Reference to a government of many people as a Top and a Bottom, may seem
simplistic, even ungrammatical or apolitical. But we are trying to get away from
the inclination to sequence verbal statements in a compelling logical formation.
Once begun, a logical statement seems to flow with a certain "propriety". Once we
enter the domain of language, deviation seems out of the question. The Linguistic
Turn and the theory of "language games" has taught us about the compelling
nature of "sticking to the game" and the compelling nature of proper grammar.
For example: The term "illegal" in a dictatorship is very different from the same
term in a democracy. The term is even different in the same government at
different stages of its own evolution. The reason is that languages convey
meanings and meanings change over time. Not only that, but today the word is
considered empty. It has no referential integrity. The word is no longer the
territory. Nevertheless, language is essential to our daily lives and we must live
with the instabilities of language and in particular, those of political language.
But, that does not mean we have to be ignorant of those instabilities.
     By using 'geometric' or 'mathmatical' terms in our discourse, we eliminate
some of the uncertainties of language, of course, not all. I'm not saying we
must use a geometric or a mathmatical discipline, per se. I'm saying we must
use a discourse that incorporates geometric and mathmatical configurations in
the terms used to deliniate the social or the basic structures of any government,
viz. the One and the Many. The One can be one or several but the many is always
a multitude. But, once the basic structure is configured, we put flesh into the
institution. Of course, in our case, the Founding Fathers did that when they crafted
the Constitution. In interpreting it, we must look at the basic form underlying the
whole Document to attempt to arrive at the underlying structure. It becomes
obvious that they configured a triadic form of government. That is no secret, but
the triadic form is described as allowing for checks and balances. What is to be
checked and what is to be balanced? No balancing can be done with politically
correct language. The triadic form must be perceived as having an abstract Top
where language resides and a concrete bottom where many living human beings
reside and a real relation between the Top and the Bottom. In this way, when the
Top "talks" or implements policy, there is a real change among the people at the
bottom. The talk is not vacuous, empty, politically correct, talk.