| “Introduction” |
|
|
|
“It was never the author’s intention to orient potential readers through introductory thoughts. The purpose of ‘The Petition’ was to expose that part of our collective being which we routinely conceal from each other. That this exercise is necessary hardly needs to be stated. How to accomplish it is another matter. All human activity relates to thought as the structural engineer relates to gravity. Ask the structural engineer to speak on the subject of gravity and construction and you will be lucky to get away in four hours. Ask the teacher to speak on ‘what thought is’ and how that relates to the ‘structure of society’ and you will discover how profound the ignorance is which undermines our hope for a sustainable future. This is through no fault of educators. Theirs is a calling to which all professional forethought has been rendered subservient to the political expedient of the party in power and the political expedient of the party in power, can hardly be blamed for administering its mandate approved and self-sustaining interpretation of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What contributory function does each one of us perform, as we rationalize the threshold of our own social or constitutional indifference? The purpose of this intensely personal document was to establish human and meaningful parameters to that question. That the author should feel compelled to speak at all indicates the declining state of our civil relation. The author has no desire whatsoever to become a writer. Attentive readers report that this fact dramatically supports the project’s relevance. By purchasing or accepting a copy of this material, you agree to acknowledge that the proposed communication was designed to be encountered in a single undisturbed silent reading or uninterrupted spoken-word presentation. (Approximate time 130 minutes.) The author, in this instance, will address the challenge under no other terms but does acknowledge that some readers report significant impression through the subsequent consideration of shorter passages. If the first-time reader is unwilling to accept the sincerity or philosophical scope of the single undisturbed sitting or fails to see how a high school dropout’s view could be equally as relevant as that of the most accomplished scholar’s, then the invitation to communicate is withdrawn and the project should be dismissed as private correspondence. The author does not question or challenge the necessary and strategic mechanism behind the social/political expedient of the ‘individual’s inalienable rights,’ only the ‘neurological ambiguity of it’. The author asks for the reader’s forgiveness and strategic indulgence for the opening references to his father’s unsuccessful battle with cancer in the early 1970s. The author, while acknowledging both real and perceived deficiencies in sentence structure and punctuation, wishes to thank the circle of seniors, educators, and close family members whose visionary support and quiet encouragement made the fifteen-year project possible”. |