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.
I don’t get it.
The Advocate writes “what works best ethically in politics can work best
tactically, too. Hailing from Louisiana . . . political hardball . . . Brazile
should have known that already.”
Google informs
that “Machiavellian” means “cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous,” and
“hardball” means “to act or work aggressively, competitively, or ruthlessly.”
Perhaps I'm
distracted by “ethically” then “tactically,” so let’s consider definitions.
First, “in a morally good or correct manner,” then, “in a way that relates to
actions carefully planned to gain a specific end.” It seems The Advocate holds
ethical the means that reach a specific end. Maybe they are writing for their
audience.
It does not
follow that Louisiana taught Brazile; perhaps the liberal democrat faction here
trained her. I guess when CNN fired Brazile they disagreed with both Brazile
and The Advocate.
Today’s thought,
G.E. Dean (Matthew 16:24 CJB)
“Then Yeshua told his talmidim, “If anyone wants to
come after me, let him say ‘No’ to himself, take up his execution-stake, and
keep following me.”
Dean says “Being a follower of Jesus means commitments to
Jesus.”
Matthew and Dean speak of mysteries. I prefer Ralph Waldo
Emerson’s message in “Divinity School Address.” I paraphrase, “Phil, you can develop
fidelity to the-objective-truth.” I took me nearly 15 years of occasional re-reading
to get that message from Emerson. Fidelity is what I want to accomplish every
day in even the smallest way. Double talk, like “follower . . . commitments”
and mysticism have no appeal.
Disclaimers
respecting “news” articles---apologies in the absence of a responsible press
mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article182528881.html
by Tony Pugh and TNS
I have my birth certificate and other information. I present
my driver’s license each time I vote.
I want city, state and nation to
guarantee that my vote competes with citizens' votes only. I do not think that
is possible without 1) certification of citizenship and 2) ID at the time a vote is cast.
Letters
Personal liberty (Weber)
(theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_058b4292-bfec-11e7-b574-17904c4ac305.html)
“We have more
in common than we have separating us.“
The statement is too vague, Weber. Christianity factions and
a multitude of other religion factions divide us. Our largest faction does not
have an entry in that game.
What do we have in common?
Political propriety (Jones)
(theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_5ce8ca9a-c321-11e7-af18-1fc23dc93228.html)
Thank goodness
I am long since no slave to college instructors.
But wait! F. King Alexander wants to convert any TOPS
savings into direct LSU funding. Not if I can prevent his wicked shell game.
Columns. (The fiction/non-fiction
comments gallery for readers)
Personal preferences (Froma Harrop) wvgazettemail.com/opinion/gazette_opinion/columnists/froma-harrop-college-football-haves-have-nots-and-dropouts-gazette/article_44650a2d-bdbe-5893-8146-5fdb7ec2c1e0.html
I don’t agree with Harrop. A
civic culture allows each person to responsibly develop themselves according to
personal preferences. I can’t explain people’s preferences, but I don’t need to
understand in order to stay out of their way. I have this attitude because I want
to responsibly do what I want to do, rather than what Harrop would have me do.
Maybe I would feel better about
Harrop’s attitude if she’d said others skip the picnic to go to the game.
Grant (George Will) (washingtonpost.com/opinions/hysterical-mobs-are-crudely-judging-history-one-book-offers-a-better-way/2017/11/03/748f44f0-bffa-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?utm_term=.e768aa692ba7)
Will seems to
realize that his campaign to defeat President Trump long since died. Good for
Will, but what’s done is done: Will's gullibility to his personal wisdom is known.
Let’s face it.
Will’s approval is no feather in Chernow’s hat.
Racist monologue (Eugene Robinson)
washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-trump-is-the-master-of-abhorrent-identity-politics/2017/11/02/e675bca8-c003-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?utm_term=.6beb5f195319
The Congressional Black Caucus has
a purpose:
Civic citizens collaborate for
comprehensive peace. It is difficult for me to imagine collaborating with
someone who’s first point of interest is skin color. I don’t understand how any
president of the United States could perceive the need to favor a people
because of their skin color.
I think Robinson is a racist. I don’t
know the-objective-truth, but that’s my opinion.
Other forums
libertylawsite.org/2017/11/07/natural-law-is-more-inspiring-than-natural-rights
Professor Kries, I appreciate your
concerns but do not agree with your claims and want to share my opinions.
First, “Americans are all supportive
of natural rights” seems a fallacy with three controversies in three words: all
support rights.
The fact that there are dissidents
to civic morality—civic justice—disputes the “all.” The fact that the civic
agreement offered in the preamble to the constitution for the USA is not
publicly promoted disputes the “support.” There remains “rights.”
The problem with rights is that each
human being has the potential—the latent psychological power—to not believe
anyone. The civic citizen develops fidelity by personal experience and by
observing, perhaps in other people, misery and loss from erroneous choices and
habits, often by dissidence toward justice. Fortunate is the person who, before
death, discovers the-objective-truth and develops fidelity to the discoveries.
For example, the earth is not the center of the universe. Also, civic citizens
do not lie so they can communicate.
In reality, Aristotelian beliefs may
fall under definitions, first from Merriam-Webster online (MW): vague
speculation: a belief without sound basis: a theory postulating the possibility
of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power. Continuing
with MW to include theism: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual
truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such
as intuition or insight). Continuing to Google, powered by Oxford Dictionary:
belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought,
especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious
agencies. The word I looked up to find these usages is “mysticism.” I did not
expect the definitions, and do not claim they express the-objective-truth.
There is nothing wrong with people
dealing with the uncertainties in life using personal religion, such as one of
the factions of Christianity, factional Judaism, factional Islam, other theism,
non-theism. However, it is incumbent on believers as well as non-believers to
observe that inhabitants of the earth are in two groups—civic citizens versus
dissidents—and to choose the civic side.
Which brings me to the possible
Aristotelian fallacy labeled “natural law.” Is it a vain substitute for
the-objective-truth?
Humankind has imagined a question:
Does God control the unfolding of events in the universe? The-objective-truth
informs us that we don’t know. Yet there is nothing wrong with hoping God
exists and is in control, as long as the hope does not motivate civic
injustice.
It seems self-evident that I do not
claim to know the-objective-truth. I write hoping for iterative collaboration
for comprehensive peace. In other words, I offer my views as a matter of
discourse rather than alienation, controversial as these topics may be. I write
to learn rather than teach.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment