Alan: In effect, "the bigger the lie, the more believable it will be," especially with people who compensate their own ineradicatable doubts by emphasizing their absolute certainty.
Here is the first paragraph of Wikipedia's entry on Hitler's propaganda technique called "The Big Lie" ("große Lüge").
"The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." Hitler believed the technique was used by Jews to blame Germany's loss in World War I on German general Erich Ludendorff, who was a prominent nationalist and antisemitic political leader in the Weimar Republic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
"The Big Lie" also calls to mind a persistently thorny epistemological quandary since "The Big Lie" can be alleged by any two factions, one against the other.
Without an objective arbiter -- or a belief system that considers itself infallible -- it is very much like rape on a desert island occupied by just two people.
The rape may have occurred.
But it's one person's "word" against the other's.
And so, the true version of what actually happened is "one" or the "other."
But there is no honorably evidentiary pathway to tell which is which.
In the end, any such interactive dialectic calls to mind "Projection Psychology 101."
Liberals And Conservatives: How "Projection" and "The Psychological Shadow" Work
https://newsfrombarbaria.blogspot.com/2020/07/liberals-and-conservatives-how.html
Without attempting to determine who the rapist is --- or without trying to determine whether most lies in America originate with "The Deep State" or with Trump and his propaganda machine --- the situation suggests an insoluble conundrum.Excellent Collection Of Hyperlinked "Projection" Memes Featuring The Work Of Carl Jung
However, there is THIS.
There is ALWAYS enough "shadow side" in every human being that anyone -- either a "husband" or a "wife" -- can TRULY discover enough darkness (enough "shadow") in "The Other" so that he or she can choose to focus so fixedly on that darkness, that the darkness (when removed from its full context and seen only in myopic, blinkered isolation) actually provides enough REAL EVIDENCE to make a persuasive case which damns "the other" no matter who "the other" is.
The following statements are factual.
"Damnable darkness" is ALWAYS present.
"Damnable darkness" is REALLY there.
"Damnable darkness" is built into me, just as it is built into you.
"Damnable darkness" is built into the human condition.
But what is most damnable in those humans who tell Big Lies is the decontextualization of Truth in order to use REAL (but fragmented, dis-integrated shards of Truth) to create "airtight" arguments that enable people to "factually" represent "falsehood as truth," and to do so with such conviction that they can successfuly represent "falsehood as truth" EVEN TO THEMSELVES.
Revealingly, people who rely most on "philosophical absolutism" are able to proclaim Big Lies more easily because their psychological structure predisposes them to seeing the world in "black" and "white," and they -- according to the tenets of their absolutist belief system -- are at liberty to assign "black" and "white" as they see fit, not as "the preponderance of (carefully considered) evidence" leads us to conclude.
And so, it is not coincidental that the people who are most prone to deceiving others (and themselves) with Big Lies routinely (but not always) believe in conspiracy theories.
Daniel Webster Prompts A Review Of Conspiracism And Its Destructive Role In American Politics
The paradigmatic conspiracy theory is Hitler's own theory (asserted as fact) that "the Jews" were -- objectively-and-in-the-eyes-of-God -- an intrinsically corrupting influence on the transcendent virtue and impeccable goodness of the Aryan people.
The Biggest Lie is the belief that God -- through scripture, doctrine and dogma -- would NOT lie to us, and so anyone who is "on God's side" is ABSOLUTELY right because God cannot be wrong. (The biggest liars don't question their epistemological foundation, and - in many instances - are too poorly educated to realize that the validity of one's epistemological foundation is a question that can be asked, as well as a question that can be reasonably answered.)
Every absolutist pscyhe is at liberty to determine the True Nature of God, at least to one's own satisfaction.
But, in the end, there are as many competing versions and visions of God as there are human beings on the face of the earth.
Why "Absolutists" Prefer To See "Relativists" Dead... Whereas "Relativists" Prefer That "Absolutists" Just Mind Their Own Business
"True believers" assume they are in complete agreement on the central dogmas of theology and scriptural interpretation.
But "lock" any two believers in room long enough that they can get "into the weeds," and it quickly becomes apparent that no two people share IDENTICAL theological beliefs.
Sure, two people can sign off on "doctrinal summaries," but they don't actually agree on any fleshed-out proposal.
For example: "What is heaven? And how does the soul actually transit from death to eternal life?"
Or, "What is God?"
"And how is God perceived by a body-less soul?" (Do you know anyone who could "wake up" to NOT having a body and not be freaked out? Yes... I know... God is going to "make it all sweet and wonderful" so you won't "have to" worry. Just like all those times when you were an embodied earthling and you didn't worry. Nope! Not a care in the world!)
How does a de-fleshed soul perceive God?
Does the soul have "terrestrial senses" with which to perceive God?
Or is the "beatific vision" an entirely different order of perception?
For historical illumination concerning the human mind's endless interpretive "sprawl," consider how many interpretations exist for the "Book of Revelation."
Interpretations of the "Book of Revelation": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Interpretations
Or consider the endlessly sprawling interpretations of conspiracy theories as conspiracists go about the business of explaining "what really happened."
9/11 Conspiracy Theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
Daniel Webster Prompts A Review Of Conspiracism And Its Destructive Role In American Politics
In the end -- and no matter how "humbly" "true believers" express their absolutely self-certain interpretations -- their pontifications reduce to marvelously subtle acts of subjectivity pretending to be objectivity.
Often, the end state of these self-certain pontifications are so much "flirtation with" -- or "unwitting enactment of" -- self-apotheosis.
It is ironic that belief in "The One, True God" (or "The One, True Conspiracy Theory") provides carte blanche to tell whatever lies one wishes.
"True Believers" KNOW their God is the complete embodiment of all that is true and that the ultimate truthfulness of their position is finally guaranteed by their God and, inter-relatedly, by their religion. (Never mind how "the unknowability of God" - or the unknowability of any subsidiary god - actually manifests.
The "Fullness of God" -- and our self-satisfying (and routinely self-serving) interpretations of God -- rarely, if ever, coincide.
And yet we drone on...
"I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well... are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant ? "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist" "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.
Emo Philips
In effect, absolute belief (or the faithful proclamation that one believes absolutely) is accompanied by remarkable willingness to declare (as a devout college-"educated" Catholic did): "I wouldn't believe that even if it was true."
Or, as is increasingly the case in these conspiratorial, Trump Cult times: "I wouldn't believe that especially if it was true."
And so, self-identification with God and God's truthfulness merge in a presumptuous belief system based on a more-or-less unbroken credal lineage championed by previous generations all the way back to the foundation of one's chosen religion, and this continuity -- combined with antiquity -- is absolutely validating in the mind of True Believers. (Almost all Christians, whether they know it or not, track the roots of their religion back to the Council of Nicea. And for all practical purposes, they are blithely unaware that the "The Way" --- as Christians perceived the "envelope" of their beliefs-and-practice --- was overtly "socialist" in many ways, and always more "communitarian" than Obama could even conceive.)
How Self-Taught Philosopher-Longshoreman Eric Hoffer, Author Of "The True Believer," Judges A Government, Or A Way Of Life
https://newsfrombarbaria.blogspot.com/2020/07/how-self-taught-philosopher.html
Why "Absolutists" Prefer To See "Relativists" Dead... Whereas "Relativists" Prefer That "Absolutists" Just Mind Their Own Business
In the end, belief systems are belief systems.
And faith is faith.
Faith and belief are not provable.
Faith and belief do not qualify as knowledge.
The underlying heresy of conservative Christianity -- mostly evangelical-and-fundamentalist -- is the 19th century conviction that the Bible was an inerrant, literal statement of God's Truth.
And although the following observation is speculative, I will mention my working hypothesis that the predictable certainties of science -- and most especially the predictable, dependable cures wrought by science/knowledge -- eroded the traditional foundation of faith -- most especially faith in miracles -- so that "The Church," in an attempt to maintain its following, started to represent itself as an embodiment of knowledge rather than an embodiment of faith. (The 19th century papal pronouncement on "Infallibility" is a salient case in point.)
Biblical Literalism And The Cultivation Of Hatred
Biblical Literalism: Not Only Impossible But Destructive Of Meaning And Souls
Biblical Literalism: Not Only Impossible But Destructive Of Meaning And Souls
UNC-CH Professor Bart D. Ehrman:
Biblical Exegete And Former Christian Evangelical
The Bible and Textual Analysis
UNC-CH Professor Bart D. Ehrman:
Biblical Exegete And Former Christian Evangelical
The Bible and Textual Analysis
"The Obsession With Biblical Literalism," The Atlantic
And so it happened that belief and faith were replaced by fervently proclaimed "certainty of knowledge," as if one could transform faith-and-belief into knowledge by passionate proclamation alone.
As we will see when Trumpism crashes and burns, the absolute conviction that one KNOWS the truth will crash and burn along with it - side-by-side with Trump Cult's Big Lie that "opinion trumps Truth."
Swept up in that same conflagration will be the anodyne monstrosities of QAnon and the scrap heap of diarrheal conspiracism, both of which are ultimately "housed" in Trump's "Ministry of Truth."
Discussion With 9/11 Truther Friend About Epistemology, Belief, Certainty And Purpose
Dialogue With Fred Maske About "Conspiracy Theories That Have Changed The Course Of History"
The Original And Enduring Conspiracy: It's About Keeping The Filthy Rich, Filthy Rich
"View Of The Last Human"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/05/hindsight-is-2020-view-of-last-human.html
PS Setting aside the healing possibilities of "therapy," "spiritual practice" and "enlightenment," we all have a highly reactive "core of principles" -- many of them unconsciously embedded in our psyches -- and we go through our lives making one of three judgments:
1,) "That's acceptable"
2.) "That is not acceptable."
3.)"That is INTOLERABLE."
And when we get to "INTOLERABLE," we simply do not tolerate the "offence to our core sensibilities" - whether the offense is real, perceived or some fusion of the two.
These reactions are pre-Pavlovian.
"View Of The Last Human"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/05/hindsight-is-2020-view-of-last-human.html
PS Setting aside the healing possibilities of "therapy," "spiritual practice" and "enlightenment," we all have a highly reactive "core of principles" -- many of them unconsciously embedded in our psyches -- and we go through our lives making one of three judgments:
1,) "That's acceptable"
2.) "That is not acceptable."
3.)"That is INTOLERABLE."
And when we get to "INTOLERABLE," we simply do not tolerate the "offence to our core sensibilities" - whether the offense is real, perceived or some fusion of the two.
These reactions are pre-Pavlovian.
Why "Absolutists" Prefer To See "Relativists" Dead... Whereas "Relativists" Prefer That "Absolutists" Just Mind Their Own Business
Short Form:
How The Values Of "Strict Father" -- Or "Nurturant Parent" -- Control Our Political Views
How The Values Of "Strict Father" -- Or "Nurturant Parent" -- Control Our Political Views
Long Form:
"Strict Father" And "Nurturant Parent": The Two World Views That Determine Our Political Values
"Fear And Anxiety Drive Conservatives Political Attitudes"
"Fear And Anxiety Drive Conservatives Political Attitudes"
"Confirmation Bias And The Power Of Disconfirming Evidence"
Liberals And Conservatives: How "Projection" and "The Psychological Shadow" Work
https://newsfrombarbaria.blogspot.com/2020/07/liberals-and-conservatives-how.html
Excellent Collection Of Hyperlinked "Projection" Memes Featuring The Work Of Carl Jung
No comments:
Post a Comment