Re: [cicdd] Shalom Aki (was Pocket guru and dogs in bed)

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

At 16:12 +0200 3-07-2005, Aki ORR wrote, in reply to Georges Metanomski:

>  Dear  George,
>
>  Thank you for your kind and detailed reply.
>  I shall answer in more detail in the near future.
>  Right now I have 2 comments.
>
>  1.  EVERYTING  I  write is ALWAYS in the sense of IMO.
>      Must I put IMO before every sentence ?
>
>  2. Re my proposal to read the PARIS MAY 1968 eyewitness report
>     of the British Doctor I recommendted you wrote:
>  " I lived through  the whole caboodle and in no way need British
>  Doctors or Chinese Contortionists to tell me what I saw. "
>
>  OK.
>  Please Consider the following case (which actually happened last
>  year) :
>
>  THREE TV teams came to the Gaza strip to make a documentary
>  film about life in Gaza, the Israeli occupation, the HAMAS, JIHAD,
>  etc. The teams are :
>
>  1.from Al-Jazeera,
>  2. from the BBC,
>  3. from Israel State TV Channel 1.
>
>  All three directors do not use actors or tell people what to say or do.
>  The cameras and the Directors are merely recording facts.
>
>  Yet despite the recording of actual facts - without any staging or
>  directing - the three teams produce three very different films.
>  Al-Jazeera will produced a pro-Palestinian film. Israeli TV produced
>  a pro-Israeli film, and the BBC produced a "balanced" film
>  distributing blame equally between Israelis and Palestinians.
>
>  Who lied ?
>  Which film is "The TRUTH" ?
>  Which film distorts "The Truth" ?
>
>  My answer is - ALL THREE FILMS TOLD TRUTHS, each film
>  presented ITS OWN TRUTH. Because "The Truth" is not the
>  Reality but an INTERPRETATION OF REALITY.
>  Most people - and thinkers - do not distinguish between Reality and
>  an Interpretation of Reality.
>  The directors did not distort Reality, they interpreted it - each in his
>  own way.
>  The camera does not lie but it does not decide in which direction to
>  point, what to record, how long  the shot is - and from what angle.
>  All these decisions are made by the Director. Moreover, in the
>  editing room the Director decides which shots will go into the film
>  and in what order. All this is an act of INTERPRETING REALITY,
>  not of recording The Truth.
>  BTW, the same is true about about every individaul human being.
>  Our mentality INTERPRETS sensory data, censors most of it, and
>  edits the rest. Hence the ussual situation where 2 people watch the
>  same scene but give 2 different versions of it.
>  Of course there are lies - like preesenting something that did not
>  happen, staging a scene, ommitting something essential to the
>  situation, etc. etc.  But even AFTER we delete all these obvious lies
>  and stick to genuine recording of facts we face the problem I
>  mentioned above, namely - that there is not, nor can there ever be, an
>  Absolute, Final, one and only, TRUTH.  Because Truth is not Reality
>  but an interpretation of Reality, and every interpretation depends on
>  an interpreter.
>
>  The fact that you lived in Paris during the events of May 1968 does
>  not mean that your interpretation is "better", "more accurate" or
>  "truer", than the one in the PARIS MAY 1968 document I
>  recommended. Of course, that document is not The Truth either. It
>  is an interpretation of the events that differs from your interpretation.
>  I am not saying or implying that it is BETTER than yours. I only say
>  it is DIFFERENT.
>  People can benefeit by reading different interpretations and then
>  form their own interpretation.
>  Every interpretation depends on an interpreter. If people know the
>  mentality of the interpreter they can get a better view of his/her
>  interpretation and of what was interperted,
>
>  Therefore I think everybody - including yourself - will only benefeit
>  from reading PARIS MAY 1968 even if they disagree with this
>  interpretation.
>
>  Of course all this is IMO,
>       Aki ORR
-------------------

Well said, Aki, old chap (almost a guru).

It seems to me, with your "Three films" report you offered
us a factual representation of  Heisemberg's "Principle of
Indetermination" (i.e., "the observer-reporter unavoidably
modifies the observed thing").

This Principle, which I take as a very basic one, shifts the
responsibility of the action from the speaker-reporter, who
usually pretends to determine the Truth, to the final user of
the report, who is eventually going to behave according with
the reported "truth".

Once more, the core concept of  Direct Democracy comes
into play here, in as much as the democracy final user must
be the Direct responsible of  all what she does -- anything
else but giving our leaders the responsibility for what "We
the People" do.


Of course, Heisemberg's Principle is  not the more liked one
by the aspirant leader, most of all the fundamentalist one who
firmly believes oneself only is holding and telling us the Truth --
be it dogmatic or axiomatic doesn't matter, IMHO.

Therefore, better we have two films at once at the very least.
Even more are welcome.  And if  the film at our disposal were
one only, better we build ourselves our own "antithetical film"
by making recourse to our own dialectical thinking, to withdraw
a synthesis -- which we are the only Direct responsible for.

 From this taking up Direct responsibility by "We the People",
Direct Democracy follows (IMHO).

And let all those reporters who want the Truth to be one only
-- their own, possibly ;-)  -- go to the devil peacefully.


Cheers,  antonio