The mechanics of lying – the energetic cost of inconsistency

In previous articles, field mechanics was analyzed at the level of systems and relationships.
This article goes a level lower.

It does not ask about the structure.
It does not ask about the system.

He asks about the unit.

Because the mechanics don’t start between people.
It starts inside.

1. operational definition of lying

In this series, lying is not an ethical category.
It is an operational concept describing a state of inconsistency.

Definition:

Lying means a persistent or repeated discrepancy between:

• factual state,
• declaration (verbal or symbolic),
• As well as real action.

The discrepancy may be:

• conscious or unconscious,
• disposable or fixed,
• individual or systemic.

In this view, it is not the intention but the structural effect that is important.

The mechanics of the field do not respond to intention, but to the level of inconsistency.

2. what’s happening energetically

Every inconsistency generates tension.

Not always immediately apparent.
Not always dramatic.

But present.

Because when:

• You are saying something different than you know,
• You are doing something different than you declare,
• You create an image that needs to be sustained,

an additional layer of control is created.

One must:

• remember the version,
• Keep an eye on the consistency of the narrative,
• respond to potential disclosure,
• correct the image.

The cost.

Not Moral.
Energetic.

3. memory as a load

Consistency is light.

Inconsistency requires working memory.

The more minor “corrective lies.”

• The more information to keep an eye on,
• The more tension in the relationship,
• The greater the vigilance.

The body does not fully distinguish between a physical threat and an image threat.
Long-term inconsistency leads to:

• chronic tension,
• fatigue,
• irritability,
• loss of decision clarity.

It’s not a penalty.
It’s the cost of maintaining the discrepancy.

4 – What about thought?

A thought in itself is not a lie.

Thought is a cognitive process.
May be:

• hypothesis,
• interpretation,
• simulation,
• a memory,
• reaction to an emotion.

Thoughts appear automatically.
They are not yet a decision.

The lie only begins elsewhere.

When:

• RECOGNIZING FACT,
• we know that the content in question is inconsistent with reality,
• and yet we perpetuate it as a message or basis for action.

Then a discrepancy arises.

Not between people.
In a unit.

It is not the thought that is the problem.
The problem is the deliberate maintenance of inconsistencies between a recognized fact and a statement or action.

The thought may be wrong.
It may be immature.
It may be emotional.

This is not yet a lie.

The lie begins where the truth has already been seen –
and yet has been pushed away.

That’s where the tension comes in.

And it is one that is beginning to cost money.

5. what if someone lies compulsively?

Not every inconsistency is a conscious choice.

There are individuals who:

• have developed a habit of passing the buck as a way of coping with anxiety or pressure,
• grew up in conditions where honesty was associated with punishment, rejection or threat,
• have learned to protect themselves by creating versions of reality instead of confronting facts,
• gradually lost the clear boundary between the image and the real.

Mechanics don’t judge.
But the effect remains.

The greater the number of discrepancies,
the greater the tension in the unit’s field.

And the tension is always looking for an outlet:

• In relations,
• In emotion,
• In conflicts,
• In somatics.

6. how to recognize the cost of inconsistency

In an individual, the signals are:

• The constant need to control the narrative,
• Fear of confrontation,
• relational fatigue,
• Irritation when asked for specifics,
• concentration breakdown,
• chronic tension.

These are not proofs of guilt.
They are indicators of energetic load.

The system reacts similarly:
where inconsistency accumulates, friction increases.

7. why it’s not worth it

You can function in tension for years.
You can stabilize an image at the expense of energy.
You can build your own version of reality.
The problem begins when it stops responding to facts.

The calculus is simple:

Inconsistency:

• increases the operating cost,
• reduces the clarity of decisions,
• undermines confidence,
• generates secondary conflicts.

Consistency:

• reduces tension,
• simplifies communication,
• lowers the cost of memory,
• Stabilizes relationships without control.

It’s not a question of morality.
It’s a question of energy economics.

8. transition point

If inconsistency generates cost,
then the reverse question arises:

What does the arrangement look like in which:

• word coincides with fact,
• decision coincides with the intention,
• operation does not require a sustaining version,
• AND memory doesn’t have to watch for discrepancies?

Is such a model really possible?
Is it idealism?

Or the most energy-efficient form of operation?

This will be the subject of another article.