|
there are no pragmatic notions of freedom, art.
freedoms are defined legally. notions of pragmatic freedom are derivative. you will never get anywhere trying to understand the world around you---and it is on that basis that any coherent answer to your initial questions would rest---if you limit yourself to effects (pragmatic definitions). you confine yourself to turning in a very small circle.
"a reading of US and world history"? huh? which? what are you talking about?
i still dont understand what you mean by trust in this instance...could you explain it more please?
as for the raison d'etat argument--well fine, i agree with you on that--but i dont remember having made anything like the claim you seem to impure to me above, that the state is required somehow to be transparent to the public--how could it be when it is not transparent to itself?
finally, if the american "ship of state" (whatever the hell that is) has managed to not collpase into utter incoherence, it is largely a function of a mobilized and informed citizenery acting to force change. that information is not derived from the state is axiomatic. that the constitutional system is open to such change is one advantage the american system has--but this one feature is not enough on its own, and it certainly not a reason to go passive in the present based on a (seemingly arbitrary) version of american history.
as for my tone (the lecture swipe) well....i think when i try to write in shorthand, i generate the appearance of lecturing. i dont mean to do it, really, but there we are. no offense on that score intended either in this case or any other. to my horror sometimes, it appears that i write that way. maybe even talk that way.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|