The Twenty-Percenters (Réflexion II)

Ebert's entry The One-Percenters talks about the issues with the greed in amassing huge fortunes through questionable business practices (and, to a certain degree, about the amusement and glorification of such greed by the US).

It's interesting to see how others deal with the fact that most of some countries' fortunes are held in the selected hands of a selected few. It reminded me of how here in Ecuador we have a similar issue. Long ago, I heard that 20% of all Ecuadorians (back then numbered around 13 million) had 80% of the country's wealth.

Maybe the data is false; the real ratios might be different. Maybe. However, they reflect a latent reality: wandering outside the pompous mansions of Samborondón is very different than walking in Pistishí or Río Verde. They are actions existing in different realities and the same country.

This trend is not unique. If there is something the heads and figureheads of XXI Century Socialism (Socialismo del siglo XXI) are correct is that the bulk of the financial richness of their countries is property of a small elite.

This discrepancy is of global proportions, considering that most of the World's money is held by the "rich" countries (that, in turn, are outnumbered by the "developing" ones).


One wonders what will be the effects of such discrepancies. During the Age of Imperialism and in the midst of the Industrial Revolution, a similar trend could the seen. They lead (between other reasons, obviously) to the Great War. That was almost a century ago. Where will we end, then?

Réflexion I

If the downfall is too deep,
one forgets that one's sinking.
It feels like flying.
Until you hit the ground.

Ingratitud

Todos los conceptos básicos tienen definiciones compejas y abstractas. Definir “orbital atómico” es mucho más fácil que “arte”. Solo hay que abrir el libro correcto (o algún equivalente) y la respuesta, inmovible, está servida.

¿Cómo se puede escribir, reflexionar, comentar sobre experiencias basándose en definiciones que no están sólidamente definidas?

¿Qué pasa con los términos incompatibles, contrarios, negativos, opuestos, inversos? ¿Es más fácil definir “odio” que “desamor”?

Escribir bien para desahogarse es imposible:

Una buena redacción (de cualquier tipo) requiere de pensamientos racionales, lógicos, que puedan permitir al escritor expresarse. Cualquier emoción fuerte e innecesaria debe ser suprimida para conseguir el producto deseado.

Un buen desahogo es una corriente de ira que se tiene que desaguar (habrán estudios que prueban y desaprueban la veracidad de la propuesta anterior; por ahora, jugaremos con la connotación retórica de este). Fluye con fuerza y se alimenta de esta.

El proceso de escribir y editar secuencialmente es casi inevitable cuando se escribe en medios electrónicos. Sin embargo, gracias a esta garantía (podemos editarlo todo) se puede escribir más allá del libre pensamiento, más allá de las palabras, llegando al sentimiento.

En este universo dualista, no podemos tener una verdad falsa y una mentira cierta al mismo tiempo sobre una misma premisa.

Entonces, ¿porqué es que estos blogs lo logran?

-----

Intenté librarme de esta ira con una rápida sucesión de palabras.
Intenté meditar esta acción de escribirle a gritos al vacío virtual.

-----

Yo sé que la causa es la ingratitud.

Pero
¿Puede ser colectiva?
¿Porqué?
¿Cómo puedo afirmar algo sin saber a ciencia cierta su significado?

¿Qué es la ingratitud?

The Beginning

Solitude is within the preloaded emotions humans must feel. Of course, debate arguing in favor and against will exist as long as there are debaters. Nevertheless, the fact that solitude has always existed is indisputable. Does this support my thesis?

The sole idea of making a film is too time consuming. Nevertheless, just thinking about it makes me go away for a little time, barely enough to forget of all the obligations and start believing in a promising future so distant from reality.

Why are people lonely? (No, bad word choice,) Why are some people more lonely than others? Is it that every school needs a lone wolf? Is it that, for every friend group, there must be an "excluded" one? Why is it only one?
Is it?

I'm trying to live a filmmaking world while I must live of hybridization problems with the Octet Rule and college hunting. Is that the cause of my loneliness?

Why is loneliness universal. There is no universal sign for gratitude, but everyone can recognize it. Why loneliness goes unrecognized?

As of nowadays, I'm in the debate of time. I'm reading a novel too far away from my country, too old for my time, too great for my age. And yet, I believe that it can become my first film and one of the best. Loneliness is opening me the path for achieving achieving this goal, and yet it kills me in the "real" world.

Is an excruciating loneliness beneficial? In the long run? Anytime? Why is it that, even if I try, I cannot overcome the devastating loneliness?

In Latin America (specifically in Ecuador), a social culture, can there be existentialist problems? Nihilist-like loneliness? Logical pessimism? Am I the exception to the rule that proofs it or the example that proofs the falseness of the proposition?

Or nothing of this matters?