Transformational Obama

CHANGE

“Obama will make a transformational president.”
Colin Powell.

Reconfiguring. Reformatting, Recalibrating Systemic
Change as opposed to Just Change. Evolution: not to
be confused with Revolution. Can a system sustain
self-correction without demoralization? Re-
moralization?

Years ago Noam Chomsky came up with a model of
grammar that addressed not just surface prescriptions

(rules of conduct you got in 7^th grade, repeated year
after year redundantly re-emerging in what we call
“advanced grammar” here: designed to help you
avoid split infinitives and dangling elements, know
the difference and relationships between colon and
semi, be able to define parts of speech and types of
clauses and all for the sake of punctuational propriety
—that you might not embarrass yourself or the Eng.
Debt tn your resume and grant writing futures)

…but also transformational structures and deep grammatical
rules: a system that could be said to generate infinite diverse
& unique sentences from a limited set of rules & relationships.

Out of finititude: an infinitude.
From a constant: continual changes.
sustainable instabilities
incorruptible disruptions

Think about it—don’t you wonder about the difference and
relationship between finite and infinite from time to time:?

......Y ( the relationship)
X (finite) Z (infinity)


(Like a finite & simple 12-bar blues
progression will generate an infinite
number of jazz, r&b, rock & roll
& smoky blues performances.)

Regular grammar merely models the surface sentences
we generate; it don’t attempt to model how they are
generated

That’s a job for a generative and transformational grammar:
Obama-Grammar let’s call it, in the spirit of Colin Powell
and the Rhetoric of Change both candidates profess: it might
could be represented looking something like this side-wise
“tree diagram”: E Unum Pluribus: from one to many many...

X..............................Y................................... Z


finite ...........transformational .......... infinite
rules............. structures.......... allo-variations (diversity)

(archetypes).... (stereotypes)...... (typicalities)
ideas ................manifestations...... the various embodiments



Can you see the pattern? 3 varied and diverse “bottom line”
versions of the SAME IDEA, true? All 3 represent the
SAME structure. Each one differently. Playing the Sames
& Differences Game here: looking always for the Pattern
that Connects the Disconnects (aka:liberal art)..

A hierarchy of relationship (node, branching linbs, &
twigonometry), it’s called a

TREE STRUCTURE

(“tree,” from I.E. duru: duration, “ trust,” “troth,” and “truth”
are all kin—sibling relativities derived from the same root.
(Also “druid” and “dryad”: the reasons why some knock
on wood)

Let the IDEA (that these representations represent) suggest
the relationship between diverse bottom-line notions like

John lost his pants and
Bush bombed the Hamptons

and let those two sample tokens demonstrate how-it-is radical
differences on one hierarchical level none the less share essential
similarities (common structure) on higher hierarchical levels.

Sustaining this split-leveled vision is key to the practice of liberal art,
getting good at the play of opposition and complementary
relationships — seeing connection where others see only disconnect
which may be why TransFormational Obama don’t mind sitting
down with dictators and agents of evil without preconditions while
Regular Schoolroom Grammarians McCain and the Governor hesitate
to confront them bad boys.
.
Heck: diversity don’t have to eclipse similarity if you don’t get
bamboozled by surface differences.

(Are you likely to pay your attention efficient focus to the bottom
line significance of those 2 sentences (above) —or to the structural
pattern that relates them? I.’m just asking. Be honest.

The message, or the media (2 economies): and which has your
primary consideration? Aha!

Isn’t that the case with all of us? Explains a lot, don’t you agree?
Need we argue?

Deep Grammar. Deep Ecological Modeling of patterns that connect
the surface differences & their devilish nitty gritty details: relationships
otherwise occluded by surface grammarians & their non-
transformational superficial sustainability concerns.

Just describing here. Not judging, damnit. You say tomahto: I say tomato:
It's the same only different . xxxooo, Steven Pinker