(1/2)
Language, accounting, math - they're all the same in their basics. The destruction of language is thus predictable. Including the declaration of discussion on it, with people who are unfit to discuss it, and are actually just destroying discussion itself.
–
An account uses an artificial protocol, specifically designed to mirror the natural world, advance when it does so, and destruct when it doesn't. To do this, the natural world is unseen by the protocol abstraction, and requires a mapping. Outside this unseen physical pairing / coupling of the protocol to the physical, there is of course the mathematics of 'traveling without moving', which is also governed by the protocol itself. To be effective, the protocol has its own symbols, which are serialized to make up its own targets, and its own operations/instructions to compute past and predicted firstly, and then move wisely in the present/current. In accounting specifically, these symbols are 0123456789 and operators expressively.
Language does the same thing. This is not new. This is natural. A given language uses abcdefghijk… . From these abstract symbols, physical phonetics, their rules, and their exception/edge cases are paired / coupled. From these abstraction-physical coupling symbols, the mathematics of serializing them are created, both to convey tokens of physicals and to convey destinations of those physicals. That is, the name-destination is made up of the abstract symbols of abcdefghij.. as well as the transactions are also literalized out by the same abstract symbols of abcdefghij.. . From this physicals are assigned, casted, negotiated, settled, refuted, weighed against the rules, etc.
Regardless of the implementation of account or language, the mathematics of a given protocol exist in both symbols, statements, and operators -and- are all designed to continuously and iteratively map to some physical actuals and physical actions. These must be continuously re-discovered and re-innovated, which must be satisfied before reaching new-discovery and new-innovation in all cases, else deletion, corruption, misallocation, or otherwise imaginary coupling occur. No one has a problem with this.
Unless, after all the math is in, you are left with just your self, and your self is wanting. Then there are many options and paths available when reaching this point, provided that you can see past and present, having both time-space and memory-space, remembered with as much completeness, correctness, and consistent consequence as possible. To the degree that you don't meet this provision, and your wanting still wants, and the net of the two together form a remaining balance, you act. What is coming to light is: (((some))) first target language that has built up a worth of physicals, they then exploit the physical and subsequently have already altered the coupling of serialized symbol accounted to actuals, and then that debt is discovered. When that debt is discovered, the language, priorly built up, is now agreed destroyed.
That is to say, the destruction of accounted abstractions to actuals occurs before they are visible, because the abstraction/words were never the target anyway. This event sequence happens with children, which are reprimanded for violations of accountability, which only works because the children eventually reach system-provision self-providence mastery (ie the dependent improves to autocratic, and necessarily past that, in order to iterate and now fund another dependent). This event sequence is violated, with perpetual children defined by not-able to improve further (eg any Asian or any African in a White system) or crucially also by perpetual systemics not-able to attain system providence further (eg misappropriated too many dependents, depletion of physicals/actuals). It is when failure has already occurred, and correction is disputed, that language eventually registers that the serialization of a set of symbols is now bankrupt, and the meaning is destroyed.
..