Truth As Risk

The Concept of Truth As Risk In Security

By Roy D. Follendore III

Copyright (c) 2002 RDFollendoreIII

Consider the abstract concept of truth. Abstract truth exists. Abstract truth is absolute. Everything else except abstract truth is a not true. Within some abstract Universe any attempt to represent a nontruth as the truth is a lie. But is this abstract truth itself truthful within our practiced human existance? Can truth also be false within this Universe we live in? Would it be truthful to assume that abstract truth actually exists within the context of rational truth?

Ultimately trust in both man and the concept of truth is necessary for security to exist. This is the philosophical dilemma of the security paradigm. If man is capable of telling lies, how do you know when man is telling the truth? This is significant because security ultimately involves some aspect of keeping truths secret.

When person says he will keep a secret can you believe that person without an abstract concept of truth? The more people that know truth, the less of a secret truth is. Therefore another person you don't know says that she will keep a secret how do you know? Perhaps for some reason you believe her. How do you believe someone that you don't know will keep a secret? Yet we do this all the time without even having to see their face. How do you believe a thousand people will keep a secret? We do this too. How many people can know some secret before that something is no longer a secret?

Truth exists. It must exist, for if the truth does not exist then security is pointless. Perhaps truth exists in the form of good intentions. If so then this simply means that the truth is not fail proof because good intentions fail us all the time. They say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Or perhaps truth fails because people fail both intentionally and unintentionally. Sometimes people choose to fail the truth, rather than truth failing them. How many truthful people can know a secret before something is no longer a secret because one of them will choose to fail the truth? We forget that the abstract truth is just that. It is abstract because it does not take into consideration the human condition we call perspective. Abstract truth has no environment in which to judge it's justification. If enough truthful human beings are given the absolute truth and are asked to keep it secret, then at least one individual will eventually find a contextual justification for breaking the secrecy and allowing that truth to be known by others.

The trouble with absolute judgments about truth is that this approach places false burdens on the concept of truthfulness. We are all subject to our failings of truth. No one can live up to such absolutes and that is the essence of makes the concept of security through secrecy a process of risk acceptance. On the other hand, a person that is incapable of having expectations of truth has no social conscience. Even with the potential failings of the concept of absolute truth, that person is incapable of friendship or of loyalty because the concept of truth of friendship and loyalty does not exist for that person. That person creates truth to suit the needs of every moment.

The kind of truth that is necessary for good security is not of the absolute variety. Neither is it the truth that changes color to suit the situation or the moment of vanity. The kind of truth that makes security functional is based on the ageless boundaries of rational faith, justice and integrity. There is no way to measure these traits directly or instantly. Lie detectors and quesitonairs can not do this. The context of truth may be an abstract variable but it is the existance of truth that is absolute.