Quote from: "suspicious mind"so does the simple idea of it being photo shopped make ben a liar? is that the end result? if so what does it really mean. does it mean it didn't happen or that there simply was not last picture? what?
Ben's not necessarily a liar.
He shot / prepared the thingie, just that he did not do it on the day WE assumed.
So we are mistaken by our very individual perception and very individual conclusion on what we perceived at first.
If we label Ben a liar, this expresses only our individual emotional disappointment (about ourselves first of all: we allowed deception to happen) and handling of that now stressing unbalanced ego situation - getting our individual stress calmed again by directing the frustration onto somebody else - who happens in this case to be the originator of our illusion.
In this emotional reaction to deception, calling somebody a liar is evaluation or plain judgement (basically shifting our own failure to somebody else).
Basic communication models may help in understanding this (see also communication "noises" who lay ground for misinterpretations and emotional reactions to communication):
QuoteCommunication is the activity of conveying information. Communication requires a sender, a message, and an intended recipient, although the receiver need not be present or aware of the sender's intent to communicate at the time of communication; thus communication can occur across vast distances in time and space. Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality. The communication process is complete once the receiver has understood the sender.
Human communication
Human spoken and picture languages can be described as a system of symbols (sometimes known as lexemes) and the grammars (rules) by which the symbols are manipulated.The word "language" also refers to common properties of languages. Language learning normally occurs most intensively during human childhood. Most of the thousands of human languages use patterns of sound or gesture for symbols which enable communication with others around them. [...]
A variety of verbal and non-verbal means of communicating exists such as body language; eye contact, sign language, paralanguage, haptic communication, chronemics, and media such as pictures, graphics, sound, and writing.[...]
Communication Noise
In any communication model, noise is interference with the decoding of messages sent over a channel by an encoder. There are many examples of noise:
Environmental Noise: Noise that physically disrupts communication, such as standing next to loud speakers at a party, or the noise from a construction site next to a classroom making it difficult to hear the professor.
Physiological-Impairment Noise: Physical maladies that prevent effective communication, such as actual deafness or blindness preventing messages from being received as they were intended.
Semantic Noise: Different interpretations of the meanings of certain words. For example, the word "weed" can be interpreted as an undesirable plant in your yard, or as a euphemism for marijuana.
Syntactical Noise: Mistakes in grammar can disrupt communication, such as abrupt changes in verb tense during a sentence.
Organizational Noise: Poorly structured communication can prevent the receiver from accurate interpretation. For example, unclear and badly stated directions can make the receiver even more lost.
Cultural Noise: Stereotypical assumptions can cause misunderstandings, such as unintentionally offending a non-Christian person by wishing them a "Merry Christmas".
Psychological Noise: Certain attitudes can also make communication difficult. For instance, great anger or sadness may cause someone to lose focus on the present moment. Disorders such as Autism may also severely hamper effective communication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication
If we take the above mentioned as examples of difficulties in communication, we may notice that already talking to somebody one on one bears the potential of not being understood as intended.
How much more will we run into difficulties of being understood when we are
NOT talking one on one anymore but are using intermediary agents such as media (internet e.g.).
This makes also clear how well- and elementarily structured mass media have to be if somebody wants to use them for his purposes. Ever wondered how "shallow" mass media are? They have to be that way or they would have to deal with too many communication "noises" and would not get their intended "messages" across.
QuoteBarriers to successful communication include message overload (when a person receives too many messages at the same time), and message complexity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication
Does this sound familiar?
Doesn't make one wonder why we don't get as far in our search as we would like to - it was predictable btw.
The more "pseudo"-information from multiple sources, the more confusion, the more distance to truth. The more "pseudo"-information items planted and leaked, the more time passing by, the more confusion, the more loss of memory and of "real" information, the more fog and the more hiding.
If we look at only the communication models' aspects and compare what we have witnessed (our "pseudo"-reality of planted and "leaked" information, utterances, interviews, "reality" shows, pictures, videos and so on) with what theory has to say, then we will notice that we received
- many messages
- inconsistent messages
- contradicting messages
- messages setting off more messages
- messages sent by all kinds of messengers
- us filtering and picking several messages / messengers by choice
- message initiators and senders knowing about all the above.
The essential part is understanding HOW and WHY we are being addressed by WHOM as "information" receivers. This will answer many of our questions.
The more we are aware of our roles that we play in these interactions, the less manipulative power remains in the senders' hands.
The more we know ourselves, the more we know others.
That's the path to freedom. That's one of the most positive outcomes of this journey.
[Remark: How many times do we allow for emotional stress to be applied onto us from third parties that we solve by putting fingers on INNOCENT people just because they had been named in the stressing situation - isn't that how tabloids do work?
Calling for
"Katherine went shopping instead of crying,
the kid's had a stun gun,
Murray did CPR on the bed,
Murray left MJ alone,
MJ was a druggie,
he/she is to doing something wrong in a "general common" context, he/she is to blame" -
and oupppsallla up we run high on adrenalin and call somebody we do not know at all names, put them into drawers, label them and return then (after completion of crucifixion and stoning) back into our home sweet home and everything's fine and in order again?
This emotional communication targetting does work so well that we do not need to feel remembered of Middle Ages' pillories. Pillories are more common today than ever. Bread and Circuses to keep the masses at bay. Circuses are now available everywhere in realtime.]
No, Ben is not a liar. He slipped even.
He's participating in the storybook.
No reason to put our head's into sad clouds either. Truth will prevail. It always has.
Blessings.
