Time only for a brief.
In the recent election it seems that two viruses proved decisive -- first, the Chinese virus that facilitated all the cheating; and second, the English virus that was so effectively contained by Big Tech, Big Media, Big Debate Moderator, etc., such that truth was not permitted to spread into the population.
In other words, totalitarianism works, at least for awhile, but language always finds a way, doesn't it?
To plagiaphrase the scientist in Jurassic Park: if there's one thing the history of politics has taught us, it's that language will not be contained. Language breaks free. This is true. But how, and why?
First, why do people everywhere & when want to contain it? How do they do it? And how do we avoid it and them?
Let's proceed directly to the insultainment portion of this post, and put forth the hyperthesis that what we call the "left" is always the anti-language faction (cf. the well known phenomenon of the "totalitarian temptation"), while the essence of liberalism involves setting language free.
In short, free your speech and your aseity will follow. One need only ponder this mystery for about two seconds to see that it's not a mystery at all.
Rather it's terribly obvious. No one is banning speech, books, tweets, ideas, professors, and bloggers but the left. Me? I want the left to speak, in order to show how crazy they are. I've never banned a commenter no matter how stupid, for what is a dullman but a brightcoon's teacher?
There is obviously a "conserving" aspect of language that is as vital to its flourishing as is the liberating function. It's called, in a word, truth. Free speech without a nonlocal telovator literally goes nowhere.
Consider just the progress of science. What does it do? It relentlessly strikes down falsehood, superstition, and sacred cowpies without fear or favor, until nothing is left standing but Truth.
Well, not exactly, and for obvious reasons, beginning with meta-science at one end (i.e., the principles by virtue of which science is possible and my understand itself) and scientism at the other, which foolishly equates its necessarily falsifiable proposals with Truth itself.
You will have noticed that the left likes to think of itself as the "party of science." Even on its face the opposite is true, but the claim becomes plausible if we think of vulgar scientism as a contemporary mythology of tenured fools, credentialed tools, and digital ghouls.
Consider the following statement: One ought to believe in science. No doubt true, as far as it goes. Problem is, there is no Ought in science. Science describes only narrow slices of what Is, never what ought to be.
Yes, there exists an objective land of Ought, but the moment we advert to it, the fool will accuse us of religious dogma. So, who let the dogma in? Did we invent it? Or does it emanate from an immaterial source?
Some if not all of you probably wonder about the irritating wordplay. What's that all about, and is it really necessary? Yes, it is necessary, if only for myself, in order to keep language free. There is something that is not only freeing about language, but is freedom itself.
A few posts back we described this discovery of freedom in literal terms, with Helen Keller's dramatic inscape from a cramped animality to the wide-open spaces of the logosphere.
Yes, the truth will set you free. But at the same time, freedom sets one upon the path to truth. In other words, truth itself is the principle, the reason, and the telos of freedom.
If this is not the case, then freedom has no value at all. Come to think of it, this is precisely why the left devalues and attacks even the possibility of truth. In their postmoderm, post-truth, and post-literate world, truth poses an everpresent threat to their power.
This is so obvious that it qualifies as a soph-evident banality: to understand it is to confirm it, once and for all. It goes from hypothesis to principle, just like that. Unless you've successfully internalized a vertical barrier or roadblock.
Now, the purpose of thought it to arrive at principles. Here again, this goes to precisely why it is impossible to argue (rationally) with a leftist. Oh, they have plenty of principles alright. It's just that the "principles" are ruled by immanent expediency (i.e., the needs of power) instead of transcendent truth, and can never be reconciled with one another. Nor are they ever pursued to the absurd conclusions that annihilate them.
This is why, in order to be a leftist, one must be a little bit educated. But never too far! Rather, it is obviously critical to stop thinking before the point at which the principles of leftism devour themselves.
The left has near total control of big tech, big education, big journalism, big government, big gender, big poverty, and big entertainment, and yet, it's never enough. Again, language always finds a way. Because -- in a manger of speaking -- it is the way, the truth, the life, the light, etc.
I'll end with a cryptic anecdote. I've been married for, let's see, 33 years. Once upon a time my wife decided to take a leap of faith and assume I was actually trying to help. It changed everything. Although she still needs to be reminded every once in awhile.
Truth cuts both ways. The skill of a surgeon vs. the rusty blade of a 27 year old tech overlord with an advanced degree in nothing.