|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to NEWS main page
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| WEEK 51, 2008 |
||||||||||||
| Sunday December 14, 2008 | ||||||||||||
|
The eternal fight in our Civilization (and in the entire Universe) is not between God and Devil, angels and demons, good and bad, rich and poor, or right and wrong; it is between intelligence and stupidity. Now, everybody agrees that "Hell is paved with good intentions," therefore the natural question is: "Why? Why does it have to be that way?" Unfortunately, our World, and our Civilization, is ruled by idiots, only--they always did that. Naturally, we cannot expect an idiot to think, to reason, or to understand. On the other hand, there is this thing named "Destiny"--many idiots name Destiny as God, Allah, Buda, Jehovah, or whatever. The GREAT CREATOR is far beyond our little Destiny on this planet, dear brothers and sisters. Anyway, the name is not important; the way Destiny works socially for us, on the other hand, it is very important. The main drive behind our Destiny is "social chance", only the social-chance itself is not random as its name suggests. Fact is, the Destiny of our Civilization favors preferentially the most idiot human representatives; this social state of things works for our society as a natural social-law. Let's take an ordinary idiot; say, John. Sooner or later in his life, the Destiny, via this wonderful social-chance, is going to smile indulgently at John. As a result, the idiot John will reach a superior social level: the level of rich people! Further, the idiot John analyzes (a little bit) his perplexing social ascension which happened despite the fact he IS naturally stupid. Forced by many unknown (to him) circumstances, John is bound to conclude that he is not stupid at all; he must be, somehow, exceptionally intelligent, otherwise he wouldn't have succeeded that well socially. Now, the society itself is going to notice John's new level of social wealth, and they will start adulating him--they always did that. The next step is the simplest one: the idiot John will become a "social leader"--our leader! Next, John--and the rest of the Johns like him--takes over the "destiny" of our Civilization. This is the reason why, for thousands of years, hell continues being paved with "good" intentions. However, the unsuspected (or the little known) reality is, our hell is built out of sheer stupidity. LITTLE GOOD PLAIN ENGLISH Native English speakers adore to converse in English; the truth is, English has a superb phonetics. Unfortunately, the English language (and not only) is used improperly when it comes to expressing the "meaning". Extremely few English speakers understand the importance of expressing the meaning correctly. Even worse, it is a common, general behavior to express English sentences without any content/meaning; in the same time, the listeners/interlocutors are left free to "understand" whatever it pleases them most. Let's analyze a little bit the sentence "in fashion" today: "Yes, we can!" The first thing to note is the "form" of the above sentence/declaration: it is the "short answer" to an unexpressed question (better said, it is an elliptic/indefinite answer to no question). The question should have been something similar to: "Can + [the subject "we"] + [a verb in infinitive] + [a direct object]?" To be more explicit: A. "Can we eat three bananas?" (or) B. "Can we change our life towards the better(manner adverbial)?" Note that the short answer alone leaves us free to speculate on countless possible questions; therefore, using the short answer, only, is just a form of poetry or some sort of propaganda. Still, there are many instances when people do express themselves in such charades; so, let's continue with our little analysis. The two major types of questions presented above as A and B have different meanings. Note that the meaning of one type of question invalidates the grammatical form of "Yes, we can!" It becomes a wrong mode of expressing the meaning. Consider the following. When the meaning of the question is related to individuals, organizations, or to small groups of people, the answer "Yes, we can (eat three bananas)!" is a valid one, grammatically. However, when the meaning of the question is related to large masses of people, to our society, or to our Civilization, the question and its answer should take the forms: Q: "Could we change our life towards the better?" A: "Yes, we could." Socially, people have struggled for millennia to change their life, and ours, towards the better. Countless attempts--in fact, all of them--went completely fruitless until this very day. Therefore, there are absolutely no grounds to say/declare that we "can" change our life towards the better. However, if the question is related to some proven facts: (Q: "Can we repeat the same mistakes we did up to now in the future again?") then, yes, we can use the answer: A: "Yes, we can!" It is absurd (and purely propagandistic) to declare that can change our life and our society towards the better when we know for a fact that our History is only fruitless attempts after fruitless attempts: THIS GOOD CHANGE NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. Practically, a good social change is impossible due to our specific individual psychology. Even more; considering the social-meaning of the question, a social change towards the better in the future, it requires that its answer is expressed using only a verb in the "conditional mood": "Yes, we could." In this instance, the modal defective "could" works as a present conditional equivalent. Now, we all know that conditional sentences are in fact complex sentences. In our particular instance, the short answer "Yes, we could," is only the main clause; the complete form is: "Yes, we could if [here follows the conditional subordinate on which depends the possibility expressed in the main clause]." For example: "Yes, we could change our life towards the better in the future if we know how." The condition is underlined. To end this, although people "think" that, yes, we "can" change our life towards the better in the future, this is only a form of "self-esteem"; it is, in fact, only a wish or a possibility. Not only that people do not know "how" to change their life towards the better but, should they hear "how" (the truth) from somebody, they would never believe it! Regarding the mythical change of our society towards the better, this is a chance we have in one billion. You see, dear brothers and sisters, in order to change our life towards the better in the future, we need to eradicate crime, greed, imposture, nepotism, corruption, pornography, injustice, imbecility, narcotics ... Ah, well! You should also think of the precedent electoral slogan: "Not in my watch!" |
||||||||||||
| ***
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Send your
comments regarding this page using support@corollarytheorems.com Page last updated on: December 28, 2008 © Corollary Theorems Ltd. All rights reserved. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
