October 18, 2017

Phil Beaver works to establish opinion when the-objective-truth has not been discovered. He seeks to refine his opinion by listening when people share experiences and observations. The comment box below invites readers to write.

Note 1:  I often dash words in phrases in order to express and preserve an idea. For example, frank-objectivity represents the idea of candidly expressing the-objective-truth despite possible error. In other words, a person expresses his “belief,” knowing he or she could be in error. People may collaboratively approach the-objective-truth.
 Note 2: It is important to note "civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for the people more than for the city.

A personal paraphrase of the preamble by & for Phil Beaver:  We the willing people of nine of the thirteen United States commit to and trust in the purpose and goals stated herein --- integrity, justice, collaboration, defense, prosperity, liberty, and perpetuity --- and to cultivate limited services by the USA, beginning on June 21, 1788.

Composing their own paraphrase, citizens may consider the actual preamble and perceive whether they are willing or dissident toward its agreement.   

Today’s thought, G.E. Dean (Proverbs 3:9-10 CJB)

“Honor ADONAI with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your income. Then your granaries will be filled and your vats overflow with new wine.”

Dean says “Give to God first, and he will give back to you.”

I accept the idea that ethics and physics come from the same source: the-objective-truth. I think mysticism, “the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight),” Merriam-Webster, is an intellectual construct by the clergy for the clergy

  

Columns. (The fiction/non-fiction comments gallery for readers)

  

Nervous and indecisive (Fagan) (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_5d4e1d9c-b35d-11e7-a7a8-e3f25bdce152.html)

Thank you Dan Fagan and The Advocate.

 “It's time to get serious about ending violent crime in Baton Rouge and New Orleans and stop blaming it on racism and oppression.”

I think that is the kind of leadership the press and its writers owes the people.

I add that the clergy is part of the problem. Justice comes from civic citizens, and the clergy ought to be teaching character rather than relegation; intention rather than hope; public integrity rather than dissidence; behavior rather than demands; reliability rather than victimization.

Here’s a character education source: characterfirsteducation.com/c/about.php. And another source: charactercounts.org/program-overview/.

  

 

Saints folly (theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_36b30190-844e-11e7-8deb-13a7db139041.html)

Marcus McNeil's civic passion reminds me of President Barack Obama's religious zeal at the Dallas memorial: "But even those who [like] the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” surely we should be able to hear the pain of [slain-police families]." See whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/12/remarks-president-memorial-service-fallen-dallas-police-officers.

In the same dissident spirit is John McCain on Monday night, trying to exclude citizens like me who voted for Donald Trump twice---to deny my freedom of expression in the political fray---my votes. And I am not alone: 84% of US counties elected Trump President after our vote to nominate him. McCain, excluding Trump, said, "With all our flaws, all our mistakes, with all the frailties of human nature as much on display as our virtues, with all the rancor and anger of our politics, we are blessed." McCain seems conflicted.

People who would constrain President Trump to the practices of past presidents exacerbate the problem. Past presidents participated in the steady decline of personal liberty through republicanism fostered by Congresses that steadily relegated their constitutional responsibilities to regulatory agencies led by liberal democrats. McCain has been part of the problem and lately seems un-American---uncaring for the people.

I appealed to my Senators to impeach McCain.

Other forums 

libertylawsite.org/2017/10/11/dethroning-false-europe/#comment-1598013

To Morris: The-objective-truth exists. Humankind works to discover it and make best use of it. For example, most people don’t know if there is extraterrestrial life and would not attempt communication with extraterrestrials.

The-objective-truth comes upon rational thought about evidence of discovery plus repetition of the evidence. The process works equally in physics and in psychology.

Civic citizens mutually discover public morality using the-objective-truth rather than submit to mysticism, dominant opinion, emotions, or political power. Humankind progresses not by force or coercion but by personal experience, by observations, and by practicing fidelity. They respond to what-is rather than what may be. Unwilling people are dissidents, whether intentionally or innocently. For example, in a civic culture, if the CDC reports evidence that smoking reduces life-span and secondary smoke kills innocent people, civic citizens stop smoking. But some dissidents do not stop.

The-objective-truth is the reality to which humankind ineluctably answers. In other words, reality can neither be ignored nor avoided. When the-objective-truth is undiscovered, voluntary public integrity requires responses like, “I do not know,” or “I think so and don’t have to know in order to hold responsible hopes.” In public integrity, both the believer and the non-believer collaborate for civic justice yet pursue personal preferences.

In a civic culture, most people iteratively collaborate to discover the-objective-truth. Thereby, people may practice mutual, comprehensive safety and security for themselves, for their children and grandchildren, and for the beyond — for posterity, including dissidents.

An objective culture records discovered-objective-truth so that future generations may benefit from past discovery and efficiently correct errors upon new understanding or future discovery. The objective journal is observed by a free and responsible press. Thereby, the newborn may acquire knowledge and understanding and make personal choices at the leading edge of moral discovery.

Among first principles of a civic culture is personal, comprehensive fidelity. Both respectively and collectively, the person develops fidelity to these entities: to the-objective-truth, to self, to family, to the people, to the nation, and to the world. I, singly, neither know nor can discover the-objective-truth, yet I can cultivate fidelity.

Regarding civic morality, civil opinion may have two possibly erroneous aspects: social conventions and statutory law. Social convention is based on temporal civilization more than the-objective-truth. Statutory law can be unjust, especially if it is derived by coercion/force, arrogance, or dominant opinion. Some societies think crime pays. Thus, civility, or conformance to society, can be erroneous.

Most civilizations are based on dominant opinion, often that people behave only under force or coercion. It is a self-fulfilling convention. Such civilizations are dissident to the-objective-truth.

With independence from dominant opinion about the-objective-truth, individuals may acquire the liberty to pursue personal preferences: Personal, comprehensive fidelity is made possible.

Humankind’s collective quest for the liberty to live in peace is stifled by failure to promote freedom from arbitrary dominant opinion. In other words, civic citizens promote the liberty to exercise human psychological power. To reach human maturity requires freedom from psychological tyranny. Some societies are reluctant to admit that individuals may achieve comprehensive fidelity.

Personal independence is suppressed by the world’s misdirected quest for a socio-political regime that fosters freedom according to the “common good.” Unfortunately, much of the thought is dominated by theism—mysticism—rather than the-objective-truth—discoverable certainty.

“Self-government” alienates reliability. Humans may, both daily and ultimately, conform to the-objective-truth. In other words, humans either discover-and-conform to the-objective-truth or risk woe. Humans may collaborate for comprehensive safety and security but cannot arbitrarily self-govern.

These statements address civic morality, leaving private concerns and hopes for personal pursuit. In other words, in a civic culture, no one is coerced to negotiate personal, heartfelt concerns. For example, no one can impose concern for a “soul” or spiritualism. Thus, democracy is not a civic culture. A civic culture conforms to the-objective-truth.

A culture with voluntary public integrity coaches the newborn in three principles: 1) ignoring the-objective-truth invites woe, 2) collaboration for comprehensive safety and security is essential to each person, and 3) the human being may, through comprehensive fidelity, conform to the-objective-truth while developing private hopes.

While the newborn child is a person, he or she is indisputably unable to independently transition to psychologically mature adult. He or she may remain in a state of subjugation to the care givers. However, the willing child may, through experience and observations, develop human authenticity. Public connections are essential to personal development.

Because it springs from the-objective-truth, the civic culture seeks neither dominant opinion nor democracy nor mystery. Each willing person is in charge of personal preferences that do not conflict the-objective-truth. Yet each person may privately, responsibly test the universal unknowns. For example, be the first person to fly using aerodynamic principles. 

The freedom made possible by a culture that conforms to the-objective-truth facilitates the personal liberty to pursue private interests. Thus, the traditional “common good” becomes conformity to the-objective-truth rather than conflict over mysticism. Civic people accept public interference — force and coercion — only on the indisputable facts of reality. For example, no one accepts someone’s assertion that they spontaneously contacted extraterrestrial life.

A civic culture may seem impossible, because it has never been attempted. But it has never been expressed as voluntary public integrity by civic citizens using the-objective-truth.

There will always be dissidents, some of whom cause harm. Statutory law may conform to the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion or mystery. Yet willing people must evaluate a criminal’s motivation for harmful behavior. Justice may be achieved with iterative collaboration to discover the-objective-truth.

With the process based on the-objective-truth, law enforcement by either arbitrary opinion or mystery is lessened, and the rule of law, or republican governance, is continually improved.

Subjects, such as lies, are often, erroneously asserted as the-objective-truth or facts. For example, some people present their theism as the-objective-truth. Yet, no one accepts that their religion must yield to another religion. Mysteries, such as religious beliefs that are not disproved, should not be disparaged. However, mysticism has no standing in the collaboration for civic justice.

Among civic citizens, liars stand out as dissidents. In a culture that never lies, the liar cannot communicate.

“Faith in reason” seems unwise. Science is a process for study and the student may reason based on false perceptions — like a mirage.

The object of study is discovery, and the product is the-objective-truth, which does not respond to reason. However, rational thought is essential to the acceptance that repeatable evidence represents a discovery rather than a subject of imagination. I object to “having faith,” in this context, and prefer “trust in and commit to” the-objective-truth, the product of evidentiary discovery.

We propose a new standard for public integrity: collaboration to discover the-objective-truth more than competition for dominant-opinion. How could this concept have improved the history of the USA? How could it be used to improve future living?

quora.com/Which-single-sentence-can-break-most-people/answer/Jon-Dobyns/comment/45422312?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=1601583067

To Susan Stoltz and Danny Lowe: Susan Stoltze, of course, you don’t need my permission, yet I grant it and appreciate your intention.

I think Danny posed a good question. And you answered well. My choice of “sympathy” reflects “pity,” as in contempt for bad choices. There’s dread of the woe that may come to the offender.

As I understand Jon’s attitude and character, the person who made that comment behaved with hubris (that’s worse than gullibility towards personal wisdom) and viciousness. His mind would be confused by “empathy.” However, “sympathy” might prompt a little humility by which he may have the chance of accepting Jon’s caution or coaching. “Pity” would merely exacerbate the pain and loss.

In other words, in this theory, Jon does not give up on the other party, yet accepts that the other party may continue the separation he had declared.

Once again, I appreciate the affirmation of my reaction to Jon’s presentation.

Phil Beaver does not “know” the-indisputable-facts. He trusts and is committed to the-objective-truth of which most is undiscovered and some is understood. He is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.