money...

And Freethinker: Okay, so Im reading too much into it, which is why I posted to get a 2nd opinion... (which is sometimes why I post weird shit, to get that 2nd and 3rd opinion) especially where the path is not well marked...


Former Scilentologists oft show a crippled sense of "what's true anymore" after years of mental incapacitation. Their copy/paste misduplication of "Occam's Razor" to where it's only the most simplistic explanation that soothes their tired minds. I wish I could have had Occam in Calculus class, he'd have put those professors in their places...
"The truth is never in the middle of opposing viewpoints..." - This is fundamentally the most "wrong" assertion I've ever read by the way. Relative truth and absolute truth rarely share the same space but the assertion that it's only true at either end of the polar spectrum defies all I would know to be true in a relative sense.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
What I immediately thought of was the blind men and the elephant.

They were all speaking the truth - and they were all wrong, but all also right, and they would have argued forever about it.

Blind Men and the Elephant
poem by John Godfrey Saxe (1816–1887)

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
” ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!


Moral
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!


http://www.wordfocus.com/word-act-blindmen.html

ElephantErk.jpg
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
But the truth stands alone. I don't believe it comes in colors.
Arriving at it can be difficult under the best conditions...
Exactly.

Person 1 has belief A
Person 2 has belief B

The truth could be A, B, near A, near B, or nowhere near either.

The truth is independent of our opinion of it.

I tire of the way the media takes two polarized views placed either side of what it predetermines to be the truth and then says the truth is in the middle.

It implies that every time two people disagree that they are on opposite sides of the truth.

It couldn't be true. I've watched Bill O'Reilly and he is nowhere in the vicinity of reality.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
I'm not trying to give you crap Arnie, just to help.

One of the best ways IMO to discover truth is to find the datums that contradict each other but both are claimed as true. That points to the best area to start digging in because it is certain,IMO, that there is a truth there with 10 tons of bullshit piled on top. Watch for the "words of art" particularly in this area. Those words are , more often then not, sitting in plain sight completely unnoticed because you are using the wrong definition.


Often these words will be in sentences that sound funny in the sense of, "why would they write it that way?" or "why was it stated that way?" Many statutes are written that way.:coolwink:

But the truth stands alone. I don't believe it comes in colors.
Arriving at it can be difficult under the best conditions...

And yes I understand different views of a scene creating a messy pastiche, but despite all the different descriptions there was only one thing done...
which is why Solon in 500BC or whomever said, if you want the truth follow the money...

And Freethinker: Okay, so Im reading too much into it, which is why I posted to get a 2nd opinion... (which is sometimes why I post weird shit, to get that 2nd and 3rd opinion) especially where the path is not well marked...
 

Helena Handbasket

Gold Meritorious Patron
Sometimes the answer IS in the middle -- it depends on the question.

But if the question is gender, the answer is NEVER in the middle. :biggrin:

Helena
 

freethinker

Sponsor
This is a perfect example of lack of due diligence. They based their hypothesis on the feeling of a portion of the elephant and not the whole elephant and that is where they were truly wrong, they didn't examine the whole elephant...

...because they were lazy or careless.:coolwink:


What I immediately thought of was the blind men and the elephant.

They were all speaking the truth - and they were all wrong, but all also right, and they would have argued forever about it.

Blind Men and the Elephant
poem by John Godfrey Saxe (1816–1887)

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
” ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!


Moral
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!


http://www.wordfocus.com/word-act-blindmen.html

ElephantErk.jpg
 

WhatWall

Silver Meritorious Patron
Someone said that "The truth is somewhere in the middle" recently and I believe this commonly held and quite reasonable sounding idea needs to be discussed, especially in light of the revelations in the book Political Ponerology.

"Some excerpts from Political Ponerology:

"Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. "
Page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski

<snip>

This seems an extension of the Hegelian dialectic, as taught to future leaders in the Ivy League schools.

How devilishly clever: The Reverse Blockade method involves creating the antithesis of the truth (thesis) in order to arrive at a synthesis ("golden mean"), which ultimately serves as a distraction to the truth.

From what little I've studied Hagel, I'm not sure that he intended his dialectic to be used as a manipulative method. Others (e.g., Marx) have certainly used it in attempts to manipulate and effect change. Actual U.S. foreign policy (not the PR) is in large part based on creating conflict in order to bring about a desired outcome.

The Reverse Blockade method would certainly appeal to sociopaths, as does the application of the Hegelian Dialectic to foreign affairs, because the damage caused by both is of no consequence to those without conscience. It wouldn't appeal to those trying to get at and understand the truth.

It follows that there may be a sociopath involved whenever this method is detected. (I say "may be a sociopath involved" because the use of this method could be accidental in some cases, e.g., as motivated by mischief rather than evil intentions.)

Thanks for this post. I'm just at the introduction to Political Ponerology, so haven't yet encountered the Reverse Blockade method.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Arnie, you're o.p. suggests the premise that one of two parties is a psychopath or psychopathic using some form of manipulation for ulterior motives. What if neither is, just average everyday people who disagree? Must one party be manipulatively psychopathic? Isn't that an assumption? Or are you talking strictly about the cult's deceptive methods?


This is discussed in Political Ponerology

I don't recall where to quote from so I'll paraphrase from memory

and you are correct, one party need not be a psychopath or under one's influence for a disagreement to exist, one need only be a fool.

One can be dealing with a psychopathic personality -or- one can also be dealing with a person under their influence and sway..

"Average everyday" people prefer safety in numbers, as the mutual agreement helps make their opinions comfortable.

And yes, there is no difference in result, dealing with a psychopath or dealing with $cientology... for reason above.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks for this post. I'm just at the introduction to Political Ponerology, so haven't yet encountered the Reverse Blockade method.

Well, Im duly impressed that you are fighting your way through the toughest book to read that I have encountered since Professor Francis Yates's "Art of Memory" (which is easy reading in comparison)

I sincerely hope you talk it up and share the insights you gain, as I believe, as difficult as it is to read, (Its a tough subject and the author is Polish and English was his 2nd or 3rd language) the subject matter exposed provides the answer to what I hoped to gain from joining $cientology to begin with - how to end war.


Arnie Lerma

"Political Ponerology is fascinating, essential reading."
Philip Zimbardo, author of The Lucifer Effect
 
Top