Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
User Journal

Journal shanen's Journal: Projection considered as a helix of semi-precious self-contradiction? 5

I feel like I always have to apologize to Delany for such titles as "Projection considered as a helix of semi-precious self-contradiction", but that's what I want to call this one...

Anyway, the real topic is an extension of my ontology of lies. Having to start with the review of the basic levels:

Lying at Level 0 is self contradiction. At least one side has to be false without checking anything. Fundamentally a low-level and stupid technique, even for the "experts" who contradict one lie with a bigger one, entirely evading any form of truth.

The Level 1 lie is counterfactual, and any fool can check the facts and detect a lie at this level. Expertise not required, though it can speed things up.

A Level 2 lie is partial truth, where the lawyers (and some other scumbags) live and lie. There's only a marginal difference in intentions here. Some Level 2 liars know what false idea they are deliberately trying to convey, while others are just trying to evade the truth.

Level 3 liars use reframing to distort the meaning of reality itself. They twist the definitions or change context or insert fake assumptions. They can even tell the truth in ways that cause the truth to be rejected as a lie. The real professionals of propaganda and advertising work at this level.

Now the question I was wrestling with was projection, when you hear someone like #PresidentTweety accuse his enemies of his OWN sins. SO many examples, but I think "least racist" is the ugliest. We can legitimately argue about how racist he is relative to various other candidates, but Trump is NOT on the scale near "least racist" no matter how many times he brays that claim.

The confusing part of evaluating projection as a lie is because there is a Level 1 component, too. The target of the accusation might have the projected sin, but the more fundamental aspect is that the projection is denying the reality about the liar himself. The real problem is that we would have to check the facts to determine whether or not the liar is that way, but the liar already knows he's projecting his own flaws. (That actually raises a new question about self-delusion, but for now I'm just going to evade the infinite regression and say I'm still thinking about that part of it.)

Just in case you haven't noticed, #FatNixon is a really unskilled low-level liar, hung up at Levels 0 and 1. He has some higher level liars on the payroll, but REAL lying is hard work, even innovative and creative work, and he isn't up to that. Near as I can tell, he's never been up to it. (But the projections of the Bolshevik Republicans are sometimes more complicated... Now we're getting into the turf of motivations.)

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Projection considered as a helix of semi-precious self-contradiction?

Comments Filter:
  • Level 4 is when you arrange for someone that totally believes a lie to do the speaking for you. Also known as hiring an idiot.

    Here, you don't hae to lie and can even make a big show of firing someone because they lied. Yet you get all the benefits of having told the lie yourself.

    A backwards example of this is the Bridgegate for Governor Christy of NJ. But in that case, the fool did it backwards - he was the idiot that thought he was telling the truth (when he claimed his men did not shut down a bridge

    • by shanen ( 462549 )

      You're actually introducing a different dimension there, rather than a different level of lying. (And I actually mentioned the best professional liars who are hired for their high-level lies.) The dimension you're referring to is usually described with such terms as "sincerity" or "intention". The true lie should involve a willingness or desire to deceive, which raises the question of whether or not a sincere fool or ignoramus can lie, since he thinks he is speaking the truth.

      My basic intention is that they

      • by shanen ( 462549 )

        Whoops, and I can't even delete the comment to correct it?

        The phrase "My basic intention" at the beginning of the second paragraph should have been "My basic reaction.

"Let every man teach his son, teach his daughter, that labor is honorable." -- Robert G. Ingersoll