 |
To the unitiated, the title of
this essay might, at first sight, seem to be something of a misnomer.
After all, there are - commonly - two definitions of the word
"gratuitous", neither of which fit the central conceit of the theory
being described. In law terms, gratuitous can mean, "that which
benefits one party only"; a definition not applicable to a theory
describing a mutual contract, one intended to benefit both parties.
More commonly, gratuitous can also mean, "that which is done or given
for no purpose". This definition has even less relevance to the theory
which we are dealing with. Indeed, it may even seem contradictory,
since the theory of the gratuitous serves a very definite purpose. A
purpose apparently complex (this is its intention) - yet on
closer inspection, stunningly simple.
The title of this essay can, in fact, be seen as highly accurate, thanks to one possible definition of gratuity (the root word from which gratuitous derives); "an acknowledgment of service". This definition perfectly encompasses all that the theory of the gratuitous sets out to demonstrate; and since it is a definition of the root word, "gratuity", and not "gratuitous" itself, it can therefore be offered as a verbal (and spiritual) example of the "ulterior motive" that is the theory of the gratuitous' raison d'etre.
Certainly, an element of risk is involved in such a scenario; but provided it is satisfactorily executed, with style and with stealth (the drawing in of the "sucker", the gradual realisation that this is their role, the continuation of the "con", even beyond the moment of denouement), the results can (financially, as well as artistically) be truly spectacular. We hope so, at least.
The title of this essay can, in fact, be seen as highly accurate, thanks to one possible definition of gratuity (the root word from which gratuitous derives); "an acknowledgment of service". This definition perfectly encompasses all that the theory of the gratuitous sets out to demonstrate; and since it is a definition of the root word, "gratuity", and not "gratuitous" itself, it can therefore be offered as a verbal (and spiritual) example of the "ulterior motive" that is the theory of the gratuitous' raison d'etre.
Broadly,
the
theory of the gratuitous can be described as follows: if a certain
individual
(hereafter referred to as "individual A") decides (by means of
deception)
to extract the assets of a second individual, some
form of enticement must be utilised; a means of attracting the second
individual's attention and holding it long enough to gain their
interest. If
achieved, the chances are immeasurably increased of individual A going
on to extract such assets as are desired from the "sucker". It must be
said, however, that the more amusing and
entertaining the initial enticement, the likelier it is that individual
A will succeed in retaining the confidence and
trust of the "sucker"; in which case they will continue to serve as a
likely source of income. Indeed, if individual A
succeeds in achieving the theory of the gratuitous' highest goal
(letting the prospective "sucker" in on the fact that they are being
enticed, while continuing to retain their trust), not only will the
most noble levels of artistry in the area of denouement/deception have
been attained, the sucker will also thereafter be a form of "easy
meat", with which individual A will be able to do
whatever they damn well please.
Certainly, an element of risk is involved in such a scenario; but provided it is satisfactorily executed, with style and with stealth (the drawing in of the "sucker", the gradual realisation that this is their role, the continuation of the "con", even beyond the moment of denouement), the results can (financially, as well as artistically) be truly spectacular. We hope so, at least.
