the middle one
The thing is, a lie necessarily includes the intent to decieve—someone uttering perfectly false information, if he himself is completely deluded, is not actually lying. On the other hand, socially at least, we manage to delude ourselves (and others) about our veracity by failing (intentionally or not) to make ourselves aware of the extent of contextual relevance. By extension of the first excuse, I suppose, if someone were honestly deluded in his impressions of a given context, he's still not /lying/...
On the other hand, there are legal (/logical?) devices for chipping away at the middle ground. (Ignorance of the law is no excuse, for one.)
So I guess I spent all day chewing on why I /like/ to avoid that kind of rigidity; whether it isn't self-delusion (or lack of self-respect) that allows me to sail through things, with no context at all, blissfully enjoying every "seriously?!" as much as every "of course"; whether the recognition of one's (eternal) ignorance can actually ride that line between wisdom and enduring guilelessness (naivete?); or if you have to be actually crazy to manage that (or if, that (and being crazy) are just handy excuses to avoid blame).
and then, against all odds, I am asked to type this out:
I am aware of the fact that whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the U.S. knowingly and willingly falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device, a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent writing or document knowing the same to contain false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (18 USC 1001).Wouldn't you like to know what was in the rest of the document?





















