Chapter Four

Nota: Upon revisiting this in a moment of rationality, I have concluded that it makes no sense, and that I'm a fucking looney. Enjoy!

So at the moment I am completely exhausted. I mean completely exhausted. Every few moments, my eyes lose focus and the room starts flickering and swirling. At the same time, it feels like someone is sticking a knife into the side of my head. After a moment of this, I can refocus my eyes and the knife feeling fades away. Repeat ad infinitum. Anyway, I thought this would be a great time for some reflection. No? Too bad. I’m going to examine truth and deciet.

So let’s start with the presumption that there is no truth. It might be a little bit of a corruption (ok, a lot) but you could work with the principle of quantum theory - there is no way to predict or to know absolutely, you can only get probabilities for predictions of whatever. Let’s break that down again. You can’t have absolutes in the future, you can only have probabilities, high in some cases and low in others. But that doesn’t mean a low probability can’t happen, just that it usually doesn’t. So in looking at the future, there is no truth. The whole business of probability - well, this is probably going to happen, lends itself very well to deceit. Deceit can be all about half-truths, saying, maybe that’s the way it happened.

Onto the present. You can actually rule out the present. There’s no such thing really, as soon as you notice that the “present” is happening, it’s too late and it’s already the past. If you try to prepare for it and catch it before it happens, that’s no good either because it’s the future. So no present, only a future versus past wall-thingy in my semi-coherent imagination.

So the problem is the past. How can you apply quantum theory and probability to the past. The past has already happened, so you can’t argue about things happening, but I bet you can argue about why they happened. If I walked my dog at three o’clock, (o’clock is such a funny word) if I walked my dog at fifteen hundred hours, then there’s no real probability. The probability that I walked my dog is 100%, because it happened, and so there’s no chance of my not walking my dog at fifteen hundred hours on that day. If there are no observers to a situation in the past - pardon my spaghetti brain and having no order - then you can easily call upon Schrodinger's cat, and wala, chance and unknowablity and stuff and so deceit is part of the law, not because it’s encouraged or enforced, but because it’s not discouraged. Anyway, back onto my pseudo-track, you can argue probability about why things happened in the past. And the great thing about why is that it starts moving into a grey zone. With physics, you can tell pretty well why something happened, so there’s truth there. Next, you can probably tell why stuff happens in chemistry and even biology. Keep moving up and you keep moving into the grey zone. Let’s call chaos theory just for good measure. Move into psychology - which is what I’m interested because the antithesis of my truth is deceit - and you start to have too many parts and gizmos and causes and effects zipping around and causing and effecting other things and you have absolutely no idea what’s going on anymore. Even if you are good enough to tell what is happening one chaos theory is involved, try telling me why it happened and I'm sure I can look at the same ink splot and come up with 15 different stories. So deceit is allowed in matters about the past because the why aspect of things can (almost (for good measure) ) never be determined. Deceit in aspects of the past then has to be clever because if you untruth a fact that happened, that’s wrong, but if you only stretch a reason for why that thing happened, there’s nothing “wrong.“

And so ha, I have justified deceit in a delusional haze. Live long and prosper!