2017-01-23T09:49:00-08:00
Through my observation of dialogues, over the course of several years, whether in reality or in the virtual world, I was struck by several phenomena that characterized those dialogues, including sterility, stereotyping, lack of flexibility in the idea, lack of acceptance of the other’s thought, or unsound logic, and in most of these dialogues The exchange of ideas would end at a certain number of points, and it would be difficult or even impossible to continue the discussion. I attributed the causes of these phenomena to the culture of the interlocutor, or to his religious or ideological orientation, or his party affiliation. The truth is that the two interlocutors, including me, were secretly immersed in the idea of prejudices against the other… including that he was naive, or deceived. Or he is brainwashed by the environment around him, or his simple culture prevents him from analyzing matters and deducing facts from contradictions.
Until I became aware of a very striking phenomenon, and it greatly excited me, which is that the cultural level is not responsible for this unhealthy logic and sterile way of thinking. After seeing comments on Facebook from Yemen on topics, I saw interlocutors with high levels of knowledge, thought, and culture. The same logic and futile comments are similar to the comments of those we believe to be at a simple scientific and cultural level.
It is not only culture, but the type of belief is not responsible for that sterile logic and circles of analysis and interpretation that do not end with a result. I even found Al-Nasarah with the same logic, but the most strange phenomenon was that the belief itself was never the cause, after I watched dialogues of two religionists with the same logic. That unhealthy logic and sterile circle of thinking. I wonder what is the reason?
The shocking image is the reason for all this. Of course, there are images that are preserved in recent memory, and images that are preserved semi-permanently, but the image associated with the shock is what the brain keeps permanently and cannot be forgotten or erased until the person dies. The shocking images are responsible for these mental disabilities and incorrect logic, and this is the observation that in every attempt at discussion or monitoring it, where the interlocutors differ in points of view, thought, beliefs, or levels of culture, fatigue occurs, and we do not know that the reason is that the strength of the image has The recipient is stronger than the strength of the argument of the interlocutor. That recipient has a shocking, formal persuasive argument, while the interlocutor speaks to him in a logical language, and here the image becomes stronger than the language. The image overcomes speech and language. The image is more persuasive than anything logical. The recipient is trying to persuade you through formal speech, that is, sentences full of pictorial scenes. His argument is the image. For example, he says to you: Where did the scenes of slaughter go? What about the explosive barrels? Look at their shapes. Ask me about my strict neighbor. Look at them kissing the legs. ..Did you see them receiving…etc
His logic is always represented by an image stored in the mind, and it becomes more powerful if it is a shocking image. Therefore, in every dialogue, there is always a collision between logic and image, between scene and speech, between hearing and sight and between logic.
.
.
.