- Power is based on
emotions - It is
hypnotic - Two types of
emotions - Counterproductive
solutions - Effective
solutions - Ordo ab
chaos - The
method of the python - What is all
this about? - Forcing
the apocalypse - The
letters from albert pike to Giuseppe
Mazzini - Life is
energy - Isn't
bizarre? - What
are they doing right now? - Levels of
the human necessities (Human Rights) - Toward
the pathocracy - All this is
about our education - What to
do - Sources
Power Is Based On
Emotions
Power is based on emotions. (Political
power).
The nearest thing to this idea that you could find is
the sentence of Caligula: "It doesn't matter that they hate us,
as long as they fear us". He reveals that his power was based on
the fear.
Michel Foucault said:
"Speech is power." Of course, because it generates
emotions.
In any organization, an individual of certain rank
cannot take charge of all personally, he or she should delegate,
to make a subordinate to make some things for him or
her.
Therefore he or she order him or her to do something.
But, how do he or she make the subordinate to obey him /
her?.
One can think of three Answers or answer
Types.
Answer 1: he or she inspires him / her an emotion that
impels (moves) him / her to obey. Emotion comes from the Latin
root motere, to move.
Answer 2: he or she inspires greed to him / her, he /
she promises a recompense to him / her , or he or she claims
gratitude to him / her for a previous gift.
Answer 3: he or she appeals to the ideology, to the
honor, to the duty.
Frequently they combine these answers, like in the
Politics that has been called "of the Stick (punishment) and the
Carrot (reward)."
About the ideology, we are also manipulated through the
lie, because we allow it when we don't value the truth above
everything else, above all ideology, when we accept without
questioning a "rational" explanation more ridiculous that what is
sought to deny.
It is
Hypnotic
We allow it when instead of reasoning, analyzing the
information that emits, we prejudge their source, and, according
to whether we like it or not, we accept or we reject all what it
says, but without reasoning, without filtering their speech,
without separating the truths from the lies in it. If we prejudge
a source as "not reliable" we ignore all what it says, including
the truths. If not, we accept all what it says and we ignore
everything else, like in the hypnosis, we allow to that reliable
source to think for us, and to tell us what to think and what to
believe. Hypnosis is done when we allow our masters,
self-proclaimed "reliable" sources, the only ones "serious", the
only "experts", make us to ignore all what their "adversaries",
the other sources, say. They do this by disqualifying to their
adversaries: "We are the good guys, they are the bad guys. Don't
listen to them, they are extremists, they are credulous, they
aren't serious, they aren't impartial, they aren't experts, they
are lying, they are jokers, they are enemies, they are mad, they
are bad, they are crazy, they are freaks, they are irrational,
they are this, they are that, etc.". They surely can't be all
that at the same time. They speak about the adversary source, not
about what it says, so they pretend that we prejudge the source,
not to judge what it says. The "adversary" source is attacked
just because it says its truth, its reality, how it see the
reality. Reality is somehow subjective, so the masters try to
impose us their reality and to make us ignore other realities. As
in the known game "Simon says", they pretend that we must obey
all what Simon says and to ignore all what any other says. It is
an hypnotic manipulation of the reality, our reality
(subjective), but only if we allow it. It is our election. It is
like magic, an illusion that is real if we choose it
so.
Doesn't matter whether a source is "reliable" or not.
Indeed, the source doesn't matter at all, never. What matters is
the information what it emits. Truth never depends on the source.
There is no warranty. All sources can emit a mixture of truths
and lies, consciously or unconsciously, voluntarily or not,
deliberately or not, innocently or not. This mixture can have
more or less truths than lies, but is always a mixture. By
example, 500 year ago, the "experts", the reliable sources, said
that the Earth is flat. That was the Paradigm in that time. What
many adopted then as their "truth", now is a lie. As science
advance (if we allow it), paradigms change. And vice-versa, we
must allow that paradigms be improved to allow science progress.
We should listen to all sources, we should be open to all them,
"reliable" and "not reliable", "serious" or not, "experts" or
not, and to filter what they say by our own common sense, to
separate from it, from that mixture, what we choose to believe,
what we adopt as truth, from what we choose to not believe, what
are lies for us. No matter what, nothing is true for us until we
choose it, and we choose it when it fits in our concept of
reality, our mental jigsaw-puzzle, our mental map of reality, our
subjective reality. We choose all, our reality, our future, our
destiny, all the time. But there is a time limit and a default
choice.
We allow ourselves to be deceived when we don't reason
for ourselves.
To reason is to choose what to believe, it is to look
for the truth, and it should be a permanent attitude. Only when
one is choosing what to believe one is reasoning. When one
already chose, one isn't reasoning, one has confidence (from the
Latin fides, faith), having faith, in what one chose before, what
one already incorporated to their mental map of the reality
(subjective), their mental jigsaw-puzzle. A faith that can be so
irrational whether it is deposited in a "scientific" dogma as in
one religious. In the point where we are reasoning, where we are
choosing what to believe (in what to have faith), in that point,
the reason isn't incompatible with the faith, but
complementary.
We don't reason when we dismiss too quickly the new
information, without thinking, without asking us the question of
gold: And if it was certain?. When new information doesn't fit in
our jigsaw-puzzle because it contradicts something that we
believe, something that we trust, we should solve the
contradiction, either dismissing the new information, or the old
one that before we believed true and now we think that it is not.
Not to solve the contradiction would be Doublethink, it would be
to have a divided mind, double or multiple, maintaining in it a
disordered jigsaw-puzzle, or more than one, with pieces that
don't coincide, contradictory ideas in order that one can appeal
to one or the other according to the occasion, the
convenience.
But that it is another topic.
Página siguiente  |