(Versio 𝛒.1.1 · LINGUAE: LATINA / ANGLICA)

LAT

De Mechanismo Inversionis Significativae

Cur adjectio epitheti "sacri" violentiam non purgat

Loquela hodierna saepe adhibet dolum simplicem: ad actum immorale additur epitheton honorificum.

Ita «violentia» fit «sacrum officium», et “«occupatio» fit «salus».

Formaliter, hoc in lingua licet.
Sed sensus manet idem.

Sicut si cibo corrupto titulus “praestantissimus” infigatur — substantia non mutatur.

Potestne stuprum legitimum fieri, si sacrum vocetur?

Minime. Omnis violentia in subiectum est destructio.

Et, quamvis mutetur verbum, rei natura non mutatur.

Idem valet de «bello sacro».

Si bellum est extensio violenta potentiae, potest esse necessarium, ideologicum aut defensivum — non tamen sacrum. Sacritas non nascitur ex magnitudine ruinae.

Sacrum, ut categoria, non ad externum actum pertinet, sed ad fontem internum.

Tunc solum, cum pugna intus in subiecto geritur — pro discernendi retentione, contra impetum destructivum, pro ordine conservando —
dici potest vera sacritas.

Cum vero «sacrum» pro tegmine aggressionis adhibetur — non est sacrum, sed inversio sensus.


Conclusiones:

1. Epitheton “sacrum” non potest legitimare destructionem.

2. Inversio sensus vinculum inter verbum et essentiam dissolvit.

3. Quaestio non moralis est, sed linguae claritatis.

4. Ubi inversio fit norma, ius amittit fundamentum.

5. Discretio est unica via ad nexum inter sensum et actum servandum.



EN

TRACTATUS II
On the Sacred and the Perverted

On the Mechanism of Semantic Inversion

Why adding the word “sacred” does not cleanse violence

Modern manipulative language often uses a simple trick: to attach a noble-sounding epithet to an immoral act.

Thus, «violence» becomes a «sacred duty,» and «occupation» becomes «salvation.»

Formally, this is permissible in language.
But the meaning remains the same.

It’s like placing a «premium» label on rotten food — the contents stay spoiled.

Can rape be legitimized by calling it sacred?
No. Because any violence against a subject is destruction.

And no matter how it's worded, it remains what it is.

The same logic applies to the term «holy war»
If war is a violent expansion of influence, it may be strategic, ideological, or even forced —
but never sacred. Sacredness does not arise from the scale of devastation.

The sacred, as a category, does not refer to external action but to inner origin.

Only when the struggle takes place within the subject — for maintaining discernment, for rejecting destructive impulse, for preserving order — can it be called sacred.

But when the term «sacred» is used to cover aggression — it is not sanctity, but semantic inversion.


Conclusions:

1. The epithet “sacred” cannot justify destruction.

2. Semantic inversion breaks the bond between word and essence.

3. This is not a moral issue. It is a matter of linguistic precision.

4. Where inversion becomes the norm, law loses its foundation.

5. Discernment is the only way to preserve the link between meaning and action.