I very much appreciate when commentators actually mention the word epistemology, and then go on to parse it, with real life examples. For how DO we learn, when an infinite number of “data points” — info, misinfo and disinfo — whistle at us from every direction and there’s no sure way of telling one from the other or “connecting dots” in a way that “makes sense” for more than a fraction of a second — until the next “contradictory” dot comes along to explode our hypothesis into smithereens? This is why I’ve dedicated part of this blogsite to what I call alt-epistemology, and why I ask myself and others to remember to take off whatever concretized conceptual helmet currently threatens to choke off our otherwise open minds.
I realize some people (most people?) are terrified of openness. Which means, to me, that we need to school each other on the immense and proliferating ramifications of so-called “closed systems” of any kind in a universe that opens endlessly in all directions, forever and ever.
But make no mistake, the Epstein case is significant, precisely because of its international nature. As no other case or individual, Mr. Epstein was connected. In the apt words of one American commentator, he was the most important prisoner in the world.
The case is significant also for an almost philosophical reason, because according to polls in America, the vast majority of people are simply not buying the suicide narrative, and of those who do, the outrage factor is in the red zone. Epstein has crystallized the sense of outrage so much that his case symbolizes a cultural and epistemological crisis that the country is in. Virtually every aspect of the narrative that we’re being told has already been questioned, and virtually every detail can be interpreted from a variety of points of view and in the absence of trust in any narrative put out by the government, speculations and theories abound, many of which make much more sense than the narrative we’re being asked to accept. In short, Epstein has created a kind of epistemological crisis: so deep is the cynicism now that – as I remarked in a private conversation to a friend – if the government investigation initiated by Attorney General Barr were to be completely transparent and tell the absolute truth, no one is going to believe it, and you can put me in that category. The institutions of government have lied to the American people for so long, and so deeply, the double standard application of law has become so apparent, that the cynicism runs so deep no one will believe them any more. That’s an epistemological crisis, a cultural one, and ultimately, a crisis of governance. At this stage, some big name people are going to have to appear in orange jump suits – and soon – or government regardless of who is running it is going to lose what tiny little shards of credibility it has left.
As a case in point to illustrate this “epistemological crisis”, consider the following article:
In the aftermath of Epstein’s suicide-Arkancide-substitution or whatever-it-was-that-happened last weekend, one school of thought quickly expressed itself, namely, that with Epstein officially out of the way, nothing could prevent the government from going in and seizing all sorts of stuff from his various properties and estates. Et voila! That’s what the article here states has happened, and in jig time too. Nothing suspicious about that (heavy cough). On the internet, a certain segment of people have commented that this is all “according to the plan worked out in detail years in advance” and so on, and that all is well. Trust the plan. I view this group with the same jaundiced skepticism as I do the whole Epstein whatever-happened story, and in the same sort of mood as I view the Inter-galactic Blue Chickens Disclosure group. In effect, they’re saying, “See? The FBI is on top of this, and they’re gathering more evidence! The arrests are about to begin!”
Really?!? Why couldn’t they be destroying evidence? After all, this was the same government that: (1) lied about JFK with its magic bullet-lone nut theory; (2) destroyed evidence at Waco, (3) destroyed evidence at Oklahoma City, and (4) repeated the performance on 9/11, and on and on we could go. The FBI, which was clearly politicized and weaponized by one political group against another – think Ohr, Stzrok, McCabe, Comey &c – is all of a sudden trustworthy? My point here is, that one may interpret each detail in a variety of ways, often mutually contradictory.
And that’s what I mean by an epistemological crisis. With so many reasonably articulated theories out there, with so little forthcoming, and with trust at an all time low and skepticism at an all time high, why should one believe anything the government or the media – and let us never forget the Clowns In America’s penetration of that media – says? One famous American tv talk show host, I’ve noticed, has been repeatedly stating in his broadcasts that the FBI is the world’s greatest investigative organization. Why would he be doing this? Because trust and respect are earned, not commanded, and the FBI has lost both. Don’t feed me the line that there are many good people in the organization, for an organization that can be so easily subverted and perverted by a few at the top is not an organization to be trusted. What holds true for a few popes and cardinals in the Middle Ages (or for that matter, more recently) holds true here. Penance requires the perp walks in this instance, and things are so bad that unless people start seeing the orange jump suits, no one is going to believe them any more.