Through out my education, teachers thrived on making themselves an enigma of sorts. What I mean is that they almost delighted in seeming to have information greater than you and thus had some sort of legitimacy by the fact that they were imcomprehensible. Afterall, we were paying large amounts of our lives, in terms of time and money to learn what they know.
It is clear to me, so I imagine anyone who wants to know, because I am often given to know things that are obvious. I do not know why nor have I cared enough to find out what is really going on enough to step out of my own system and ask what is really going on, but what is clear is the same approach is being used as was in school, what seems is purposefully hard to understsnd and the harder one tries to unravel the knotted yarn, the more knots there seem to be.
Probably, the biggest stumbling block id they way we are learning to communicate. We all seek the same medium, words, and reading is taughtand that is great it opens is to a whole new world of understanding, but um don't children already have a much larger world of understanding but, they want to be like us and know what we do, at what cost, though?
I wish we could add languages to what we already have instead of overwriting what is better to begin with.
Anyhow, what started this all was my anger or frustration at others for using and misusing words to mislead. It is like misinformation is being purposfully used, I just do not know why, I only understand why it was used in college and high school. And I assume it is to be a sort of leverage.
And so the main thing I take issue with is those who do understand pat themselves on the back and use understanding as a sort of leverage, in turn: I get it, and everyone should so you are stupid because you do not understand this language.
AH HAH! I've got it. It is another subcultyre within our culture using the same words but communicating something different, and finding it humorous that the majority are taking things at face value. I wish I had an example to explain!
Ok, here goes:
I say, "I am going to chop off you head if you do not love me." But, clearly I would never do such a thing so it means something else. So, analysts get people outraged about how I condone terrorists because of my flagrant use of beheading. Then, another group opposes saying the far worse sin is my attempt to engender love through fear, when clearly no one could love without a head. So, I sit back and laugh at the chaos when captain obvious steps up to save the day calling the majority stupid cause I never ever intended to literally chop of anyone's head, it is a euphimism or threat, not to be taken at face value, unless it works.
Maybe I ought to stop, I am confusing myself even more...