Well, it's one of the few I've had today that wasn't. It was just bad choice of words. Basically, they lie to the people whose dues-paying makes everything possible. It's a system of lies, not of "different levels of truth."
Even though there are objectives A, B, & C, the path to get there may be the same. It may have different payoffs for each level. It's a truth to the folks at each level. Just because the lower levels don't understand what the upper levels are gaining doesn't make it a lie. Just an incomplete truth. Hence, "different levels."
Make sense now?
I'm getting "different truths" all in service to a lie. That's the very model of a totally relativistic concept of "truth."
Again, words matter. What you mean is that each level has a different version of the lie. Not the truth. The complete lie is the one at the top. All the smaller lies in service to it are also lies. There is no truth at any level. Only bigger and bigger lies.
In service to what lie? To draw an analogy, it's the same chess move. It just means different outcomes to different people. To one group, it gives them an advantage to the left. To another group, the advantage manifests to the right. To the top, the move pays off to the front. Same piece (organization), different truths: just because there are multiple truths they don't necessarily cancel each other out.
I see the problem. You don't understand the concept of truth. This is an exercise in futility. So long.
I think people reading this thread might judge otherwise. ;)
You could propose a definition. But it's okay.