"Can you tell the truth and stay alive?"
First, there are sufficient weapons built into the system so that one's ability to operate within the system can be destroyed (ie. loss of business, destroyed credibility, institutional attacks, etc.). While this may not result in immediate death, it can certainly result in a shortened life span.
Second, as truth is defined by the system (ie "authorized truths
"), one can remain free from attack if the system accepts that one complies with these authorized truths.
Third, given that multiple audiences exist within the system, and given that communications is organized through dialectics (ie theses and anti-theses), there can be numerous sets of authorized truths within the system, including both truth ("thesis) and untruth ("antithesis").
For me, it is the system's perceived monopoly over truth that is most bothersome to me.How does Game Theory apply?
While thinking about this issue some more, and after Iparticipating in the Game Theory thread
, I realized that they've applied John Nash's ("Beautiful Mind" movie) Game Theory to "truth" telling.
In short, Game Theory is about making choices, but it’s specifically about making choices where the benefits that you get from choosing are completely dependent on the choices that others make. The following article does a nice job of detailing Game Theory as applied to the latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight.
So, each of us who are aware, who can see the Simulacrum (as Baudrillard might say), now have to think about what level of truth we can communicate to various audiences.... in essence, we must apply Game Theory each time we communicate to others. We must do this because we do not know how the others will react to the knowledge that is being communicated to them. For example:
- They may be so deep within the Simulacra that they do not understand what is being communicated
- They may react in a hostile manner to the information being communicated and the speak communicating this knowledge, for it forces one to face their own cognitive dissonance.
- Whether they react or do not react immediately, they may use this knowledge to put the communicator in jeopardy of being ostracized by the system.
- They may use this knowledge as a stepping stone to positive action and may build on it by collecting additional knowledge.
I'm sure I have not explored all of the relevant scenarios in my preliminary thinking, but in this case 3 of the 4 options produce neutral or negative results for the communicator. This is obviously a risky proposition for those who can see beyond authorized truths, and wish to communicate their knowledge to others. No wonder their are so many shills on the Internet and in the extended media, for it's of so much more benefit to the selfish minded to stick to authorized truths then unauthorized truths.
Game Theory basically shows us, at least those that analyze everything from a totally selfish perspective, that telling the truth is too high risk within this current system.