by prologos 10 Replies latest social current
NY Times article: "--- 2 words for truth in russian,--" pravda, the malleable truth, and istina, the unchangeable cosmic reality.
It looks like wt writers like that, or think like that. Wt is constantly changing the surface truth, but can not change the underlying reality, no matter how many groups they overlap. The commies defined pravda as "what is good for the morale of the people, as published in their main paper organ "Pravda". is wt not the same? to the end?
Interesting thought.
It reminds me of a conversation I recently had with a former elder who is now wide awake (I thought for sure he'd already been a long standing member here, but I was the one to make him aware of the whole ARC issue only a few weeks ago). After he watched sections of the ARC coverage that addressed the concept of "theocratic warfare", he postulated the theory that the GB knows the actual "truth" of things-- that it's likely Jesus died on a crucifix instead of a solitary stake; that Jerusulem wasn't destroyed in 607 BCE; that there's really nothing wrong with birthdays; that the sacredness of blood means it should only be used for the most sacred duty-- preservation of life. Yet, they see it as their justifiable duty to continue teaching "The Truth" (vs. the actual truth) because their job is to keep people's faith strong and keep them in the Organization-- even if it means they utilize "theocratic warfare" strategies with their own flock.
So for them, "The Truth" is whatever they see as most likely to keep the flock's faith strong at the time and keep them in the Org (pravda), not the actual truth on any one matter (istina).
respectful and good observation, that seems to be exactly the case, but as with true comrades, they might not be totally aware of what they are doing, dutifully.
I think you both have summed up the WT organization down to a "T"
Good observations.
In the current era of 'Post Truth', the Org fits in very well.
They say : "Don't research" ; "The Truth changes" ; "Reality is whatever we say it is".
All of which means Truth doesn't matter.
They denegrate facts.
I have been hearing the term gaslighting in relation to politics a lot and didn't know what it meant. I had to look it up. Its the same as what the witness do.
The Organisation should not be called 'The Truth' but 'The Post Truth'.
Blyach suka, kulva, obaat, tvoyo mat!
punk of nice, The words you wrote remind me of phrases the Russian soldiers we met in 1945 , (and wished we had not) were fond of to use, and referred closely to the family violence they caused. This was a istina that pravda, the paper tried to suppress. right?
I should have put my source The New York Times in the headline, to set the tone for the discussion to keep it out these other treasure of the russian tongue.
prologos - Yes. I've heard a lot of these strange words when I've seen footage of Russian dashcam crashes. Not through choice, I hasten to add. Captive audience.
Another word I recall from recent times is Perestroika
prologos - Yes. I've heard a lot of these strange words--
As my name implies, I am all for words, words are used to form our ideas, and the NYT article exposed this Russian think anomaly. Wt writers, and publishers too must have such 2 levels of truth , that is why they have to have catch phrases to abide by , and learned presentations.
In german, truth is "Warheit" like Gesundheit, The german word "War"* describes the unchangeable past. so: the past is fixed, what we see is done deeds, starlight is 4 years old, but even there "Warheit", the past's condition can be changed by propaganda, --see wt's rendering of it's history.
WT has failed to keep it's past truthful, but failed miserably to try to give truth about the future. In German truth about the future is an oxymoron, ihere is no Warheit = past condition about the future, and wt's failed predictions prove it. Pro- logos.
*For english speakers in germany, War will always be part of Warheit. and JWs are never allowed to forget about the WARheit of Armageddon.
I am all for words
I have often wondered what, apart from bad intent, makes a word 'rude' or 'objectionable'?!?
EG. Is the word 'tuck' three quarters rude?
...and is the bird known as the 'bustard' a partially illegitimate creature??
