/lit/ - Literature

Of course, I think it goes without saying here (but nonetheless ought be said), a clear grasp of logic and rhetoric certainly immunizes anybody to such error or deception - but it is more interesting to me to observe the synapse spasms of the person who engages in such deception or confabulations and of the same neurological ripples of the receiver. How it is possible that a confabulation could make its way through the intellectual safeguards of the rational mind in the first place? One does not really need any intellectual argument or great learning to understand that a lunacy is a lunacy; or: that a lunacy is 'not' a lunacy until it has been expressly proven 'and' 'agreed' to be a lunacy.

I think we are returning here, in part, to the problems of an otherwise naturally rational mind which has had its safeguards worn away either through atrophy (lack of use) or skillfully let-down by some means which did not involve logic - but which did involve, we would say, pathos; 'emotionalism', whereupon the logic is there in the instinct or unconscious but has been subverted in the conscious, that is: the person who is capable of holding a confabulation in their head and walking around in a state of dissonance is not, as consequence of 'consciously adhering to the confabulation', performing 'other' acts of confabulation, e.g. pouring sulfuric acid into their coffee cup and making-pretend it is delicious coffee because they believe that they can make a thing so by 'belief', so this displays that their rational mind is still there. That they, then, are not lunatics simply because they have allowed a lunacy to enter their heads; quite in fact, I would say, as is demonstrated by their 'not' doing such things (as in the example) we can discern that they do not 'really' believe in such things in the first place. The swapping around of the conscious and the unconscious in this instance is significant in that usually one will find it is the other way around; that people who are stupid and usually so because they are operating from the unconscious and that the (often brief flash of) conscious logic is the only that that corrects them from being 'overly' stupid; pathos and being led by emotionalism is the obvious example of this, "(unconscious) you are upset, you want to hit the person who has upset you, (conscious) but they are physically more powerful than you are, so your logic intervenes and forces you to control yourself," whereas - in this case (I mean: for our subject) the usual position is inverted; the logic has taken on the form of the instinct in the unconsciousness (self-preservation 'against' the badly-wired and now self-destructive consciousness) and the illogic has taken on the form of the consciousness; whereby the 'verbal belief' is a lunacy when expressed and the person claims to believe in the lunacy.

2/3

Immunity to Deception,
>Remembering, for yourself, to insist upon solid proof of any claim before accepting it as either a legitimate perspective or as a true report on reality. You'll be immunize against all forms of deception if you just do this; it turns out the con-artist only has a very narrow window of wiggle room to gain access in the first instance.

>All the body language and other surface-level advise (nee. advice) can be ignored in favor of the logic itself; and if that seems too much to get a grip on, then consider any words as bing equations; "if this + this = then that" and if the logical sequence does not add up then - they could be lying to you, they could be lying to themselves, they are in either case factually in error...

is this a good topic? Deception, or "immunity to deception" is .... I think ... remarkably simple, in that:
>the con-artist only has a very narrow window of wiggle room to gain access in the first instance.

If you shrug at the logic 'in' that first instance then the con-artist or the hysteric has access to do everything else, coming from that first error that you would have ignored or decided to entertain as a hypothetical; then the second, third, fourth to five-hundreth instance in that sequence all follow from the error (whether it was a lie or whether they were mistaken) and down the rabbit-hole one goes. But it can be prevented if that 'first instance' is recognized when it appears.

One Day
>"if God isn't real, then we have no morality!"

Well, things that are objectively good or bad for you or anybody else is discerned by logic.


Next Day
>"if God isn't real, then we have no morality!"

Well, things that are objectively good or bad for you or anybody else is discerned by logic.

>"But the name of God is Jesus and Logos, so still, if God isn't real, then we have no morality!"


Are there any books on this particular rhetorical trick? I'd have expected Emperor Julianus or Lucien to have mentioned this. Was the idea of Jesus 'as' Logos after their time?