The Cons, whether they be con men, conspirators, connivers, conservatives or contrarians, share one common characteristic in that their actions are directed by ulterior motives. Nothing is as it seems. Their object isn’t just deception. Indeed, it’s possible that they don’t even admit their true motives to themselves. Ulterior motives are, in a sense, self-protective. If one doesn’t admit what one wants, then one isn’t disappointed by not getting it. One is, however, likely to be in a permanent state of funk as a result of not knowing what one wants and not getting, or getting, what one doesn’t want.
Is the ulterior universe an alternate mental state, one upon which the real tangible universe does not impinge? Is humans being out of touch akin to a mosquito intent on getting lunch? If there are no sensory receptors, can an organism be faulted for what it doesn’t perceive? Are the Cons beyond good and evil because they just don’t think?
I think we are sometimes too quick to dismiss inconsistency between behavior and expressed intent as a lie and then insist that the lie be “fixed.” What if that is a waste of time, because in the ulterior universe there is no true or false, just impulsive response? It would make as much sense to argue with the mosquito about lunch.
Exploiters exploit. It’s what they do. They are directed by ulterior motives for the simple reason that they are unaware. “How” and “why” are inexplicable concepts. Oh, they can supply an answer to a question, acting as a prompt for a response, but the answer is likely to be irrelevant, or a mere conflation of events, as in “I went to the store because the sun was shining.”