6. EQUALITY and FREEDOM in a Slotted Social Space

Even though I do post a lot of words in this blog, the fact is that whatever I am speaking is quite easily understood by an average feudal language speaker. However, due to the strange difference English has from feudal languages, English native speakers might find it quite difficult to understand what I am saying.

In this post, I will deal with the issue of equality and freedom. It basically has no connection with what is usually discussed in English nations. In fact, most political and social concepts when discussed in English nations, have not much connection to the realities in feudal language nations. In fact a very topsy-turvy picture gets imagined in English. Which basically skims over the realities.

Since the theme could be big, I can only deal with the frill elements. I start from somewhere near to the heading: What has to bemanipulated in Chapter four: Engaging the gears inside the vice-like grip

In feudal languages, there is absolutely no concept of human equality in any sense of the term. Each man is big, normal or small. Depending on the language or dialect, the ambit can even go from huge to minuscule.

In English, a man is just He. Or Him. Or She. Or Her.

In feudal languages, each He or Him is fixed with an adjective that goes along with He and Him. These adjectives are something like: Huge, Very big, Big, Normal, Small, Very small, Minuscule &c.

In feudal languages, a human being can be defined in different levels of social heights. Up from towering heights, to lowly positions right inside dirty holes.

See this figure:

It is possible that no English academician or social activist who speaks on human equality has ever known or mentioned this fact. Even though there have been others who did know it, and failed to convey the information.

Now, there are various facets to this information as regards England.

One is that feudal language speakers actually mention and places each and every individual in England in one of the slots. In each slot, the individual has a different social height. Theheights is of ennobling gold. The depth is of stinking dirt.

Yet, it is a relative concept. For, I had mentioned a numerical value ambit for each level in an earlier post.

The second issue to understand is that feudal language speakers themselves are in various heights or depths. Actually in feudal languages, each person is a towering mountain, a normal mountain, a hillock, an average person, a small hole, a pit or a canyon. When one associates with any person, it is like associating with a height or a hole.

This is one of the most powerful reasons that in nations like India, there is marked social segmentation. People keep a social distance from others. The heights can dwarf the other. A depth can pull the other down. It is a terrorising possibility. For, depending on the social heights, every word in the communication changes. Routes of command, social prestige, earning capacity &c. are connected to the relative heights.

In feudal language nations, a lot of social welfare organisation work ostensibly for social development. However, at best it serves as a platform for the social activists and MSW students. For, they never ever allow the lower persons to move to higher indicant word levels. In fact, in each and every word, they position the other side in the stinking dirt.

Only during the English rule, there was a very unconcerned effort at improving the social levels of the underclass. Not because the English men were all great altruists. But because in English, it was quite difficult to perceive human indignity as well as human heights, as is quite candidly encoded in feudal languages. However, basically it is a thankless action.

For the persons who improve invariably move into the higher levels of the indicant word codes. From here, he becomes the next agent for social or individual suppression using the word codes. Moreover the upper class or upper positioned persons find the whole effort at improving the under classes as a very dangerous action with explosive possibilities. They wanted the English colonialists to somehow run off.

From feudal language perspective, English colonialism contained a huge lot of endeavours which only fools would do in feudal language social set ups. That of thinking in terms of human equality and right to freedom.

Ambit of freedom

I have the reached the domain of human freedom. I am commencing from the section: Route to freedom and liberty versus pathways to social paranoia in Chapter Four.

I had placed an image in that section.

Suppose a female (the big circle) is sitting in a room. She opens the door and comes into the outside hall. In the hall, a number of persons are sitting. The language of communication is English. She is mentioned using the words She, Her, Hers etc. and her name is also mentioned with or without a Mrs. or Miss prefixed. She is addressed using the word You. (Using the name is a very powerful coded area in feudal languages. Native-English speakers have no idea about this)

She speaks to the others using such words as You, He, His, Him, She, Her, Hers &c. In the communication, there is no usage or words that can position anyone on the golden heights or stinking dirt. It is actually a wonderful ambience. One which is not much appreciated in England at the moment.

Now think of the same scene in a feudal language setting.

She comes out of the room. Others see her. They mention her and speak to her.

It is a here that a very curious right comes to the fore. The others can choose the words for You, She, Her, Hers &c. See the image given above. The words can be that of Respect. Or it can be neutral. Or it can be that of stinking disrespect.

However, there is no expletive or profanity. Nothing that is illegal. Just a right to evaluate the other person and assign a social value. In fact, the others can discriminate her by judging her various facets. Depending on the word, she moves up or goes down. As shown in the image above.

In one South Indian language, the word She can be Avar, Ayyal, or Aval. In another language, it can be Oar, Ayaal, or Oal. In north Indian languages, there are similar ranges of words. The same can be case with Chinese, Far-east and even African languages. I can’t say for sure, for I do not know these languages. However, in an online discussion I had with a South African native language speaker, she (the other person) did admit the existence of ‘pejorative versus respect’ words in the native languages there.

I know that I should stop at this point, because the word count has exceeded 1000. However, I need to finish this topic on human freedom. There is a lot of mention on this topic.

So I will just give one image here to depict the range of human freedom and liberty that is naturally allowed. It is something that the feudal language social set up allows. Also what is made known to the other person’s mind.

Look at this picture. If this is the range of full of freedom, allowed to the person who is assigned the higher indicant words, what is the range that is there for the persons who are assigned various levels of lower indicant words?

This is a theme that requires much elaboration. However, before concluding, I might as well mention that as England starts speaking feudal languages, a strange type of inequality would start ticking over there. One which is weird and has no foundation in English. Yet, quite powerful, discernible and of disintegrative quality.

My exposition here is not on ethnic, racial or skin colour issues, but on the codes in the software called language.

I will continue…………