From Humanoid Faults to Manipulated Consensus, 2

And there is a common denominator in these: you can call it sabotaging our attention, you can call it effect. If you realize that one the vital qualities of each individual is the ability to confront, then what all of our faults and their exploiters have in common is undermining our confront, our poise: distracting, make one lose one’s concentration, spoiling, blocking, fixating, dispersing, turning away our attention. If you have ascertained that the more one is cause and the better off everything will be, then what all of our faults have in common – and basically are – is that they make us more effect. And the worse our faults, the more we’re effect. To a point of not getting through. And beyond.

So let’s brush up on some humanoid faults, as almost everything depends on whether we can manage to raise a bit above the cage they form. And, by the way, the “humanoid” adjective simply means such faults aren’t worth any better title. I refuse to label them “human” as this opens the door to their tolerance, which is exactly what we must not do, instead of facing them for what they are: the bars of our cages, the nails in our coffins.

We’re incoherent:

We behave more like an incoherent composite cluster rather than like a coherent unit. A block of flats whose inhabitants know each other very little. How often have we seriously wondered whether we were dealing with the same individual every time – or if there even were an individual worth the name at all within that humanoid compound? Regardless of how indulgent we are in explaining away this unaware multiplicity as “human”, it may be worth mentioning it first here because it supports many other faults: the less we are a coherent unit, the less we’re aware of the faults in each inhabitant of our cluster.