The extent of a truth in logic is elucidated by the ‘truth’ value of a logical statement. In most instances, either “false” or “true” is used to expose the truth value. In the case of “In a groove”, “Tajomaru raped Masago” is true since Tajomaru actually raped Masago and thus would be considered a falsehood if he did not rape her.
However, the truth value may be supplementary values also, especially in multi-valued logics. This mostly occurs in cases where a numerical value is used to state how true the issue may be. In these particular instances, where the value is between zero (0) and one (1), one would be used to state that it is utterly correct and zero would indicate that it is completely false.
In certain situations where the circumstances are such that they may require further scrutiny for verification, the statement may be considered half way false and at the same time half way true, thereby placing the truth value at 0.5. To establish a logic truth as being valuation worthy, one does not require truth values in an exceptional sense.
The correlation between creative writing and truth has for a long time been quite impulsive. If the raconteur cheats about the fable being true, which of course would only be meaningful in the event of the literary globe maintaining its own values of truth, then fiction would be considered as being real in the world that it formulates. In any case, creative writing is taken as being neither a falsehood nor being true. Rather, it is somewhere in the midst of the two states.
In this particular narrative, the rudiments that we would consider as being the truth statements include;
- Tajamoru and Masago left at different times.
- Even though the aspects would differ, Masago seemed inclined to the fact that she wished Takehiko would die according to all the separate accounts.
- Masago’s horse as well as Takehito’s quiver and his bow were stolen by the same person who was Tajomaru.
- Masago was desecrated by Tajamoru.
- Takehiko died.
- The duo was led into the forest by Tajomoru.
There appear several discrepancies in the cast’s tales regarding the goings-on and they vary from the minute details right up to the vital aspects of the tale. There are so many inconsistencies that emanate from the different versions that are given by the characters in their statements regarding the happenings. For example;
- The statement that Masago gave totally left out the fact that she carried out an elongated discussion with Tajomaru subsequent to the rape ordeal and consequently she was willing to leave with Tajomaru on condition of her husband’s death.
- The clergyman who was passing through stated that he very unambiguously saw more than twenty arrows in the gentleman’s quiver, quite contrary to what the bounty hunter said he counted which was slightly less.
The final statement is delivered to the reader by the late Takehiko’s ghost and this is facilitated by a go-between of the spirit world. Takehito, through the go-between, shows apparent disdain for his wife in the course of his narration of his version of the story.
This indicates that each individual in the cast narrates a certain fact that they deem a truth but is contradicted by another person thus making it a falsehood. In actual sense, the ethical contradictions in the narrative may be much more crucial than the literal ones.
In an effort to cover up their own dishonesty, it is quite evident that the characters have all switched their statements exposing the fact that they are ethically and morally corrupted. This situation abandons the person reading the story without the ability to pin point who is specifically responsible for what in an objective manner.
In a synopsis, it is their emotions that guide the reader in making a decision as to who on a literal point, is telling the truth since it is the emotions that make them believe in one specific person much more than the rest.
This comprehension dawns on the reader almost at the close of the narrative as they find out that they are not able to garner enough verification that may enable them decipher who is literally right. The need for prejudice as well as self rationalization rather than truth as well as facts to decide what may or may not be true is what drives the reader to discover that they need to acknowledge the reality that they themselves are also ethically compromised in a way.
In the final analysis, as stated by one critique of narratives, he points out the fact that a complete unit is not the computation of its distinct divisions. Rather it is the disputed correlation that exists amidst the said parts.
The anonymous critique signs of by broaching the question that inquires on ways that people (we) may be able to set a basis to go by through narrative that may shift people (us) down as a discursive anthology of persons who are apt to the task as well as the outfit that may enable them advance on the current troubles that affect them.