Sunday, 7 June 2015

One Very Important Weapon Against Brainwashing/Subliminal Manipulation

John Rawls (Rawls, Britannica) apparently said, in his book, a Theory of Justice (Theory of Justice), page 62, a book from 1971, that

Injustice is simply inequalities that are not for the benefit of all

We then thought about Carmen and the assassination of Claudio, a crime that happened in Rio de Janeiro a few years ago. 

Eye witnesses seemed to give her description and nobody had doubts about her being guilty.

The official system absolved her.

That was an inequality because other people who have killed would have been condemned if in the same situation. She had the contrary to what should be equal treatment.

That was definitely injustice.

On the other hand, if she went to jail, she could think that that is an inequality because, for instance, everyone else is free, like, considering everyone she knows, her universe of people, everyone is free.

That is the contrary to equality for her at least.

And being arrested is obviously NOT FOR HER BENEFIT.

Even though we could argue that she will improve as a person, and therefore it is for her benefit, she herself will never see things in this way or at least the vast majority of the people who go through that won’t.


Once more, we insist that real life IS NOT a place for LOGIC, for Scientific Logic.

People do have to abandon these bad manners.

These universal claims would have to be fallacies when it comes to proving them.

Things are way too broad in human existence, way too human, to allow us to use our oversimplified logical universe to deal with them.

Once more, as we said so many times, when speaking about The Liar (Solution to The Liar), The Sorites (Solution to The Sorites), and alike problems, we cannot fit bigger boxes into small ones without losing it all, what obviously includes losing sense.

We can fit the small box into the big box quite easily, so that speaking about a problem that naturally belongs to Logic as if it belonged to real life is easy and will not generate confusions, but not the converse.

Politicians, in general, look for marketing tokens, sentences of effect, and that is how they end up with things such as these.

We will be able to identify counter-examples quite easily if we are from Logic and see these sentences of effect, so that we will be able to prove that that is at most a marketing token, but never the truth.

The popular dicta fit in this category perfectly well.

We have, for instance,

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (Dictionary Reference).

If we are traders, then having one in our hands is probably worth more than having two in the bush.

If we are pacifists, then having two in the bush is probably worth more than having any in our hands.

Sentences of effect would like to enjoy the same status as the tautologies (Dictionary Reference) in Logic, given the way people use them and the effect they seek to produce on those who have contact with them, but a light logical effort will lead to an easy proof that this is all nonsense.

Words are usually vague (Words for Science) and all care is not enough when trying to make use of short sentences without context as if they were, or could be, rules.

As far as we know, were the Hitlerian orders correctly obeyed, the own Hitler should have been forced into the concentration camps, for he had dark eyes, dark hair, and etc.

This post has to then do with brainwashing and subliminal marketing and our weapons to avoid the maleficent effects of those.

We should now incorporate the mental instruction to never keep or repeat these sentences of effect to our being. We never know the correct extension of the consequences involved and there is no point in spreading incorrect principles.




No comments:

Post a Comment