So the worm turns! Blog on, oh ye of little education! Explain the whys and wherefore’s of what passes these days for cogent thought! A number of weeks back, one of the regular writers on a rather well reviewed political blog casually consigned the framers of our constitution to perdition, as `refugees from an agrarian society’. He posited that this non-industrial base limited our founding fathers ability to craft for the future. This, I guess, rendered them little more than after notes by today’s more ‘exacting’ standards. The discussion revolved around both Iraq’s infant constitution, as well as the future of the Supreme Court and was, in my opinion, somewhat dismissive of both subjects. This sort of elitist pomposity continues – on a multiplicity of websites – fueled by twenty-something undergrad’s whose grasp of history seems limited to choosing what beer to get wasted on for the evening. Pontification substituting for reasoned argument rather sets my teeth on edge, so I have decided to address what I perceive as linear thinking. You see, I tend to look at everything from a multi-dimensional perspective. Yes, any words on paper, whether as part of our national identity, or what has become the basis for certain kinds of religious fanaticism, are, on the surface, exactly what they seem – simple thoughts and/or instructions crafted by groups of people influenced by what kind of world they lived in. Adapting those words to any exigent culture takes a certain amount of imagination, and this is where the process usually bogs down.
Tangential link here folks – so please bear with me. Consider – let’s examine the position that the US constitution was hugely influenced by Enlightenment philosophers. This brings the fiasco that currently masquerades as the new Iraqi constitution into a new light. Not to overly parse my own thoughts here, but all modern Western philosophy (this is exclusive of its Greek roots) flows from the way we are taught to think. Bottom line – how do you read? Left to right, of course. And it’s how you view your environment as well. Now consider – how does the rest of the world think? The way they absorb information? For almost all of Asia (including the Middle East) this is the exact opposite of us. By the by – try going over your old college philosophy textbooks with this in mind. It puts a whole new spin on interpreting everything from Plato to the bible! Therefore, to expect any non-western society to blindly and exactly adopt what is for them a somewhat antithetical way of processing thought is like herding those cats Senator Lott was so fond of mentioning in his past existence as someone of relevance.
A little bit off from the center? Not really. In a former life I bounced around the world as a theatre director. As an artist whose medium was emotion, it was incumbent on me to understand, or at least try to gain insights into, what I characterize as the human soul – how and why we think and do, which triggers elicit which emotions, and how can I control/manipulate them to produce a desired effect. Case in point – Tennessee Williams always played well here and in Europe, but left Asian audiences silent and confused. I knew it wasn’t the text, as familial relationships bridge cultural bounds. So it had to be me – my presentation techniques. Cue light bulb. The difference was in the staging – how I manipulated my three-dimensional space. Not to get too technical, but a good director operates as much more than a glorified traffic cop. The physical placement of everything from set pieces to bodies that move within the defined space affect an audience’s mood and subtlety influence their assimilation of everything from basic dialogue to perception of characters. I was staging from a western perspective, where thought and emotion flow left to right. The necessary corrections produced satisfying results – audiences were finally able to participate in the productions ebb and flow – they moved within the complexities of each character, leaving the theatre sated as opposed to dismissing their experience as a waste of both time and treasure.
So how, do you ask, does this relate to a discussion of Supreme Court Justices and constitutional interpretation? Maybe I’m going down a road here that will leave everyone wondering if my cheese has slipped off its cracker, but I fear that literalism with all of its limitations, has wrapped our country in an insular blanket that prevents diversity of thought. I don’t think that Jefferson, Adams or Franklin, as devotees of radical Enlightenment philosophies, ever imagined the US would strangle itself to death in an effort to strictly adhere to a linear (read limited here) perspective. Yes, these men were influenced by the world they inhabited, but to truly understand that world, you have to dip into the salon culture pouring out of France like a tsunami! The human mind, as a secular instrument, was being elevated to godlike status. Our founders assumed human thought and philosophy would continue down this path – one where every idea was on the table for consideration. Would any of them back the Bush administrations continuing abortive Iraqi policy, or applaud his transparent attempts to alter the course of jurist-prudence in America? Probably, not; actually. The sting of British paternalism was still fresh in their minds. As for the Supreme Court and endeavors to shape that supposed august body toward specific political ideologies – Franklin would probably burn it to the ground before allowing anything close to that happening.
So – constructionism, federalism; indeed any whose interests are vested in maintaining parity, are, in my opinion, retarding growth. Hence, the MSM’ s continuing obsession with oroboric discussions of which came first (insert any ‘ism’ you’d like here) are, at best, irrelevant. There is no answer to that question, and there never will be. It’s a wonderful intellectual exercise, and can lead to lots of fun while discussing chaos theory, or Aunt Sally’s recipe for stewed tomatoes, but it lends little to substantive national discourse; and that is something we desperately need right now. Whether talking about our current crop of politicians, or possible Supreme Court opinions – those in power will probably continue to base all of their decisions on the current cartel culture – business trumping individual rights. This salient fact continues to be roundly ignored – not only by those in a position to shape national policy, but by MSM and bloggers as well. At least, that’s now. If we the people manage to change the present, who knows what might happen in the next fifty years? Unfortunately, it might just be a case of too little too late.
