{"id":140645,"date":"2016-11-09T11:01:52","date_gmt":"2016-11-09T09:01:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/biologia_pensamiento\/?p=140645"},"modified":"2016-11-09T11:02:08","modified_gmt":"2016-11-09T09:02:08","slug":"hermosa-es-la-destruccion-de-las-palabras","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/biologia_pensamiento\/2016\/11\/09\/140645","title":{"rendered":"Hermosa es la destrucci\u00f3n de las palabras"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It\u2019s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words<\/em><\/p>\n

Orwell. 1984<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A lo largo de los a\u00f1os he intentado, sin \u00e9xito, entender lo que pueda ser la Selecci\u00f3n Natural. La conclusi\u00f3n es que la Selecci\u00f3n Natural no es nada por estar basada en un error.<\/p>\n

Darwin, en sus observaciones en las granjas, confundi\u00f3 Selecci\u00f3n con Mejora y vino a decir: Lo mismo que en la granja el agricultor o el ganadero seleccionan a sus mejores ejemplares como parentales, as\u00ed mismo la naturaleza selecciona aquellos que presentan caracter\u00edsticas ventajosas. Pero claro, aqu\u00ed queda sin definir lo que sea eso de Caracter\u00edsticas ventajosas mientras que \u00a0el agricultor o el ganadero conocen perfectamente cu\u00e1les ser\u00e1n dichas caracter\u00edsticas. La naturaleza no selecciona como lo hacen el agricultor o el ganadero. En la naturaleza no hay esa intenci\u00f3n expresa y manifiesta. No existe el progreso.<\/p>\n

La selecci\u00f3n en la granja es una parte del proceso de Mejora Gen\u00e9tica y ser\u00eda absurdo pensar que en la naturaleza existe algo as\u00ed como la Mejora Gen\u00e9tica Natural. Para ser exactos Darwin, Wallace y antes que ellos Matthew y otros debieron pensar no en Selecci\u00f3n Natural sino en Mejora Natural, lo cual es ox\u00edmoron, como tambi\u00e9n lo es Selecci\u00f3n natural.<\/p>\n

En vez de retractarse y corregir su error,\u00a0 en vez de retirar el termino selecci\u00f3n natural que es err\u00f3neo y s\u00f3lo conduce a confusi\u00f3n como hab\u00eda indicado Pierre Flourens, contempor\u00e1neo de Darwin; en vez de rechazar el error como es el deber de todo cient\u00edfico, lo que ocurri\u00f3 es verdaderamente incre\u00edble.<\/p>\n

Debido al enorme poder de Huxley y asociados se impuso la expresi\u00f3n Selecci\u00f3n Natural que no tiene ning\u00fan significado ni valor alguno para entender lo que sucede en la formaci\u00f3n de especies. Se impuso con tanta fuerza que contamin\u00f3 el significado de la palabra selecci\u00f3n, que estaba muy claro hasta entonces.<\/p>\n

Pues bien ahora hay diccionarios que proponen para la palabra Selecci\u00f3n dos alternativas: La normal y una segunda, fabulosa que traduzco del ingl\u00e9s:<\/p>\n

Un proceso en el que las influencias gen\u00e9ticas o ambientales determinan qu\u00e9 tipos de organismos progresan mejor que otros, contemplado como un factor en evoluci\u00f3n.<\/em><\/p>\n

Esta ya no es la definici\u00f3n de Selecci\u00f3n Natural sino \u00a0la de Selecci\u00f3n, as\u00ed como suena, a secas. El error se ha extendido y ha contaminado zonas m\u00e1s generales del lenguaje. Se acuerdan de lo que profetizaba Orwell en 1984: Reducir el lenguaje para reducir el pensamiento: It\u2019s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. <\/em>En ello estamos Mr Orwell.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Aqu\u00ed les dejo un fragmento de 1984 que comienza hablando del Diccionario de Neolengua (la actual Wikipedia):<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u2018The Eleventh Edition is the definitive edition,\u2019 he said. \u2018We\u2019re getting the language into its final shape-the shape it\u2019s going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we\u2019ve finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again. You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We\u2019re destroying words\u2014scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We\u2019re cutting the language down to the bone. The Eleventh Edition won\u2019t contain a single word that will become obsolete before the year 2050.<\/p>\n

\u2018He bit hungrily into his bread and swallowed a couple of mouthfuls, then continued speaking, with a sort of pedant\u2019s passion. His thin dark face had become animated, his eyes had lost their mocking expression and grown almost dreamy.<\/p>\n

\u2018It\u2019s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn\u2019t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take \u201cgood\u201d, for instance. If you have a word like \u201cgood\u201d, what need is there for a word like \u201cbad\u201d? \u201cUngood\u201d will do just as well\u2014better, because it\u2019s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of \u201cgood\u201d, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like \u201cexcel\u00adlent\u201d and \u201csplendid\u201d and all the rest of them? \u201cPlusgood\u201d covers the meaning; or \u201cdoubleplusgood\u201d if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there\u2019ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words\u2014in reality, only one word. Don\u2019t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.\u2019s idea originally, of course,\u2019 he added as an afterthought.<\/p>\n

A sort of vapid eagerness flitted across Winston\u2019s face at the mention of Big Brother. Nevertheless Syme immedi\u00adately detected a certain lack of enthusiasm.<\/p>\n

\u2018You haven\u2019t a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,\u2019 he said almost sadly. \u2018Even when you write it you\u2019re still thinking in Oldspeak. I\u2019ve read some of those pieces that you write in the Times <\/em>occasionally. They\u2019re good enough, but they\u2019re translations. In your heart you\u2019d prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don\u2019t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?<\/p>\n

\u2018Winston did know that, of course. He smiled, sympa\u00adthetically he hoped, not trusting himself to speak. Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on:<\/p>\n

\u2018Don\u2019t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one <\/em>word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we\u2019re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there\u2019s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It\u2019s merely a ques\u00adtion of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won\u2019t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc* and Ingsoc is Newspeak,\u2019 he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. \u2018Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018Except\u2014\u2013 \u2018 began Winston doubtfully, and then stopped.<\/p>\n

It had been on the tip of his tongue to say \u2018Except the proles**,\u2019 but he checked himself, not feeling fully certain that this remark was not in some way unorthodox. Syme, however, had divined what he was about to say.<\/p>\n

\u2018The proles are not human beings,\u2019 he said carelessly. \u2018By 2050\u2014earlier, probably\u2014all real knowledge of Old-speak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron\u2014they\u2019ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like \u201cfreedom is slavery\u201d when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be <\/em>no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking\u2014not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.<\/p>\n

\u2018One of these days, thought Winston with sudden deep conviction, Syme will be vaporized. He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party does not like such people. One day he will disappear. It is written in his face. (P\u00e1gs. 53-56)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                    It\u2019s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words Orwell. 1984   A lo largo de los a\u00f1os he intentado, sin \u00e9xito, entender lo que pueda ser la Selecci\u00f3n Natural. La conclusi\u00f3n es que la Selecci\u00f3n Natural no es nada por estar basada en un error. Darwin, en sus observaciones en las granjas, confundi\u00f3 Selecci\u00f3n con Mejora y vino a decir: Lo mismo que en la granja el agricultor o el ganadero seleccionan a sus mejores ejemplares como parentales, as\u00ed mismo la naturaleza selecciona aquellos que presentan caracter\u00edsticas ventajosas. Pero claro,\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":86,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[467,14293,43,541,22621,6720,450,22611,14297,14313,488,6711,14310,451,14312,513,335,452,516,22639,291,22622,503,463,494,443,512,518,22644,6714,456,6713,6726,14325,14327,14324,14326,22633,8885,2191,22595,521,14307,22585],"tags":[],"blocksy_meta":{"styles_descriptor":{"styles":{"desktop":"","tablet":"","mobile":""},"google_fonts":[],"version":4}},"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/biologia_pensamiento\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140645"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/biologia_pensamiento\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/biologia_pensamiento\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/biologia_pensamiento\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/86"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/biologia_pensamiento\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=140645"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/biologia_pensamiento\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140645\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":140648,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/biologia_pensamiento\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140645\/revisions\/140648"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/biologia_pensamiento\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/biologia_pensamiento\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.madrimasd.org\/blogs\/biologia_pensamiento\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}