“It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” {Luke 17:2, King James Version]
The problem is two-fold. One… there is such a thing as SAaotaC (Sexual Abuse at or to[ward] a Child; pronounced: ‘say-o-tatch’). Two… pseudo-scientific abusage of legal and professional semantics (the study of the meanings of words) is being used as an embolstering mechanism by those perpetrating and perpetuating, even unwittingly… and even on a societal level, SAaotaC.
This essay dismantles the current dysfunctionally incorrect use of semantics, and replaces those pseudo-scientific language abusages with functionally correct semantics.
This might at first seem like a daunting and even impossible task. But the good news is, the Latin language is THE dead language. And this particular dead language is based predominantly upon another dead language… Ancient Greek, which together just so happen to be the greatest tool modern science has on its tool belt.
Because of the Latin language’s perma-dead status, we are able to communicate abstractly; which means we have a language we can rely on to communicate in the knowledge that whatever word we use is going to be understood equally by everybody familiar with the language. This is because each word has a definition, just like a number has a value. The value is the same no matter who uses it. There is no subjectivity with regards. The formula 1+1 may seem as though it is 77, but it will always = 2, and no amount of subjectivity can change that. It is objectivity, no interpretation, only a definitional value. In usage, that value is correct (for example, 1+1=2); in abusage, it is incorrect (for example, 1+1=77).
And so, despite how many advocates or groups attempt * to dumb-down the entry-level scientific community by using Latin words outside of their definitional correctness… their correctness remains, and thus the underlying value is not changed by incorrect usage; an intentional incorrect “usage” of Latin… is an abusage! And the abusage of Latin is widespread among the pseudo-scientific community. In all true fact, it is their one and only weapon against a scientifically enlightened world. Anyone who uses a Latin word outside of its immutable value is not a scientist at all… but an artist… and if intentional, a con-artist in particular.
* (all attempts are failures; as opposed to tries… wherein at least one try in a series of lessons learned from experiment, will eventually produce success… and this is because of the completely objective nature of abstraction, empiricism, the scientific method… something works because that possibility is true of the universe, or it doesn’t work because the laws that govern the universe do not allow it)
For comparative reasons, I note there are three kinds of values for words.
1. objective = definitions (aka inherent); to the right of the equal sign of these words does not change; they are the building blocks of universal abstraction, empiricism, the scientific method. They are used to describe things, typically used in conjunction with each other to create compound words.
2. subjective = meanings (aka attributive); to the right of the equal sign of these words changes all the time depending on who is relating his or her personal experiences in life. These words can be dead language words, but not Latin; anybody who uses a Latin word in this capacity is probably just under-educated, but with regards to this discussion, has a pseudo-scientist political agenda wishing to alter what is regarded legal by way of the psychiatric community… which is, because as a species we are inherently biased towards being 100% scientific in “studying” ourselves… comprised of pseudo-scientists. This is why psychology degrees are Arts degrees, not Sciences degrees. Whereas, psychiatry is a specialized function of a MD (Medical Doctor) or a DO (Doctor of Osteopathy), and requires at least 12 years of education, including medical school and residency, to become. Thus, it is shameful that the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) uses language based upon the pseudo-scientific abusage of Latin. For this reason, modern psychiatry is nothing more than a pseudo-scientifically controlled * entity, which needs to 1) get on board with definitionally correct Latin usage, or, 2) be relegated to the status of art, as is psychology.
* (mostly pharmaceutical companies and abominative behavioral groups with legality agendas)
In addition to straight-up deviating from the true fact 1+1=2, the pseudo-scientists utilize another tactic to achieve their dumbing-down agenda. They use English * words in the capacity of situations requiring Latin. This is very widespread, and I believe is done intentionally to make conversation regarding the fight of good versus evil more difficult for those not gifted with the higher intelligence required to appreciate the fight for what it actually is. One such example is, using the words “wrong 1” and “incorrect 2“… synonymously.
* (not Monglish {Modern English, that hodge-podge of various linguistic and other cultural influences serving the purpose of allowing the common man to communicate simply}, but Anglo-Saxon {= Old English = English, intact and fully functional} a very much alive, living, breathing, growing language providing for communication of is… as well as… meaning {subjective expression})
1 “wrong” (English; opposite of right, a Latin equivalent is “inappropriate” (opposite of appropriate) The word “wrong” is different from the word “incorrect” because it goes further than incorrect, as it necessarily includes that what is wrong causes, condones, or contributes suffering of any kind unto anyone. It is never right to do wrong. It is wrong to do harm. It is wrong to do wrong. There might be circumstantial exceptions, but those are beyond the scope of this essay.
2 “incorrect” (Latin; opposite of correct, is not equivalent directly to any English word) The word “incorrect” never implies wrong, as it is used in reference to things that are simply not congruent with the sum of a things parts. To do something incorrectly never causes, condones, or contributes suffering of any kind unto anyone. If it does, then it is a wrongdoing, not a mere incorrectness.
3. is = is (expoundative, or… somewhere in the midway between inherent and attributive, aka co-creative); the opposite of nothing = nothing, unguarded universal truth understood by very few, a discussion for an other time and place. But I will say, that like Latin, there are rules that keep the evolution of words in these languages on the right track, so to speak. And the same pseudo-scientific community is attacking. For example, the abusage of the words “may” and “might”, which are now being used by the status quo synonymously. This is a very recent change, by the way, at least in my experience. I distinctly recall being taught by my elementary school English teacher the difference between “what is permissible” (may), and “what is possible” (might). This example is a tactic the pseudo-scientific community uses whereby dumbing-down the status quo, at least on a subconscious level, into considering that because something is possible it should also be permissible, and vice versa. An abusage truly despicable!
And so with this understanding… I begin.
Only TOPCers (TOPC Members) can access the remainder of this post.
For more information, please contact the TOPCer who brought you here.
OR… fill out the form below.
IMPORTANT: ONLY fill out the form below IF you DON’T have a password + link to the WELCOME page of the TOPCer who brought you here.
WHY? TOPCers work hard to get people to their WELCOME page, so please use the TOPCer’s link you were given. Thank you!
MEMBERS: When people use the form below rather than a TOPCer’s WELCOME page link… they will be emailed a link to the next TOPCer’s WELCOME page on the list… from oldest TOPCer to newest and back again.
The thing about the unknown is… it requires fear to wonder about, and courage to get to know… but always, always, always… start before you’re ready!
{TBoan; and although perhaps something Chris McCandless would’ve said… there is truth and wisdom to it in contexts pertaining to which we are certain}
