Do We Really Want to Know?

“I can’t look and won’t look,” the renowned historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. is reported to have said when photographic evidence was presented to him contradicting the accepted belief that President Kennedy had been shot by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald. As recounted by Schlesinger’s son in a disturbing history of the infamous CIA Director Allen Dulles, The Devil’s Chessboard by David Talbot, “the historian simply didn’t have the ‘emotional resources’ to confront the sordid facts surrounding the assassination.”

While it may be understandable that the Kennedy confidant, courtier of Camelot and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book, A Thousand Days, was unwilling to look at the picture showing that Kennedy had been shot from the front as well as the back, disproving that Oswald was the lone assassin, the anecdote raises the general question about whether each of us has the “emotional resources” to confront the uncomfortable.
The distinction between “fake news” and “real news” has come to the fore. It is more and more obvious that what we hear and read about can be easily manipulated. Public relations guru John Rendon’s 1996 proclamation that he was an information warrior and perception manager seems simplistic today. Notions of objectivity and “all the news that is fit to print” have been exposed as banal narratives that often mask more complex subjectivities. Even in physics, thanks to German theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg, we recognize that the act of looking at something changes the nature of what we are looking at. Our perception of something and the object we are looking at cannot be separated. 
But why should we look? What are we looking for? Are there objects or truths that we don’t want to see? What makes the Schlesinger statement so revelatory is that the Harvard professor and award-winning historian admitted that he could not, would not look at a picture that called into question the official version of the Warren Commission that Kennedy had been shot by a lone gunman. Handicapped by emotions, the famed historian refused to probe for the truth, refused to want to know who really killed his president and close friend.
Are there simpler truths that each of us is unwilling to look at? Each year I prepare my speech after winning Wimbledon. When we look in the mirror in the morning do we see our aging and recognize the inevitability of our future? About how many things do we consciously or unconsciously say: “I can’t look and won’t look.” Why are certain people able to be more rational (‘colder’) and less emotional than others?
Donald Trump is convinced that he is a great president. I am convinced that one day I will win Wimbledon. Whereas I can be rational in demystifying the first statement, I am emotionally hindered in denying the second. (I can be somewhat rational at times realizing that my damaged shoulder will never be able to serve again, but still…)
Hope is based on emotions. It allows us to overcome adversity and move forward. Not all truths can be examined. In the case of the Kennedy assassination and the existence of a deep state and conspiracy to kill the president, which Talbot carefully lays out in detail, I wonder about how much we really want to know. There are obviously those who do, who continue to question the official version and follow various plots. Most people, however, accept the Warren report.
Some illusions are beneficial. My dream of winning Wimbledon gives me hope for the future. However, Trump’s illusion of himself as a great president is not beneficial for him, the country or the world. Schlesinger’s refusal to know the truth may be beneficial to him, but it certainly is not helpful to the country or the world. There are some truths that should come out, no matter how painful they may be. Talbot’s book is a step in the right direction. But, how many of us really want to know what happened?


"Even in physics"
Only in "quantum physics". It is true that some players close their eyes when while waiting for their bowling ball to strike, but this does not really influence the final result.
Let's not encourage people to imagine that the adjective used by Einstein in his famous statement "spooky action at a distance" can be applied to the world (of physics) in general.

Écrit par : Mère-Grand | 26/07/2017

Dans le cas de JFK, qu`il ait été tué par un barjo isolé ou une puissante cabale (mafia, banques, politique...) n`a pas constitué une question vitale pour l`avenir politique et économique du pays. Le fait, par contre, de savoir si le président venant d`entrer en fonction est intellectuellement apte a présider possede une certaine importance pour l`avenir du pays. Sans parler de l`éventualité d`une influence secrete sur les décisions présidentielles de la part d`une puissance étrangere. Le camp républicain est désormais en état de dissonnance cognitive entre le désir de fermer un dossier qui remet en cause sa victoire électorale et pourrait meme le décrédibiliser pour longtemps et la peur des conséquences possibles de laisser en place une présidence inapte, voire sous influence. Sale temps pour les... éléphants.

Écrit par : Minutus Manilianus | 26/07/2017

On dirait que la diversion providentielle est trouvée, elle a pour nom Céleste Empire et Corée du Nord. Bonjour la guerre économique avec la Chine et les grandes gesticulations contre la Corée du Nord. Alibaba n`a qu`a bien se tenir mais Apple aussi qui fabrique ses bidules au rabais en Chine. Quant aux marchés chinois d`Apple, GM, Tesla et quelques autres, adieu les méga-profits. Si ca continue, certains milliardaires du Nasdaq vont commencer a piquer des petites aiguilles dans des Donald Duck en cire pendant que les fabricants de missiles américains vont faire couler a flots le Dom Perignon.

Écrit par : Minutus Manilianus | 30/07/2017

Écrire un commentaire

NB : Les commentaires de ce blog sont modérés.