Words have no inherent value. They are merely symbols that we use to transmit ideas to others. For example, when I write “rock,” do you picture a stone object that is larger than a pebble and smaller than a boulder? Or…do you envision a chair with arched feet that moves forward and back? Perhaps you conjure up a particular genre’ of music that has captured the imagination of generations while undergoing multiple transformations. Maybe you perceive “rock” to be a metaphor for stability and certitude. “Rock” is simply an assembly of four distinct etchings or symbols that when placed together in a particular order (not CRKO), prompt your mind to retrieve a picture.
As we have noted, “rock” can generate several different pictures, so context is required to further identify which definition of “rock” we are attempting to communicate. Consider this: when we say someone is “rocking,” we could be discussing Granny or KISS, but we have eliminated the geological version by adding context. “Rock” is generally considered to be something tangible, but when used to discuss the broad spectrum of music, the tangibility of the concept becomes more problematic. This little journey into American-English linguistics is an exercise for illustrating how difficult it can be to effectively communicate intangible ideas.
Take “liberty,” for example. Webster’s top two definitions identify liberty as 1) freedom from slavery, captivity etc., and 2) a particular right, freedom etc. How would one describe the concept of true liberty to someone who is uninformed? Technically speaking, a serf is not a slave, nor is an indentured servant, but neither can be characterized as enjoying the fruits of liberty. The version of Webster that I used for this discussion (New World) did not identify the source of the particular right or freedom that represents “liberty.” So, is liberty too illusive to define, or too idealistic to matter? Is “liberty” real, or merely the magical musings of multitudes who yearn for something that is unattainable? Can something so ephemeral, so difficult to define or identify be of value? Worth desiring? Worthy of great effort to secure? Can liberty be invested with enough intrinsic value that one would sacrifice her/his life to obtain it or secure it?
Our Framers and Founders considered liberty to be the highest ideal of a civil society. As they labored to devise a system of governance, they sought to maintain a balance between tyranny and anarchy. Anarchy would transform the concept of liberty into the reality of libertine license while tyranny would obviously suffocate the spark of freedom. They rightly discerned that liberty would thrive in an environment structured by the rule of law, but the practice and application of the law should not be excessively restrictive. To achieve the delicate balance they limited the powers of the government and recognized that our freedoms, our liberty are gifts from God and should not be altered by government.
According to the Founders, government should not tamper with the natural law. What God has ordained, no device created by man should limit or abridge. Tomorrow, we’ll discuss the application and practical use of liberty. How do we recognize it? How can we explain it? How to secure it, restore it and implement it. Until our citizens understand the true nature of liberty, they will not grasp its importance for our lives.
Your comments are welcome: cnpearl@woh.rr.com or earl4sos@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment