|Brian Joseph Johns|
As you got older, if you wanted to be able to use more words, you'd have to buy them. If you wanted to retain the words that you'd already known, you'd have to be careful not to lose them. So your means of expression through language would be directly linked to your income or your ability to procure new words and your success in not losing the words you already had. As you grew older, you'd notice that some people had the use of more words and not necessarily because they'd worked to earn the money necessary to buy them, but had inherited them or started out wealthy enough to have a full vocabulary early in life.
Others who had even lesser than you had almost no vocabulary except for the simplest of words and only enough to communicate very simple concepts like hungry, thirsty, exposure and perhaps not many more. They were even less able to express themselves than others in the world and even yourself.
Going out into the world you'd notice this division amongst people, and based upon their lack of words they'd be perceived as being slow, stupid or some other equally stigmatic label. Their opportunities would be severely limited and others would likely walk all over them. Those with the most words could communicate in ways that would ensure that they remained at the top of the food chain and social order. The more philanthropic of those with the most words would find that their ability to assist the less fortunate or impoverished of vocabulary would be stifled because their excessive resources would be devoured by others on the way "down" to help the less fortunate, and that is certainly not to say that charities or philanthropy on the part of anyone who undertakes it are a bad thing. It is to say that the very device of making our means of expression and vocabulary limited by our immediate capital has inherently flawed consequences.
Information and social trends move throughout society on the basis of such communication and ensuring that everyone can express themselves regardless of their income or capital is in essence of the utmost importance to society as a whole. So why would we link one of the most ambiguous and expressive languages that we possess to our income and capital? Of course I'd be speaking about the language of colours, those wonderful things that make up the whole of our visual sensory spectrum and without even one the world would be a much deprived and lesser place.
This is certainly not an attack on the fashion industry, one of the cornerstones of personal expression through the use of colours. This is more about the fact that if one of our key (underground) languages is linked directly to our means to avoid environmental exposure, then that would mean that the less fortunate and the lesser of wardrobe would be limited in their vocabulary and thus means of expression. Not only that, because most people do not possess multiple wardrobe items related directly to weather such as multiple winter coats, winter hats, winter boots etc those people would have a much smaller and limited vocabulary in terms of colours than those with more income or capital to buy such items.
I myself being a somewhat impoverished writer, artist and programmer am limited to my choice of wardrobe in terms of the language of colours. When winter comes around, I only have one coat and it is black (with a gray interior). That means that my vocabulary of colours is more limited than that of others during the winter despite the fact that I have no such limits in language or otherwise. I'm grateful though for even that one coat for in having that limit, it has given me a greater understanding of this topic and its social effects.
Likewise I don't have many pairs of pants, so often I wear blue jeans (durable and good value for the money). I'm certain that there are many other people in this same predicament and this is not a complaint. Its expression. So when I want to say what I mean and mean what I say, I'm often beset by people who want things the other way around which is often symbolized by the colour blue. So in other words so that you say the opposite of what you mean and mean the opposite of what you say. Something of which I'm not a big fan. Sincerity before polarity I always say.
That's an example of how vocabulary can be used again you when a bunch of people disagree with what you say. If you already have a small visual vocabulary (via colours) then you're already almost illiterate. This is something that I think has a great impact upon many people and that those people perhaps do not understand what is going on in this regard, because they're not even aware that their colour vocabulary is limited by the standard of others. In the past, we'd have tackled this problem as a form of illiteracy. Perhaps the reasons that we don't so much do this now is because of the power this language affords those ill of intent.
Some practitioners of this language of colours and shades make it into a game to determine the relevant factors of one's life, based upon the shades black and white. Depending upon which of the two shades win, will determine which of the two has more relevance in relation to what you expressed or revealed and what you kept secret.
So if the white shade wins then it is deemed that whatever you expressed is more relevant to your life and the truth than what you kept secret. If the black shade wins, then it is deemed that whatever you retained and kept secret is more relevant. In this sort of social game, the ideology that practices it takes pride in getting at the secrets of their targets so they know both sides of the outcome.
An example of this social game in action could be played with regard to myself actually revealing this game to the public. The ideology who plays it could then make it a game of whether I was more on the white shaded side or the black shaded side and depending upon whatever the outcome was, that would determine what was more relevant for the day, what I expressed or what I kept secret.
The same ideology also deems it that these shades mean that if you reveal something, you lose it to someone else who can keep it secret better than yourself. This same social game applies to your own accomplishments! That means that this ideology can literally take you for everything that you produce using the same symbolism of black shade and white shade. Take everything good you produce while leaving you with everything bad they do as a personal burden for you to carry for them. In that sense, it means that you'd then be treated by others as if you were responsible for their burdens. Over time, losing the credit for your own efforts and accumulating the burden for the bad efforts of others can get quite heavy and wearisome on a person, which I can tell you from personal experience.
This of course can also mean that what you don't use, you lose to this ideology. So if you don't use a skill or an ability you have for some time, that you lose it to someone else that is more active with it than yourself. What that translates to for this ideology is that any notoriety arising from your efforts go to the credit of this other person according to this ideology, which doesn't seem to make sense to me and likely many other people. I mean, its been shown that if you don't ride a bicycle for decades that you still retain the ability to ride one almost as well as when you stopped riding them in the first place.
The black and white shades, can also follow a ideology whereby they refer to a violent mindset versus a peaceful one. Hence some of this ideology will attempt to provoke their victims towards hateful or violent reactions by repeated abuse of their victim in order to force them over to the "hateful" or "violent" side of the fence. Some of the people who practice this ideology will attack and harass their victims for years upon end just to arrive at that goal. This is certainly something with which I disagree and I'm sure that many others do as well. Perhaps it is ideologies such as this that result in violent attacks or mass shootings conducted by one or two perpetrators. Not to excuse their actions or even to justify them, but maybe these people were victims of such social abuse themselves and decided to act in a violent manner against their social aggressors instead killing innocent victims who have nothing to do with such socially abusive ideologies. In this sense people who conduct such abuse could be the very cause of these violent outbursts and the resulting deaths.
Something to think about for the future.
Brian Joseph Johns