Dialectical Socialism: Analyzing the Interplay and Validity of Subjectivity, Linguistics, and Emotions in Society
Decoding the Role of Society in Language & Emotions
DEFINITIONS.
By dialectic, I refer to that which is contradictory between two or more persons in a linguistic sense yet tautological: all dialectical interpretations are valid in the subjective sense, yet they conflict with the other linguistically.
By socialism, I mean that what is relative to society. In other words: societal.
A thing is tautological if it persists in sooth relative to all aspects: “It is raining or it is not raining.” is a tautology.
APHORISMS.
That which is subjected to the world is subjected to dialectical socialism; what lies within us lies within other people. We have hitherto been systematized to articulate, think, and do the same things. All heretofore systems of communication have been revolutionized: our predecessors will rebuild our system and hence the loop of it will go on indefinitely.
We become aware of our systemized communicative sources through critical and satirical exhibitions, which have been likewise critiqued and satirized by our system of communication.
X→ ⌐Y (If X exists, then Y does not exist yet.)
Y (Thereafter, Y exists)
C(X, Y) (X critiques Y )
C(Y, X) (Y's fundamental presence is a critique of X).
C(X, P) (X fundamentally critiques what was before it P)
P → Something before X (If P, then something existed before X)
A system of communication can be conveyed through linguistic sense, and often imagery that is also used to transmit concepts wherein fear is present thereof. All systems of communication intrinsically inhabit such an equation, and thus all of them fall into the ineptitude of mankind; that which posits them into falsehood. We create linguistic terms of no proper definition, and we fail to define our subjective interpretation of its definition absolutely, and thus such linguistic play becomes tautologically valid, yet conflicting: i.e. it cannot rain and not rain in the same place at the same point of time.
We may thus convey the act of disagreeing through linguistic play, although agreeing on the systematic idea thereof. We can begin to interpret the statement mentioned beforehand either in the emotional sense: that which we agree with yet put on a facade of disagreement (for whatever reason may that be). Or rather that which we solely do not understand.
PROPOSITIONS.
To subject such theory to further analysis, we can begin to question the validity of emotions themselves: mankind, in our state of society, has been systematized to love, hate, and envy, such ideas were conveyed through optics, linguistic play, language, and imagery. All are derivatives that stand on a string from the beginning of society and have been altered through each one’s environment: i.e. some feel certain emotions more than others. And we have seen recently that such emotions can be incited through linguistic play, imagery such as movies, and works of fantasylands such as literature. We can therefore attempt to remove the system of socialization, that which is also dialectical socialism, through lifelong solitary confinement. Such an act will deprive one of the possibility of understanding language, learning such systems of communication, and delving into fictitious realms that convey emotions and explain them either linguistically or visually.
To accurately explain the outcome of such an act would be impossible: though, I find that it would be nonsensical if any desire relative to our own would be present. I find that they would feel nothing until they feel something, and once they feel something, they will cease the negation of it as they would negate what they stand upon and what they clothe themselves with.
Such an experiment would require that the subject to test is excluded from all that shapes our society, thus creating an entity that can either convey new emotions or help us understand it to the full extent.