virus: Good bye

Tadeusz Niwinski (
Sat, 25 Oct 1997 03:09:31 -0700

This is my last post, as I am going to unsubscribe (I will read
messages for a few days in case you wanted to respond). I thought
of a brief summary of my main discoveries here, but it became a
little more than brief... Maybe I learned more than I thought I

Richard wrote:
>On Tuesday, October 21, 1997 7:04 AM, chardin
>[] wrote:

>> I couldn't get much of anything out of those exchanges
>> between you and Tad; they were such calculated moves--back and
>> and back and forth--it really meant nothing to me. It seemed
>> superficial, but maybe I was missing something.
>They are a kind of performance art, I think. Not very accessible,
but if
>you should happen to "get it" it can be uproariously funny.

I once met an inflatable rubber-doll, a human size doll which could
even speak a lot of pre-recorded messages. It was frustrating to
communicate with the doll, as it was, of course, not able to think
on its own. Anything you'd say to this doll would bounce off of
the rubber and stick to you, but it was very difficult to notice it
at first.

The designer of the doll was a genius, who invented the AINA chip
and put this chip in the doll's "brain". AINA stands for the "A Is
Not A" algorithm which the chip is based on. The first step in
this algorithm is to convince the receiving person that A is not A,
or in other words that the world is not knowable, not predictable,
"maybe", and "we don't know". This is not a very difficult step,
because in fact we don't know a lot of things and we don't
understand a lot of them either.

The second step in the AINA algorithm is to convince the receiver
that *because* we are limited, also things which we do know and we
do understand are not what we think they are. This requires
patient repetition for a number of times. The number of times
depends on the receiver. Some are fooled easily, and for some it
takes longer. As they say, a lie repeated a thousand times becomes
closer to the truth. Sooner or later our human nature tends to, at
least, admit: "OK, maybe".

The third step is the "truth trap": convincing the receiver that
the truth is not only *always* relative and uncertain, but also it
is painful to look for the truth and it takes away the enjoyment of
life. This is a very important yet difficult step in the AINA
algorithm. It is difficult because it has been well documented in
psychology that finding truth is one of the highest human needs
(Maslow), confirmed by the "flow" research (Csikszentmihalyi), and
demonstrated by many biographies of highly achieved individuals.
People who are familiar with the psychology of human motivation are
less likely to buy this lie, although the charm of the rubber-doll
carrying the AINA chip may fool them. It all depends on how
charming the doll is. From the doll's creator's point of view,
it's a crucial step.

Paradoxically the third step, the "truth hurts" trap may be already
implanted in many people independently of the AINA algorithm --
which incidently helps the rubber-doll very much at this stage.

Imagine a bully boy who hits other children in the head and hurts
them in other ways. It is in his interest to develop a group of
"assistants" who all together spread a belief that facts are not
verifiable, that the truth does not exist "as such". What's the
benefit for the assistants? Of course the bully may protect them
when they hit some other children and are afraid of retaliation.
A smart bully will also give his assistants little gifts
(personally touched) and, more often, an impression of possible
gifts, he can offer. Bullies usually have an inborn talent for
exaggerating what they can give you, and what kinds of connections
they have. A bully -- alone -- is not able to achieve much, he
needs a group of faithful followers. Why is it in their interest
to spread "the truth is painful" belief?

Imagine one of the little-gang members hurts a child and the child
cries. The truth is that the child was hurt and the simplest way
to proceed for a normal "truth believing" person is to repair the
damages (whatever small they may be) and say "sorry, I won't do it
again". A very simple and effective solution. A bully strategy
does not allow to say "sorry". The bully will say something like "I
didn't do it, don't you dare accuse me without facts!". What does
the bully have to lose? Nothing. In the worst case he may say "In
fact, I didn't do it, because it was my *hand* which did it,

This is the heart of the bully strategy and he will gladly use this
opportunity to further his "truth is painful" belief. Knowing
human nature, if he is smart, he may make a masterpiece out of it.
He will accuse the little child and everybody who takes his side to
make an *affair* out of a little thing. He will scream all over
the place that people are unreasonable, that they do not understand
him, and that he is being accused without facts. His screams will
obviously attract other people, and everybody will have something
to say.

Some will say "oh, yes, I agree, accusing without facts is really
a big sin and I am, myself, guilty of it, so nobody should really
accuse anybody".

Some will say "formally, Dickiebird, your hand belongs to you" and
make a long lawyer-like speech about it. He will say something like
this: "The inconsequential consequences of the not consequential
act, which in civilized societies is recognized as an offence, but
in a new light of the post-scientific paradigm the consequences of
the inconsequentialness of the alleged offence are inconsequential".

Some, who secretly hate the bully, but are afraid to confront him
openly, will also add some noise when nobody can hear exactly what
they are screaming.

Some may think: "Well, he is a bully, alright, but first of all he
didn't hit me personally this time, and secondly he is a prestigious
bully, so we better have him in our sand-box so other kids envy us".

Many will yell something like this: "Stop yelling, PLEASE, why are
you arguing so much?! I've had enough of it! It's water under a
bridge; enough said! This case is OVER! Do you UNDERSTAND?!"

The truth in fact *will* become painful. It will become painful
for the child who was hurt in the first place. If the child is
smart he will quickly leave the hostile sand-box and find better
places to play [he *was* smart :-) indeed].

The truth will also become painful for everybody else, because of
the noise, frustration of misunderstanding, etc. It will be
difficult to risk a rational discussion about the hurt child,
because the case has been already blown out of proportions --
mostly through skillful manipulation of the bully.

A simple "sorry" may end the whole case quickly. Any person who
respects truth would do it. The bully won't. It is in his
interest to spread the belief that "truth is painful". The next
time he hits someone, everyone will remember the painful emotions,
accusations, helplessness, screams -- and will think twice before
talking about the bully's behaviour [Which reminds me of something
I wanted to write about, but I didn't: when I wrote "nota bene" (a
latin expression used to call attention to something important) in
one of my posts it was "automatically" changed by Richard's MS
Arrogant-Word to "not been", which is quite amusing. How far can
one go with abusing the truth? Not many people seem to mind. It
seems so inconsequential, as long as we, scientists, can just talk,
talk, talk...]

The bully strategy can be summarized as follows: (1) Have a bunch
of paid supporters. They can be paid with (a) some protection when
bullying other kids, (b) gifts, and (c) maybe-gifts ie. illusions
of possible gains when associating with the bully. (2) Together
spread the "truth is painful" myth and teach people to be afraid to
speak up. This is probably how gangs are formed and spread quite
well. This may be also how wars start. No doubt it works in
marriages and families. It is amazing to watch an intellectual
gang "in statu nascendi". [I wonder what the MS Arrogant would
replace these words with? BTW, nobody noticed when Pinocchio lied
about a word being replaced automatically with ONE word -- in my
spell-checker there is usually a whole list I can choose from, not
just one word "automatically" replacing an unknown word. I use
Word Perfect and don't use MS Arrogant, and I know MS Arrogant was
written "For Dumb From Dumber", but I don't suppose it would be
that dumb!]

Interestingly, the bully strategy is (maybe unintentionally)
supported by some psychiatrists, who get their patients out of
their childhood programming, when mummy used to repeat: "now say
you are SORRY". The patient learned to say "sorry" whenever
anybody complained, rather then learning what is and what is not
appropriate. The first step is to reprogram the patient with "You
are a big boy now and you don't have to say "sorry" every time
someone complains. You can learn to exercise your personal power
now. You don't have to please other people all of the time". This
new knowledge may be so overwhelming -- or the psychiatrist so
cheap -- that the patient may not be able to reach the next step
and relate his behaviour to reality.

In other words, the "truth hurts" trap (the third step in the AINA
algorithm) may be implanted in many people in various ways,
independently of the AINA algorithm. This makes it easier for the
rubber-doll designer.

The fourth step in the AINA algorithm used by the rubber-doll is to
utter some random pre-recorded messages and convince the receiver
that there may be some hidden truth in them. Since *everything* is
relative and not quite certain, the "so called truth" does not
objectively exist, there may be some sense in what the doll is
playing from the tape. The receiver must be convinced that
everything the doll utters is "a kind of performance art" which may
mean something on a deeper level.

The fifth step in AINA looks very naive, yet many people are easily
fooled. It is convincing the receiver that if he doesn't see the
hidden wisdom, there is something wrong with HIM. It's extremely
naive and has been rebuked many times, and yet, our human nature is
so gullible that many people keep buying this old trick every day.
It is best known as "the emperor's new clothes". The randomly
generated messages are not only some "kind of performance art" now,
they also become "not very accessible." It is suggested to the
receiver that they are something more than the receiver is able to
comprehend. Of course (as the doll claims in another pre-recorded
message) it's worth the suffering of not understanding it for some
time, because it's extremely rewarding when you finally have it
understood. In other words: "if you should happen to "get it" it
can be uproariously funny."

The ingenious AINA ("A Is Not A") algorithm consists of five steps:
(1) We don't know a lot of things.
(2) Nothing is certain.
(3) Searching for truth is a trap which takes enjoyment out of life
(4) Blah, blah, blah.
(5) If you don't understand #4, it's because YOU are sinful, not
unlighted, unwashed, etc. Just keep listening to #4 and eventually
you may get it.

There is also another chip in the rubber-doll: the L3 chip. It
requires a very advanced rubber technology, and it's amazing. The
doll is so flexible that it can assume any shape it finds most
useful at the moment. This way it is not the same, for instance,
as a princess rubber-doll at all times. You may have fun with it
as a beautiful princess and in an instant, "on the fly", it would
convert into an ugly frog...

This ability to assume the most useful shape is something humans
are not capable of doing. This is why the rubber-doll producers
consider rubber-dolls superior to humans.

Can you believe that people get actually fooled by rubber dolls?
I do. I've been tricked myself. For almost two years. It's a
shame to admit, I even had fun with it.

I started this post with a recent exchange between Cathy and
Richard where they talked about my conversations with Richard. I
also believe Cathy was here for a reason and I want to thank both
Cathy and Richard for their inspiration. I will end with a quote
from the same post:

>> > There's only one God -- I serve Him, but you serve religion.
>> I never said I was perfect. But I don't think that is true.
How do
>> you serve God, Richard. I would very much like to know.
>Just watch. It's my whole life.

She's been watching for a while and I've been watching too.

Too closely, I'm afraid.

Richard recently wrote to me: "Oh yeah? Well I'm rubber and you're
glue! Whatever YOU say BOUNCES off me and sticks to YOU!" as a
response to his own words which I bounced to him. It was the icing
on the cake named "the mystery of a rubber-doll". Now I have no
doubts there is no way to communicate for one simple reason: the
"art of nothing" IS nothing. The emperor's clothes do not exist.
One cannot communicate with a rubber doll, no matter how well it is
designed and how advanced chips it has inside of it's brain.

Regards, Tadeusz (Tad) Niwinski from planet TeTa (604) 985-4159