Yeah, I usually give that quote as "Steinbeck, apparently in a very Hemingway mood".

Okay, so I googled it. It was Steinbeck, my quote is off a little because he generously mentions the partner, and I'm not the only one to attribute it to Steinbeck-being-Hemingway!

But Steinbeck was pretty strong in the creativity department, so bringing SX's quote into it... Steinbeck is to literary critics as the US is to the press?

Here's something else to consider...

While I'm doing my normal thing - granting another's terms - and trying to make sense of an others' worldview, I was suddenly reminded of a situation not that long ago that involved establishing some aspects of American public school curriculum that are germane to this thread. The grades levels were 9-12(high school in the States). It's relevant to the discourse because it involves some aspects of my own focus here. Namely, the curriculum was about teaching students the difference between fact and opinion. This involved using a framework that bears witness to everyday facts as they occur.

So the curriculum set the difference out in a way that struck discord within me upon reading it. I remember thinking to myself, 'Jeez. It's no wonder no one knows what to believe anymore'...

According to the curriculum facts were verifiable/falsifiable and opinions were not. Moreover, facts could be true/false and opinions cannot.

Nothing about truth and the role it plays...

Yeah, I think that the secular aspect of American society argued strongly against 'T'ruth, in the religious 'objective' sense and replaced it with 'truth' in the man-made sense.

Neither can take proper account of correspondence to fact/reality, the presupposition thereof, and/or the role that both play in everything ever thought/believed, spoken, and/or written.

Yeah, I think that the secular aspect of American society argued strongly against 'T'ruth, in the religious 'objective' sense and replaced it with 'truth' in the man-made sense.

Not only do you have no evidence this actually happened, you can't show it happened around the time of Trump's election. So, your notions of our living in a "Post-Truth" world and our living in one concurrent with Trump's presidency both fail.

Those aren't my notions...

They're figments of your imagination.

No, they're your notions, and one's right there in quotes.

You really are terrible--or scared--of actually addressing my arguments.

The overwhelming majority of Americans attend public school systems. If they are taught, and think in the aforementioned terms, they will work from a conceptual framework that is inherently incapable of knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so.

If they are taught, and think in the aforementioned terms, they will work from a conceptual framework that is inherently incapable of knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so.

Except you haven't shown that "if" to be true in any way. So, your concerns are unjustified.

That is the curriculum. I'm merely commenting upon it. Do with that what you may Sand.

It is not the curriculum and you haven't shown it is. It's just another one of your delusions.

What would count as my showing you that it is?

Showing evidence that that is actually the main curriculum in our public education system. I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out.

What kind of evidence?

So, they never taught you English either? You have my sympathies.

What kind of evidence?

I expect North Korea will continue to raise its theoretic, try to play Trump. Historically NK has always come out ahead in these exchanges. Such as their capture of the Pueblo. which took a year of negotiation to get the men, who were tortured, released. It also got the US to admit to having hostile intentions toward North Korea and it kept the ship as a trophy.

What kind of evidence?

Sorry, Creative. You either don't know what evidence means, or you have no evidence to back up your claim. I think most will go with the latter.

I'm asking you a simple question Sand. What - exactly - would you accept as evidence that what I said was part of an American public school curriculum grades 9-12?

By the way, that's not a federally determined thing... so it would vary state by state.

And I asked you a simple question to provide evidence to back up your claim. You clearly can't do so.

And you would have to back it up for state to state now. We both know you can't, So, when you provide evidence, I'll respond to you. If you don't, you'll just have proven you have none and I'll move on.

What - exactly - could I provide to you Sand that would count as evidence, and perhaps more importantly; by what standard would you measure that which I provide?

I'd like to note that Sand has denied that the rise of American pragmatism and American post-modernism has had an overarching influence upon public discourse/narrative. Namely, how those two schools of thought have influenced American psychology/psychiatry as shown by how both use the term "truth" as a synonym for that which one believes.

I'd also like to note that I cannot meet Sands' standard regarding what counts as evidence if s/he doesn't clearly set that out. It's not worth wasting time taking any other path. Ray Charles could see that I'm justified in that.

So, I guess I'm struggling to set aside my original thoughts on the recent post-truth talk in American media. I mean, my original post here... note the scarequotes. They were intentional expressions of my own skepticism regarding what the term was supposed to mean...

Here's how I'd begin talking about 'post truth'...

There are many who call the current political discourse in American politics(particularly when talking about the right wing media talking points along with the president's own words) "post-truth" as a result of the sheer quantity of demonstrably false statements of thought/belief being bandied about as though they were true. There are many many more who quite simply have little to no clue what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so(a necessary prerequisite for continuing to hold demonstrably false belief(s) despite being falsified). That's a big problem. Add to that the overwhelming propensity of media talking heads to begin with an utterly inadequate linguistic framework accompanied by the financial need to keep folk tuned in by whatever means necessary, and you'll quickly notice the inevitably self-perpetuated confusion. Sadly, I cannot help but to note that much of this arose from those with unshakable conviction in false belief who remain ignorant by sheer will alone(conflate their own thought/belief and it's source with truth) and those who've - for whatever reason - who have allowed and honored(often unknowingly, and yet other times clearly not) such religious 'theft' of discursive means by virtue of accepting that particular use of the term "truth" in order to reject other aspects of the religion/belief system, while simultaneously throwing out, and/or neglecting all other notions of truth.

The problem(hinted at directly above) is simple to identify but much more difficult to correct:Most folk simply do not know what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so. As a direct result of disregarding truth and the role that it plays in all thought/belief and statements thereof, many people nowadays have a very hard time knowing what to believe and why. As it pertains to politics, American or otherwise, the way a topic is framed in language - the actual words used to talk about a topic - will largely determine which aspects of the topic can be sensibly discussed by virtue of establishing the terminology being used to do so. All too often folk get mired in thought and discussion by virtue of adopting an utterly inadequate linguistic framework. Any and all frameworks which cannot take account of what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is inherently lacking explanatory power where it matters most, especially in this political context(post-truth world). Thus, the opposing narratives both claim their own truth, as they must - assuming sincerity in speech. Yet I often find myself wondering if any one of them could explain what makes a statement true/false, and better yet which ones, if any, could identify a lie.

So, regarding the media talking heads' use of the term 'post-truth', I struggle to make sense of it. Some who've argued 'against' my writing here have said many things that I agree with, despite not agreeing with their approach...

At any rate...

Due to what I've seen for myself regarding folk from all walks of life, it seems that a common misunderstanding of what truth is and the role it plays is shared by most... unfortunately.

The saddest part, to me at least, is that not everyone is capable of knowing better, and many of those that are perpetuate the misunderstanding of those that aren't.

There are many who call the current political discourse in American politics(particularly when talking about the right wing media talking points along with the president's own words) "post-truth" as a result of the sheer quantity of demonstrably false statements of thought/belief being bandied about as though they were true.

There has always been a sheer quantity of demonstrably false statements of thought belief being bandied about, so this isn't a different "Post-truth"" world. And MSM is making a lot of false statements and mistruths as well.

There are many many more who quite simply have little to no clue what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so(a necessary prerequisite for continuing to hold demonstrably false belief(s) despite being falsified). That's a big problem.

This big problem has always been the case, too.

Add to that the overwhelming propensity of media talking heads to begin with an utterly inadequate linguistic framework accompanied by the financial need to keep folk tuned in by whatever means necessary, and you'll quickly notice the inevitably self-perpetuated confusion.

This describes most of media as it has been since corporations began taking over in the 70's. So, not only does this not point to a "Post-Truth" world, it would be wrong to make it applicable only to Trump's presidency.

Sadly, I cannot help but to note that much of this arose from those with unshakable conviction in false belief who remain ignorant by sheer will alone(conflate their own thought/belief and it's source with truth) and those who've - for whatever reason - who have allowed and honored(often unknowingly, and yet other times clearly not) such religious 'theft' of discursive means by virtue of accepting that particular use of the term "truth" in order to reject other aspects of the religion/belief system, while simultaneously throwing out, and/or neglecting all other notions of truth.

This is a nonsensical, unfounded rant entirely free of any specificity to support it.

The problem(hinted at directly above) is simple to identify but much more difficult to correct:Most folk simply do not know what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so. As a direct result of disregarding truth and the role that it plays in all thought/belief and statements thereof, many people nowadays have a very hard time knowing what to believe and why. As it pertains to politics, American or otherwise, the way a topic is framed in language - the actual words used to talk about a topic - will largely determine which aspects of the topic can be sensibly discussed by virtue of establishing the terminology being used to do so

Another rant of pure conjecture with no specific facts to support it. Creaive sure likes to share his personal fantasies.

All too often folk get mired in thought and discussion by virtue of adopting an utterly inadequate linguistic framework. Any and all frameworks which cannot take account of what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is inherently lacking explanatory power where it matters most, especially in this political context(post-truth world). Thus, the opposing narratives both claim their own truth, as they must - assuming sincerity in speech. Yet I often find myself wondering if any one of them could explain what makes a statement true/false, and better yet which ones, if any, could identify a lie.

This rambling is just too incoherent to read. However, again, it clearly has no specific facts. Creaive really believes people should just take him at his word.

Due to what I've seen for myself regarding folk from all walks of life, it seems that a common misunderstanding of what truth is and the role it plays is shared by most... unfortunately.

We've always had this common misunderstanding in the world. That doesnt' make this a post-Truth world.

The saddest part, to me at least, is that not everyone is capable of knowing better, and many of those that are perpetuate the misunderstanding of those that aren't.

The saddest part is people perpetuating the myth of us living in a Post-Truth world, even when its clear we're not.

To summarize my own thoughts on the matter of 'post-truth'...

I can make sense of it in but one way. If a "post-truth world" means to denote American society after the use of truth-as-belief has taken hold and is now several generations deep, then 'post-truth world' would amount to a world after such use became trendy/popular. Which is merely to say, that many more now use the term "truth" as a synonym for that which one believes to be the case(belief) than did prior to the rise of American pragmatism and postmodernism.

Of course, that is not the way that the notion is being used in the American news media.

If post-truth world means to denote American society after the truth-as-belief has taken hold and is now several generations deep.

The problem here is truth-as-belief never "took hold" in America or anywhere and was never several generations deep, so there is no different "Post-Truth" world following it.

Which is merely to say, that many more now use the term "truth" as a synonym for that which one believes to be the case(belief) than did prior to the rise of American pragmatism and postmodernism.

This is more erroneous conjecture Creative throws our there with no specific facts backing it up, as if everybody is just supposed to take his delusions at his word.

Of course, that is not the way that the notion is being used in the American news media.

The news media's notion of a "Post-Truth" world is as unfounded and in-supported as Creative's

The problem here is truth-as-belief never "took hold"...

That gave me a nice chuckle... out loud even.

:-!