All natural languages, as spontaneous rulers, contain a collective, centuries-old wisdom that enables efficient and multi-faceted communication primarily due to the fact that it reflects the nonsubjective nature of reality and its essential categorical distinctions. Hence, all revolution – in order to take the man's access to this wisdom – must conflict with the artificial and pushy fresh Testament.
One of the above mentioned and absolutely crucial distinctions that are present in many natural languages is the division into the human planet and the animal world, that is, on the 1 hand into the planet of reason, conscience and will, and on the another hand into the planet of instinct, attachment and reflex. In this regard, the Polish people have a highly developed ontological intuition: the man is called, and the animal is called, the man is cohabited, and the animal burns, the man is kindled, and the animal is tickled, and yet the man dies, and the animal dies.
This cardinal division was referred to late by a popular linguist who was 1 of the last "public intellectuals" in a good sense (i.e. competent specialists in his discipline who were able to share their cognition with the wide public in a reliable and accessible manner). However, while the message he made was, it would seem, obvious, so not saying anything in peculiar about the state of society, the consequence to it from a large part of viewers was very significant. It is adequate to mention that, among the negative reactions, the comparatively subdued ones, even among those who have long appreciated the public activity of the mentioned figure, took the form of pre-school sultry with the words "from now on I don't like you" or "what can you know about it?" However, little toned reactions are not worth quoting.
This consequence is so nothing but another of the infinite series of illustrations of what is the most characteristic feature of the present alleged developed societies, which is never adequate to remind, due to the fact that without its understanding, it is impossible to realize the stale situation in which these societies are located. This feature is infantilism, which is not so much a revolutionary rebellion against the nonsubjective nature of reality, but post-strevolutional sulking at the fact that reality has any nonsubjective nature, combined with, it seems, immanent inability to realize this fact.
In another words, a global "developed society", over the past fewer 100 years overtook by a series of political, economic, cultural and spiritual revolutions, as well as constantly fed by their cumulative remains, for the first time in past feels unnatural in contact with the nature of the planet that inhabits. However, as the nature of the planet will not by definition give way to the grimaces of its inhabitants – especially before the grimaces taking the form of not large revolutionary projects, but simply childish foot-tipping – it is no wonder that in fresh times man is increasingly eluded from the hands of not only the ability to "make himself a subject", but besides the ability to make himself subject to himself, that is to say, to live in harmony with that, individual is, and not with who you want to be, and who you cannot be.
In conclusion, the infantilistic conviction of the "unnaturalness of nature", which is besides reflected in the erosion of eternal linguistic intuition, can be called with full ontological work a blind alley, culminating in many centuries of "revolutionary" momentum towards it. And while it is possible to retreat from it as rapidly as possible and whether it can be done by purely human effort at all, it is simply a substance which everyone must think personally, but the awareness of the situation and its nonsubjective character should be attended as shortly as possible by the widest masses. Otherwise, reality will appeal to man much faster than he will deal with his unreality – and this is the last thing we should want for.
Jakub Bożydar Wiśniewski
