Verisimilitude means simile veri — like the truth. It is a quality of poetry and faction, that a good poetic work is not about actual factual events, but presents a believable coherent story that presents a convincing possible world. The role of versimilitude in literature is found in Aristotle’s Poetics. It can help people get a feeling for how the world works, but this method cannot be used to prove any fact.
Conspiracy theory (and climate theory) reasons like this. There is a 50% probability of A. If A is possible then there is a 50% probability of B. If B is possible then there is a 50% possibility of C. So that proves C because 50%x50%x50%=12500%. Example, camels fart, therefore .. therefore ... therefore.. all of Germany will be underwater. Or ... I done like the interest rate on my credit card ......... therefore the Jews control everything. The only problem, need I point out, is that 50% x 50% x 50% = 12.5 %, or not very likely at all.
Aristotle in the Poetics writes: “it is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened, but what may happen - what is possible according to the law of probability or necessity. The poet and the historian differ not by writing in verse or in prose. […] The true difference is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular.”
Now, in something like what really happened on 9/11, a real history is impossible. Any narrative of 9/11 is in the realm of poetry (or fiction). Truthers and anti-truthers are both in a rut. Simply satisfy yourself with a plausible narrative, and realize that there are many plausible narratives. My plausible narrative. Wahhabists did it. The government knew something of the sort was coming. It was politically inexpedient to take the harsh domestic measures to prevent all such possible occurrences. Even politically impossible. Just imagine if on September 10th there was a presidential decree to put air-marshalls on flights, to have everyone patted down, and all that other stuff. Imagine that by doing that they actually prevented the event. Would anyone believe them that they prevented a disaster? No. Would they all call George W. Bush a cretin? Surely they would, and that probably would have impeached him. To some extent the government let it unfold.
The government had lots and lots of contingency plans, and that day there were all sorts of people, probably not fully coordinated, doing all sorts of things.
Another plausible notion. Wahabbism has always been easily manipulated. The Brits saw it is a force that could weaken the Ottoman Empire, because the Wahabbis would split up Islam. The US saw a similar opportunity in the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The truthers have this empirical historical truth on their side. Governments are capable of massive deception. Part of that is to create so much static, so many stories surrounding an event, that no-one knows what is going on. But then, if governments are capable of mass deception, and "the truth is out there" — how can a "truther" get dogmatic and say he knows exactly what happened?
Next, the "Occupy Movement." No one can say exactly what it is, but people have "feelings" about it, as if it was some sort of litmus test. The historical fact is that it is very easy to do things behind the scenes to create what looks like a spontaneous movement. Read what happened to the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953. So, you feel angry about something, you have a general sense of what is wrong with the world. You discover that there is a spontaneous gathering of people who feel the same way. Next thing, someone has a megaphone, is in front of a camera, and is speaking in front of the cameras and telling the world what you think. Only problem, that is not what you are thinking.
Two plausible narratives of the Occupy movement. (1) It is a clearly articulated movement to modify certain very specific laws, it has a central focus, although there are many who see it as an opportunity to present their own favorite agendas that they see as related; (2) it is a provocation, that is, the evil financiers (or whoever) manufactured it to discredit the people who have something cogent to say.
No comments:
Post a Comment