Crypto-Malevolence on Contradiction - Evidence that people at least pretend to embrace contradiction in the name of benevolence

Actually written OCTOBER 17, 2006

This initial statement by “Crypto-Malevolence” is an actual reply to one of the questions on my benevolence survey [posted on a social media platform in 2006] from a real person.

Crypto-Malevolence says:

Greetings,

As a maelstrom of benevolence I hereby participate in your provocative questionnaire, which is causing a thunderous ringing within the vacuum of my mind (or at least in what of it I might regard as mine). I shall also endeavor to proffer feedback, resisting as much as I can the compulsion to adorn my offerings with any such garish livery as might make me appear great.

[Survey question] 1. Easy answer A. I reserve the right to contradict myself at least three hundred and fifty eight times a day. The very word contradiction presumes that we have at some point all agreed to limit ourselves within the framework which regulates our reality, and thus the truth. Perhaps it is a means by which man regulates man’s behavior. In order to categorize, and thus control we require consistency – in order to apply pressure to a point it is necessary for the point to remain where it is. Therefore we are all instilled with a fear of contradicting ourselves. Perhaps he who is most credible is he who can remain in the same place for the longest, before he is inevitably shifted by circumstance, or opinion, or maybe even boredom. It is fatuous and presumptuous in the extreme, a tyranny by which I shall not abide, sir.

What follows is a fantasy supplemental discourse in which I use sex as a synedochical metaphor for all pleasant social interaction.

Hot Women reply to him:

“Oh Crypto, you’re so benevolent. You recognize that consistency and absolutism are the prerequisites of tyranny. And you therefore reject consistency with great vehemence! We want to make love with you!”

Turbo-Benevolence analyzes:

“You don’t fool me, Crypto-Malevolence! Your observation that ‘Consistency is tyranny!’ may appear benevolent, but at best, it amounts to a naïve logical sloppiness that reveals your lack of real concern for reducing actual tyranny.

“Observe: If ‘consistency is tyranny’ then it would be tyrannical to believe, with consistency, that ‘consistency is tyranny’. If consistency is tyranny, then consistency is also not tyranny. Your vehement attack on tyranny also attacks itself.”

Crypto-Malevolence replies:

“I know that, you fool. I’m not so naïve as you think.”

Turbo-Benevolence replies:

“Fine then. Just as I suspected. You have no ignorance to excuse you. You just don’t care.”

Crypto-Malevolence replies:

“Damn right! But I’m the one getting laid. So long, sucker!”

[Not sure what gender or orientation the person was. But for my purposes here, Crypto-Malevolence is someone who, like myself, wants sex with cis women.]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Benevolism Test Quiz

Against Metaphysical Continua

The Mythical Metaphorical Quest for Real Knowledge of How to Relieve Suffering