Replies

Well I love you, too PH. Am thinking it over, how best to go about 'splaining it. I have an idea, an example that might help. But it needs a little more thought and time and it's not something I can "fit in" at work anyway. So, it's a project for the weekend (TGIF!!!!). I'll probably post it on Phaedrus' social Darwinism thread; will bump you when the time comes.

Meanwhile, a little hint at what's involved has been suggested by cornelis (above), in his comments on the Constitution. There is a school of thought (i.e., legal positivism) that holds the Constitution's text -- its written language per se -- is all you need to know in order to understand what that document means.

But then there are other people (like me) who say there's no way you can understand the text of the document -- or any other document, for that matter -- without understanding its context (which is, of course, the polar opposite of what the Deconstructionists are saying).

Context would include the Framer's culture, education, historical situation, ethics, values, intentions, etc., etc. Not a one of those "things" is really a "thing" at all -- in the sense of physical, phenomenal, material existence.

Further, although it is true there is a "physical" Constitution of course -- text printed on so many pages -- that's not the "thing" we Americans value and cherish. The "thing" we value "transcends" the physical document itself: It is the organic complex of ideas the document articulates and gives "intangible" form to, which in turn has been "immanentized" as actual transformations of American society and historical existence. Goodness knows, that's "real enough."

See what I mean? I hope to be speaking with you again soon. Meanwhile, dear PH, all my best -- bb.