From Humanoid Faults to Manipulated Consensus, 47
The result is very much like that which makes us call a PTS a PTS: the resulting troubles. Here, too, we amplify and relay the wrong, instead of detecting and stopping it.
And so the wrong survives and even thrives, passed on from hand to hand, from person to person, from generation to generation, from civilisation to civilisation, to our detriment and shame.
How do you tell right from wrong? How do you tell what is sane, rational, constructive from what is insane, irrational, destructive? Well, ethics: does it produce the better and more lasting condition for the greates number of entities involved? And does it do that for real?
By the way, an interesting case of the combination of two of our humanoid faults, being quantitative and dramatising, is called: dramatising a can’t have. The definition of to have, of having, of havingness, here is: being able to reach; being not impeded from reaching. For example, if you can look at something or someone you like, and you’re not impeded from doing so, well, you have that something or someone. You don’t need to drag it along: if you can have it into your universe, you have it.
This said, you may observe how some indulge in this peculiar dramatisation that exploits the victim’s inclination to be quantitative: the dramatising person communicates, over and over, to the target person the message, “This is desirable, desire it!” Until as a result, being quantitative, the target reacts to that persistence by moving up a scale of attitudes from the initial total unawareness of "it" to the final craving for "it".
And once the target is burned to a crisp, what does the dramatising person tell him? “You crave for it now, don’t you? Well, you can’t have it.” That is, the sole and whole purpose for creating a craving for "it" in the first place is denying "it". Creating a desire only to frustrate it.
It is remarkable to note how often that "it" is self: how some people strives to seduce for the sole purpose of, “You crave for me now, don't you? Well, you can’t have me.”
However, even though this dramatisation is particularly conspicuous in the field of relationships, it is quite not peculiar to it; on the contrary, it makes an interesting exercise to detect it at work in any area of life and human behaviour.
Is dramatisation sane, rational, constructive? But how much of it in the world, and how much the damage?
