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 individual happiness with civic integrity more than for the city, state, nation, or society.
Consider writing a personal paraphrase of the preamble, which offers fellow citizens mutual equality: For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and paraphrase it for my interpretation of its proposal as follows: “We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living fellow citizens and future citizens to take advantage of responsible human independence.” I want to improve my interpretation by listening to other citizens and their interpretations yet would preserve the original, 1787, text, unless it is amended by the people.
It seems the Supreme Court occasionally refers to it, and 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 a union of states deliberately managed by disciplined fellow citizens convinces me the preamble is legal. Equity in opportunity and outcome is shared by the people who collaborate for human justice.
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 many do not articulate commitment to the goals. However, it seems less than 2/3 understand that “posterity” implies grandchildren. “Freedom of religion,” which fellow citizens have no means to discipline, oppresses freedom to develop integrity.
Selected theme from this week
Theists may reserve some humility toward whatever-God-is
For 4 decades I tried to indoctrinate myself in dear Mom and dear Dad’s Christian religions, unable to perceive that their doctrines were competitive. Initially, I thought my wife’s Christian faith was, after all, Christian, even though I could not adopt it for myself. Finally, I came to realize that the three doctrines were mutually exclusive. I then appreciated each of my 3 children’s faiths, my wife’s faith, discovered my faith in the-literal-truth grounded in the ineluctable evidence. It had been my faith from perhaps age 10, and it was obfuscated by my indoctrination that the Holy Bible is the word of whatever-God-is. Today, I am able to articulate that dilemma, which seems humble.
Now, I appreciate every fellow citizen who behaves for mutual, comprehensive safety and security, and do not question their religion/none. I stand with fellow citizens who consider the civil claim “under God” or “in God we trust” lacking a reserve of humility toward whatever-God-is. Yet I do not know the-literal-truth: For all I know, my faith in whatever-God-is does not conform to whatever-God-is.
Columns
Discipline of by and for We the People of the United States (Walter Williams) (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams012920.php3)
Williams has political ideas I support. However, like most scholar readers, he thinks in proprietary babel from 17th and 18th century British tradition, thereby helping to repress the American proposition that is expressed in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The entity We the People of the United States will stay in civic chaos until we demand non-proprietary writing.
For example, Williams, typically, asserted that “the founders’” republic preserves rights granted by “the Great Legislator of the Universe”, then wrote that in both democracies and monarchies “Laws do not represent reason. They represent power.” That is, power to rescind rights granted by whatever-God-is according to a “founder”. The U.S. Constitution’s stated goals are unity, justice, tranquility, defense, and welfare and its purpose is to encourage the advantage of citizenship.
Scholars use “founders” to pretend 1776 constitutional authority. Founder is designated by the writer and could cite a politician who was active from 1763 through 1791. The U.S. Constitution’s May-September, 1787 framers specified a republican form of government. They represented only 12 of 13 former British colonies who self-styled themselves states in 1774. Of the 55 framers, only 39 wanted the Constitution enough to sign it. Congress, in 1791, deemed the 1787 Constitution “godless” and rendered the preamble “secular” with the Bill of Rights.
Whatever-God-is may appreciate neither the label “the Great Legislator of the Universe” nor the person with the hubris to express it. No government should impose theism on its people. The First Amendment needs reform so as to protect humble integrity rather than the hubris of civil theism.
Williams writes “Congress . . . poses the greatest threat to our liberties.” My interpretation of the preamble designates 5 public disciplines to encourage and empower living citizens to take advantage of responsible human independence. The phrase “responsible human liberty” seems tainted by the possibility to take liberty to act with license. Liberty is a 17th and 18th century obsession that inspired much bloodletting. When blood may run, I want the independence to reject wrongful liberty.
Nevertheless, I like Williams’ concern: Each time someone expresses the American proposition as “our democracy” or the like, I try to learn the tyranny the speaker advocates or tolerates so as to object.
Posted at the above URL.
Lobbying for public compromise on mystery rather than ineluctable evidence (Kathryn Goppelt) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_2f27dac2-6165-11e9-bf80-cfcb0843cf8b.html)
The people who commit-to and trust-in mutual, comprehensive safety and security and encourage fellow citizens to join the practice can discourage proprietary language that preserves traditional misguidance.
A humble public expression may be "whatever-God-is" (or somebody's better suggestion). That way, Goppelt, and all other theists would be encouraged to reserve representative humility rather than demand the imposition of their personal God not only on fellow citizens but on whatever-God-is.
A chronological adult who has not considered such reserve has accepted neither being human nor being of We the People of the United States.
In my youth, I thought well of the prayer "under God" I learned at Staub School, Knoxville, TN. However, in my mid-seventies, I cringe every time I hear that phrase. Such hubris invites woe, which the expression "under whatever-God-is" or better might avoid. I stay silent on that and other public ceremony, and would like relief from the imposition.
We could start by amending the Bill of Rights so that it encourages fellow citizens to develop civic integrity, leaving religious pursuits to private choice rather than public imposition.
Lobbying for public compromise on mystery rather than ineluctable evidence (The Advocate) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_2f27dac2-6165-11e9-bf80-cfcb0843cf8b.html)
The Advocate writes to bemuse the world with the mystery of Christ. Increasingly, because of the Internet, humankind comprehends the ineluctable evidence for the reliability of physics (the objects of research) rather than doctrine (human constructs).
Christianity may admit to physics as the law to which humans must conform for living, while believers develop their hopes for the afterdeath they personally favor. In other words, physics requires Christians to appreciate fellow citizens with non-Christian hopes, such as individually favored re-incarnation rather than everlasting spiritual life or other doctrine, whether afterdeath is involved or not.
The Advocate, intentionally or not, proposes a Christian versus secular dichotomy with non-Christians compromising to accept Christianity’s mystery-doctrine rather than physics’ concrete laws. Physics’ progeny includes human psychology. The Advocate overlooks Christianity’s option to appreciate physics’ ineluctable disciplines for life as well as the mystery of afterdeath; to connect with fellow citizens for life rather than try to impose a particular preference for afterdeath.
The Christians who do not accept, for example, “the difficult conditions of [physical] distancing” are dissidents to the U.S. goals for public disciplines; goals intended to take advantage of responsible human independence under physics’ laws.
The goals and purpose of what may be called The American Dream are stated in the U.S. Preamble, and its essence is infused into many citizens’ genes and memes. In my interpretation, the proposition is: We the People of the United States encourage 5 public disciplines---unity, justice, tranquility, defense, and welfare---so as to take advantage of responsible human independence. Notably, the proposal features no standards, tacitly stating that “our Posterity” will discover required fidelity to the disciplines. I’d like to consider The Advocate’s interpretation of the people’s proposition for public living that accommodates private hopes.
The U.S. is the consequence of an era of bloodletting from the 1689 English revolution, to the 1774 American Revolution joined by France in their ongoing war against England, and to the 1789 French Revolution with attempted expulsion of Christianity.
In contrast, the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787 proposed three radical changes that only 2/3 of framers would sign. First, the 1774 Confederation of 13 free and independent states, so recognized globally by the 1783 Treaty of Paris, would be terminated by unity among 9 states whose people’s ratifying conventions were positive. Second, the customary eastern-seaboard allegiance to human specifications of whatever-God-is, whether it be “Nature’s God,” the Almighty, the Creator, the Trinity, the One, the Lord, God, love, or majority opinion vs collective opinion was discontinued in the people’s proposition. Each citizens could choose to develop the proposition, abide it, neglect it, or oppose the rule of law at statutory risk. Third, the U.S. would use the 5 disciplines to establish psychological independence from colonial British-American dominance.
The 1/3 of framers with dissidence to the 1787 U.S. Constitution influenced the First Congress to re-establish as many colonial-British traditions as possible. However, instead of The Church of England’s membership in Parliament, Congress would have factional-American-Protestant chaplains at the people’s expense. The 1787 U.S. Constitution became erroneously labeled “godless” and “secular.” It’s been that way since then, and it is the press’s job to journal the progression/regression in the development of the American proposition.
The time for We the People of the United States to establish an American dream under that U.S. Preamble’s proposition and the ineluctable evidence has been ushered in by the Internet’s empowerment of the individual. The value of mystery is beheld-by and used-for the believer who perceives advantage in believing yet encourages fellow citizenship that is inspired and motivated by other private spiritualisms or mysteries.
Readers who are accustomed to my work may note that “to take advantage of responsible human independence” is a recent development in my view of the U.S. Preamble; especially the expression “take advantage of.” Civic integrity is advantageous to the individual and justifies a press that encourages responsible human independence rather than attempts to impose mysteries.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/Is-negative-action-preferable-to-non-action?
As long as the negative action meets Agathon’s rule, negative response is good for many communications, collaborations, and connections toward integrity among fellow citizens. Being human requires civic integrity.
First, let me clarify that “Agathon’s rule” is a phrase I just now used for the first time, prompted by your question. Its use does not empower anyone to claim I am a plagiarist if I use it again without referencing dialogue with George Miller who chose to ask Phil Beaver and who chose to answer on April 18, 2020. In other words, anyone who would make that claim must prove the ineluctable evidence on which the claim is founded. To put it another way, no one can use my future writing about Agathon to require me to reference this first use of the phrase. (I just performed an ngram search, and “Agathon” was found, but not my phrase.) Please forgive the diversion. If you like, list this answer in your hopes to entrap me. Also, for any reason that appeals to them, readers may stonewall my answers. To make myself obvious, quora.com cannot use George Miller’s creative questions to position quora.com to claim Phil Beaver is a plagiarist when he chooses to answer. Public sharing is not that legalistic!
Returning to the topic, Agathon’s rule is my interpretation of Agathon’s speech from Plato’s “Symposium.” The rule is: a civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or human institution. Read Agathon’s speech to see if you can discover bases for my interpretation. Scholars don’t agree with me. “We cannot get much out of this brilliant but empty speech” writes Luc Brisson in https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6266.part-iii-the-symposium-sex-and-gender-10-agathon-pausanias-and-diotima-in-plato-s-symposium-paiderastia-and-philosophia-luc-brisson.
Agathon’s rule is quite demanding, and the human being who develops the practice is likely to develop civic integrity (justice among fellow citizens) as well as fidelity to the-literal-truth, which is approachable through the-objective-truth. Consider, for example, another Platonic reference, this time to Socrates and a question which I interpret as follows: Do some people claim to know whatever-God-is because God is justice or is justice sufficient for acclaim?
Now, an institution could claim that anyone who suggests that their doctrinal God may not conform to whatever-God-is has harmed believers. However, the believer receives hope and comfort from his or her personal God and additionally reserving humility seems appreciative toward whatever-God-is. I perceive that whatever-God-is may not condone my trust-in and commitment-to the-literal-truth. Regardless, how the believer uses this psychology is up to the believer.
Addressing the physical, Agathon’s rule demands strength. Whatever physical attack may come, the person maintains the force needed for defense. Hopefully, notice to law enforcement responders will suffice. However, when attack is imminent, defender needs the power to fulfill the promise to the attacker: If you attempt to execute your attack, you will be defeated (perhaps killed). If the attacker is the military, the citizen is without hope.
Only with free expression may fellow citizens encourage each other to develop responsible human independence. People who, for their reasons, isolate themselves by stonewalling fellow citizens have not discovered let alone accepted being human.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-definition-of-happiness-and-does-it-include-having-other-s-in-your-life?
I view happiness as a nest of acceptances: I am a person in a society within a nation of people within humankind; humans have the awareness and grammar by which to develop individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA); a human may choose to be a person who develops either integrity or infidelity; the standard of integrity is nested conformance to not knowing, the-objective-truth, or the-literal-truth, respectively; Integrity is the practice of discovering the-objective-truth and inventing new instruments to perceive it until the-literal-truth is discovered or approached; integrity is in the person’s self-interest; and fidelity to self provides happiness no matter what calamities come. Infidelity can lead to reform.
Humankind divides itself into 1) societies that pursue the above principles or better and 2) dissidents. The societies have in common mutual, comprehensive safety and security to members who accept the society. They hope that either their example or statutory justice will motivate dissident fellow citizens to reform.
I own the thoughts I share and the right to share them again and would be happy to address any evidence to the contrary with the party of contention.
https://www.quora.com/Why-would-anyone-think-that-not-all-people-deserve-a-place-in-society/
Thank you. You opened my mind to the validity of “society” as a subset of “humanity.” Society encourages fellow humans to pursue integrity.
It seems to me that people who develop civic integrity, both individually and collectively, have some sort of belief similar to: I can aid human equity under statutory justice. “Human equity” means civic intentions and consequences regardless of spiritual preferences. “Statutory justice” means perfection of written law by deliberate reform of discovered injustice—an approachable if not achievable goal.
Statutory justice cannot be negotiated by the present generation, because it has not yet discovered/accepted the unjust written laws. Therefore, only our descendants can be expected to approach statutory justice.
Perhaps people who do not care about the above principles, intentionally or not, are members of humankind but not of society.
https://www.quora.com/Where-does-the-majority-of-our-society-today-get-its-moral-belief-system?
For Western thinkers, theism fuels the mystery of integrity.
For example, about 90% of U.S. adults believe in God (4% atheists and 5% agnostics reported at Where does the majority of our society today get its moral belief system??) but only 54% attend church several times a year.
Obviously, from humankind’s status, theism does not inspire integrity. Competitors in theism rationalize diverse human doctrine with arrogance toward whatever-God-is. The consequence is babel that prevents human beings from being human.
The human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity or infidelity to the-literal-truth, most of which is unknown. To practice integrity, the human being answers by saying I don’t know when he or she does not know. To the question What is the ineluctable evidence for whatever-God-is? a culture of integrity inculcates the response we don’t know.
The babel surrounding “God” is evidence that whatever-God-is leaves it to humankind to develop human equity under statutory justice. Since every human ovum is unique and every spermatozoon is unique, every single-cell embryo is unique. Gestation, delivery, infant care, rearing, and self-discipline do not reduce a person’s uniqueness: equality due to existence yields to equity based on accomplishments. And equity is discovered by amending statutory law whenever injustice is discovered, so that the perfection of statutory justice may be approached.
About 2,400 years ago, Greeks discussed humankind’s opportunity and suggested, in my interpretation, that humans may develop equity under statutory justice. In another discussion, Socrates asked, in my interpretation, whether whatever-God-is is called God because of justice or is justice erroneously called “God”? If the later, humankind needs a standard of justice, and Albert Einstein suggested, again in my interpretation, that every happening is controlled by the laws of physics and its progeny. If these principles hold, every culture needs a citizens’ proposal for equity under justice.
In the U.S., that agreement is offered to every citizen in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is in every citizens’ self-interest to own his or her interpretation of the preamble and share it with others so as to discover possible improvements. My interpretation today is: We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living fellow citizens and future citizens to take advantage of responsible human independence.
There’s no theism in the U.S. Preamble. However, there is the suggestion, as I interpret the preamble, that “ourselves and our Posterity” may continually develop human equity under statutory justice, provided the continuum of fellow citizens accepts the preamble’s proposition.
Physics and its progeny are continually discovered as humankind improves instruments of perception. Each theism may either conform to physics, perish from lack of reliability, or continue as an art form much like classical music. In the arts, interest is a matter of private choice.
Revised on 4/15/2020 after reviewing grammar on when to use quotation marks, intending to eliminate any indication that I was using direct quotation of other writers rather than reference to past, un-referenced and controversial/unresolved thought.
Quora cut this answer. I responded:
I am confused by your objections. Writers and publishers in the era of the Internet cite a key origin of an idea the writer earned from many experiences and observations but perceives a general attribution is due. For example, my readers can Google [Greeks+equity under statutory justice] and get 4 million hits including Greek law | ancient Greece. In another example, readers can Google [Albert Einstein + the laws of physics] and get millions of hits and select What Is Relativity? and read “The universality of physics means that history is provincial. Different viewers will see the timing and spacing of events differently. “ I interpret the author’s view of Einstein’s thought to mean that imagination comes from individual perception of the laws physics.
Also, you seem to want me to refer to a previous publication of an idea I present with fresh thinking each day. For example, if you review my http://quora.com entries wherein I share my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble, you will see that it improves as time, even days, go by.
Please consider the fact that you send me individual questions, and I write an original response to that person. I do not cut and paste from other answers. In the past, I have referred some questioners to earlier, related responses, but found that I was not pleased with that response to the creative slant of the new questioner. In other words, part of your creative process is that the answer-er is stimulated to apply his work with color he did not imagine before the question.
I think that by not publishing my answer to this question as it is you are stonewalling the creative human conversation you attempt to facilitate. Let me know if you see my point, by reinstating my answer.
Thank you for allowing me to respond, and I hope you can grant my request.
Sincerely,
Phil Beaver
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-daily-actions-that-can-influence-your-nations-politics?
Practice the people’s proposition that is offered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble), an abstract, 52 word civic, civil, and legal sentence.
First, develop your individual interpretation of the U.S. Preamble. Some considerations follow. First, the phrase “ourselves and our Posterity” applies to the current generation. It is the latest “our Posterity” since 1787 and “ourselves” to the coming generation. Second, the 5 public goals are self-disciplines rather than governances of the wiling. Third, accepting the public disciplines secures advantageous independence. Fourth, no standards of accomplishment are cited, which implies that “our Posterity” will discover the integrity needed to achieve the goals. I hope these ideas will encourage you to explore the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.
I share my current interpretation of the U.S. Preamble hoping you will suggest improvements: We the People of the United States consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to practice 5 public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity so as to encourage both living fellow citizens and future citizens to take advantage of responsible human independence.
Note that spirituality/religion is included in neither my interpretation nor the original U.S. Preamble. I think that is a tacit statement that these are private choices rather than civic, civil, or legal duties. In other words, it is a tacit expression of humility toward spirituality or whatever-God-is. Civic fellow citizens do not question each other’s motivations and inspirations. Believers do not present their personal Gods for public evaluation. Especially if the authors’ intended to assign religion to privacy, the U.S. Preamble is not a secular sentence.
It seems to me our posterity will conclude that accepting the laws of physics and its progeny including psychology measure human success for living regardless of privately chosen spirituality or religion.
Perhaps the spiritual message is that while it is understandable that responsible human independence may include hopes for favored personal afterdeath, a mystery, it is prudent to reserve humility toward other fellow citizens’ views of whatever-God-is.
I hope you will share your interpretation of the U.S. Preamble.
https://www.quora.com/To-be-a-leader-do-you-have-to-have-an-answer-for-everything?
Yes.
And the most prevalent answer when you don’t know is “I don’t know.”
If you have pondered the question, and need to answer further, it is alright follow with “I have given up knowing until I discover more evidence. My thoughts with what I know are . . . “
If action seems required without knowledge, you must have the strength to survive the consequences of your action. For example, if a hurricane-threat has caused an evacuation order, you must have a full tank of gas, some survival food and water, and a destination.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-conflicts-resist-resolution?
The customary posture in conflict is to maneuver the other party into compromise. Each human has individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity. However, most cultures influence citizens to seek higher authority---either whatever-God-is or government or the partnership of the two.
While the individual is in charge of his or her development of integrity, infidelities to the-literal-truth are human, and the quest for higher power exacerbates the internal conflicts the individual tolerates.
Only by accepting personal humanity, HIPEA, and the choice to develop integrity can an individual overcome his or her internal conflicts. No culture I know of teaches these principles and therefore, most humans suffer internal conflict.
Two parties who suffer internal conflict, as most humans now suffer, are not likely to resolve connective conflicts. The more people accept being human, HIPEA, and integrity, the more achievable our better future will be.
https://www.quora.com/As-a-country-we-should-listen-to-all-view-points-equally-doesnt-matter-what-opinion-Do-you-agree-or-not-and-why?
Civic listening is an iterative collaboration. One party expresses a civic concern with well-grounded remedy and the other 1) listens to the concern, 2) clarifies with speaker words and phrases that seem contrary to listener’s opinion, and 3) responds either with sincere agreement or a well-grounded alternative to the concern or the remedy or both. If the latter, the listener has become speaker and vice versa. The conversation may consider until both parties have established a concern and remedy that accommodates each of their lives.
Both party’s commit to human equity under statutory justice, and thus, injustices in statutory law are valid concerns. Since perhaps nobody’s personal God conforms to whatever-God-is, neither party asks the other to evaluate his or her personal God. If either party stonewall’s the conversation, the other party must graciously withdraw and wait for a better occasion.
I like a friend’s gracious withdrawal. For example, if someone says, “You are a racist.” My friend is likely to respond, “Are you certain?” Without well-grounded evidence, the other party retreats.
https://www.quora.com/How-important-is-it-for-people-in-your-society-to-retain-a-sense-of-tradition?
I don’t like the word “society,” because it represents a civilization that may be bad. In fact, I do not see a way to respond to your question and will answer a modification: How important is tradition in picking the people’s pockets in your country?
The citizens’ proposition for developing human equity under statutory justice in the U.S. is the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is a proposition to develop and maintain 5 public disciplines so as to encourage responsible human independence to living and future citizens.
However, the First Congress, authorized by an agreement to amend the 1787 Constitution, re-established many colonial British-American traditions that were developed in the 13 eastern-seaboard states of the 1774 Confederation. The most egregious tradition is The Church of England’s constitutional seats in Parliament, to which the colonists were loyal until 1763. Congress established their “piety” on par with Parliament’s “divinity” by hiring factional-Protestant American chaplains at the people’s expense. It’s been that way ever since, but reform can come any day now.
America speaks of “freedom of religion” but maintains Chapter XI Machiavellianism inherited from England, falsely labeling the U.S. Preamble “secular” when it assigns spiritualism/religion to privacy rather than to civic, civil, or legal imposition.
Once most Americans accept separation of church from state as responsible human independence, establishment of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition may prevail over British tradition dating from Magna Carta. This reform can happen overnight by revising the First Amendment to encourage civic integrity rather than religious mystery.
The cost of religious civil tradition in the U.S. is staggering, and the benefits accrue to judges, lawyers, and politicians far more than to ministers. Ministers less, because believers pay for their services under separation of church and state.
https://www.quora.com/How-far-should-countries-have-relations-with-others-whose-human-rights-record-is-poor?
An idea that the Greeks commented on 2,400 years ago is that, in my 2020 interpretation, humans may develop equity under statutory law. Statutory law is the perfection of written law enforcement, which may be approached by amending to comport to ineluctable evidence laws which are unjust. In a nation of people, most fellow citizens will behave for equity under statutory justice, but there will always be fellow citizens who, for their reasons, are dissidents.
Equitable citizens encourage dissidents to reform and, to do so, must consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect with them. Encouragement is by example, exhortation, coercion, or force, depending upon consequences of the dissidence. The dissident remains a fellow citizen unless force equates to termination.
Countries may also develop equity under statutory justice and may similarly encourage each other.
https://www.quora.com/To-what-extent-should-income-equality-be-a-goal-in-your-society?
Income equality should not be a goal, because every human being is unique and has the opportunity to develop either integrity or infidelity and to change preferences during his or her journey through life.
A civic culture (one that develops statutory justice) will establish and maintain an economic system that 1) encourages responsible human independence, 2) pays a human-living wage including saving for retirement for every wanted job function, and 3) provides for fellow citizens who would but cannot now be independent.
https://www.quora.com/Is-responsibility-taught-or-is-it-learned?
I think responsibility can be encouraged, coached, and exemplified but can only be affirmed by individual experience and observations.
A culture could coach and encourage their young in a nest of acceptances: being a unique human being (thus, equality is not expected); having human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA); having the choice to use HIPEA to develop either integrity or infidelity; that the standard of integrity is the-literal-truth, which may be approached by continual improvement of instruments for perception of the ineluctable evidence; that regardless of the labels humans may assign it, no one represents whatever-God-is; that the present generation has no idea the challenges the coming generation will face and therefore cannot “train” them for it; and that neither whatever-God-is nor government can usurp the individual’s HIPEA.
If the young are trained in these principles and better, chances are good for their individual experiences and observations to lead them to the conclusion that responsible human independence is in their self-interest. If so, it is possible for more citizens to approach their individual perfection: developing human equity under statutory justice.
Law professors
ttps://lawliberty.org/book-review/natural-law-and-history/
McAleer illustrates that mountains of scholarship uses classical thinking to avoid acceptance of self-evident viewpoints if not the-literal-truth.
McAleer compares two premises of human responsibility.
Bringing Albert Einstein’s suggestions into the debate, the second premise is that humankind pursues comprehension of physics and its progeny based on discovery without speculation. In this regard, “science” is the research process and physics et.al. is the object.
But first, interpreting Carey, McAleer states, “The goods to be pursued are self-preservation, procreation, society, and knowledge of God.” With such a general statement, I interpret “God” as “whatever-God-is” to avoid my past hubris in thinking “god” to assert that appreciation but neither worship nor praise is wanted by whatever controls the unfolding of the universe.
McAleer seems to accept “The Christian God” but does not clarify whether that is The Trinity, The ONE, The Father, The Lord, Jesus, or what. Yet he asserts “The gods will have a say, too.” Doctrinal salvation of the soul seems a choice to hope for perceived afterdeath rather than a pursuit for civic, civil, and legal living.
When scholars ignore Einstein, a suggestion seems lost: Ethics is the journal of discovering the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth and how to take advantage for human living.
THIS COMMENT WAS IMMEDIATELY REJECTED. PERHAPS I AM BANNED W/O EXPLAINATION. I doubt it, but if so, that’s OK with me: I’m busy.
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/who-polarized-us/
Phil’s new response after the one below was not published in 2 days:
I appreciate Professor Kaufmann’s excellent review of U.S. angst as Ezra Klein expressed it. After 231 years’ operation, latent polarization seems evident. I also appreciate Klein for motivating Kaufmann’s brilliance to shine. However, we need a proposal for mutual, comprehensive safety and security more than explanation of our angst.
Kaufmann’s conclusion hints at potential for resolution of the dilemma: “Klein . .. failed to produce the self-examination of progressive sacred values that must occur before an accommodation with conservative America can emerge.” Both sides need to accommodate each other.
British tradition misses the American proposition that is abstractly stated in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution: sacred values are separate from civic, civil, and legal values. Civic citizens reserve religion and spirituality for private choices rather than as civil duties. The preamble proposes 5 public disciplines---Unity, Justice, Tranquility, defense, and Welfare---in order to secure benefits to living and future citizens.
The 1787 U.S. Constitution and its preamble propose separation of church and state by individual citizens rather than by the government. Thereby, Chapter XI Machiavellianism may be defeated; see https://www.constitution.org/mac/prince11.htm.
In my eighth decade, I have always voted as a fiscal conservative. Even in my youth, the preamble’s tacit purpose---responsible human independence---seemed to emerge from its 52 words. At last, I articulate that message and perceive that I live by it.
The rejected version.
This review motivates me to read more Kaufmann.
And, I suggest that the concluding thought can be restated to bring mutual accommodation into our achievable future: “[T]he self-examination of . . . sacred values . . . must occur before [mutual] accommodation [by progressivism] with conservative America can emerge.”
What about America is worthy of conservation? I suggest that it is the U.S. Preamble’s tacit commitment to standards that only the continuum of “ourselves and our Posterity” can discover: theism does not offer reliable standards. After 232 under theism, it seems self-evident that the laws of justice are identical to the laws of physics and its progeny---mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and imagination about the unknowns.
I suggest that We the People of the United States tacitly maintains appreciation for the-literal-truth that developed during the debates in the 1787 constitutional convention in Philadelphia. For example, Benjamin Franklin’s June 28, 1787 motion for prayer did not receive a second, even though some delegates were ministers. For the first time, American representatives accepted the responsibility for political power: The people’s representatives cannot consign civil power to either their personal God or whatever-God-is. “The founders” aside, the framers admitted that theism is a private matter rather than a civic, civil, or legal duty and created a constitution that so reflected the-objective-truth; that is, the ineluctable evidence which with improving instruments of perception approaches discovery of the-literal-truth.
Only 2/3 of framers signed the “godless” constitution. Some of the 1/3 dissenters and the 13th, confederacy-favoring state would negotiate resistance to the 1787 Constitution.
Alas, as a condition to join ratification, representatives of at least 2 of 9 states required the commitment that the First Congress would amend the constitution, especially to include a Bill of Rights similar to the 1689 English Bill of Rights. We’ll never know if 2 of the 4 dissenting states might have rallied ratification of the un-amended 1787 Constitution. However, what we have is the 1791 politically corrected U.S. Constitution complete with restoration of England’s Chapter XI Machiavellianism. The U.S. has the partnership of church and state but by un-constitutional tradition. Yet the tradition is made law by English precedent that represses the goals and purpose stated in the U.S. Preamble.
The latest unfortunate affirmation of that English precedent is in Greece v Galloway, 2014, wherein my objections are labeled niggling. The goals and purpose of the U.S. Preamble infer integrity rather than religion. The dark cloud of “freedom of religion” rather than encouragement of integrity has plagued the U.S. since June 21, 1788. Reform can be accomplished quickly by amending the First Amendment so as to encourage civic, civil, and legal integrity, a public duty, rather than religious spirituality, a private choice.
The fallacies of progressivism can be resolved with the-objective-truth based on ineluctable evidence, which does not respond to either religion or reason. Conservatism cannot defy whatever-God-is. Responsible human independence is intolerant of either religion or fairness as substitute for justice.
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