The unparalleled degradable possible of ubiquitous infantilism stems from the fact that it is not simply a purely emotional attitude to reality. Classical romantics were besides in their attitude to the planet purely emotional, but their emotionality was deep, reflective and consciously alienated – i.e. it was based on a thorough and severe knowing of the unique position and function of man in the universe.
Meanwhile, infantilism is the emotionality of a tiny, hysterical and assertive, providing an unlimited number of excuses to escape the unique position and function of man in the universe along with its unique perspectives, responsibilities and obligations. Furthermore, any specified act of escapism is calculated to induce in the escapee the inexpensive complacency associated with the belief that it is doing not its own devaluation, but the appreciation of the "marginal" elements of reality.
And so, for example, animal infantilism humanizes animals, objectifies man by empowering the Earth and demeans man intellectually by machines, and thus degrades man by exalting everything inhumane, while giving him simultaneously in this demeanor of cleavage, quasi-decaded satisfaction. It is simply a fundamental mistake, therefore, to believe that childhood – even the most mass and programic – is by definition something comfortingly innocent and, in fact, harmless. It is rather the other due to the fact that it is based on wearing harm to oneself in a costume of consoling innocence, and thus on definitely impregnating itself into the anticipation of seeing any problem in its attitude.
In summary, irresponsible chatter about “dog moms”, “cat dads”, “friendly robots” and “criminals against nature” should not be played amphibians, according to the old rule that the demolition of the planet is strictly conditioned by the failure of the language that describes it. Only then can the planet be in good condition erstwhile its most crucial resident is full aware of the importance of his position, so that he can make the best of it.
* * Oh, * *
A well - known proverb says that ruining the planet starts with ruining the language. In a time of mediocre sensitivity to the word, however, there are besides times erstwhile the corrupting of the planet does not begin, and ends with the spoiling of the language: i.e. the degree of the corruption accomplished becomes apparent to wider social groups only erstwhile the language begins to undergo fundamental dysfunction. Then, what is significant, the most spectacular manifestations of this state of affairs may turn out to be non-principal thinkers, moralists, socialists or clergymen, only professionally reliable linguists – and those who feel full members of the “mainstream”.
In another words, it may be that the vast crowds of people find it amazing that for a long time they have been “saying prose” not erstwhile a courageous vet abruptly shouts, “the king is naked”, only erstwhile a media-involved linguist abruptly says, “the king is not the same as the rabbit” or “the bare does not mean cheaply dressed.” And then it turns out that the troublemakers have not only been at the gates for a long time, but have pushed them for a long time, and that the average man remains to choose whether to join them or to defy them categorically: opposition expressed even in careful care to "give things a word" and to "flexible language to say all that the head will think." Only then can the head truly think, and not passively process what in it would secretly put 1 or another "engineer of souls": this is an absolutely crucial skill for all those who do not want to lose their soul.
Jakub Bożydar Wiśniewski
