A couple of weeks ago, I sat down and I wrote a fairly long, intricate essay entitled “What is The Red Pill?“, I was somewhat puzzled that I had to do such thing but I decided to write it out, if for nothing else to make the distinctions and delineations clear in my own mind. To me it was always very clear from the Matrix quote where the metaphor comes from:
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
The options being, that if you elect to take the blue pill, then you wake up within your illusion, and believe whatever you want about your world. If you take the red pill, you see reality and truth. Of course, this is based on an axiom that there is such a thing as objective reality which which we can measure and interact with to determine truth. Which I tend to think is accurate, because that is the basis for much of people’s lifestyles these days, from the TRT they take to make up for their testicles not producing enough, to the scientific work that had to be done for me to be typing this on a computer, in an air-conditioned room, and being able to talk to the world. We can identify the truth defined as :
The quality or state of being true.‘he had to accept the truth of her accusation
- 1.1 also the truth That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.‘tell me the truth’‘she found out the truth about him’
- 1.2 count noun A fact or belief that is accepted as true.‘the emergence of scientific truths’‘the fundamental truths about mankind’
However, then I got into a debate at a party with a mentor of mine, where I pointed out the distinction between facts as in the natural sciences, meaning the density of materials, the interactions of chemicals under given conditions, biological laws, and the Laws of Nature. As opposed to “facts” as in the social sciences, politics, popular vernacular and journalism, that are not so much facts, but a mixture of data and interpretations in a nice ratatouille of hodgepodge.
His response to me, as he swished some nice Cremant around in his glass, funnily enough was:
“[Carl], you have to have an IQ of 125 just to understand that distinction”