Andrew_Zito
19th February 2016, 17:54
Concerning language and communication one can suppose after many years since George Orwell had been alive things have dramatically changed. If Mr. Orwell were alive today one honestly could easily suppose that he would not side with many of the currents which exists today concerning language and communication. Where many arguments regarding many things first and foremost language changed as in his day of thought, mere conversation, radio and the printed page in what comprised the main part of how people communicated in language that which they wished to define in matters ephemeral and concrete.
Regardless of the rhetorical arguments of language, in philosophy, science, sociology, technology etc those terms have come to be defined after many years, decades, centuries and millennium by the use of two approaches that comprise what we comprehend or do not comprehend by the symbolic and the objective uses of language. As either language is finite and defined as such in the limitations of its structure structures to be what it is, and conversely symbolically in what it could be, seems to be, represented to be or defined as such are variables, or as for the former givens.
Givens as things that are what they are what we can honestly take for granted rather than speculate upon in that there is room for debate, where the more consensus exists for recognition of what is stated and said to be a given the more we take it as a truth; and, Where conversely where we in a societal manner debate those givens find less room to agree for we do not agree though "generally" we use in that conversation slash conversations qualifications to say "generally" it is agreed amongst most people that "clean water is required for all life on Earth", though one can argue that "water is found in deserts" "purified from waste water" et cetera in what opinion varies.
The nature of language generally is precise as that is the meaning and purpose of language to "say something" though that language could be either said by objective and precise means or ambiguously by imprecise means.
As such the black flag generally thought by many as representing "Anarchy" "Anarchist" and "Libertarianism" can objectively as representing those ideas, whereas recently such "Black Flags" antithetically represented with an addition of Islamic slogans the ISIS ISIL Islamic Jihadist Fundamentalists.
"The Pashtun tradition of using a black flag with a white shahada (Islamic creed) inscription as a military ensign, harking back to the 18th-century Hotaki Empire, was adopted by the Taliban, and thence by Al-Qaeda in the 1990s. This usage was adopted by the global jihadism movement in the early 2000s, and in the 2010s by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.[17]"
Much like the United States, the United Kingdom, and France all share the flag colors of red, white and blue in what one can say did not appear as an accident all of a sudden.
The black flag, and the color black in general, have been associated with anarchism since the 1880s. Many anarchist collectives contain the word "black" in their names. There have been a number of anarchist periodicals entitled Black Flag. The uniform blackness of the flag is in stark contrast to the colorful flags typical of most nation-states. Additionally, as a white flag has been used to request parley or to surrender, the counter-opposite black flag would logically be a symbol of defiance and opposition to surrender. Historical origins The black flag represents the absence of a flag, and thus stands in opposition to the very notion of nation-states. In that light, the flag can be seen as a rejection of the concept of representation, or the idea that any person or institution can adequately represent a group of individuals. Modern anarchism has a shared ancestry with – amongst other ideologies – socialism, a movement strongly associated with the red flag. As anarchism became more and more distinct from socialism in the 1880s, it adopted the black flag in an attempt to differentiate itself.[1] Some anarchists at the time, such as Peter Kropotkin, preferred to continue using the red flag rather than adopt the black.[3] Both the black and red flags first gained notoriety for their use by Buccaneers, who were pirates of French origin operating in the West Indies. The black flag (later the "Jolly Roger") was displayed, or 'run up' the mast, first as an indication that the lives of the crew would be spared if they surrendered. If the crew resisted, the red flag would then be displayed to indicate that the offer of amnesty had been withdrawn; no prisoners would be taken (see also Jolly Roger/Pirate flag below)."
Much like the First World War 1914-1918 where trenches barbed wire machine gun nests and poison gas technologically were as defenses much more advanced that the traditional means of attack the engaged parties came to a standoff where neither side could advance much against the other, where grave and extremely large casualties were incurred for the sake of higher echelon military leaders who were under pressure from the public leaders and governments that they indeed were as the military were in control so as to prove that they were who people claimed them to be as "protectors of the country". So fell the first myths of empires and nations that the weapons of war destroy but they could not defend, just as 100 years later we are besieged by those same circumstances.
Where Stalin and George Orwell both wrote passionately on language as the key to revolution in the case of Stalin and in defense by George Orwell. Where George Orwell wrote:
"Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way"
"it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it"
"Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse."
"It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes."
Where:
"Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes."
Where the fact of the matter is that George Orwell misspoke as what he stated could be addressed especially today to Greeks, French, Chinese and in fact all nations, and in fact languages and sub cultures, alternatively natural and artificially created by which by which narrow segments of society struggle to understand others struggling segments of society.
In language that has been sliced ,diced, marinated, draw and quartered, toyed with and generally dismembered, butchered, and murdered in what is usually draw out in debates between academics, hip-hop artists, and the common folk in their use of the vernacular, dictionaries, thesaurus, reader interpretations, Boolean Logic, Psychotherapy, hypnosis and literary magazines, writers workshops and other means.
All to the the determent of society twisted, bent and distorted not by Plato's "Philosopher Kings" where:
"Philosopher kings are the rulers of Plato's utopian city of Kallipolis. If his ideal city-state is to ever come into being, "philosophers [must] become kings…or those now called kings [must]…genuinely and adequately philosophize" (The Republic, 5.473d). Plato defined a philosopher firstly as its eponymous occupation: "wisdom-lover". He then distinguishes between one who loves true knowledge (as opposed to mere experience or education) by saying that the philosopher is the only person who has access to ideas – the archetypal entities that exist behind all representations of the form (such as Beauty itself as opposed to any one particular instance of beauty). It is next and in support of the idea that philosophers are the best rulers that Plato fashions the Ship of State metaphor, one of his most often cited ideas (along with his allegory of the cave): a "true pilot must of necessity pay attention to the seasons, the heavens, the stars, the winds, and everything proper to the craft if he is really to rule a ship" (The Republic, 6.488d)."
Where what George Orwell stated was seemingly limited by him where in the most pertinent part he stated:
"These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable. One could keep all of them and still write bad English, but one could not write the kind of stuff that I quoted in those five specimens at the beginning of this article.
I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs."
(George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946)
"Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this"
Where indeed in the very first attack I sustained in raising the question of
"fascism in the United States" where I was rebuffed publicly on numerous occasions by members of the FBI CIA LEFT, where indeed they argued "How does know know what is "fascism" and "Since you don't know what Fascism is". where very well one can ask how does one how can you struggle against Fascism?" Just as they declare like many other right wingers do that "America is already socialist".
Where traveling down the"Information Highway" we meet an smart fellow named Al Gore who refuses to argue at all when it comes to matters of chads when that implies in the most bourgeois sense the importance of elections is a 100%.
Where Further yet along that information highway one alternative or another of information fraud that coaxes and cajoles on a almost limitless number of questions and variations by the mass production of delusions that time to time become the fraud by which society conceptualizes and governs itself.
In an instant world of mass media based on money and power where nihilistic the only truth is that it is all made into one big lie to be smashed and destroyed, except in that existence all matters are considered equal though they are not and can never be so.
So where is it all going?
Where humanity is pushed towards and enlightened age?
Or humanity is pushed deeper and deeper into the delusion of an indentured existence when the slave not only owes his physical existence but his mental and spiritual existence to the metaphysical and unreal artificially created for the simple purpose of deception fraud and controlled by a society called capitalism that much like a chameleon changes its appearances as a defense against predators and attack.
Where humans have learned from natural:
"Deception in animals is the transmission of misinformation by one animal to another, of the same or different species, in a way that propagates beliefs that are not true. Deception in animals does not automatically imply a conscious act, but can occur at different levels of cognitive ability.
Mimicry and camouflage enable animals to appear to be other than they are. Prey animals may appear as predators, or vice versa; both predators and prey may be hard to see (crypsis), or may be mistaken for other objects (mimesis). In Batesian mimicry, harmless animals may appear to be distasteful or poisonous. In automimicry, animals may have eyespots in less important parts of the body than the head, helping to distract attack and increase the chance of survival.
More actively, animals may feign death when they detect a predator, or may quickly conceal themselves or take action to distract a predator, such as when a cephalopod releases ink. In deimatic behaviour, a harmless animal adopts a threatening pose or displays startling, brightly coloured parts of its body to startle a predator or rival.
Some animals may use tactical deception, with behaviour that is deployed in a way that other animals misinterpret what is happening to the advantage of the agent. Some of the evidence for this is anecdotal, but in the great apes in particular, experimental studies in ethology suggest that deception is actively practised by some animals."
How naively human being are expected to believe this and that, reject that and this, as they are subjected in every emotional button in a modern capitalist age that is rapidly expanding so as to encompass many aspects of reality in which fact is readily joined with fiction. Fact and fiction that like a plague a disease has sweep through society like a biological virus.
"Most virus species have virions that are too small to be seen with an optical microscope. The average virion is about one one-hundredth the size of the average bacterium."
And today thinking has become a threat not simply for what is thought, but because of what may not be thought, what can be thought in any of a variety of variations propagated ironically by the very same people who create those thoughts in the first place in the perversity of bourgeois democracy, in the markets and thoughts that drive such markets, lives, onward and forward almost meaninglessly.
In that they no longer can count no only their own financial capital but in that they can not calculate their own intellectual and academic capital as society itself relegates them to figureheads where computers drive markets, Pushing prices up and down almost meaninglessly in the most pathetic and absurd of notions where they allow machines and systems to tell them what to do but not other people. Where the lack of human empathy is institutionalized by machines that run out of control or eventually will run world as in out of control simply because they can.
Where human beings main problem is not reaching out but failing to communicate with empathy in a logical and rational manner finds common grounds because in the biblical sense not only do they speak different languages, but in that they have been enhanced in their ability to speak different languages. In what the alienation of humanity increases and draws farther and farther apart though it is made to appear drawing closer, where also it appears to draw closer when it grows distant and detached.
Where I find no equivalent works in modern language and linguistics in the work of Noam Chomsky, as in George Orwell and Stalin, such as modern language and linguists they are not designed as such to facilitate communication in that they are funded for other purposes so as to fail where once that was not the question. To which I am indebted to George Orwell and Joseph Stalin though not to the University Departments of Linguistics at MIT, English at Brooklyn College as redundant and superfluous as much of society has out lived its purpose if that is a reason on which basis to exist.
For much like those famous for being famous they serve no real function except in a negative sense related to their callous natures, stupidity, rudeness inhumanity et cetera.
Where to find a solution language as the key to such matters has been raped, corrupted, demeaned, aggrandized, obsessive, all important, meaningless, obscure, obtuse, elusive, complex, made even more complex, stupefied, dumbed down, and in the grandeur of nihilism made all important or meaningless in the duality of its nature that was once seemingly was absent and today seems all too apparent in the media and the news in what regiments the troops (for us or against the enemy) or alternatively divides us (as in shallow romances that never live up to their expectations either).
Tortured in a language of good cops and bad cops, swaying to and fro day after day where exists as brick walls, erected brick by brick yet torn down with the touch of a button in that society deems it obsolete where once it was evolutionary and gradual, but now pressured and immediate in its concerns for simply it con not think, nor act in any real sense only in the manner it was designed much like Pavlov's dogs and behaviorism.
A behaviorism that can only be cured by a process of socialization that does not exist in the society which needs to produce it for simply they killed it regardless of the mode it might have existed casual or formal and today it is a matter of presumption and or contrivance but not sincerity at least which can be learned and understood. For under capitalism the culture of immediacy has developed where every process has come into existence based on profits, power, and greed.
Regardless of the rhetorical arguments of language, in philosophy, science, sociology, technology etc those terms have come to be defined after many years, decades, centuries and millennium by the use of two approaches that comprise what we comprehend or do not comprehend by the symbolic and the objective uses of language. As either language is finite and defined as such in the limitations of its structure structures to be what it is, and conversely symbolically in what it could be, seems to be, represented to be or defined as such are variables, or as for the former givens.
Givens as things that are what they are what we can honestly take for granted rather than speculate upon in that there is room for debate, where the more consensus exists for recognition of what is stated and said to be a given the more we take it as a truth; and, Where conversely where we in a societal manner debate those givens find less room to agree for we do not agree though "generally" we use in that conversation slash conversations qualifications to say "generally" it is agreed amongst most people that "clean water is required for all life on Earth", though one can argue that "water is found in deserts" "purified from waste water" et cetera in what opinion varies.
The nature of language generally is precise as that is the meaning and purpose of language to "say something" though that language could be either said by objective and precise means or ambiguously by imprecise means.
As such the black flag generally thought by many as representing "Anarchy" "Anarchist" and "Libertarianism" can objectively as representing those ideas, whereas recently such "Black Flags" antithetically represented with an addition of Islamic slogans the ISIS ISIL Islamic Jihadist Fundamentalists.
"The Pashtun tradition of using a black flag with a white shahada (Islamic creed) inscription as a military ensign, harking back to the 18th-century Hotaki Empire, was adopted by the Taliban, and thence by Al-Qaeda in the 1990s. This usage was adopted by the global jihadism movement in the early 2000s, and in the 2010s by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.[17]"
Much like the United States, the United Kingdom, and France all share the flag colors of red, white and blue in what one can say did not appear as an accident all of a sudden.
The black flag, and the color black in general, have been associated with anarchism since the 1880s. Many anarchist collectives contain the word "black" in their names. There have been a number of anarchist periodicals entitled Black Flag. The uniform blackness of the flag is in stark contrast to the colorful flags typical of most nation-states. Additionally, as a white flag has been used to request parley or to surrender, the counter-opposite black flag would logically be a symbol of defiance and opposition to surrender. Historical origins The black flag represents the absence of a flag, and thus stands in opposition to the very notion of nation-states. In that light, the flag can be seen as a rejection of the concept of representation, or the idea that any person or institution can adequately represent a group of individuals. Modern anarchism has a shared ancestry with – amongst other ideologies – socialism, a movement strongly associated with the red flag. As anarchism became more and more distinct from socialism in the 1880s, it adopted the black flag in an attempt to differentiate itself.[1] Some anarchists at the time, such as Peter Kropotkin, preferred to continue using the red flag rather than adopt the black.[3] Both the black and red flags first gained notoriety for their use by Buccaneers, who were pirates of French origin operating in the West Indies. The black flag (later the "Jolly Roger") was displayed, or 'run up' the mast, first as an indication that the lives of the crew would be spared if they surrendered. If the crew resisted, the red flag would then be displayed to indicate that the offer of amnesty had been withdrawn; no prisoners would be taken (see also Jolly Roger/Pirate flag below)."
Much like the First World War 1914-1918 where trenches barbed wire machine gun nests and poison gas technologically were as defenses much more advanced that the traditional means of attack the engaged parties came to a standoff where neither side could advance much against the other, where grave and extremely large casualties were incurred for the sake of higher echelon military leaders who were under pressure from the public leaders and governments that they indeed were as the military were in control so as to prove that they were who people claimed them to be as "protectors of the country". So fell the first myths of empires and nations that the weapons of war destroy but they could not defend, just as 100 years later we are besieged by those same circumstances.
Where Stalin and George Orwell both wrote passionately on language as the key to revolution in the case of Stalin and in defense by George Orwell. Where George Orwell wrote:
"Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way"
"it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it"
"Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse."
"It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes."
Where:
"Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes."
Where the fact of the matter is that George Orwell misspoke as what he stated could be addressed especially today to Greeks, French, Chinese and in fact all nations, and in fact languages and sub cultures, alternatively natural and artificially created by which by which narrow segments of society struggle to understand others struggling segments of society.
In language that has been sliced ,diced, marinated, draw and quartered, toyed with and generally dismembered, butchered, and murdered in what is usually draw out in debates between academics, hip-hop artists, and the common folk in their use of the vernacular, dictionaries, thesaurus, reader interpretations, Boolean Logic, Psychotherapy, hypnosis and literary magazines, writers workshops and other means.
All to the the determent of society twisted, bent and distorted not by Plato's "Philosopher Kings" where:
"Philosopher kings are the rulers of Plato's utopian city of Kallipolis. If his ideal city-state is to ever come into being, "philosophers [must] become kings…or those now called kings [must]…genuinely and adequately philosophize" (The Republic, 5.473d). Plato defined a philosopher firstly as its eponymous occupation: "wisdom-lover". He then distinguishes between one who loves true knowledge (as opposed to mere experience or education) by saying that the philosopher is the only person who has access to ideas – the archetypal entities that exist behind all representations of the form (such as Beauty itself as opposed to any one particular instance of beauty). It is next and in support of the idea that philosophers are the best rulers that Plato fashions the Ship of State metaphor, one of his most often cited ideas (along with his allegory of the cave): a "true pilot must of necessity pay attention to the seasons, the heavens, the stars, the winds, and everything proper to the craft if he is really to rule a ship" (The Republic, 6.488d)."
Where what George Orwell stated was seemingly limited by him where in the most pertinent part he stated:
"These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable. One could keep all of them and still write bad English, but one could not write the kind of stuff that I quoted in those five specimens at the beginning of this article.
I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs."
(George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946)
"Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this"
Where indeed in the very first attack I sustained in raising the question of
"fascism in the United States" where I was rebuffed publicly on numerous occasions by members of the FBI CIA LEFT, where indeed they argued "How does know know what is "fascism" and "Since you don't know what Fascism is". where very well one can ask how does one how can you struggle against Fascism?" Just as they declare like many other right wingers do that "America is already socialist".
Where traveling down the"Information Highway" we meet an smart fellow named Al Gore who refuses to argue at all when it comes to matters of chads when that implies in the most bourgeois sense the importance of elections is a 100%.
Where Further yet along that information highway one alternative or another of information fraud that coaxes and cajoles on a almost limitless number of questions and variations by the mass production of delusions that time to time become the fraud by which society conceptualizes and governs itself.
In an instant world of mass media based on money and power where nihilistic the only truth is that it is all made into one big lie to be smashed and destroyed, except in that existence all matters are considered equal though they are not and can never be so.
So where is it all going?
Where humanity is pushed towards and enlightened age?
Or humanity is pushed deeper and deeper into the delusion of an indentured existence when the slave not only owes his physical existence but his mental and spiritual existence to the metaphysical and unreal artificially created for the simple purpose of deception fraud and controlled by a society called capitalism that much like a chameleon changes its appearances as a defense against predators and attack.
Where humans have learned from natural:
"Deception in animals is the transmission of misinformation by one animal to another, of the same or different species, in a way that propagates beliefs that are not true. Deception in animals does not automatically imply a conscious act, but can occur at different levels of cognitive ability.
Mimicry and camouflage enable animals to appear to be other than they are. Prey animals may appear as predators, or vice versa; both predators and prey may be hard to see (crypsis), or may be mistaken for other objects (mimesis). In Batesian mimicry, harmless animals may appear to be distasteful or poisonous. In automimicry, animals may have eyespots in less important parts of the body than the head, helping to distract attack and increase the chance of survival.
More actively, animals may feign death when they detect a predator, or may quickly conceal themselves or take action to distract a predator, such as when a cephalopod releases ink. In deimatic behaviour, a harmless animal adopts a threatening pose or displays startling, brightly coloured parts of its body to startle a predator or rival.
Some animals may use tactical deception, with behaviour that is deployed in a way that other animals misinterpret what is happening to the advantage of the agent. Some of the evidence for this is anecdotal, but in the great apes in particular, experimental studies in ethology suggest that deception is actively practised by some animals."
How naively human being are expected to believe this and that, reject that and this, as they are subjected in every emotional button in a modern capitalist age that is rapidly expanding so as to encompass many aspects of reality in which fact is readily joined with fiction. Fact and fiction that like a plague a disease has sweep through society like a biological virus.
"Most virus species have virions that are too small to be seen with an optical microscope. The average virion is about one one-hundredth the size of the average bacterium."
And today thinking has become a threat not simply for what is thought, but because of what may not be thought, what can be thought in any of a variety of variations propagated ironically by the very same people who create those thoughts in the first place in the perversity of bourgeois democracy, in the markets and thoughts that drive such markets, lives, onward and forward almost meaninglessly.
In that they no longer can count no only their own financial capital but in that they can not calculate their own intellectual and academic capital as society itself relegates them to figureheads where computers drive markets, Pushing prices up and down almost meaninglessly in the most pathetic and absurd of notions where they allow machines and systems to tell them what to do but not other people. Where the lack of human empathy is institutionalized by machines that run out of control or eventually will run world as in out of control simply because they can.
Where human beings main problem is not reaching out but failing to communicate with empathy in a logical and rational manner finds common grounds because in the biblical sense not only do they speak different languages, but in that they have been enhanced in their ability to speak different languages. In what the alienation of humanity increases and draws farther and farther apart though it is made to appear drawing closer, where also it appears to draw closer when it grows distant and detached.
Where I find no equivalent works in modern language and linguistics in the work of Noam Chomsky, as in George Orwell and Stalin, such as modern language and linguists they are not designed as such to facilitate communication in that they are funded for other purposes so as to fail where once that was not the question. To which I am indebted to George Orwell and Joseph Stalin though not to the University Departments of Linguistics at MIT, English at Brooklyn College as redundant and superfluous as much of society has out lived its purpose if that is a reason on which basis to exist.
For much like those famous for being famous they serve no real function except in a negative sense related to their callous natures, stupidity, rudeness inhumanity et cetera.
Where to find a solution language as the key to such matters has been raped, corrupted, demeaned, aggrandized, obsessive, all important, meaningless, obscure, obtuse, elusive, complex, made even more complex, stupefied, dumbed down, and in the grandeur of nihilism made all important or meaningless in the duality of its nature that was once seemingly was absent and today seems all too apparent in the media and the news in what regiments the troops (for us or against the enemy) or alternatively divides us (as in shallow romances that never live up to their expectations either).
Tortured in a language of good cops and bad cops, swaying to and fro day after day where exists as brick walls, erected brick by brick yet torn down with the touch of a button in that society deems it obsolete where once it was evolutionary and gradual, but now pressured and immediate in its concerns for simply it con not think, nor act in any real sense only in the manner it was designed much like Pavlov's dogs and behaviorism.
A behaviorism that can only be cured by a process of socialization that does not exist in the society which needs to produce it for simply they killed it regardless of the mode it might have existed casual or formal and today it is a matter of presumption and or contrivance but not sincerity at least which can be learned and understood. For under capitalism the culture of immediacy has developed where every process has come into existence based on profits, power, and greed.