Unintentional traps of a fast world.
We all believe that the circulation of information, the freedom to express opinions and the flexibility of the means, could form minds and hearts in a virtuous and supportive way.
But the human being does not deny itself, or perhaps, it is the communication that is not yet telepathic but subjective to all possible cognitive bias.
In fact, we have reached where aphorisms, effective phrases, statements shot on social media are the fulcrum or the apex of reasoning, when it goes well.
When it goes wrong, they are just the result of easy “copy and paste”. But there we stop. Comfortable to enjoy sitting on the toilet, simple to share and viralize. And the feedback? They are mountains of likes.
Likes that have taken on the value of friendly pats on the back, declarations of closeness, affection, admiration. A kind of moral victory, in some cases.
But the point is, really, on the other side. It is not in fact in a simple assertion of agreement that lies the real communication. Communication does not end with the simple affirmation with “acknowledgment of receipt”.
Communication involves a message, a sender, a channel, a code, a context and a receiver. And each of these phases conceal pitfalls and obstacles that could distort the result and bring a false like.
The worst enemy of a thought, therefore, is not the adversary, the open and loyal opponent. No, the worst enemy is the one who says he understands you, to be in line with what you say with all sincerity, but who, asking him what he understood, he replies by distorting your every idea. Distorting your every observation, altering your thinking until you say the opposite of what you wanted.
Those who claim to love “democracy”, for example, could easily get a like. However, the word democracy has changed in meaning over time. In Athens, only a few citizens could vote, not women, nor slaves. Not so long ago, in the 19th century, democracy continues to exclude women who came to the point of blatant actions, even to die, in order to assert their right to vote. And that was considered, then, a democratic society.
So, someone might say he’s on your side even if he’s a misogynist and white supremacist. The same if you say you love animals. Indifferently, vegans, those who risk their skin to stop the whalers and those who gorge on intensively farmed meat every day can give you reason (because they for “animal worthy of love” think only of their own cat)
The word freedom, anarchy, brotherhood, happiness, success and sanity are just as dangerous (in the sense of containing too many meanings).
Love for the “neighbour”, which fills the sermons, pleases everyone because there is an extreme, perhaps excessive freedom in the interpretation of the word “neighbour”.
The solution, however, it is not freezing the meaning of words as someone who says that “words weigh” would like to do.By doing so we would have a dead language. A mechanographic code, a sterile means of programming without feelings or poetry.
The real achievement would be to recognize the complexity of communicating and accept it,navigating it, pondering it, and leaving a slogan, a meme, quotes and statements that are bombastic within their scope. That of recall, appeal, exhortation, call for deepening.