More Letters 1

More Letters 1
George O. Obikoya 
Dear mates, in asserting the importance of both locutionary and illocutionary 
meanings in discourses we are endorsing indirectly or directly what yea has been termed 
the Cambridge school of intellectual history with its emphasis mates on contextualizing 
texts, situating them in historical contexts not just in relation to a canon of 
accreted thoughts, an approach albeit well-meaning may be fraught with major flaws, most critical 
of which is history itself being flawed, put bluntly there is no history wherein mates we could 
yea thump our chests declare value-judgments do not mates in a sense misrepresent, directly mates 
rendering outcomes of contextualizing discourses in history suspect, at least until 
we could establish we have doctored not historical frameworks mates we espouse,
proven we have not rewritten history characters tainted elevated spun events to suit whatever aim.
It is not hard to see why history may incomplete be even outright false, what seems harder 
to figure mates is how this mates could be achieved given contesting points of views with sinews matched
in voids mates in the main but then maybe mates one is wrong to liken victors vanquished ere now yea
evermore, a ‘winner-takes-all’ maybe in the mix, with freedom skewed contextualizing our 
discourses mates a noble aim in shreds, freedom in tears, for hard it is to freedom see O yea 
in outcomes of discourses based mates on a dented base, as things will surely fall apart, the niche 
of order we harness in grander energy dispersions simply walloped sadly into sure 
disorder faster we mates with our own hands into holes vamoose, in cosmic urns whence therefrom may
be anyone’s guess what a chance to lift our world to miss? The point mates is that we indeed must learn
to think outside the box, but also not to toss the box, we must be set to learn mates from our flaws.
Mates, to its credit among others this school cognizant is of mates the potential of 
dogmas of ideologies to condone if not endorse some social trends wherever laid that may 
our freedom curb, or for that matter may enhance, which brings the nuances of freedom right mates to 
the fore, what really do we mean by being free what mates do we want? To start O mates to ponder such 
a weighty query we need to mull if we must still subscribe to the notion yes that principles 
top yea our actions or we are agents in our own rights could be principals too in dyadic yea 
transactions pawns not players are mates in the cosmic chess, that mates yea is our call, or should be in
our voided space, mates let’s be sure everyone has the right to choose the path to tread, be it to stay 
wherein abode a comfort zone or venture into voids, perhaps mates this is that framework on which 
any discussion on what freedom is and what we want seeking it ought to start, it seems so, mates. 
However we define freedom agency is the key, whatever choice we make mates at its core 
is agency dear mates, ability we have to choose yea on our own accord and base O yea 
our actions on our choices mates, lacking this ability tantamount to lacking freedom and 
vice versa, mates at the core of freedom agency is what therefore we must want seeking it,
we must miss lacking it, ostensibly for mates we’re seeking it, agency we lack seeking dear  
mates freedom yea, in other words agents of principals we are, or are they principalities? 
This question illustrates the point about historical contexts we mentioned earlier skewing 
rather than clarifying or elucidating texts, not only due dear mates to added value 
judgements but also to presumably ‘normative’ comprehensions iterations forge that are 
incrementally different yea from the prior forms, on which we are, presumably, pivot. 
Thus, mates in ages past a view implied something had us that sound like what O mates another in 
a different historical context deems does however mates with major twists dear mates O yea 
with major implications for the outcomes of discourses then and now, if even yea we based 
our lack of agency on something even someone or whatever in our states of mind ‘unflawed,’ 
suggesting mates our actions would likely not correspond, one seeking relief mates from outside whilst 
the other inward looks to gain, a matter some consider faith or science proper to adopt 
to free ourselves from what we see as coming in our way, both value-judgement based which may appal 
mates some alarm who faith yea separate from science based on arguments refuting faith O nay 
not science mates as value-judgement based, yet in so far as science based yea on our actions in
themselves rooted in perceptions imprecise is it is mates value-judgement based, like faith, O yea. 
Explanatory notions of the past we therefore mates cannot dismiss nor should we mates those of 
our day discard, the key remains we freedom lack agency lacking mates, the question then is what 
to do mates to be free from bondage mates our lack of agency ensures, what we must do to free
ourselves from something we may call whatever mates we choose, however we may want to free O yea
ourselves also our call dear mates assuming mates we freedom lack to choose oxymoronic is, 
thus mates we have no choice nay in the matter heretofore implies, for we are going mates to show 
we do, we are going to show ourselves that we were born free so plan to remain, with no one left 
behind we aim to lift our world, with knowledge we will mates succeed will unify our world, mates sinew is 
knowledge-based cutting-edge devices are its tools to fit, we have the choice to knowledge use our tools 
to fit, wisdom mates we must aim for to refit the puzzle to exit the maze, with faith in science, yea. 
The school may argue we the same things do putting discourses in historical contexts leaving 
out value play mates in our outcomes yea, value judgement thus inherent we mates yea disregard, 
the point though is that we do not contest the role of value in discourses but faith say is faith, 
if all mates that is all we have left mates to help ourselves, regain our freedom mates, to save our world,
we argue faith in values that our science spins dear mates we need, in other words our values must
reside in science faith in which we have, outcomes mates of our discourses based yea on values based
on science based on faith yea we are set to venture mates far into realms known and unknown to solve 
our problems freedom mates regain, value judgment rather being a flaw integral is to recapturing agency
we lack, faith in our science mates enabling us to values cultivate that will advance our cause,
engaged in knowledge-seeking thought experiments our science seals faith yea enhance values assign. 
Faith therefore is the choice we have no one could take away, faith therefore action tops faith in science
that spells our culture, our cultural values that in turn engage us in pursuit of truth, O yes, 
our agency increasingly mates we regain our eyes ‘open’ yea in a voided space, our world, 
creativity innovation we encourage in our culture dear mates with our values geared to 
discoveries in math in science mates our acts in every sphere of life intent on opening 
the gates of Wisdom in our present state, lifting the veil eternal light of knowledge let in to 
our space, troglodytic no more mates we abide in light, we realize we have exhausted yea 
discourses on our social realities now it’s time we sought a change, for we are mates in this 
together no one mates exempt, there may be no distinction mates between principals and dear mates 
principalities after all outcomes of discourses on both mates value judgements yet may twist. 
Therefore, dear mates we need to faith and value judgments set apart to fully grasp our fate, as faith
mates in the sense we use it certitude does not imply, which is mates why we at first germinate 
it yea in our minds thought yea experiments perform, why also mates we talk about a stepwise gain O
mates in agency that fortifies changes in values science further aids, and mates with risks 
of value judgement in and of itself implying certitude that mates may bog our fate we must 
our thinking focused is on first elucidating our transactions to define mates how to plan 
the change mates in dyadic to be free at last, balance of probabilities mates on our minds 
that we may or may not energy niches mates we may find helpful to advance our world we do 
not fritter locked in darkness in our caves embracing values inimical to progress in void, 
our precious world dear mates, progress we sorely need to realize our dreams, freedom in full O yea.  
Mates, we must not dismiss faith certitude implies or negative freedom, non-dependence mates see 
as incompatible with Hobbesian non-constraint, as agency both underpins dear mates, 
agency in relations to someone or something that may or may not be mates of this world in 
dyadic transactions we may or may not be aware of in our present state, our agency 
restored mates we would lift ourselves yes we would lift our world, freedom yea that we seek, which we 
yea understand the so-called ‘human condition’ even with agency restored we must address 
O mates, as we energy mates depend on to exist, mates energy dispersion ever in 
our way, yet mates we have a niche that makes our world exist and thrive no one but us all must work yea 
mates to sustain, no matter rich or poor, no matter dogma doctrine what belief or none we hold
why we must not faith certitude or not avowed dismiss, faith we must mull our values higher take.