July 21, 2018
Phil Beaver seeks to collaborate on the-objective-truth, which can only be discovered. The comment box below invites readers to write.
"Civic" refers to citizens who collaborate for responsible freedom more than for the city, state, nation, or other institution.
A personal paraphrase of preamble, the USA Constitution’s most neglected legal statement: For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrase to nouns and paraphrase it for my proposal as follows: We the willing citizens of the United States collaborate for self-discipline regarding integrity, justice, defense, prosperity, liberty, and children and by this amendable constitution limit the U.S.'s service to the people in their states. I want to collaborate with the other citizens on this paraphrase. I would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people..
It seems no one has challenged whether or not the preamble is a legal statement. The fact that it changed this independent country from a confederation of states to dual federalism managed by the people convinces me the preamble is legal.
Every citizen has equal opportunity to either trust-in and collaborate-on the goals stated in the preamble or be dissident to the agreement. I think 2/3 of citizens try somewhat to use the preamble but do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies children. “Freedom of religion,” which government cannot discipline, bemuses freedom to develop civic integrity.
Letters
Christian arrogance (Fred Jeff Smith) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_06a6a57e-8aab-11e8-9d7b-8f59cde13124.html)
I’m continually apprised of what African-American Christianity might mean; https://www.wsj. com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778. I never liked the saying “the Christian thing to do,” but wonder, what does “the African-American Christian thing to do” mean?
Over a year ago, Smith represented himself as a black liberation theologian and said, “They don't have that connection with historical oppression in this country — nor in their religion. Therefore, their approach to Jesus is from the standpoint of the oppressor." https://www. theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/entertainment_life/faith/article_5c93d0f8-e271-11e6-a2d3-f3a78dd096a1.html. The writer opined that “They” cited white people.
Like most Bible thumpers, Smith ignores the “scripture” he quotes, begging personal woe. In this case, I’m thinking Matthew 7:1, “Don't judge, so that you won't be judged.” Like Smith, I doubt 7:1’s theological implications, but have experienced and observed in life “what goes down comes around.”
Another observation I realized halfway unto my eighth decade: Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. Many people think honesty (casual opinion) is sufficient. However, integrity is a process involving discovery, understanding, commitment, sharing, and readiness to consider new discovery. Integrity leads to fidelity regarding actual reality rather than competition for dominant honesty.
I encourage every person: If you are using your excellence for deceit, consider developing integrity. If your religious institution deceives believers, put it aside and find reliability according to your IPEA.
On civic rather than spiritual matters, if you have not studied the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as a civil agreement, subtle and repressed as the legal power may be, take time to understand it. Consider adopting the agreement. With most people collaborating using the preamble, the path to civic justice may begin. We the People of the United States, through civic self-discipline will begin to discipline elected and appointed officials of our state and our nation.
By collaborating to improve the above civic principles and practice, Baton Rougeans may establish the most outstanding civic city.
To Tom Robinson: Tom, Smith's theology is far more serious than your language depicts.
In general, belief in Christian ministers’ promises about rewarding afterdeath effects abiding hell on earth. Only believers can discipline ministers to join We the People of the United States, an entity ministers falsely labeled “secular” from the start (1787).
Consider the theology R. E. Lee expressed to his wife in 1856 (https://leefamilyarchive. org/9-family-papers/339-robert-e-lee-to-mary-anna-randolph-custis-lee-1856-december-27): "The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is Known & ordered by a wise & merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.”
Bleeding Kansas had already begun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas), and Lee, with a civic rather than Christian mind regarding protecting his family could have sold all that he owned and moved to a non-slave state. By ignoring the obvious being preached by Frederick Douglass (https://rbscp. lib.rochester.edu/2945), Lee begged his own woe. And woe came.
African-American Christianity, likewise, by ignoring the legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, begs woe. Believers accept the civic future ministers impose on them yet take chances on the afterdeath.
African-American Christianity, likewise, by ignoring the legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, begs woe. Believers accept the civic future ministers impose on them yet take chances on the afterdeath.
To Brian Wilson: Also, beyond atheism there is humility: Admitting to your person that you don't know what you actually don't know.
I struggled for five decades to force my person into Mom and Dad's religion. Then something happily drastic brought to my attention that whatever is in charge of actual reality might consider me an infidel. I decided to never turn my back on actual reality or the-objective-truth again. I don't want anyone to think as I do, but I do urge consideration of the idea that follows.
I struggled for five decades to force my person into Mom and Dad's religion. Then something happily drastic brought to my attention that whatever is in charge of actual reality might consider me an infidel. I decided to never turn my back on actual reality or the-objective-truth again. I don't want anyone to think as I do, but I do urge consideration of the idea that follows.
There exists perhaps 4000 years of philosophy that posits that humans are innately good and bad. About 800 years of Western scholarship fine-tuned that idea. However, we may observe that the human beings is so powerful it takes about three decades for a feral infant to transform into a young adult informed and intent on living a complete human life according to his or her preferences rather than the happiness a god or government would impose on him or her.
Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. If the individual’s religious association is not complimenting his or her IPEA, he or she may leave that society. If the individual’s government is not conforming to human discipline, he or she may exercise citizenship and collaborate for reform. In the USA, We the People of the United States may collaborate for civic integrity rather than conflict for dominant opinion. So far, religion has repressed We the People of the United States by falsely labelling it “secular”. The preamble is neutral to religion, race, gender, and chronological age.
Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to either develop integrity or not. If the individual’s religious association is not complimenting his or her IPEA, he or she may leave that society. If the individual’s government is not conforming to human discipline, he or she may exercise citizenship and collaborate for reform. In the USA, We the People of the United States may collaborate for civic integrity rather than conflict for dominant opinion. So far, religion has repressed We the People of the United States by falsely labelling it “secular”. The preamble is neutral to religion, race, gender, and chronological age.
Christian arrogance (Bruce Nolan) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_bdf5ba44-891b-11e8-8673-43f5396a5c04.html)
Nolan reminds me of the Catholic with whom I shared an idea: Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity or not. The Catholic promptly replied, that’s the way it is, Phil, and I assign my IPEA to god. I responded, “OK, but that is a bridge of faith I cannot cross.” The Catholic did not hear my lower case “god,” but it is clear to every person that IPEA cannot be assigned---is unalienable by the individual.
A person on my side of the bridge (non-believer) reads John 15-23 and responds: Not on my account is there hate in my regard for you, Jesus, or personal gods. I doubt there is a God, but am humble to actual reality, whatever there is. Nevertheless, in a civic culture there is no excuse for introducing the word “hate” to address human connections and transactions.
I speculate that Nolan would respond to the above mysterious doctrine with more mystery. He is welcome to bring his mysteries to the public square. Even to the question of the woman’s primacy in her decision to remain pregnant or not. Neither her viable ovum nor her fetus, in whatever stage of gestation, has the awareness and wisdom to overcall her decision. The U.S. Supreme Court expressed this principle as the woman’s privacy in her decision.
The pope heads a business that is such a dramatic failure on abuse of children, parents, and other adults that he ought to resign once and for all time. With his resignation, perhaps publicity about his record of ova-abuse might be avoided. It is indeed a visceral topic.
As if that is not enough, perhaps Nolan has the hubris to explain 1 Peter 2:18-21, NIV: “Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.”
Bring this to the public square with Mr. Nolan suffering as slave. If he feels that way already, maybe a little IPEA could provide relief.
As for my part, I think it is un-civic to continually ignore the difference between religious morality, a private pursuit for mature adults only, and civic morality, a public obligation.
The Advocate personnel are remiss on not publishing a balance in this regard. For example, “Today’s thought,” while a money maker, ought to be offset by statements of the-discovered-objective-truth. For example, the sun does not travel across the sky each day. Children and adolescents would like to know the actual reality they cannot articulate. The Advocate freely ignores its responsibility, apparently by business plan.
News
Blood no metaphor for civic morality (Andrea Gallo) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_5592890e-8c64-11e8-9d05-a7f9732c9036.html)
Mayor Broome’s platform is dialogues on racialism and church. I oppose both principles. Also, color represents neither the genealogical content nor the traditional substance of an individual's blood. However, Baton Rougeans may consider the ineluctable march toward either civic integrity or annihilation and take charge of the path---no more loss and misery in order to conflict for dominant opinion. Decide to establish an achievable, better way of living now rather than in the afterdeath of a minister’s dreams.
So far, I think neither Broome nor Wicker understands the American opportunity and dream. Citizens may choose to be among We the People of the United States and willingly collaborate for civic integrity rather than conflict for dominant opinion. In other words, mutually develop human justice in the here and now.
The opportunity and the tacit dream are stated in one civic sentence: The preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The preamble is the legal principle on which a civic people establish the statutory laws of this land. On June 21, 1788, willing people’s delegates in the required nine state conventions established the USA, reducing the confederation of thirteen states to four. The USA began operating on March 4, 1789, representing ten states, the confederation further reduced to three states. Now, with fifty states and six territories, “Union” could be recognized as “integrity” and “posterity” may be recognized as children, grandchildren and beyond.
The laws and institutions specified in the 1787 Constitution intended revolutionary freedom-from England’s oppressions in order that each citizen may have the liberty-to responsibly pursue the happiness he or she prefers rather than the dictates of someone else. However, the 1789 politicians in the first Congress only knew the Canterbury-Blackstone partnership and mimicked a factional-Protestant-common-law partnership.
The church-state partnership falsely labeled the preamble “secular.” The preamble is civic in that it is neutral to religion, race, gender, and heritage. Thus, citizens who adopt the preamble for daily human connections and transactions discipline a civic culture.
The American dream that is tacitly offered by the preamble is a culture wherein most individuals live in self-discipline and the people discipline government to conform to human justice, leaving spirituality a private pursuit.
So far, I think neither Broome nor Wicker understands the American opportunity and dream. Citizens may choose to be among We the People of the United States and willingly collaborate for civic integrity rather than conflict for dominant opinion. In other words, mutually develop human justice in the here and now.
The opportunity and the tacit dream are stated in one civic sentence: The preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The preamble is the legal principle on which a civic people establish the statutory laws of this land. On June 21, 1788, willing people’s delegates in the required nine state conventions established the USA, reducing the confederation of thirteen states to four. The USA began operating on March 4, 1789, representing ten states, the confederation further reduced to three states. Now, with fifty states and six territories, “Union” could be recognized as “integrity” and “posterity” may be recognized as children, grandchildren and beyond.
The laws and institutions specified in the 1787 Constitution intended revolutionary freedom-from England’s oppressions in order that each citizen may have the liberty-to responsibly pursue the happiness he or she prefers rather than the dictates of someone else. However, the 1789 politicians in the first Congress only knew the Canterbury-Blackstone partnership and mimicked a factional-Protestant-common-law partnership.
The church-state partnership falsely labeled the preamble “secular.” The preamble is civic in that it is neutral to religion, race, gender, and heritage. Thus, citizens who adopt the preamble for daily human connections and transactions discipline a civic culture.
The American dream that is tacitly offered by the preamble is a culture wherein most individuals live in self-discipline and the people discipline government to conform to human justice, leaving spirituality a private pursuit.
Racists on MetroCouncil (Andrea Gallo) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_6d12305e-8b7c-11e8-9fbe-c7f8b4485889.html)
To Bill Mann: I like public remarks by "only those who could prove they live in the district." There is more that civic citizens may effect, soon.
By “civic citizens” I mean citizens who adopt the legal agreement that is offered in the preamble to the constitution for the U.S. By legal agreement, I mean either acceptance of the role as collaborator for mutual discipline for living in this land at this time or not. Citizens who do not adopt the preamble’s agreement distinguish themselves per their chosen behaviors: pacifists, dissidents, or rebels. They beg subjugation to the human justice discovered by the collaborators.
The preamble has been repressed by political regimes who falsely label it “secular,’ meaning, at best, areligious. However, the preamble is neutral to religion, race, and gender. It is both a civic sentence and a legal sentence. It offers the world’s first government based on civic self-discipline by individuals who discipline both their state and their nation in a federal republic.
The people’s representatives of nine states legally terminated the confederation of thirteen states on June 21, 1788, leaving four free and independent states with the opportunity to join the U.S. Now, there are fifty states and six territories.
A person who cannot prove they collaborate according to the preamble ought not be allowed to vote, serve on a jury, speak in a civic debate, or perform other functions of authentic citizens. Dissident ministers, bishops, popes, and other “spiritual” influencers especially need to be constrained to serve believers only.
A civic culture requires separation of church and state, but a valid religious institution requires conformity to statutory justice.
I expressed these ideas in letters to The Advocate two decades ago, so I am not merely responding to African-American Christianity, AMO (Alinsky-Marxist organizing), or racial factions like the Congressional Black Caucus.
A better future is offered to citizens now by adopting the preamble for individual liberty with civic morality. It would not take long to begin to enjoy the benefits.
Understand Trump comments in Russia? (Bryn Stole) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_a8544fa2-8a10-11e8-b404-fb72d8f0f755.html)
Most of the Louisiana delegation admirably exercised caution in a situation wherein Trump once again illustrates the humility to change. Richmond makes himself unreliable.
I voted for Trump twice and plan to vote for him at each opportunity. It is prudent to try to comprehend appearances. Here are three applicable scriptures, each of which may contribute to Trump’s trust and commitment to protect his thoughts.
Before, I had not considered that “pearls” could be intentions. Matthew 7:6 Complete Jewish Bible (CJB): “Don’t give to dogs what is holy, and don’t throw your pearls to the pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, then turn and attack you.”
Agathon, in Plato’s “Symposium,” informed us to neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from anyone. Can a person respond to deceit with the-objective-truth and survive?
Raphael Patai in “The Arab Mind,” suggests the bold policy of getting the other party to sign a contract then behaving any way you want.
It would not surprise me if President Trump is aware of many more negotiating ideas and protects We the People of the U.S. against deceit as best he can . . . always expressing humility in Trump actions.
I read each of the reports on comments, and only one seemed false. Can Cedric Richmond verify “we have a president up there being apologetic about American actions toward Russia”? I doubt Richmond can support the claim. I think both black caucuses and Democrats are AMO-ing themselves out of relevance.
AMO: that’s Alinsky-Marxist org*. The current prince is Barack Obama with OFA. See https://medium.com/ofa/president-obama-there-are-no-do-overs-f54154e92415 and https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/obama-aligned-organizing-action-relaunches-trump-era-n719311. Locally, the affiliate is IAF affiliate Together Baton Rouge; https://www.togetherbr.org/about.
Lawyers are trained to obfuscate actual reality for personal gain (Joe Gyan Jr.) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_049b820a-89d3-11e8-9fe1-ff14725853e1.html)
The defense attorney, having taken his training as something other than championing integrity, would trump up the defendant’s claim to prefer strawberries to blueberries if he thought it was bemuse the court. In other words, it is passed the time for a civic people to discipline judges to admit to the legal power of the civic agreement that is stated in the preamble to the U.S. constitution.
If the attorney does not attest to the agreement stated therein, he or she should be disciplined by the ABA and if not a civic people may discipline the bar association.
The DA, also a lawyer may be disciplined for being emotional about the defendant’s reasons, whatever they may be: “Insulting” is not an appropriate regard for a fellow citizen who is accused. Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity or not. If a citizen uses IPEA for crime, statutory justice will constrain his or her behavior once there has been accusation, indictment, and conviction. Even then, the criminal’s opinions need not be deemed “insulting”; criminal, yes, but insulting, no. There’s nothing in an accused citizens’ opinions that a DA ought to address as personal.
The Civil War was a tragic consequence of the 405 AD canonization of the New Testament with passages that condone slave-master relationships and vice versa. The worst I’ve noticed is 1 Peter 2:18-21, NIV about taking a beating. I’m not going to tell Anderson not to relate to that awful “scripture,” but I am going to appeal to him, Haymer, and D’Aquilla to consider the first law of this land and consider joining We the People of the United States.
To Scuddy LeBlanc: Scuddy, Walter Williams tells it like it is: Blacks Must Confront [Actual] Reality.”
Black life in America has declined because of bigoted leaders: the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and such.
For example, quoting Williams, "Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person." That’s 6580 black murderers.
The object of a murder trial is justice for the victim. The American system calls for impartiality, as specified in U.S. Amendment VI. England reformed from their erroneous requirement of unanimous jury verdicts, allowing majority verdicts, in 1974; http://ukcriminallawblog.com/how-do-juries-decide-a-case/. The U.S. has been slow to reform, but has supported Louisiana’s 1880 majority verdicts, with which Oregon agrees.
Glasser (1997) suggested, “The number of assenting jurors required to render a verdict should vary according to the gravity of the charge or severity of the punishment . . . an eleven-to-one majority for capital cases. Felony cases . . . a ten-to-two majority, similar to the provision unsuccessfully challenged in Apodaca [v. Oregon]. In lesser criminal cases, a nine-to-three majority would suffice [and] eight-to-four majority . . . in civil cases.”
Spencer (2006) reports that 87% of the time the judge agrees with the jury, or 1/8 of verdicts are wrong. Using that percentage, we may compute that with the population divided between habitually impartial citizens and those who may be influenced to join the impartial group to form a majority, the influence rate is either 0.606 or 0.736 with 67% or 51% habitually impartial citizens, respectively. With those numbers, impartial verdicts are not predicted for 12 person juries with requirement of either absolute consensus or 11-1 majority. Impartial verdicts are predicted for majorities from 7 to 10. Bigoted jury members numbering 3, 2, or 1 may be negated with 7, 8, or 9 majority, respectively.
Returning to the numbers reported by Williams, 13% or 855 black on black murders are unjustly decided. From the victim’s view and the people’s view, either a wrong conviction or acquittal equally results in a free murderer. Black citizens have a vital interest in preserving Louisiana’s 10-2 majority verdict. The Louisiana Black Caucus as well as national non-profits such as The Marshall Project (https://www.themarshallproject.org/) are misleading the black community.
However, black is a false community to start with. The human beings who are U.S. citizens are offered a civic agreement in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is a legal agreement by which willing people authorize a federal republic. The republic is neutral to responsible social associations; by responsible I mean causing no actual harm. A state or faction in the state that promulgates tyranny over civic citizens may be constrained by the U.S. Constitution.
Other fora
Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity or not. I work to constrain people who would limit freedom to accept IPEA.
For example, I’d like statutory laws and law enforcement to license the clergy so as to clarify that to serve a ministry may, in every thought, in every word, and in every action neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or institution; it is especially harmful to repress someone’s opportunity to develop integrity.
In a moral culture, the pope would be forced to resign, because his organization systematically abuses people, especially children. Often, neither parent accepts IPEA let alone develops integrity.
Most religion itself is so harmful to believers that few people even know that integrity is a practice: doing the work to understand the-discovered-objective-truth; behaving accordingly and admitting “I do not know” when that it so; civically sharing the understanding so as to listen and learn the public’s suggestions for improvement; and remaining open-minded to new discovery that demands change.
Few humans accept IPEA. Those who don’t are not equal to those who do.
I write to learn and would appreciate comments.
The attached reference is an important debate for the people who are aware of the opportunity to develop integrity.
The 1787 Constitution is neither areligious (secular) nor religious but is civic or neutral to religion, leaving spiritualism to the individual. "Civic" citizens collaborate for mutual, self-discipline rather than civil governance. Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg failed to imagine that mutual self-discipline of by and for the people ineluctably persists. By "ineluctably" I mean human justice demands civic collaboration. No one wants to be governed, but many people who value fidelity want both self-discipline and civic safety and security.
The 1787 Constitution offered a revolutionary break from England's Blackstone common law and Canterbury oppression of the people. England has a mixed constitution that not only classifies people but codifies the partnership of church and state. Thereby, the Parliament is thought to be divine.
The first U.S. Congress, representing only ten states, unconstitutionally mimicked the English church-state partnership by hiring factional American Protestant congressional ministers in April-May, 1789, so that Congress may appear divine on par with Parliament. With four added states, Congress erroneously codified "freedom of religion" rather than freedom to develop integrity in the English-mimicking Bill of Rights, ratified on December 15, 1791.
We the People of the United States is a legal entity that may amend the First Amendment so as to protect each citizen's opportunity to discover and develop integrity, an individual's duty, rather than subjugate to religion, a business institution.
I have written extensively and witnessed in a Louisiana Senate meeting in favor of actual reality rather than accepted civilization respecting slavery.
A human being is constrained to ask, with slavery so obviously wrong, how could anyone preach for it much less start a war with 7:27 unfavorable odds, as the CSA faced against the USA at Fort Sumter? The answer is in the Declaration of Secession, “[A]ll hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.”
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2018/07/17/john-dickinson-friend-of-conscience/
“No person in any Colony living peaceably under the Civil Government, shall be molested . . . provided, that such person frequents regularly some Place of religious Worship on the Sabbath . . . “ may be the most severe blasphemy I have ever read.
It surpasses “James Madison” (see https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-08-02-0163) in M&R: “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.”
More offensive is the First Amendment’s religion clauses, which need to be amended so as to protect the development of integrity.
Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop integrity or not. Any person who creates religious tests for a human being neither pursues nor understands integrity.
Integrity is a process that leads to the development of fidelity.
I happened upon this article in trying to find Emina Melonic’s ideas I cannot now access on libertylawsite.org (below).
My comments to Nicholas Capaldi (posted on the cite):
Ethics is the knowledge of morality, or right and wrong, and the knowledge is both diverse and incomplete.
By diverse I mean, humankind recognizes, perhaps erroneously, different classes of ethics: conformity to doctrine or law, justice in human connections and transactions, fidelity to a god, fidelity to a people, and egocentricity. I work for civic ethics, or human justice in connections and transactions including privacy; what happens to the least human affects every human. Therefore, my work pertains to civic ethics, or the ethics of human justice.
By incomplete, I mean the moral action is not known for the circumstance that has not yet occurred or been recognized by humankind. For example, the world still does not know that invading another country that has not directly attacked you or an ally is immoral: The reasons Bush invaded Iraq were known to be false.
If ethics is both diverse and un-discovered, perhaps it is a tool for encouraging and coaching students to develop integrity.
In developing integrity, or the pursuit of moral principles, review of past ideas is valuable only as a negative. As Kahlil Gibran informed us in “On Children,” discovery “goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.”
Like everything else, developing integrity is empowered by discovery and cannot be constrained by the past. Thus, it seems erroneous to accept the question, “How should ethics be taught in the college classroom today?” Discovery, not being predictable, cannot be taught.
I suggest modifying the question by replacing “taught” with “encouraged and coached.” Then the response may be “The teacher may provide students exemplary development of integrity.”
For some reason, I cannot access this essay, so reprint it from the email:
Learning for Life: Political Education According to Michael Oakeshott
|
In a world in which everything is politicized — even the choice of food! — it is difficult to find conversations that involve actual politics and not ideology. For the most part, people are not trained or educated in politics, and so they regurgitate one ideological doctrine or the other. In order to know what real thinking and proper political discourse should look like, it’s very important to define and single out ideology. For British philosopher, Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990), ideology limits the possibilities of the individual mind and by implication, the possibilities of productive discourse.
In his essay, “Political Education” (1951, and reprinted in 2001 by Liberty Fund as a part of The Voice of Liberal Learning), Oakeshott makes a crucial distinction between political ideology and politics. His timely reflections can illuminate and help us move beyond the current onslaught of identity politics in the public square. Just as Oakeshott explored what makes political education unique and necessary, we too should be concerned with this very issue.
Oakeshott reflected extensively on the importance of politics in people’s lives. For him, political education is not limited to the classroom, although a “reflection on political activity may take place at various levels,” one of these being philosophy (182). But, what makes politics unique is that it’s grounded in real life, which is composed of both action and contemplation. Political ideology, on the other hand masquerades as philosophy, and it “purports to be an abstract set of principles, or a set of related abstract principles, which has been independently premeditated (164).
Regressing further into a theoretical abstraction is a hallmark of political ideology. This, however, is not its only inadequacy. Being “independently premeditated” means that political ideology is not concerned with an organic opening and development of the mind. Rather, it has an attachment to a particular abstract principle and it forces the reality to fit into that principle. This ‘symptom’ of bad thinking that Oakeshott is describing resides primarily in the abstract empiricism of ideology, which has to do with a “style” of politics rather than real political activity.
Politics or political activity for Oakeshott is very much connected to the idea and reality of the community. It is “an activity of attending to the general arrangements of a set of people whom chance or choice have brought together” (159). Politics is relational in nature and it is in those relations that we learn how to navigate through any community which we may be part of. Unlike political ideology, political activity is not primarily concerned with theoretical musings but what kind of human beings are created in the process of politics. With this argument, Oakeshott affirms the dialogue between the individual and the community.
Politics is an act, but not one identical to activism. In our current state of affairs, we witness ideology daily in empty and meaningless slogans, whether it comes from established media figures, protests, or general social media exchanges among people. It all amounts to what we may call ‘hashtag politics.’ We understand the activity of politics when we recognize that the world we inhabit is not a haphazard mess but a “concrete whole” (161). The actual political act extends beyond static terms, which are the territory of ideology. Rather, a political act has the “source of its movement within itself” (161). What Oakeshott means is that politics, by nature, is a movable act dependent upon individual thought.
Since human beings are not inherently inert creatures, we can’t expect to grow intellectually from the diet of political ideology. Political ideology, just like today’s identity politics, is an immovable set of terms, which seeks revolution for revolution’s sake, agitation for agitation’s sake. It posits a view of reality before any encounter with actual and individual lived experience. From this seat of fake wisdom, its proponents coerce and force real events into being assessed through an artificially created framework. There is no room for an individual voice in this joyless theoretical grid. As Oakeshott remarks, "Wherever else politics may begin, they cannot begin in ideological activity" (173). In a moment when the citizen’s voice is silenced, then he has ceased to engage in political activity.
If the signs of political ideology are cold empiricism and coercion of individual thought, then real political activity must involve freedom of individual thought that acknowledges the past intellectual efforts but also looks to the future.
It’s not enough to either “be concerned” or to know “one’s own tradition of political activity” (182). It is only natural that we know what we are familiar with and what we encounter every day. This is what our lives are composed of. But in order for political activity to also be a political education, it
must embrace... knowledge of the politics of other contemporary societies.… The study of another people’s politics, like a study of our own, should be an ecological study of a tradition of behavior, not an anatomical study of mechanical devices or the investigation of an ideology. And only when our study is of this sort shall we find ourselves in the way of being stimulated, but not intoxicated, by the manners of others” (182)
The originality of Oakeshott’s thoughts on education truly lies in the above paragraph. For him, politics is also metaphysics, and this is one of the most important aspects of this essay. This assertion certainly goes against political and philosophical tradition that politics is just a set of principles which are sometimes applied in order to gain a particular outcome. Metaphysics, on the other hand, inevitably involves an individual's interior life, which is composed of memory, ethics, a relation to the particular community, and generally speaking, a world view. Without affirmation of metaphysics in political activity, we are indeed just a series of abstract constructs, devoid of humanity, and slaves of political ideology. Not only is politics about the wholeness of the person, it is also about the wholeness of thought. Person and thought are never separated, just as an individual and community aren’t either. If the person is seen only as a concept, then it shouldn’t be surprising that it will limit knowledge, reason, and ultimately education itself.
In order for political activity to flourish, we have to recognize that politics originates in a personal encounter, which ought to always be in concert with knowledge and learning. This is why the metaphysics of an individual person is the most important ingredient for the flourishing of our society.
Education, and certainly political education, is not about rigid terminology, which is what ideology offers. It is about a constant opening of the mind, and “the more profound our understanding of political activity, the less we shall be at the mercy of a plausible but mistaken analogy, the less we shall be tempted by a false or irrelevant model” (184). At the heart of this unfolding of the mind is a face-to-face encounter. An encounter such as this doesn’t create an imposition or a coercion for the person with whom we are engaging. Rather, it is a political activity that is grounded in freedom, which begins with the individual and naturally continues into the folds of the community.
In order for such a political activity to occur, we have to recognize the inherent dignity of another person. The question we have to ask is whether an act of learning is contributing to the growth and flourishing of ourselves and others, or is it taking us into the depths of unenlightened ideological repetitions. As we learn about others in an encounter, as we recognize their humanity, we shall also be surprised by the new knowledge we unearth about ourselves.
My comment:
Condensing some quotes: “Oakeshott affirms the dialogue between the individual and the community. Politics is an act, but not one identical to activism. The actual political act extends beyond static terms, which are the territory of ideology. What Oakeshott means is that politics, by nature, is a movable act dependent upon individual thought.”
The discussion would be helped by an imaginary dialogue, let’s say, between an originalist and a civic citizen, call him or her “preamblist,” who thinks the preamble to the U.S. Constitution is a legal agreement offered among living people in fifty states rather than reserved for the people living on June 21, 1788, when the people’s representative of nine states established the USA.
By “legal,” I mean the preamble 1) ended the confederation of states and started the union of states, the first federal republic to be disciplined by willing people and 2) created the laws and institutions by which the people may divide themselves: the willing (civic), the passives, the dissidents, the rebels, and the criminals. “Civic” goes beyond law abiding, in that the willing people discover injustice then collaborate to correct statutory law. According to the above Oakeshott ideas, the originalist would not brook non-static dialogue with the preamblist, at least not overtly.
“In a moment when the citizen’s voice is silenced, then he has ceased to engage in political activity.” This statement begins passive but emerges active: Why? I think I don’t agree: When the originalist ignores or ridicules, the preamblist may still publish and speak his or her thoughts for possible collaboration. Also, the preamblist develops his or her understanding regardless of stonewalling. That is, the preamblist learns from the stonewaller's stonewalling.
“Metaphysics, on the other hand, inevitably involves an individual's interior life, which is composed of memory, ethics, a relation to the particular community, and generally speaking, a world view. Without affirmation of metaphysics in political activity, we are indeed just a series of abstract constructs, devoid of humanity, and slaves of political ideology.”
Advocating metaphysics seems equivalent to saying any-subjective-truth is as worthy of development as the-objective-truth; imagination is as valid as actual reality; doctrine is on par with fact. That’s a belief I cannot adopt. Also, “world view” arrogates actual reality, an act I cannot undertake. Naturally, I do not subscribe to the conclusions: devoid and slaves.
I think “metaphysics” in this discussion is a lame surrogate for personal hopes and dreams. In other words, the human practice is to hope and dream and call it "metaphysics." Only when hopes and dreams conform to actual reality may a human develop the person he or she may be. Thus, willing humans are not slaves yet work to discover and utilize the-objective-truth.
“At the heart of this unfolding of the mind is a face-to-face encounter. An encounter such as this doesn’t create an imposition or a coercion for the person with whom we are engaging. Rather, it is a political activity that is grounded in freedom, which begins with the individual and naturally continues into the folds of the community.”
Part of actual reality is that every other human may develop hopes and dreams. Every human has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (IPEA) to develop his or her person.
Freedom-from oppression provides each person the liberty-to either develop integrity or not. Integrity is the process of discovery, benefiting, publicly sharing and listening regarding understanding and benefits, and remaining open to new discovery that demands change. The willing person responsibly uses his or her IPEA to develop personal hopes and dreams rather than the plans someone else has for them.
Unfortunately, extant cultures do not publicize IPEA during the first three decades. Then, a human, feral infant may transition to young adult with understanding and intent to live a full life, perhaps 80 years. Some humans do not develop integrity, intentionally or not.
Unfortunately, extant cultures do not publicize IPEA during the first three decades. Then, a human, feral infant may transition to young adult with understanding and intent to live a full life, perhaps 80 years. Some humans do not develop integrity, intentionally or not.
Humans who use their IPEA to either deceive, practice crime, or enact evil betray their own dignity, and may suffer constraint by statutory justice. Hopefully, justice inspires reform.
Statutory justice is grounded in the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion. Criminals and evils employ their IPEA to defeat arbitrary laws. In other words, dominant opinion such as a theism is insufficient for statutory justice.
Statutory justice is grounded in the-objective-truth rather than dominant opinion. Criminals and evils employ their IPEA to defeat arbitrary laws. In other words, dominant opinion such as a theism is insufficient for statutory justice.
The above principles spring from the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which seems to have two practical flaws: “a more perfect Union” and “our posterity.” Perhaps civic integrity is more useful than “Union” and “the children and beyond” is more expressive than “posterity.” However, the original sentence outlines a noble civic morality by which the people may guide development of integrity and collaborate to discipline both their state and the nation.
The articles and institutions that were specified in 1787 (to fulfill the preamble) were amendable then and remain so now. No one may justifiably use them to retard any person’s or any institution’s development of integrity. The-objective-truth exists, and eventually humankind discovers actual reality. Often it comes with woe.
Phil Beaver does not “know.” He trusts in and is committed to the-objective-truth which can only be discovered. Conventional wisdom has truth founded on reason, but it obviously does not work. Phil is agent for A Civic People of the United States, a Louisiana, education non-profit corporation. See online at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, and consider essays from the latest and going back as far as you like.
No comments:
Post a Comment