I need to be more concrete here. What do I have in mind specifically?
-
I want to read the literature of people I don't agree with to tease out my own blindspots. Starting with those on the American right -- what should I read? National Review? First Things?
-
What is truth-telling in my blogging? See
![[WWW]](/www/moin/htdocs/classic/img/moin-www.png)
earlier entry, especially Steven Winn on truth and truth-telling:
-
what about ArtSpiegelman's call for "neo-sincerity", those who are "sincere" but who are clearly onto the strategies of irony in a postmodern (or post-postmodern era)....post-irony turning into sincerity (of sorts)???
I'm not even pondering the epistemological issue of whether there is such a thing a truth -- just the question of truth is relevant at times.
The Dawn of McScience, a piece about the commercialization of science and the attendant decline in science's effectiveness a truth-bearing would be a good one to reflect on to add some specifics to my thinking here.
-
The fact that I'm not surprised by the great amount of deception half-truths, mistruths, failed attempts to convey the truth, delusions does not mean that I don't long for the truth to be told or for a system in which we can trust each other and our leaders to be truth-tellers (and perhaps, more importantly), truth-bearers. I am tired by the amount of effort it takes to figure out what's going on. It's hard enough when well-meaning people try to communicate. Add to the mix people who are struggling for power over each other and we start to get this incredible mix. I don't exempt myself from the class of people who add to the mess -- for I am deeply sinful too. Hence my dependence on a hermeneutic of self-suspicion in addition to skepticism of others. And to throw in something else I will want to elaborate as I go along -- even well-intentioned self-suspicion is insufficient!
Some intriguing links I found while looking for a definition of "public sphere":
Does Spinsanity help?
