Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

while they are true

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    The generations coming of age now in the beginning of this twenty first century are inevitably facing an Orwellian dichotomy; a question of cause and effect
    Message 1 of 1 , May 28, 2006
      The generations coming of age now in the beginning of this twenty
      first century are inevitably facing an Orwellian dichotomy; a question
      of cause and effect involving the fundamental fabric of human life; an
      unavoidable choosing that will demand of both philosophy and science
      an unprecedented concentration of exposition and argument. If we are
      inattentive to this challenge our species may well slip to its doom.
      We must not let the fortunate sun of these few remaining days of
      deliberation go by. Diversity in ideology is essentially spent. The
      political earth is polarizing into two remaining views: a well fed,
      technology driven, technology inflated, technology controlled,
      democratizing "communitarianism"; and a hungry disjointed libertarian
      anarchy exhibiting all of the diversity of previous ideologies.

      My uncle said to me, "I don't care if the government listens to my
      phone calls. I never break the law." I replied, "Laws change, and
      there are a lot of laws." The average citizen assumes a possession
      that does not exist. Telecommunications technology belongs to the
      purveyor. Your phone will not work without a phone company. What you
      say in a telephone conversation does indeed belong to you, but in
      certain cases the phone company is considered to have a stake in that
      ownership, and their stake is expanding toward complete co-ownership
      in the current legal environment. It has been my opinion for some
      thirty years now that telecommnunications technology was going to
      erode away a large part of the liberty of the average American
      citizen. I have always argued that tape-recordings, video and audio,
      are actually not scientific, and should be considered as hearsay in
      the American courtroom and always disallowed. We seem to have
      forgotten that the person on trial is not an enemy of the state until
      he is convicted. If we are going to allow our government unlimited
      surveillance of any of our activities that utilize telecommunications
      in order to protect us from actual enemies of our state (essentially a
      military matter), then we must absolutely not allow the use of such
      "evidence" in the trial of any American citizen. There is nothing
      wrong with surveilling telecommunications technology to determine who
      an enemy of the state might be, but there is a lot of legal precedent
      that is terribly wrong in making such surveillances admissable
      evidence of wrongdoing in a courtroom.

      We could examine all the individual ideological motivations of those
      engaged with the idea of "communitarianism"; but we would only
      discover that like all modern dialectical propositions it does not
      really move toward a single idea of resolution; only toward control.
      In the end it is a collection of interests interconnected at secondary
      points that have no bearing on a primary outcome. "You scratch me
      here, I'll scratch you there." This fluidity of interest and undefined
      outcome is its power. (A development in political science that owes a
      great deal to analytical philosophy) To pose the dichotomy in literary
      terms we must resist the temptation to undress the specific paradigm
      of "communitarianism" as its detachment from the primary is its
      dynamic strength. We must locate a previous term. I suggest:

      Has civilization in general proved to be a good survival technique for
      the human species?

      Is the trade of liberty for civilization a good one?

      Is technology a product of civilization?

      If so, is the trade of liberty for technology a good one?

      Can a human being be completely civilized?

      If so, is it the best thing for the future of the species?

      If technology can eventually detach the human being of its natural
      wildness is it a human being that remains? Something more? Something less?

      Is interest trading a positive political phenomenon?

      Is interest trading actually just civilization?

      One should keep in mind a leveling bit of the same analytical view
      that "communitarianism" is derivative of: "things in general are only
      familiar". Everything is in constant motion sustained into familiarity
      by resonances. If technology could circumvent the natural wildness of
      human beings would the species still fit the natural world? Is
      literature finite? Can the whole be accessed?

      Trinidad Cruz

      "Mark how her turning shoulders wind the hours,
      And hasten while her penniless rich palms
      Pass superscription of bent foam and wave,--
      Hasten, while they are true,--sleep, death, desire,
      Close round one instant in one floating flower.

      Bind us in time, O Seasons clear, and awe.
      O minstrel galleons of Carib fire,
      Bequeath us to no earthly shore until
      Is answered in the vortex of our grave
      The seal's wide spindrift gaze toward paradise." (Hart Crane)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.