I shared that Kessler guy, because with all his flaws (who's flawless here?) it's an
outstanding work, whether it is correct or
not, and it would be a bummer if it's lost, because it
could be the biggest loss in that Fomenko scandal, when some
historic works were made by mathematician and published in the
most prominent soviet university and later historic department
labelled them as pseudoscientific (look who's talking!) but
failing to attach any constructive criticism to his work for at
least three years (I was watching that situation closely) maybe
even five (so long ago it was, that my
memory is not sure about this digit in it) and only after
let's say 3 to 5 years an engineer or a mathematician (memory also doubts what version is true) began
public intellectual battle with Fomenko, and I wasn't able to
follow their conversation, because whether their argumentations
required some level of competence I didn't feel like achieving
educating myself, or just the interest to this situation faded
with time, because what the situation taught me is that fuck
academia, those clerks don't know shit, so I was liberated to
begin my work from scratch without leaning onto the academia
speers. And the same rationalization could be beyond Kessler's
attempt to group all the dictionary into lesser semantic groups
without bringing reconstructed forms and structures made before
them (they can always be wrong, and me personally, I don't believe
in established language families, because of how russian and
japanese are similar. If I want to preserve the family structure
which is wide accepted today, I should attach japanese to slavic
languages, but it would be so insane and actually why not to
combine chinese to english because of some similarities? wo &
we and short words and simple grammar, that probably were the two
huge branches we initially were on, but cross-culture
communications made russian drift further from japanese and closer
to english, just as japanese drifted towards chinese, so it's not
a tree, but a jar of aminoacids the way I imagine it.
But after saying all that I decide to not dig into his theory
until I develop my own dictionary and let it be better than his,
with much less semantic clasters.
I dare to mention Fomenko more and more explicitly in these texts
probably because I grew more hostile towards academia, but also
because a friend of mine mentioned him as a freak not worth
mentioning and I asked him why exactly doesn't he like what he
said, and I couldn't receive a coherent answer to that, he simply
accepted that academia is always right. Even though history of
science here and again prove otherwise.
So about the freaks, we should distinguish between them: there are
obvious freaks like Chudinov who's probably there to smear some
authentic artifacts like that Bornholm alphabet runestone; then
there are those freaks who are whether fools or trolls like
Oreshkin; then there are some clinically insane freaks like
Lukashevich. Those evaluations are purely subjective, but they
allow to understand where I stand.
The other group of linguistic freaks are Vashkevich and Dragunkin,
who pull some outrageous conclusions (here I
speak as an academic golem. I should be more specific. And more
specific is that they claim that one nations were born by the
others: Dragunking writes that japanese language is spawn of
russian, which is rather outrageous, but should be explored why
does he think it is, it could be hidden in the folds of his
texts, where I haven't looked. Vashkevich writes that russian
language itself is a spawn of arabic, which is even more
outrageous, but doesn't contradict the previous claim made by
his colleague) out of their observations, but the
observations itself may be rather useful for those who learn
foreign languages (Vashkevich compare arabic words to greek,
russian and whatever else, I didn't even read him (and now I did and he's not as bad as his fans
sang me: I just had a look into this text about bees and I found it
rather fascinating, even though I stumbled at how he connected
bee to comma, but then I understood that thus he united several
"dictionary articles" into one рассказ, because fasila sounds as
russian пчела, but here's where academic minds lose him (loose him) because that link is rather
weak to be called etymologic, even though then he brings some
additional links in the form of that other comma standing at the
sixth position looks somewhat like inverted 6, but hardly many peer-reviewers have passed through
that one freaky part. But to speak seriously, he uses
associative thought which is pretty much the opposite of the
abstract thought more commonly used in science, thus his work
can be some form of poetry, some mnemonic stories at best, but
seriously it's not science) Dragunkin compares russian
to japanese and to english. All that can be incredibly useful as
mnemonic tools. upd: I read some of
Vashkevich, he's way freakier than Dragunkin (here I spoke after I read what his fans
write, I'm such a prick sometimes. as I said before, I read
some of it, and he's not far from Dragunkin, he's actually
interesing (until he goes way too far and you get enough of
that crap) and I forgot how awkwardly childish Dragunkin's
rants can be. look who's speaking! yeah, free minds are
freaky, are they in free key) so freakery is some range
(по ранжику, о жир потёк. он дано течёт,
это море жира. и абажуров из кожи) Dragunkin is
alright until he begins to theorize, his dictionaries are
directy homonyms (like わた、【綿】 in
japanese and вата in russian. another わ
た is water: 海、【わ
た】) which is much better
(more abstract) than Vashkevich's associative mnemonic stories)
Fomenko also belongs to that second group of semi-correct
scientific marginals, and the most prominent reason of his
theories not being taken seriously (I'm not even talking of them
being accepted) is that he doesn't have education of a historian.
(but Vashkevich not only has some linguistic
education, he also has some scientific degree in the field,
which doesn't stop him from making some not exactly
scientifically acceptable propositions) this chapter is на
заплате заплата, а потому я перепишу его начисто когда-нибудь.
But seriously, if prominent mathematicians use some previously
published tools and models to the structure of historic data, that
alone demands a proper outlook from scientific society, which
didn't happen when he was relatively alright, and now there's even
less chance of that being done properly, for that guy whether went
trolling or was sold out or whatver happened to him, that the
level of his scientific thought dropped from mathematical
modelling to mere speculations. Or it could be because it's easier
to notice what is wrong with the state of affair happening at the
moment, but one has ever-growing tendency to fall short when (s)he
tries to describe as it was or what's supposed to be done in the
future. Me myself, I'm definitely in that second group of freaks,
and some of my assumptions are probably dead wrong, but those main
elements of this theory the structures and some other findings may
persist and sustain. And I actually except
(expect to accept) some
academic recognition in the following three years or so. Even
though I was recently told that Ignaz Semmelweis
was disregarded for awhile because MDs are psychopaths: see
Semmelweis effect. Gregor Mendel's founding of genetics was
completely ignored for thirty something years I began
that path believing that anything can be achieved in mere ten
years, also they say history goes faster than before, so I expect
it to take society ten years to recognize what it's all about. And
it's been over six years now since I went public, so..
Awesome stuff waves of the internets bring my way
Yeah, no use to reform
the academia, leave it completely, create your own castle on
clearer spot and firmer ground.
My next task on this way is to create some information resource,
where all ALL the information on the planet earth.
I will be in freaky nebulas, because I
refered to people standart academia doesn't dare to mention. I
will be their weak bond to some obscure linguistics of more
academic figures, with all the respect academic, my punk rock is
justified, but as I said in the very beginning, some of them are
alright, some of them are very alright (who?), but i don't know
any very alright individual in linguistics, even myself is too
weird to be a king, and above whom? fuck them, gosh. But they
milk go-t, but insane militaries milk the goat much better, it
doesn' make me want' to participate in their deeds. But what if
we make military actions agains us ineffective? they are not
interested, because they want to reserve the possibility to
successfully bomb their own population if they must, for
themselves. or am I just way too cynical?
and here I realize (a couple of months later actually, I'm half
through this volume now) that business is the new science. Those
cool guys who dropped unis they made it not in academia, but in
business.
You can change the world via business too. And I watched peterson my man no matter what (or
is he? but I'm still indecissive on this one,
because the last time whites chimped out it fucked us all up
real bad. pepe the frog could be the psy-0p all along, that frog
meme began as disgusting frog, when freaks shared some
disgusting things they did or imagined like advice-dog one,
advice dog gave that new standart I think, many used it and that
disgusting frog too, and it grew into numerology and politics
when somebody found that frog was some godlike figure. they call
him kek, even though heket is her name) he explained that
different people have different roles in business: conscientious
people are good as managers, and creative people are good at
bringing up new ideas. You need managers when you know what
you're doing. You need creative people when you don't know what
you're doing. I will practice what I just preached, because I
was the one who motivated my mom to make business and I wasn't
much needed ever since, I guess she knows what to do, she has
some creativity herself, even though she's very conscientious
unlike me who is irresponsible as fuck.
it will be all rewritten according to further understanding of the
subject.