The human being per virtue of speech and technology rose up from among beast so there isn't any question of the primary nature of speech and that ability to correctly define phenomena.
The Constitution states it's correct grasp of speech and it's significance as the first enumeration in the Bill Of Rights. Between speech and the economy of technology, the U.S. has been able to maintain a viability despite the antagonisms of it's anomalies.
The true test of speech isn't to be found in the tolerance at the public square and it's veneer of civility, (the Valerie Plame contradiction once again taught that) but how redemptive from those crude surrogate suppositions existing in the space of how a thing is understood to labor it's definition correctly.
Would there then be the Pro-Life, Pro-Choice struggle, defining what is life in a human embryo at the cognitive expense of life in the totality of the human condition?
The language of science and it's speech is clear on the life dialectic so what is this speech of certitude wielded by the one -dimensional?
By Apropos
Monday, April 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment