arts and lies

I am thinking in the pleasure of lying. Most of the time it makes me feel paranoid for a little while. Because I happened to think in the consequences of being exposed: loss of credibility, humiliation.
It provokes a social harm. If I hide that I have a boyfriend to my Indian- conservative parents. Or if a spend my time playing video games or drinking with my friends when I suppose to be in class, and of course everyone expect me to be in class.
If I say “I love you” and I don´t. If I said I am healthy but I have HIV.

This forms of lies might harm superficially or harm till death.

What can I do then in order to exercise that power of lying? Where should I enclosed my instincs and how can I prevent my self of doing what I am capable of doing?
I can live with a lie or not depending of my concern with its consequences. I can or not think in the terrible consequences. All of them suppositions till these become real and I am in troubles. However before they become real that feeling of guilt is nothing but my mind working, as it worked to create the lie.
It is just me who condemn and is being condemned.
By chance we developed this cerebral cortex that allow us to play this game of predictions and assumptions. This higher layer of the brain permits a self reflexive exercise: the illusion of acting consciously”. The cerebral cortex is what separate us from other species and is all we can call human. It is this biological game that make possible to see “some other girl wearing the same clothes as you and who act what you think in the moment you do it”. Well this is a radical example from somebody with schizophrenia but it shows that all of us are to certain extend I little bit schizophrenic.
It is this ungracious feature (concious mind) that make possible to lie. Because we can step outside our flesh and liberate ourselves from the current moment and create a new artificial past. We do not have any register of it but we can always say with our best hypocritical face that “I was there” “I called you but you did not answer the phone”.
This high, sublime activity, climax of our nature it is constantly condemned in the shake of social security that remember “everyone enjoys therefore everyone pays for it”. This social security that make us all of us equal and force us to do it because “everyone else does it”.
Fortunately our mind creates for itself a valve that let all that human talent to act plenty.

When we sit and watch a play we are being nothing but the object of a concious lie. The play is an illusion and we know it. They know it (actors). The furniture is fake, he is not a king, I am not watching Eduardo II giving the crown. But what makes theatre interesting is how well can they lie and force us “to lie” to ourselves for 2 hours. We say that an actors is “fake” when he is not lying effectively, when he is being himself or not being “Eduardo II” as we imagine Eduardo II should be.
Art (in this case theatre) becomes a way out of the hell of being a social being. Actors are able to lie and the better they lie the more respect and popularity they get. But careful, that can and must just happened in the stage, where actor and audience are safe. Both actor and audience make the fool of themselves. Actor and audience are in presence of the climax of human mind and cannot be part of it. Actors create the illusion for themselves. They want to believe they are powerful enough to lie, but they know themselves as weak. they are lying with all their body: gestures, voice, thinking, however they are “pretending” that the audience believe them.
The role of the audience is just to allow the actors to feel the power of lying for a couple of hours. But actors and audience will face deception. If the actors losses a line, or forget what is next and speak at the same time that other actor when he did not suppose to do it, then deception takes place. Sometimes there no need of mistakes, deception just happened when “I” as an audience get distracted and I have to force me to get into the lie again. That action itself deals to deception.
And deception is a way to say “awareness”. Realize that we are forcing ourselves “to feel” the lie (which is the same as to believe it) is a lot much worse that when we realize that somebody has being lying to us.
It might sound that the truth is quite the opposite. If somebody has been lying to you, you are in an inferior position and the other control you without you acknowledge it. By the other hand if we watch a play we are in control of the lie as well. Actors suppose to be the ones who lie, but we actively participate by “deciding” to cry if the scene is sad. Therefore if we are “active” we have the power.
However I believe that is not as easy as it seem to be.
To be the object of a lie in real life can definitely cause harm. However being the object of our own lies is even worse.

What happened with deception in the stage is a lot worse that real life. Lets think in a actor that forget his lines in the middle of the saddest scene. Somebody is just about to cry but the actor hesitates. The audience is force to remember that this is not real. That they were just about to cry for nothing, but the most important thing audience has to face is their real motivations and their real nature:
Weak humans that want to control the other by lying them but cannot do it. Weak humans that can control but stop themselves for rules that cannot understand.

morality, truth and "I-strong" in three acts

First act the curtain the goes up: three deaf people are having a conversation (deaf “A” “B” and “C”).

Second act: A blind guy arrives. Deaf “A” and “B” insult him in their own language.

Third act: the third deaf (deaf “C”) confess to the blind what deaf “A” and “B” were saying. The blind guy is offended.

Who act morally wrong in this case?

If somebody insults someone else in a language that this person cannot speak , there is no harm on it. The blind knows that something is going on but he is unaware of what it is. He might get offended for the very fact of being object of comments and being ignorant about them. The first time I reflect on this I thought that those who offended him were acting morally wrong. They are taking advantage of certain skills and making inferior those who by luck or coincidence lack of them. Using a skill that others lack in order to oppress them is morally incorrect. (?) however we should look at deaf C more closely.

Is it morally wrong speak in a language that other don’t know in front of them? it is exclusive. It creates a gap between the two parties where one is superior to the other. Is inequality morally wrong? Is morality related to equality?

We can construct ourselves in the future. We are able to see the current situation as momentary. We can “predict” situations different from the current situation. Therefore we know that if we enjoy now we might suffer tomorrow. If one consider superior now, tomorrow might be weak. This is the reason why we follow moral rules.

Moral rules are followed by those in a superior position so when they get in an inferior position they would not be abused. By restricting ourselves we force other to make the promise of not abusing us.

We restrict ourselves as a way of protect ourselves as well. If I don’t insult you, you don’t insult me tomorrow. So limit our actions is a way of limiting other people actions. Morality is the intermediate between “I-strong” and “I-weak”. It creates a soft territory from me to swim in this pool of identities. If “I-strong” limit my power and do not harm to you “I-strong” force you to keep the promise of not harm my “I-weak”. If I do not offend you (when I have the power to do it) you are “force” to do not offend me (when you can do it). What is “forcing” you of not offend me latter is morality. It is this set of rules that keep the balance. Morality is in this case the government that you and I chose democratically in order to protect ourselves.

This is a way of look at morality: on its practical bases. If I do good to you, you do good to me. If I treat you badly, you treat me badly. Morality works in this case as a really economical relationship. Morality becomes an easy definable process of interchanging pleasure or pain. The next problem we need to face is to define who makes good and who makes bad.

When we say that something is morally bad or good we give to that object characteristics that it might not have by itself. We classified something as good or bad based on its social consequences. The definitions of good and bad are ambiguous and change constantly. Insult somebody is bad. It is bad because it has “negative” consequences, for the blind. He can get upset. He can also revenge against the deaf and then provoke bad consequences for everyone.

In this case who is provoking harm to the blind?

The easy answer is that those who insult in the first place were the ones who harm the blind. They are situating themselves in a superior position, taking advantage of the blind`s ignorance. However in this case “truth will not make us free”. The third deaf (“C”) is the one who actually insults the blind. He did not performance the action in the first place but actually “made” him feel bad, offended or upset. He creates a truth for the blind that wasn’t there before. He opens a possibility that the blind did not need. Now the blind will have negative feelings to the deaf and both parts are affected. The intermediate seems to be the innocent one but might be the only guilty one. He harms both parts with no “good” income from it except the pleasure of expose the truth that wasn’t needed. The only income possible is the selfish pleasure of control that the traitor deaf could obtain. He has the power to uncover truth or not.

Truth by itself has no positive or negative consequences. The situation change its “ good or bad” qualities. This situation is an example that “truth” might not have that connotation of goodness that we commonly believe in. “say the truth is always good” not necessarily. But this is just in the case that “good” or “bad” are equal to “pleasure” and “pain”.

If morally good is equal to pleasure the bad is equal to pain, then the one who provokes pain is who is acting morally wrong. In this case deaf “C” is who causes the most pain. He affectes both parts with no consequences for himself. He acts based on this supposition that “Truth” can make you free”. Although in this situation it just cause harm.

about responsability

i apologize... XD
:P