The Right-Shaped Masks Feel Like Face

WE DO NOT CREATE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON LOGICAL ARGUMENTS. WE CREATE LOGICAL ARGUMENTS TO JUSTIFY OUR CONCLUSIONS.

Recently, a group in India approached the Supreme Court of India, petitioning the Court to put a stay to the Government of India’s invitation for citizenship from the persecuted religious minorities from neighbouring countries.

To some of us, it may seem like an illogical and a frivolous petition, especially, given that this action is now completely supported by an explicit law in this regard.

Would the petitioners have filed a petition stating – “we have no reason to ask for it, but we are still asking?”

NO.

The petition would be water-tight. It would contain absolutely rock-solid, undeniable arguments. The arguments could be as rock-solid as “If a man is not allowed to divorce his wife at his whim, he may feel compelled to kill her”, as was provided by a related group in the past in order to justify random divorces peddled out in bouts of hysteria.

Whatever the arguments the petition contains, it must be rock-solid. Undeniable.

At least that’s how they would pretend to be.

And then there are always the ultimate weapons – appeals to humanity, appeals to the “idea of India”, appeals to a feeling of parity and equality for all, appeals to not encouraging “fascism”, appeals to not setting dangerous precedence – “rock-solid arguments” that nobody in his “right mind and heart” is supposed to deny, without having their sense of fascism being called out.

Logical sounding is not always logically sound.

Whenever we deal with public narratives and discourses of the evil-minded, we forget the most fundamental property of our “Mind” – 

The Mind is more dynamically and impactfully moved by the “structure” of a communication, rather than by the “content” of it.

Why do laughter shows have laughter-props?

The sound of a huge crowd laughing is more likely to slip you into laughter than the actual joke. At the very least, it creates an energy of “laughter” around you. Laughter is infectious without any germs or vectors involved, because the “mirror neurons” in our neurology have a tendency to mimic the environment around us.

What sways our mind with more ease? Prose or Poetry?

What sways our mind with more ease? Monotonous phrase, or Musical phrase?

Why does the same idea just feel nice when said in prose, but churn you inside out when said in poetry?

Why do the witticisms of a stand-up comedian feel agreeable even if they may sharply contradict your views on the matter?

Laughter, rhyme, rhythm, repetition, tune, humour, are examples of how “structure” influences the mind more than “content”.

It is becoming increasingly common for stand-up comedians to don roles of modern day visionaries, influencers and creators of the new world-order. It takes “NO intelligence” to peddle a wise-crack, and it takes “lesser than NO Intelligence” to swoon at it.

That’s how it is with other mental and linguistic constructs – Questions, Logic, etc.

When a “question” is asked, it opens up a “loop” in our minds. This loop is uncomfortable. It puts the mind on pins and needles, and the mind seeks an immediate relief – in the form of an answer.

This is the important point here –

whenever a question is asked, the mind seeks AN answer.

To be more precise –

whenever a question is asked, the mind seeks ANY answer.

When AN answer is provided – rather, when ANY answer is provided – an onlooker’s mind perceives that the answer has “arrived”. For the mind, that’s it. The mind doesn’t bother about checking what’s inside the packet that just came in. It closes the open loop within, so that it can now get off the pins and needles and breathe in peace.

On the contrary, if you are the one who asked the question, or party to it in any direct or indirect way, even a logically sound answer is unlikely to satiate you, unless it addresses those “emotions” that triggered the question in the first place. If the question was asked in mischief, as lots of questions are, no answer is going to be enough, ever.

In all the cases mentioned above, the CONTENT of the answer is IRRELEVANT.

It’s the SHAPE of the communication that impacts, influences and creates results.

Regardless of the fact that the answer could have been a pile of trash – to an onlooker – the structure of the communication – 

“A Question was asked -> An Answer was provided”

completes the loops in his mind.

It is not the logic of an argument that satiates our minds.

It is the APPEARANCE of being LOGICAL and RATIONAL that satiates our minds, as it fits perfectly into the structures that our mind supports. The mind experiences a perfect “click”, the incoming input is locked, and everything feels fine.

A study was conducted on a queue of people, wherein the subjects of the experiment had to find ways to break the queue and get their work done ahead of the queue.

The study revealed that the probability of a request to break the queue being granted was very high when the request was accompanied was a reason.

It didn’t matter what the reason was.

e.g. in a queue of people waiting to use a xerox machine, even the request “can I go ahead, because I have to take the xerox?” experienced more success than a bare “can I go ahead?“

The mind is usually too caught up in its own momentum of thought streams to really consider the content of anything. In this example, the structure of the conversation “request + reason” was sufficient to convince the mind to accede to the request.

It is not uncommon for a total idiot to make a dumb wise-crack with a tone and body-language that makes him, his supporters, and neutral onlookers, feel that the wisest thing in the history of mankind has just been uttered…

How does the other party respond?

To the joy of the dumb-wits, the opponents usually respond in a manner that is stupider than the original act – THEY ACTUALLY START EXPLAINING THAT COMMENT AWAY!!!

We have discussed “reference frames” in earlier posts, and we would further discuss it in-depth in future posts, but for now, it is enough to point out that the reason this kind of response is simply a throwaway is this –

“A DESTRUCTIVE ACT IS FAR EASIER TO CONCEIVE AND SIMPLER TO EXECUTE THAN A CONSTRUCTIVE ACT”.

You can make a stupid wise-crack and sit back, and the onus is on the other side to spend the rest of their lives trying to prove you wrong.

It is a monumental task to destroy a stupid argument.

If we really want to deal with the evil of the world, we need to understand how the human mind works. As mentioned above, it is trivial for them to make a destructive statement or carry a destructive act, and then sit back and chill. It is us, the ones with the onus to protect ourselves, who have to shoulder the tough role of being “CONSTRUCTIVE”.

It is extremely important for us to understand how the mind responds to public narratives and discourses, so that we can gain the ability to bust them.

The “Destroyers” have the luxury to be totally stupid and yet, win. The “Protectors” have to be impeccable in their response.

The woke of the world understand the simplicity of their role.

All they need is :

– PRETENSE of wit and wisdom. Appear to make a wise-crack. The dumbness index of the comment doesn’t matter. The onus is on the other side to dismiss it and prove it wrong.

– PRETENSE of being logical and rational. What is said is immaterial. The structure of the communication which indicates that a rational argument was made suffices.

– PRETENSE of answering the asked question. The answer could be as much related to the question as wokeness is related to intelligence, but that is of no significance. The structure “Question asked, Answer given” closes all open mental loops and sends out a sense that the open question has been answered.

Given that the impact of “content” in communication is almost non-existential, consider the futility of the amount of energy we dissipate indulging in countering the mischief-mongers on basis of facts, logics, arguments and rationalities.

You counter one, and they come up with one thousand.

Just because an “argument” seems rock-solid doesn’t indicate that a TRUTH has just been discovered.

You can spend a few hours thinking on ANY topic, and find a rational argument, explanation and justification to ANYTHING in the world. There is nothing in the world for which an extremely convincing logical explanation cannot be worked out. Absolutely nothing.

Human beings DO NOT CREATE conclusions based on rational arguments.
Human beings CREATE rational arguments to justify their conclusions.

“Conclusions” come from a very different source, and has no correlation with logical justification. That’s for a future discussion.

Those who intend to deceive would obviously shape their masks to look like an authentic face.

The unfortunate part is – we always fall for the right-shaped mask, believing it to be the face!!!