First and foremost, I will go through a lengthy explanation in an attempt to be as clear as possible as to what I am asking at the end of the post. Please read through it all. Thanks in advance.
Let's be clear about something regarding "truth". There are two types, there is what I call the real truth and then there is subjective truth.
The real truth is the reality of something(s). It exist, its real regardless whether people recognize it or not.
The subjective truth is reality only to those who believe it is. This type of truth is shaped by pre-concieved notions, ingrained patterns of analyzing something, and/or through constant repetition which eventually causes the information to seek into the subconscious mind.
An example of a real truth would be ice melts when temperatures are above 0 degrees celsius. This is a fact that is very real, regardless if anyone is aware of such fact or not, regardless if someone believes in such fact or not, etc. Its a real truth.
An example of a subjective truth would be the notion of whether God exist. If you go to a group of Athiest and tell them that God exist, they will tell you that its not true, God does not exist. For them, the notion that there is no devine being is the truth.
On the contrary, minutes later you go into a group of believers and tell themt hat God does not exist. They will tell you that God does exist and that is the truth. For them, the notion that there is a devine bieng is very real, its truth.
Each of them believe in what they believe based on preconceived notions, their patterns of analyzing things, and constant repetition of what they believe.
Athiest constantly remind themselves that God does not exist by questioning the existance of God in moments of grief, chaos, war, etc. They will have eveyr reason to discredit organized religion, the notion of a God, etc and they will not only use those reasons to keep their own belief that God does not exist, but they would also use it in an attempt of making others believe in the Athiest belief.
Believers constantly remind themselves that God does exist. This is done by constant validation which is done through repetitive prayers, constantly looking for proof of the existance of God (ie. they attribute any good luck they might experience on the fact that there is a God looking over them), and also by rejecting moments of doubt through the idea that whatever life turns out to be like is because God wanted it to be so. Their belief that there is a God, that God is divine and thus, always right leaves them no room for doubt to come through.
In both instances, the constant validations, repetition, searching for proof is the way each group believes in what they perceive to be reality or truth.
However, such truth can be easily modified through the long term by media sources using the same tactics.
For example, if I was to say that men are better than women, who believes such depends on the various factors I have described above in the other examples.
If I was to say that prominent men hate women, that would be hard for many people to swallow. However, I could change the opinion of people by constantly reading, expressing, and quoting prominent men whenever they make a claim that could be interpreted as hatred towards women.
Examples of such quotes by prominent men includes:
Stendahl, a novelist who once said "a woman must never write anything but posthumous works... for a woman under fifty, to get into print is submitting her happiness to the most terrible of lotteries; is she had the good fortune to have a lover, she'll begin by losing him."
Psychologist Dr. Bruno Bettelheim in 1965 once said: "As much as women want to be good scientists and engineers, they want; first and foremost, to be womanly companions of men and to be mothers."
French Psychologist Paul Lamet in 1990 said "The average woman's judgment is never as good as the average man's - and when they pass the age of forty, their ability to reason seems to deteriorate quite rapidly."
Pat Buchanan said in 1984: "The truth is that women's income, on average, will always be a fraction of men's, so long as America remains free."
The Theologian Martin Luther said in 1533: "Girls begin to talk and to stand on their feet sooner than boys because weeds always grow up more quickly than good crops."
An old Dutch proverb: "A house full of daughters is like a cellar full of sour beer."
Muhammad Ali (the boxing champion) in 1985 was quoted as saying: "People ask me how many children I have and I say one boy and seven mistakes."
Afhani proverb: A woman is well only in the house or in the grave.
Last but not least, Senator Barry Goldwater in 1980 was quoted saying: "Women are hard enough to handle now, without giving them a gun."
Now, the question is this:
If I were to say that men hate women or better yet, that society is intentionally taken to believe hatred to women, how many people will agree with me?
The answer is more people will agree after such bombardment of quotes rather than before!
I went into such detail to make sure everyone reading this see for themselves what I am trying to say about subjective truth and how it can be shaped by mere repetition and changing the way someone analyzes something.
If I say someone is a racist, from that point forward everything such person says will be seen on a racist vs not racist slant. Everything will be judged along those two realm and things that in past may not had registered as possibly racist could become alarming and insulting to those who start to analyse such person on the basis of whether such person is racist or not.
The same goes for all subjective truths, once mass media sources get a grip on a perceived notion and constantly repeat something, it will have an effect on how people perceive their subjective reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is this: Do you think the way people are reacting to Dominican history is being manipulated by a wave of tactics aimed at influencing the subjective reality of most people?
Regardless if you think whether this is right or wrong or whether Dominican history should be analyzed in the way it is beginning to be analyzed.
Do you think this is occuring because of forces controlling what people think by mass media attention or do you think this is something that is genuinely in search of real truth?
Is this shift in analyzing Dominican history genuine or is it engineered via various mediums?
-NALs
Let's be clear about something regarding "truth". There are two types, there is what I call the real truth and then there is subjective truth.
The real truth is the reality of something(s). It exist, its real regardless whether people recognize it or not.
The subjective truth is reality only to those who believe it is. This type of truth is shaped by pre-concieved notions, ingrained patterns of analyzing something, and/or through constant repetition which eventually causes the information to seek into the subconscious mind.
An example of a real truth would be ice melts when temperatures are above 0 degrees celsius. This is a fact that is very real, regardless if anyone is aware of such fact or not, regardless if someone believes in such fact or not, etc. Its a real truth.
An example of a subjective truth would be the notion of whether God exist. If you go to a group of Athiest and tell them that God exist, they will tell you that its not true, God does not exist. For them, the notion that there is no devine being is the truth.
On the contrary, minutes later you go into a group of believers and tell themt hat God does not exist. They will tell you that God does exist and that is the truth. For them, the notion that there is a devine bieng is very real, its truth.
Each of them believe in what they believe based on preconceived notions, their patterns of analyzing things, and constant repetition of what they believe.
Athiest constantly remind themselves that God does not exist by questioning the existance of God in moments of grief, chaos, war, etc. They will have eveyr reason to discredit organized religion, the notion of a God, etc and they will not only use those reasons to keep their own belief that God does not exist, but they would also use it in an attempt of making others believe in the Athiest belief.
Believers constantly remind themselves that God does exist. This is done by constant validation which is done through repetitive prayers, constantly looking for proof of the existance of God (ie. they attribute any good luck they might experience on the fact that there is a God looking over them), and also by rejecting moments of doubt through the idea that whatever life turns out to be like is because God wanted it to be so. Their belief that there is a God, that God is divine and thus, always right leaves them no room for doubt to come through.
In both instances, the constant validations, repetition, searching for proof is the way each group believes in what they perceive to be reality or truth.
However, such truth can be easily modified through the long term by media sources using the same tactics.
For example, if I was to say that men are better than women, who believes such depends on the various factors I have described above in the other examples.
If I was to say that prominent men hate women, that would be hard for many people to swallow. However, I could change the opinion of people by constantly reading, expressing, and quoting prominent men whenever they make a claim that could be interpreted as hatred towards women.
Examples of such quotes by prominent men includes:
Stendahl, a novelist who once said "a woman must never write anything but posthumous works... for a woman under fifty, to get into print is submitting her happiness to the most terrible of lotteries; is she had the good fortune to have a lover, she'll begin by losing him."
Psychologist Dr. Bruno Bettelheim in 1965 once said: "As much as women want to be good scientists and engineers, they want; first and foremost, to be womanly companions of men and to be mothers."
French Psychologist Paul Lamet in 1990 said "The average woman's judgment is never as good as the average man's - and when they pass the age of forty, their ability to reason seems to deteriorate quite rapidly."
Pat Buchanan said in 1984: "The truth is that women's income, on average, will always be a fraction of men's, so long as America remains free."
The Theologian Martin Luther said in 1533: "Girls begin to talk and to stand on their feet sooner than boys because weeds always grow up more quickly than good crops."
An old Dutch proverb: "A house full of daughters is like a cellar full of sour beer."
Muhammad Ali (the boxing champion) in 1985 was quoted as saying: "People ask me how many children I have and I say one boy and seven mistakes."
Afhani proverb: A woman is well only in the house or in the grave.
Last but not least, Senator Barry Goldwater in 1980 was quoted saying: "Women are hard enough to handle now, without giving them a gun."
Now, the question is this:
If I were to say that men hate women or better yet, that society is intentionally taken to believe hatred to women, how many people will agree with me?
The answer is more people will agree after such bombardment of quotes rather than before!
I went into such detail to make sure everyone reading this see for themselves what I am trying to say about subjective truth and how it can be shaped by mere repetition and changing the way someone analyzes something.
If I say someone is a racist, from that point forward everything such person says will be seen on a racist vs not racist slant. Everything will be judged along those two realm and things that in past may not had registered as possibly racist could become alarming and insulting to those who start to analyse such person on the basis of whether such person is racist or not.
The same goes for all subjective truths, once mass media sources get a grip on a perceived notion and constantly repeat something, it will have an effect on how people perceive their subjective reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is this: Do you think the way people are reacting to Dominican history is being manipulated by a wave of tactics aimed at influencing the subjective reality of most people?
Regardless if you think whether this is right or wrong or whether Dominican history should be analyzed in the way it is beginning to be analyzed.
Do you think this is occuring because of forces controlling what people think by mass media attention or do you think this is something that is genuinely in search of real truth?
Is this shift in analyzing Dominican history genuine or is it engineered via various mediums?
-NALs