/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

LEARNED-PATHOS
As I come to this now I am inclined to called this 'thing' Learned-Pathos, whereupon unreason and error has been drilled into a person so that they come to comport themselves, against their rational senses, into expressing nonsensical beliefs in things which they have no logical reasoning to suspect to be true nor can logically explain why they believe what they profess to believe, 'and' whereupon the majority of their actions do not match-up as if they 'truly' believed whatever foolishness they claimed to believe.


To return, anyway, to the subject of the "false communications expert" it is undeniable that such persons are responsible for such a product when it is observed; as 1) how else does unreason enter into a persons head, and 2) how that person (who has been convinced to profess a lunacy) cannot 'truly' believe the lunacy as their actions do not match up as their actions otherwise 'would' 'if' they were brain-damaged or mentally retarded, i.e. if they were sincerely and through no fault of their own actually incapable of performing simple cursory deduction of incoming information.

The notion of Learned-Pathos, then, may not entirely apply to such a person as whom we consider in this text here. And, then, we neglect really the subject of the "false communications expert" themselves.

Generally, it is my view that such persons are simple con-artists who are 'made use of' in an ad hoc manner; I say this with fair-sureness as there exists no 'actual' discipline or instruction in "lying" which can be transmitted clearly from one person to the next; such the practitioners of such trades are each "reinventing the wheel" throughout their career, so to speak And that is to say that there is no solidity to the 'field' as their is with a hard science, or even a soft science where a body of work exists which can be drawn from and compared amongst two people, and so the field is a haphazard and ad hoc sort of a thing; rife with error as consequence and "higgledy piggledy", as we say, in that when we look from one "false communications expert" to the next and observe their mangled malformed attempts at "inventing the wheel" we find one wheel bulbous, one wheel angular, one wheel lacking this, another lacking that, and so on, this is what we observe because the Proper Discipline, that of: logic and rhetoric, has been rejected in advance for having the problem of slapping the error from the back of the head of the idiotic person.


iii kal. dec. io saturnal.

3/3

YO SATURNALIA ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59GJi1tu8Wo

>Generally, it is my view that such persons are simple con-artists who are 'made use of' in an ad hoc manner; I say this with fair-sureness as there exists no 'actual' discipline or instruction in "lying" which can be transmitted clearly from one person to the next; such the practitioners of such trades are each "reinventing the wheel" throughout their career, so to speak And that is to say that there is no solidity to the 'field' as their is with a hard science, or even a soft science where a body of work exists which can be drawn from and compared amongst two people, and so the field is a haphazard and ad hoc sort of a thing; rife with error as consequence and "higgledy piggledy", as we say, in that when we look from one "false communications expert" to the next and observe their mangled malformed attempts at "inventing the wheel" we find one wheel bulbous, one wheel angular, one wheel lacking this, another lacking that, and so on, this is what we observe because the Proper Discipline, that of: logic and rhetoric, has been rejected in advance for having the problem of slapping the error from the back of the head of the idiotic person.
Generally, it is my view that such persons are simple con-artists who are 'made use of' in an ad hoc manner; I say this with fair-sureness as there exists no 'actual' discipline or instruction in "lying" which can be transmitted clearly from one person to the next; as such the practitioners of such trades are each "reinventing the wheel" throughout their career, so to speak. And that is to say that there is no solidity to the 'field' as there is with a hard science, or even a soft science where a body of work exists which can be drawn from and compared amongst two people, and so the field is a haphazard and ad hoc sort of a thing; rife with error as consequence and "higgledy piggledy", as we say, in that when we look from one "false communications expert" to the next and observe their mangled malformed attempts at "inventing the wheel" we find one wheel bulbous, one wheel angular, one wheel lacking this, another lacking that, and so on, this is what we observe because the Proper Discipline, that of: logic and rhetoric, has been rejected in advance for having the problem of slapping the error from the back of the head of the idiotic person.

>>21279827
For a rhetorician, you sure lack persuasion and talk too much

>>21281123