Advertising is a classic intended playground for public cognitive direction. Magic is also quite a rich cognitive twisting medium, where what seems is not exactly what is. Debate is often loaded with perceptual steering, and, boy oh boy, does politics love this!

When I said; “boy, oh, boy.”, you might have felt a pattern that began to send your impression of me into another direction. You may be right or wrong about me, but whatever your opinion, you are picking up patterns you have learned from trial and error and cultural differences in language use. Now you may be making decisions about me, quite possibly into the right direction, but maybe not.

Political discourse, and especially campaigns, are filled with ideas to steer you and I with little proof necessary. Logic tends to work on the assumptions “seeming” to be relevant to a target audience. Those who use cognitive tricks intentionally, meaning cunningly to steer perception in their direction, can be quite like magicians. I might not ever see when the trick, or reality skip occurred. Much of the whole tagging and “framing” observations of how concepts go to work on public perceptions, are reminiscent of propaganda campaigns; these trust that you are trusted not to check the facts.

Once inoculated with the “framed” assumption, I am believed by the framers to be inside a frame, a box of how things in the world on this subject are properly seen—from their desired perspective. We have seen how words get confused; such as Saddam and Osama’s were, with about half the population thinking they were the same person! Economic concepts get somewhat false dichotomies; capitalism and socialism. It even seems as though most any idea can be somewhat reversed in perceptive pattern recognition into a kind of opposite, if it is assumed long enough and by repetitive preponderance, to seem consensus reality. The seeming truth can be made of deception, while the actual truth may be conceived of as deception.

“Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self evident.”

(1788-1860) German philosopher. Arthur Schopenhauer

Oh no you didn’t! No. You did.

On my blog here, I often go into these meandering word and idea interpretations. “And make no mistake”; we all fall for some of the tricks. The object in a free society must be to uncover, or see through these devises, before they can render our society an object of its own misconceptions. How important is this? It is the difference between life and death. Some four fifths of the American population are said to have fallen for the “do something against those who attacked us”, reference made in regard to Iraq. How did a free society become so misguided as to who was who and what was what? Cognitive tricks for sure. The proof is history itself.

What we must then consider is; Why do those in office or guiding policy, seek to distort truth by the use of cognitive trickery? Why is the public in a free society, subject to distortion and misinformation to pollute their judgement? These are serious issues of life and death, even planetary survival. They are also issues of truth and honor, yet these “character” qualities are often exactly what is under siege by propaganda and its following of falseness. Questions to authority are called contrary or worse, during propaganda campaigns. Yet we must consider; What do I trust to come true into reality? Me operating in a desire for objectivity and completeness, or jumping into slanted unknowns being promoted for actually unknown reason? Apparently, many are not certain.

Can a free society persist when campaigns need not be truthful?

Answer; Not likely to endure.


It is easier to perceive error than
to find truth, for the former lies on the
surface and is easily seen, while the latter
lies in the depth, where few are willing to
look for it.

Today we have the truth, or facts proved accurate in context to subject, denied right up front. People (politicians) are denying saying what they are demonstrated saying on tape. Or they go on to describe how they actually were saying something quite unlike it sounds, stretching pattern perception to thin threads just to re-frame, what they sure seemed to say at the time.

I have just asked you to stretch your fact checking at the door, to follow my suggestions. Reason? Not space or time to go into linking to quotes or statistics that lean my way, and not because I am saying this off the top of my head with no backup. However the truth remains, my suggestions were not backed-up unless you have seen what I am speaking of as well. Any writer has the issue of trustworthiness that is endemic to being another person with never to be fully comprehended motivations.

How to get more near to truth out in the open of society?

A free society would obviously require a decent platform for its elective officials to say what they mean exactly, and not leave that up to who has the most money or most repeaters of their frame. And no, I cannot count on myself, as one of the American public, to decipher all that is truth from falseness, especially by myself during campaigns. The platform should expose the truth and the trickery for all to see, on a Commons basis.

Present the assumptions and any allegations, exposing the theories involved in rationalizations. This requires an independent non partisan forum to allow analysis in an objective process. Then what? More honest campaigns, and presumably, voters voting for likely true policy’s instead of just perception’s of he said she said. The futrure of democracy and freedom depend on this, yet I doubt I will hear a rush to an objective format. We remain trapped in this need for information, and yet it not forthcoming, without extraordinary effort to pin down every thought on our own part.

But why then don’t we have it if it is so important?

We do not have free and fair elections, because powerful enough interest are not interested in it. They are in effect, corroding democracy to steer it beyond the public free will. That said, a few questions on philosophical relativism are in order. How do I find out when I need know the meaning of, what what means, or is is, that can help to make deception, so, well, hard to quantify?

There usually are apparent, at election times, interest interested in making the public distrust their opponents, by making them seem anti-the public. Seems a kind of obvious likely perception to try to make, to easily pull voter identity over to ones own column. I feel this tactic has become so blatant now, that it has become extreme, with words being recast into suspicions they never were meant to possess, but can be contoured to seem. That tactic can leave one with nothing honest seeming to get pined down as a truth, possibly becoming an existential relativistic shoulder shrug, when the facts of matters seem out of sight, while no one agrees where to look. I feel some of the apathy and distrust of government and politicians are from this; “Who knows what to believe?”

Words like “extreme” are thrown around, as I just did, irregardless of fact. It is at times, a words assumed impression that carries the argument. And, that I am not presenting a list of facts and examples of what I just alluded to, puts me into the relativity zone of “no proof”. This kind of one way analysis of expression, has become one of the leading means of questioning ideas by questioning evidence. It isn’t that it is not a fair inquiry to ask for backed up statistical data, but there are always points of no return to consider in any presentation. We require proof, but cannot agree necessarily on when truth is achieved. This then, puts us into even more tenuous conditionality’s.

The intention of the questioner then becomes an issue itself. Where do they consider “proof” normally in their lives? (Not to mention political debate!) Why do they not investigate presented assumptions on their own? Is that not part of what a responsible citizen is? For some reason, an unknown proof?, approx 20 % of the US population did not believe the Iraq invasion was justified. What did that 20% seemingly know that the rest of us did not?

“There is nothing more necessary than truth, and in comparison with it everything else has only secondary value.
This absolute will to truth: what is it?

Is it the will to not allow ourselves to be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive?
One does not want to be deceived, under the supposition that it is injurious, dangerous, or fatal to be deceived.” (Nietzsche, 1890)

You don’t know me. You don’t know everything. You’re not the boss of me.

Anyone speaking on most any subject, can then be accused of having not enough proof. In the Iraq presentation of Colin Powell, for instance, I heard a young man say; “There it is! There’s the smoking gun!” While others saw a distinct lack of direct evidence, and what amounted to a cartoon show. There are some “debunker” critics that I have long been aware of, but had not a name for until recently. I will call these often one point refuters, bright dust.

They show up brilliantly in pinpoint contention, as if dust in sunlight, capturing attention, yet do not amount to much but pollution. Their objective seems to be to refute a whole subject or issue on any one point whatsoever. Then proclaim the analysis, probably not in their minds favor, irrelevant. Kind of the converse of the drawings and imaginary vials are solid proof as a “smoking gun”. Which also had little evidence, but much unknown intention behind it.

It is a phenomenon I have observed for most of my life. Politics is somewhat riveted on the one point refutation, even when tied to a mistake and not an attempt at deceptive context rendering. Sophistry is quite adept at making much out of nothing. Yet they are bright with “seeming” that can be dependent upon threads pulled our from under an idea’s imperfections. The idea then called a fraud, or more accurately perhaps, intended to be shelved away as worthless. Anyone’s notions can be filed away with these proved imperfections. The possible answers to societal problems, left gathering dust.

Perceptions are being pivoted for different reasons, irregardless of the “facts” presented. This is often true of “proof”; It is tied by theory to an ideological world frame, even cosmology, no amount of “it” being enough to convince those convinced otherwise. In the above case on the reason for war presentation, perhaps; We are the good guys. We must have found some bad guys to get quickly before it is too late. It is my opinion that some of this kind of subtle infinity sickness has lead to the apathy and lack of curiosity exhibited by the public on many issues. This too is a threat to democracy and freedom.

Yeah but…

We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter.
(1713-1784) French philosopher. Denis Diderot

Not enough proof may be a “fair” accusation, but often not about the subjects actually being discussed. The “point” made of a contradiction can be just a fast trick to dismiss thinking. Like those bright dusters, Colin PowelI was simply and lazily being trusted. (Me speaking here on my blog, can be dismissed on a speck of dust.) As it was then, he did not need solid evidence to be “good enough” for many so called journalist, let alone the TV watching public. I am offering opinion here for thought, claiming to connect some cognitive pattens that you will need to test, if you will care to. You may well know a lot more about these things than I.

It is often not for the best, to just take someones word on what is being said, but we do tend to trust some sources more than others for our own reasons. I suggest a little scrutiny is in order for our sources at times. Remember that 4/5ths of the public mistaken “proof” identity for Iraq? I do not know how many of the 80% of the population go around saying they were wrong on that call. I seldom here it. Instead, leaders are blamed as if we are nothing but helpless victims of what? One person? Who voted for who we got? The press? The “liberal media”? The “Corporate media”? “The “government? Which one or ones?

“Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects… totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have by the most eloquent denunciations.”
(1894-1963) British author. Aldous Huxley

The response I have encountered to excuse ones own culpability’s are; ‘You have to trust your leaders.’ ‘They attacked us.’ and something like, ‘That was above my expertise call.’ I am sure there are many more, yet leadership in a democracy represents you and I. We are who are who ends up owning it. We are accountable for elected officials being in their jobs, (ignoring election tampering that is.). As it stands now on that issue; the world, the relevant public are who actually pays for such errors or deceptions. So excusing ourselves is an exercise in irresponsibility.

“The development of science and of the creative activities of the spirit in general requires still another kind of freedom, which may be characterised as inward freedom. It is this freedom of spirit which consists in the independence of thought from the restrictions of authoritarian and social prejudices as well as from unphilosophical routinizing and habit in general. This inward freedom is an infrequent gift of nature and a worthy objective for the individual.

..schools may favor such freedom by encouraging independent thought. Only if outward and inner freedom are constantly and consciously pursued is there a possibility of spiritual development and perfection and thus of improving man’s outward and inner life.” (Einstein, 1954)

Enter cognitive dissonance.

A short article. Right.

Tailor made excuse machinery is the “up” side of not being held accountable, whether leadership or within the public. This ignoring of problems of accountability in self perception is sometimes referred to as “cognitive dissonance”. I often refer to it in my writing, for it generally suggest how we humans avoid being held accountable by our mistakes or misgivings by bypassing them. There is the other concept; “projection”, that seems to go hand in hand with the other, to not only avoid the perceived unpleasantness of saying I was wrong, but sending the accountability for the wrongness out to someone else. Yep. Magic. My bad is actually someone else’s bad. Such a deal!


I contend, that overall, it is We the people who are often under attack from the mind games mentioned above. Not only that, but those games are now counted on to work, as they seem to have, to replace individual rights with the current ascendant rights of corporations. We have a one way street of perception in place for ostensibly economic rationalization; why the largest corporations receive bailouts, but individuals failing, get no such “reward”. This one way highway of accountability serves a societal structure coming to diminish democracy, or the importance of voting, for the success of the very wealthy to maintain their lifestyles at our expense.

Democracy has been being “played” between the concerns of the whole population, and the few who benefit the most from use of that Commons. Unfortunately, the public at large is at a huge disadvantage. Corporations essentially control lobbying influence, and the access of ideas and information to the public domain. It is just a factual imbalance that is skewing democracy, its ensuing responsibilities and freedom, to the corporate side. Who have no such requirement to accept responsibility or accountability for impacts upon our Commons, and where they do, are lobbying to remove those left.

“We the People” are being choreographed to some extent for obvious opportunistic, yet primitive reasons; Once humans are held up above others, many tend to rationalize the advantage as being either earned or born into by right. They then tend to support their structure any way they can, using the Commons by their extra enhanced access to it. We see in our campaigns, how the demonizing of government has worked to slant control of the government to corporate interest, and not the interest of the Commons, or whole of life in our place on earth.

This is done as with the Iraq war; people believing they are standing up for what is right and true. Quite why we see the political parties attempting to tag their identities to our concerns for votes, then ignoring them whenever they need to afterwords.


Certainly not from some of the perspectives I hear. Everybody in politics are identical in those views. There is some difference remaining between the two political parties. But even if I state the obvious from my perspective, alarm bells will ring in some ears when one side is chosen above the other. Or, when my somewhat unorthodox assumptions bounce off of already in place tag frames thought real. I will leave that inquiry there. Anyone interested can determine for themselves which party is more “for” the Commons, and which is more for certain individuals to do whatever they want, without accounting for their impact upon us via the Commons.

The Commons, (all our environments connectivity), is ultimately, where the health of a nation and world resides.

No matter what I believe or do not believe, there is no escaping what happens to the earth or society through human action or denial. But to be cognizant of what is actually happening…

“Subjectively, we can know what is truth for ourselves. We know when we consciously tell the truth of something or tell something other. Yet even if we make our truth mathematically pure and a transferable commodity as if numbers, we do not know the whole context for objective reality. We do not know all of what the full natures are behind the abstract numbers confidence. Logic itself is relative, as our perceptions can make sense but not be truthful. We may have math and reason, yet not know the content of its truthful nature.

The onus is on us, for all these things considered are happening in consciousness, with its own agendas known or not. Truth as an objective, then takes faith, and a courage to be right instead of wrong in thought and action. We enter a realm of intention, where absolute knowing, if possible, exist in other than logical reasoning, or the ways of scientific proof, becoming something perhaps of spirit, an awareness of being in Being.

The proof to our worldly success on a journey toward truth is in what mistakes or error make of us. Whether they raise our reason up, or let it slither away, our intentions going with it” Me. Just another WordPress blog