the method of formulating your interests is simply to always formulate that
which is in your own interest.
since, particularly in the dynamics of a verbal war, not the ultimate
interests, but the micro interests that are leading to these would vary
from
one moment into the next, there isn't the slightest necessity for
someone's
micro interests, and for his formulations of these, to be anyhow
consistent.
on the contrary, these micro interests would be contradicting most of the
time, and the only consistency could be found in actually relating them to
the ultimate interests.
now in case the ultimate interests would not be public, that is hidden,
the
communicative actor would have a problem showing consistency. and this is
why consistency is being publicly expected, to rule out the possibility of
someone having any hidden interests.
in the democratic practice of discussion paradise the ultimate interests
are
normally hidden, which puts the pressure on any communicative actor to
somehow still show consistency, usually by introducing fallacious ultimate
interests or fronts, that are also liable to change but at a much slower
pace than the micro interests are.
it should be clear that in democratic discussion the requirement of
consistency is in fact completely impeding someone's capability of
formulating his actual micro interests. instead, he would be forced to
keep
alive a whole pseudo reality of would-be micro and ultimate interests in
order to both retain consistency and still forward his actual goals.
there are a number of strategies that would rid the commucative actor of
his
duty to consistency altogether. first of all he could try to obtain a
status
of being deranged and unaccountable, simply being unaware of any ultimate
interests. the problem is that such a status would, under normal
cir***stances, not be very influential. it would however be ultimately
democratic. one man one vote.
secondly the communicative actor could operate as a group of persons or
bodies with completely varying professed micro and ultimate interests,
ideally covering the whole spectrum, who would retain consistency
individually, but who would let the micro interests among them that would
be
in the hidden interest of the group at any given time prevail, using
whatever strategy required.
finally, if his influence would be sufficiently great, the communicative
actor could simply ignore the demand for consistency, that is for publicly
revealing his ultimate goals. specifically if these goals could be
effectively communicated to everyone individually on a level of reality
that
would be prohibited to the public.
this would require some form of property over the concepts of truth and
existence, which is what formerly religion and today the public news media
are effecting, by declaring what we know to be common reality, that is the
things that are true and the things that exist.
such a construction would allow for a form of public control that would be
perfectly democratic on the level of public reality, and perfectly
oppressive on the level of individual reality. and it would require a lot
of
troops, that would not publicly exist, to keep the system in balance.
in such a system these troops, and their ultimate interests, could not be
publicly identified as originating from outside this planet.
|
