In correspondence with those who wrote something meaningful to me, as well as in conversations with more or less random people, I was surprised to notice how difficult, and sometimes hopelessly difficult, to explain to a person the most elementary, most seemingly obvious things. Then I gradually lead the conversation to even more basic questions, then again, and in the end I come to something that cannot be denied or understood. At this stage, the person (if up to this point he has not fallen into hysterics and hatred) agrees with the initial position, but logic and memory completely fails to him – he is “not able” to draw an obvious conclusion that leads him further, or “forgets” the previously achieved consent.
For example, yesterday, I corresponded with a girl who, on the whole, demonstrated enough common sense and sincerity that I could be interested in a conversation with her. Among other things, I asked her – is there something that she usually does not like about sex? She replied that she did not swallow sperm. Then it turned out that she did not want the sperm to fall into her mouth and was trying to avoid it in every possible way. I, naturally, clung to this moment – what does it mean “trying to avoid” ?? Why you should try to avoid, if you can just tell your boyfriend that she does not want him to finish in his mouth? I ask – does he finish in her mouth? She is not. But immediately visible deception. If he doesn’t cum in her mouth, and she doesn’t have sex with others, then why do we need to “try” so that sperm doesn’t get in the mouth? I ask – does not finish at all? (It is always advisable to begin to ask again in such cases, to ask the same question in different expressions – to lie once simply, several times in a row – is more difficult if only because one of the forms of lies is to mentally reformulate the question, reinterpret the terms, so that changing the wording questions complicates this task). She hesitated – “well, not quite completely ends.” It becomes clearer … It means that such a deception takes place – a person does not want to tell the truth, and at the same time does not want to lie openly, so she mentally quickly reinterpreted the term “cum in mouth”, came up with some kind of “not completely completely finish” in order and lie, and at the same time to believe in the fact that she did not lie.
I ask – it means sperm gets into your mouth? She is – yes, because even though I feel when he starts to finish, I don’t always have time to dodge. Excellent – the image of a gentle and sensual boy (she used to call affectionate and sensual) is beginning to change … I ask if she told her boyfriend about it. It turns out, did not speak because of awkwardness. In this situation, she began to feel calmer – because if she herself did not tell him, it means I can’t blame him for the violence. But not so simple. I ask – if she tries to dodge every time so that sperm does not get into her mouth, could it be that he didn’t notice this? Next pause. She begins to realize that her attempt to deceive me and herself fails. Answers – no, this could not be. So noticed. Could he not understand what it means that you do not want him to cum in your mouth? No, I could not. Now follows a mental experiment. Imagine yourself in the place of this man. You are him, and you feel tenderness and sympathy. In this situation, would you still try to cum in your girlfriend’s mouth? She – no, I certainly would not. Then why is he doing this? Long pause. But the final is already clear. Because he neglects me, treats with indifference. So you agree that you are just a hole for him for him? Agree.
This conversation seems to you, probably, quite consistent and understandable. But such conversations are possible only with a person whose sincerity is well above average. With an ordinary person, such a conversation simply does not work! For example, to the question “could he not notice” a person would answer “I don’t know, maybe”, to the question “why he didn’t ask himself, didn’t insist on finding out whether you like it or not” the person will answer “may not have guessed” and so on. d. That is, in any link of this logical chain I would come across an insurmountable vagueness of the answers even when, it would seem, there can be complete certainty.
Does he, therefore, give himself an account that, while preparing the invasion of the islands, the American General Staff had an idea of what the losses would be? Yes, it seems so. Does he know – HOW MUCH it would be most likely for these losses? But this he does not know.
Oh well. Does not know – does not know. But at least he knows at least that he does not know it! And if so, how can he, comparing the two options for ending the war, call barbarism the one from whom he knows the losses, while the calculations of the alternative option are unknown to him?
Yes, it is logical, the interlocutor nods. It would be necessary to compare.
Well, compare. About 4 million Japanese would have died, at least half of whom would be civilians (if such a term is applicable to a nation that fanatically encouraged mass torture and the most brutal killings of residents of neighboring countries, and, by the way, justifies them so far by putting them monuments! – see the “massacre in Nanjing”, etc.). And if we consider subsequent generations when destroying Hiroshima, we will count it this way – how many citizens would Japan have lost (of course, the unborn and dead in suffering is a huge difference, and yet this factor cannot be ignored when calculating the consequences of both options). Among other things, several tens of thousands of American soldiers, or even several hundred, would have died. We must also take into account that the actual civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very few. (For details, see the information in Wikipedia, for example).
All this time, when I say this, the interlocutor nods his head, but again I ask – do you think dropping atomic bombs as an act of humanism in those circumstances? And everything changes. The nods cease, and the final answer is no, still it was impossible to do it, it was necessary somehow. How? I don’t know, but the atomic bomb is barbarism, and physicists think so, and so on.
Of course, many physicists believe this, and many of those who worked on the creation of the first atomic bomb, subsequently tried to hide this fact. But who are the physicists? These are people who are engaged in physics. Oddly enough, they have no more common sense than doctors or housewives. We add here that dropping the atomic bomb also put an end to the desire of Stalin and the Stalinists (that is, in fact, the entire Soviet people, who enthusiastically intended to “free” the “working class” from the bourgeois) to conquer the whole world. The war with Germany was won, and the war for world domination, for which the Communists had been preparing for decades, was lost. Is it not worth the monument? You would prefer that the USSR counted not 15, but 215 republics, so that the iron curtain could be removed – there is nobody to curtain from?
Not. The hard answer is no, no, dropping an atomic bomb was barbaric. Unshakable.
At the level of consideration of perceptions, this behavior is quite understandable. There is confidence, but there are reflections. These are completely different things that have nothing to do with each other. And if you have, for example, blind confidence that there is a god, then no argument will change anything. You can make a believer agree with the logic of your arguments, he can read Dawkins and Russell, but all this will be something that happens to his thoughts, while the area of confidence remains inviolable.
There is a global reason why a person’s confidence remains invulnerable to common sense, and those dogmatic beliefs that correspond to this confidence, like granite, reflect the soft touch of arguments.
What is this reason that makes each person look like a robot with a program set once and for all?
The reason is the strongest interrelation of all this vast multitude of dogmatic convictions and blind confidence. They are not connected by logic, no – there is no logic at all. They are bound by another, powerful force – the power of dullness.
Such fears lead to the fact that a person cannot afford to achieve clarity even in the seemingly innocent and abstract question itself – what if it would have to start to rethink one after another? Change your attitude to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima? This is not so innocent, as it seems, because his wife has a grandfather – a veteran, so to speak, who emanates saliva at the mention of this bombardment. What would you do? Start arguing with this grandfather? Why, he is as stupid as a ram, and then his wife will be offended, and that, and this … like dominoes – life will take and fall and crumble! Well, maybe, of course, not everything is so terrible, and everything will somehow get better, but what do I lack problems? Will I complicate my life for the sake of some clarity about the bomb?
People consciously choose to live in a fantasy world, otherwise their life would become unbearable, and would have to change it. If you have a grumpy wife – the greater the need to finish drawing that you have a good family, and the more difficult it will be for you to prove to someone that your family is unhappy. Paradox – the more the ass in which a person sits, the more he needs a fictional life, and the more difficult it is for him to prove that he is in the ass, and it’s impossible to explain anything at all.
That’s why they don’t love me? And many do not like me. Many simply hate. For my books, this is understandable. And what is so hated in my books? Coverage. Comprehensive coverage. Too many aspects, everything is affected, everything is under attack, nothing sacred. If Bruno would have slightly improved the previous picture of the world, he wouldn’t have had anything – well, they would have scolded, others would have praised. But he turned everything around and it was unacceptable. And I turn over even more. If in my books it was only about the unacceptability of aggression, about the methods of eliminating hatred, then I think that I would be provided with a sluggish “approval” from many people. But unless I remain sincere, can I express my “phi” of aggression and hatred, and bypass the questions of the family – a hotbed of violence and hatred? Can I sidestep the suppression of sex? Can we forget that stupidity is one of the powerful causes of hatred? Is it possible, speaking of stupidity, to politely ignore common dogma? Can we put aside the question of the suppression of joyful desires? Turns over everything, and this, of course, unpleasant. Here, for example, a girl writes to me that she now reads Amosov’s book “Thoughts and Heart”, and that she has tears in her eyes when she reads about how a helpless girl with bows lies on the operating table, and that she is now unsuccessful they operated on and she died, and that in her opinion Amoz was just a saint. I also read this book, and I also liked it, and I liked Amosov, but … but this doesn’t mean that I should now become dull? Does not mean. And this means that I asked myself – and now I redirect her – many questions. For example – why is she so terribly sad that a girl died, about which all that is known is that she is small and with bows? Is this enough to mourn a person so much ?? Here, for example, Amosov writes: “All children are pleasant,” and then describes the boy, whom he successfully operated on: