A reason to trust Appearance over Words
Let us examine some reasons to trust appearance over words.
First some definitions: In this discussion by Appearance we mean both the Behavior and Visual Appearance of the Source. Words in this context means the Words of the Message itself, which contains both its Logical content and its externals, which would be how well the message was stated.
Let us discuss four different scenarios.
Scenario 1
= 0011
The Appearance is bad/foreign/false.
The Message is good/true.
Scenario 2
= 0010
The Appearance is foreign -
The Message seems true -
But is actually false.
Scenario 1 is the one that many of us attempt to avoid as best we can. This is the situation when the drunk, beggar, foreigner, someone with a ‘bad or false’ Appearance offers some wisdom, some good advice, something true. We don’t want to be tricked by the ‘bad’ Appearance into rejecting the Message. Perhaps someone without a credential can know more than the experts in certain situations. Perhaps the Guru does not appear as we expect them to. Sometimes the child has more wisdom than the adult. The Beginner has things to teach the Advanced.
However Scenario 2 is the one we are afraid of. The Appearance is false but the ‘honeyed’ words convince us that the Message is true, while it is false. The stranger sweet-talks the little girl with candy. The enemy lures the soldier into a trap. Appearances can be evaluated immediately to avoid harm, while Words can easily be used to deceive. This situation convinces us that Appearances are more important than Words in determining the Truth. The Other is out to take advantage of Us regardless of their positive sounding Message. Because of this situation one makes the following assumption. It is easier to be tricked by Words than by Appearance. Therefore Appearance is the foremost criterion.
Beware of True Appearances
Scenario 3
= 1100
The Appearance is true,
But the words are false.
Scenario 4
=1110
The Appearance is true.
The Message seems true
But is actually false.
We worry about Scenario 2, not trusting anyone unless they belong to our narrowly defined Tribe, however Scenarios 3 and 4 are the one’s we need to guard against. In Scenario 3, the Source behaves and appears as if he is in your Tribe, however his words don’t ring true. Just because someone behaves and dresses like a respected member of society, just because someone behaves and dresses like a Guru is supposed to, just because the Source acts and appears as if they are in your Tribe, doesn’t mean they have your best interests at heart. While taking appearances into account, it is important to be aware that packaging doesn’t always reveal the quality of the contents. Just because someone drives a nice car and dresses impeccably doesn’t mean that they are trustworthy. Maybe the way they were able to achieve this ‘true’ appearance was by taking advantage of others. Perhaps the focus on appearance hides the lack of substance.
However Scenario 4 is the most dangerous of all. This is the pose of the Propagandist. Their Behavior and Appearance are impeccable. Further their Message rings true, superficially at least. The lawyer convinces his client with professional sounding words to sign away his life savings. The doctor convinces his patient with his medical expertise that he should have an unnecessary operation or take some poisonous drugs. The politician convinces the populace with his half truths that they should go to war on some innocent civilians in another country, which bankrupts the country, and destroys the families of the young men who are sacrificed for the good of the rich and powerful.
This scenario is especially dangerous because the words are framed such that they match one’s implicit belief system, one’s underlying assumptions. Because the frame is so pretty and professionally done, and the artist has all the credentials, it is easy to neglect the lack of substance. Unfortunately this situation can only be avoided by actively paying attention. This scenario will always trick the Lazy Mind because the Packaging is so pretty and it seems right, on the surface at least. The beautiful red apple is rotten just beneath the skin. Beware of the perfect packaging. Many times it indicates corruption lurks just below the surface. Danger. Warning. Skull and Crossbones.
Appearances, used as a modifier of the Message
Ideally the content should determine the truth or falseness of the Message - not the Form or Packaging. In each of the following scenarios the Receiver is not tricked by the packaging and evaluates the Message on the content rather than being tricked by the form. The message is evaluated on its content rather than being distorted by appearances.
However is the above Ideal or Idealistic?
Probably the second.
Because the T/F Axiom is inherent to verbal communication, which includes any words and propaganda, any Message can be incredibly misleading. The Receiver is doomed to ambiguity if he attempts to evaluate verbal information on the Content alone. Without any other elements to modify the Message, one is stuck in the middle of a mental mess. Hence Appearances, while potentially deceptive, are an important factor in the determination of the truth.
Thus the Appearance filter, as well as acting as independent criterion, could also be said to be a modifier of the Message.
On the simplest level: When a bum asks for change one assumes he wants it for alcohol. Thus the behavior and appearance act like adjectives and adverbs in modifying the Message.
If real estate developers support a plan, one assumes it will be beneficial to their interests - independent of the message they give out. Hence at every level of communication, evaluating the Source, behavior and appearance, is an important way of modifying the message to bring out the True component and weeding out the False.
Thus while the Message seems to be of a primarily verbal nature - it is modified by the entire package it comes in. So it is in the best interests of the Listener/Reader to use every means available to evaluate the veracity of the Message, not just the Content or just the Appearance, but Both.
Similarly the Source - if he intends to communicate or persuade - must attempt to use every tool at his command rather than just the verbal tools. The Propagandists are acutely aware of this, while ‘smart’ people tend to be oblivious to the importance of form, feeling that somehow the truth will prevail, independent of packaging.
Adjustment of our Communication Paradigm
Let us revisit our original communication paradigm so that we can revise it. Initially we had envisioned the following scenario, where the Message was independent of the Source.
Then we saw that the Message was cloaked in the Source. The Filter of the Receiver was not only operating on the Message, but also on the Source as well. Further the Appearance of the Source frequently had priority over the Content. So our Diagram became:
Again the point of the filter is to determine the True component of the Message and weed out the False. This is accomplished by evaluating the Source as well as the Message.
Importance of Consequences in determining the ‘Truth’
This is universal human behavior, not cultural. It extends to the most basic level of male -female relations. “What did she mean by that?”
Why is it important that Mars ferret out the true component of Venus’ message? Because he wants to be rewarded, not punished for his behavior. Indeed in this scenario the Behavior that leads to Punishment (–) would be considered False behavior (F=0) and the Behavior which leads to Reward (+) would be considered True behavior (T=1). Further under these definitions - by definition - the True component of Venus’ message leads to Reward ‘+’ while the False component of the message leads to Punishment ‘–’.
Note that the actual truth or falsehood of the pure Message has nothing to do with the consequences - while the determination of ‘truth’ is primarily based in consequences.
If Mars responds properly to the True Component of Venus’ Message he is rewarded, ‘+’. Alternately if he responds to the False component of her Message he is punished, ‘–’. This mechanism is incredibly important. It is at the root of most human interaction and behavior.
Because of its importance, let us reiterate. The logical truth or falsehood of the message is one of the lowest levels of evaluation and criterion. The highest and ultimate level is the based upon rewards and punishments to the Response to the Message.
The Message comes in. We evaluate the Message and then translate it into some type of Behavior. If this Behavior elicits a Reward from the Source, ‘+’, then Mars heard and responded to the True component . If this behavior elicits a Punishment, ‘–’, then Mars heard and responded to the False component.
Consequences can’t be separated from Truth of Message
In this way the response is integrally related to the understanding rather than being separate from it. In our scientific deductive Either/Or type of reasoning we tend to break things into their component parts to find meaning. This technique has great value for understanding, but it can also be misleading when looking at a holistic picture that can’t be broken into parts.
Example: For instance 2H2O = Water
H2 + H2 + O2 ≠ Water
When Hydrogen and Oxygen combine as a molecule, they make water,
While separately they are gasses with no resemblance or similarities to water.
The above situation is one of those situations where the whole is different than the parts. Similarly, while there is a strong tendency to separate the Message from the Response from the Consequences, in reality they are integrally connected. To evaluate them separately for truth, significance and meaning, loses the holistic meaning of the communication.
Basically each Person attempts as best they can to act out of enlightened self-interest. Hence the Message is connected with the Behavior that will yield Rewards and avoid Punishment.
Redefining Personal Rewards and Punishment
While this statement seems to negate or at least ignore the type of selfless behavior associated with Mother Teresa or Jesus, actually they have just defined their rewards and punishments differently than the ‘Normal’ Person.
The Normal Person thinks that they are their Person. Hence anything that seems to happen for the good of their Person, they define as a Reward, while anything that seems to happen for the bad of their Person, they define as a Punishment.
As an example: The worshippers of Materialism feel that the more money their Person has, the happier they will be, because this money has the potential to make their Body happy. This leads to selfish behavior, where these People take more than their fair share. Because this Money doesn’t really make their true Being happy, they grasp for more and more - never satisfied. Because they are surrounded by similar People they think this state of dissatisfaction punctuated with points of superficial material contentment is normal - the state of being a human. In actuality these Normal People are in a state of arrested development. They have become locked inside their Body, rather than embracing the World.
Alternately, the Enlightened Being realizes that he is not his Person. Further he realizes that as pure Being that he is connected to all Beings. Hence any behavior that relieves the suffering of others also makes him happy. This he defines as a Reward. Further behavior that just makes his Person happy, while causing those around him to be unhappy, does not satisfy Being at all. Hence Being defines this consequence as Punishment, although his Person is seemingly happy.
Self sacrifice of Mother and Guru brings Happiness
As an example: the Mother realizes that behavior that makes her Person happy at the expense of her child, doesn’t really make her very happy at all. Conversely she is willing to give up almost anything for her child, because she realizes that her Child’s happiness is her happiness. If her love stops with her child, then she too might become greedy for her child at the expense of the greater community, not realizing that the happiness and joy of the greater community is also her happiness.
On a deeper level, the Guru, Gandhi, Jesus, or Mother Theresa, have completely disassociated from their Person and are immersed in pure Being. Because of this the discomforts or privations of their Person mean nothing to them. They understand that personal happiness is superficial junk food compared with the joy of those around them. Therefore they selfishly serve those around them, because it makes them happy. This service of others is defined as the Reward rather than the service of one’s Person - which is an illusion anyway.
Thus just as the Mother loves her Child at the expense of her Person and is willing to sacrifice sleep and personal goals for them, similarly the Guru loves Existence so much that he is willing to give up everything for his Person to bring about spiritual transformation and growth in the World. It is important to reiterate that the Guru is not sacrificing anything for anyone else. He has merely shed his Personal desires just as the adult naturally sheds the desires of childhood.
Dancing with the Gods
On another level, Being realizes that residing in the presence of God is the only thing that brings true happiness. Just as the mother hopes for the best for her child, so does Being hope for the best for his Person, which is dancing with the Gods rather than residing in the World of Normal People.
Just as the Mother is separate from the Child, so is Being separate from the Person. Just as the Mother must frequently manifest ‘hard’ love for the greater good of her Child, so must Being manifest ‘hard’ love for the greater good of his Person. This has to do with stripping away the Personal Ego - which is quite painful - at least mentally. The Personal Ego is a barrier to the merger with the Divine. Hence Being does her best to put her Person in situations where the Ego is stripped away so that she can dance ecstatically with the Gods - not because it is good for her - but because it gives her the greatest and most permanent joy.
Thus the redefining of Rewards and Punishments can lead to entirely different types of responses to communication from the Source. Because of the integral nature of the Response to the Message in terms of Communication, this is the place to start.
More on these topics later.
Home The Firing Process II. Group Manipulation Previous Next Comments