f***@beethoven.com
2005-05-15 13:29:06 UTC
I attempted a formal language to explain without ambiguities how the
confusion of identities works when, in spoken and even written language
it is impossible to disambiguate the confusion, as the phrase 'A is
(really" B' works for both identities. Yet this is but one of
various mechanism that can be used to exchange people. They are called
mechanisms since once established they operate automatically; once the
initial confusion is seeded it is just a matter of applying the same
operation, and no matter how the victim reacts he/she will be subject
to the effect of the mechanism, as long as the initial assumptions are
considered true.
The most simplified mechanism, employed by the Mexican armed forces
(includiing the various polices), is the "chin chin", also knows as "la
tuya"; (yours) or "all you say is backwards" (refers to you). I may
have already exposed it somewhere else, but I here I want to make it
explicit that the mechanism works under two conditions:
a) the party applying it has authority (authority fallacy or ad
baculum, asuming trth is derived from authority irrespective of
deductive logic)
b)the party applying it is committing the crimes or offenses that will
be blamed on the victim
Both conditions are necessary to apply successfully the mechanism,
condition a) to be believed and condition b) to incriminate. It only
makes sense to apply it for criminal activities, not for positive
achievements, through the existence of positive works makes it more
profitable and often the motivation to apply it. (Note: this confusion
works best when dealing between countries, if the accusing country
establishes a false identity for the victim from the outset, as the
innocent victim will appear like he/she is committing a fraud).
But what really makes it work is to make the victim *hook* into the
mechanism through "self-incrimination". To make it credible, there are
a few paths:
1) inform the victim of all crimes committed to force him to deny them
('I didn't do it!')
2) take the victim's words and make them true in a criminal way
3) make criminals protect the victim, so that he/she appears as being
an accomplice and/or as a traitor to the criminal bands.
The first path is rather tricky, as it involves informing the victim in
such a way he/she cannot accuse back. But once the suspicions that he
may be incriminated is seeded, the second path is easier, as there will
be a natural incentive to explain and prevent the undesirable
consequences. This incrimination works under the assumption that
*raising an issue means admittance of guilt*. And once this assumption
is in place there is no way the victim can prove himself innocent!
Formally this has the meaning of a double closure. In one hand, at the
beginning of the process of applying the mechanism, the victim is in a
"point state", a closure reduced to one point, where even
mentioning the fact is "dangerous". But once the issue is exposed, then
a second idempotent closure operates in which any action gives the same
result: proof of guilt. Again, these mechanisms act as long as the
accuser is believed to be true and honest by virtue of being an
authority. This condition is essential, since basically it is the
accuser who gathers the evidence, and evidence can be easily forged,
particularly if the whole process is planned in advance. For instance,
it is easy to collect evidence in advance and pretend it was found in
the scene of the crime, including but not limited to corporal debris,
fingerprints, objects left behind or stolen (small and apparently
innocuous, the kind that are not reported to the police), etc.
So the chin chin closure works by an authority taking the victim's acts
and committing crimes around them, with the supporting evidence
gathered as necessary to pretend that the victim is guilty,
particularly when the victim is accusing the victimizers! Obviously,
this can be accompanied with the same arguments applied to other
people, other victims, either by convincing ("sensible"
reinterpretation making innocence appear as being contrived) or by
threats, bribes, etc.
The moral of this essay is that when it comes to dennounce crimes all
aprties involved become automatically suspicious! But, particularly,
the authority, as the simple fact of being authority lends it moral
weight which may not be really warranted. As always, moral probity is a
difficult issue but cannot be taken for granted.
Fabrizio J BOnsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore
confusion of identities works when, in spoken and even written language
it is impossible to disambiguate the confusion, as the phrase 'A is
(really" B' works for both identities. Yet this is but one of
various mechanism that can be used to exchange people. They are called
mechanisms since once established they operate automatically; once the
initial confusion is seeded it is just a matter of applying the same
operation, and no matter how the victim reacts he/she will be subject
to the effect of the mechanism, as long as the initial assumptions are
considered true.
The most simplified mechanism, employed by the Mexican armed forces
(includiing the various polices), is the "chin chin", also knows as "la
tuya"; (yours) or "all you say is backwards" (refers to you). I may
have already exposed it somewhere else, but I here I want to make it
explicit that the mechanism works under two conditions:
a) the party applying it has authority (authority fallacy or ad
baculum, asuming trth is derived from authority irrespective of
deductive logic)
b)the party applying it is committing the crimes or offenses that will
be blamed on the victim
Both conditions are necessary to apply successfully the mechanism,
condition a) to be believed and condition b) to incriminate. It only
makes sense to apply it for criminal activities, not for positive
achievements, through the existence of positive works makes it more
profitable and often the motivation to apply it. (Note: this confusion
works best when dealing between countries, if the accusing country
establishes a false identity for the victim from the outset, as the
innocent victim will appear like he/she is committing a fraud).
But what really makes it work is to make the victim *hook* into the
mechanism through "self-incrimination". To make it credible, there are
a few paths:
1) inform the victim of all crimes committed to force him to deny them
('I didn't do it!')
2) take the victim's words and make them true in a criminal way
3) make criminals protect the victim, so that he/she appears as being
an accomplice and/or as a traitor to the criminal bands.
The first path is rather tricky, as it involves informing the victim in
such a way he/she cannot accuse back. But once the suspicions that he
may be incriminated is seeded, the second path is easier, as there will
be a natural incentive to explain and prevent the undesirable
consequences. This incrimination works under the assumption that
*raising an issue means admittance of guilt*. And once this assumption
is in place there is no way the victim can prove himself innocent!
Formally this has the meaning of a double closure. In one hand, at the
beginning of the process of applying the mechanism, the victim is in a
"point state", a closure reduced to one point, where even
mentioning the fact is "dangerous". But once the issue is exposed, then
a second idempotent closure operates in which any action gives the same
result: proof of guilt. Again, these mechanisms act as long as the
accuser is believed to be true and honest by virtue of being an
authority. This condition is essential, since basically it is the
accuser who gathers the evidence, and evidence can be easily forged,
particularly if the whole process is planned in advance. For instance,
it is easy to collect evidence in advance and pretend it was found in
the scene of the crime, including but not limited to corporal debris,
fingerprints, objects left behind or stolen (small and apparently
innocuous, the kind that are not reported to the police), etc.
So the chin chin closure works by an authority taking the victim's acts
and committing crimes around them, with the supporting evidence
gathered as necessary to pretend that the victim is guilty,
particularly when the victim is accusing the victimizers! Obviously,
this can be accompanied with the same arguments applied to other
people, other victims, either by convincing ("sensible"
reinterpretation making innocence appear as being contrived) or by
threats, bribes, etc.
The moral of this essay is that when it comes to dennounce crimes all
aprties involved become automatically suspicious! But, particularly,
the authority, as the simple fact of being authority lends it moral
weight which may not be really warranted. As always, moral probity is a
difficult issue but cannot be taken for granted.
Fabrizio J BOnsignore, now Danilo J Bonsignore