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: ”A civic citizen of the
United States develops 5 public disciplines (integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity) in order to enjoy
responsible human independence with
fellow citizens.” 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
Most media-writers reliably defiant toward the proffered
American-proposition
It seems former journalism schools have, for the past 5 or
so decades, partnered with “social sciences” and the Democrat Party’s media to
develop public opinion so as to influence public policy toward social
democracy.
There were several opinion articles this week, some
pretending to be news, that reflect a media-writer’s expectation that Americans
don’t really care about public discipline under statutory justice, or the
republic that is specified by the 1787 U.S. Constitution. In other words, the
Democrat writer can recommend violence and the reader will neither hold local,
state, and national government accountable nor leave the country.
I think such products of today’s “journalism” schools beg constraint
by law-enforcement. It seems the schools themselves need reform.
Columns
The hubris to
compare Gods (G. E. Dean: 1Timothy 1:17) (The Advocate, July 24, 2020, Page 7B)
Does Timothy miss humility before whatever-God-is when he
specifies “King eternal, immortal, invisible”? I’m especially concerned with “invisible”.
Does whatever-God-is accept “the only wise God” rather than
the only God? What competition is Timothy referring to: other human opinion?
Writing with no
regard for reliability (Mercedes Montagnes and Jamila Johnson) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/article_4a9ea872-cd29-11ea-89ab-ef63943d3102.html)
Some writers about the law don’t seem to appreciate personal
reliability. Some build a construct that might influence civic citizens until
the citizens sort out the falsehoods that were used in the construct. Thereby,
statutory justice is delayed. The U.S. Senate voted for impartiality in states in
1791, and Louisiana was the first to provide it by 9:3 jury verdicts in 1880.
The most egregious falsehood is that U.S. adjudication is
designed for justice rather than opinion: it’s a prosecution v defense contest
at the expense of first responders and the public. Consider Ramos v Louisiana
(2020). The court opined 6:3 to require Louisiana to provide a 12:0 opinion. Ramos
presented a case for Amendment VI unanimity when it clearly requires impartiality,
and Louisiana did not object to the bemusement.
In a population that is split 50:50 for violence, impartial
jury verdicts are possible with 7:5 or perhaps as high as 9:3 verdicts and are
statistically impossible with 12:0 verdicts.
Louisiana’s 9:3 rule came in 1880, as soon as
French-influence could take effect in meeting the state requirements of U.S.
Amendment VI (1791); including impartiality rather than unanimity:
“In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall
have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by
law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defence.”
The 2020 SC opinion
unconstitutionally hinged on colonial-American English-precedent for 12:0 juries.
The First Senate debated unanimity and decided on impartiality for states based
on experience and observations. England reformed their error by revising to
10:2 in 1967 (to lessen organized crime’s influence on jury trials). In other
words, 1967 English precedent followed 1880 Louisiana impartial-justice and
corrected centuries-old English law. Reliable writers know these facts and report
them so as to establish trustworthiness too ways: knowledge and transparency.
Diabolically, the U.S. Supreme Court accepts cases with no intentions to
deliver justice rather than opinion derived from reported precedent (opposing
precedent may exist, but that is not their problem).
The Louisiana Legislature misled
voters in 2018 into thinking that if they were on trial, they’d want a
unanimous jury verdict---beyond a shadow of doubt. However, 1) civic citizens will
not suffer jury trial, because they are not going to be grand-jury accused, and
2) the trial jury only opines which side---prosecutor or defense---failed the
doubt contest. The competitive presentation informs the impartial juror’s
choice. I know this by both experience and by observation.
Based on both U.S. Amendment VI
(1791) and U.S. Amendment XIV.1 (1868), delayed justice may be possible when
the U.S. Supreme Court restores to U.S. citizens in Louisiana the non-unanimous
jury verdicts they are entitled to. In fact, it could be directed to all the
states and territories.
It’s a political-philosophy
treasure that emerged from the state’s non-English background. Cultural variety
also is a U.S. treasure and the meaning of accepting “We the People of the
United States in order to [encourage responsible human independence].”
I think neither Montagnes,
Johnson, The Advocate, nor Neil Gorsuch of Ramos v Louisiana opinion have
matured to U.S. civic citizenship as proffered in the U.S. preamble (according to
each of their civic, civil, legal, and spiritual appreciations, not mine). I
don’t expect them to agree with me but hope some civic citizens will take
action they want to take.
The problem and an
un-American solution (Alex Granier) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_a41ad710-cc41-11ea-b469-7345b843801c.html)
Civic citizens establish reliability when they 1) listen to
the speaking fellow citizen’s heartfelt concern and proposed solution, 2) clarify
the concern and solution, 3) if necessary, offer an alternative concern and
solution to accommodate the civic citizen’s pursuit of responsible human
independence (at this point, the former speaker starts at Action 1, above, as
listener), and 4) the two civic citizens continue this iterative process until
they either resolve the concern or agree to approach a legislative body to
propose new civic guidance or statutory law amendment.
Granier seemed to establish reliability until he reported
that “statues of ‘white European’ Jesus are now being targeted,” without
comprehension. The Jesus Granier defends is the product of human interpretation
of Judeo-Christian literature that the Catholic Church canonized in 382 AD, or
perhaps 405. Europe conducted wars over Vatican domination and created
Protestant interpretations of the Judeo-Christian collection of books. Maybe
Granier doesn’t know about the Orthodox Tewahedo canon. It takes an independent
view of Genesis 1:26-30, as follows with my emphasis:
"Then God said, "’Let us make humankind . . . in
the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule . . . over all the earth . . . .’
So . . . in the image of God he created . . . male and female. God said to
them, ‘Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it [wherever] there is
a living soul . . . .’ And that is how it was.”
The text was proffered, and each human, then and now, may
interpret “how it [is].” Do the text's deity-plurals and “male and female”
assert that God is both male and female---androgynous? Did “in the image of God
he created” suggest that the creator was commissioned by the androgynous God?
Does “all the earth” and “a living soul” include all persons or only the civic
people? Does “blessed” imply discipline to the command “subdue it”?
I think African-American Christianity is pressing these
questions and appealing for a reformed white-race view that is more humble to
whatever-God-is than to paint Jesus, a middle-eastern Jew, as white whereas he
was more likely brown. Moreover it’s American tyranny (see the U.S. Preamble)
to suggest that black-skinned people must deny their black-skinned
interpretation of God’s image and perhaps God’s psychological powers as
androgynous/hermaphroditic. In other words, it takes both male and female to
create a family in God’s image.
Also, it seems clear that a faction of African-American
Christianity perceives that slavery is black-God’s will, which will be manifest
by black supremacy perhaps with white slavery. That seems the AMO
(Alinsky-Marxist organization) view that violence such as murder and property
damage is justified when interpretive "rights" are at stake).
I think most Americans will vote for Trump/Pence because the
Democrats support AMO so transparently that they may choose to reform. With
Genesis 1:26-30 in their platform, perhaps they can restore the American march
to responsible human independence through self-discipline that is proposed in
the U.S. Constitution.
However, my concern is judges and lawyers who hold America
hostage with Anglo-American precedents instead of advancing public discipline
“in order to” encourage the responsible human independence that is proposed in
the U.S. Constitution. This English tyranny has prevailed since March 4, 1789,
when the Congress representing 11 of 13 former English colonies was seated.
Under the U.S. Constitution, each person may accept 1) being
human and 2) adopting the public disciplines needed for responsible human
independence. That includes members of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, and
the administration, as well as every writer for the media. Those who do not
accept human citizenship risk constraint.
The problem and an
un-American solution (Cynthia Brown) (https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/letters/article_577c09e8-c777-11ea-a18b-27d489d18f1c.html)
I will vote for Trump/Pence the fourth time, and agree with
Cynthia Brown’s socialist-government metaphor “giant social worker.” Often, I
need a private social worker to keep myself civic instead of ego-centric.
This country was founded on a healthy appreciation for
whatever-God-is and acceptance that that entity does not respond to human
entreaties and bargains, yet each citizen is motivated and inspired by his or
her hopes and comforts against the unknown. The 1787 framers of the U.S.
Constitution accepted that none of the Gods expressed in the Declaration of
Independence---Nature’s God, the Creator, the Supreme Judge, or Posterity---defeated
England’s Trinity. France’s dominant military might and strategy caused
Cornwallis to surrender to both Rochambeau and Washington at Yorktown, VA, in
1781.
In humility toward whatever-God-is, the 1787 framers left to
the individual the control of his or her spirituality, proffering termination
of the English, Chapter XI Machiavellian hold on civic citizens of the U.S. Past
generations have left us the privilege of reforming from
church-state-partnership by tradition.
The actor in the U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) is
“We Representatives . . . do, in the Name, and
by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and
declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and
Independent States.” The authors excluded British loyalists and other U.S.
aliens from “the good People” and affirmed that dependence negates human
authority.
The preamble to the 1787 U.S.
Constitution (and its amendment in 2020) similarly divides inhabitants with the
proffered purpose: “We the People of the United States in order to . . . [practice
public discipline so as to encourage responsible human independence to fellow
citizens],” in my view. Inhabitants who do not accept the proffered U.S.
Preamble, for whatever reasons, divide themselves from the civic citizens.
Some of the 16 dissident
framers did not sign the 1787 Constitution, and some of them won seats on the
First Congress. Congress unconstitutionally re-established as many
Anglo-American traditions as they could, including factional-American, Chapter
XI Machiavellianism. To undo this tyranny “the good People” of the U.S. may
amend the First Amendment so as to encourage civic integrity, an individual
obligation, instead of civil religion, a business enterprise.
I think Trump/Pence may
effect this reform form English imposition to responsible human independence.
The summer of 2020 is teaching us that social democracy is liberty’s license to
harm other citizens and their property, imposing chaos as whatever-God-is.
Civic citizens have too much humility toward whatever-God-is to ignore the
human responsibility to prevent chaos. Through “the good People,” humankind
works to order life on earth.
I appreciate Brown’s creative expressions of concern for “ourselves and our
Posterity” (quoting the preamble).
Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-unfair-assumptions-about-your-country?
Americans
assume that “we, the people” is more than a lame bemusement, because 1) they do
not take the time to understand that it’s really “We the People of the United
States in order to . . .”, a civic contract and because 2) Congress represses
the U.S. Preamble as a “secular” sentence rather than a proposition for public
discipline regarding civic, civil, legal, and spiritual conduct.
My
interpretation for my living, developed in dialogue with over 70 fellow
citizens, is: This civic citizen practices and promotes 5 public
disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, so as to
enjoy and encourage responsible human independence (RHI) among inhabitants.
If at least 2/3 of fellow citizens developed their individual
interpretation of the U.S. Preamble and the 1787 articles, there could be an achievable
better future with local, state, and national governments held accountable to
the purpose: discipline for RHI. Then, there’d be no assumptions interfering
with the Declaration of Independence’s 1776 authority, “the good People of
these . . . States” and the 1788 authority “We the People of the United States
in order to . . .”
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-it-true-that-Justice-delayed-is-justice-denied?
My impression: I don’t think the person or association who expressed that claim sought justice, because it does not always hold. For example, judicial delay to discover and reject a prospective juror who would interfere in the use of DNA evidence would aid justice. If discovered during jury deliberation the DNA-unbeliever could be removed from the trial.
Perhaps some citizens sincerely believe their opinion that a
judge’s decision or jury trial verdict is justice. U.S. jury trials seek
exoneration of the accused rather than justice. When injustice is expected,
verdict-delay is favorable.
Justice enters the civic arena when a fellow citizen was
wronged. Only then are descendants of “the good People of these . . . States”
(quoting the 1776 Declaration of Independence) and the civic citizens according
to the 1787 U.S. Constitution (We the People of the United States in order to .
. . ) called on to take responsibility for harm done. As descendants of the
1787 “ourselves” we are their “Posterity” and the “ourselves” to the coming
generation, and therefore may accept the proposition that is proffered in the
U.S. Constitution. Dissidents reject the responsibility for justice.
Thanks to erroneous legislators, judges, and lawyers, our
judicial system calls for prosecution-vs-defense lawyerly-competition rather
than impartial determination of harm and guilt. Non-unanimous judicial opinion
has gravitated from justice to the victim and to the good people to leniency
toward the criminal. The victims of this tyranny are not only victims and their
families and friends, but the faction We the People of the United states, who
pay for viability.
Judicial procedures leading to accusation are continually
improved such that written law-enforcement may approach statutory justice.
Prosecutors act on ineluctable evidence using the latest inventions to improve reliability
of the evidence. For example, DNA is reliable for discovering either innocence
or guilt. The role of prosecution and defense is to present and debate the
evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The role of jury members is to discover which
presenter failed to eliminate doubt. Reliability of DNA evidence is not a
juror’s responsibility. Consequently, the process for vetting jurors ought to
discover ones who have a split view on DNA: OK to exonerate but not OK to
convict.
In a population that is split 50:50 for violence, impartial
jury verdicts are possible with 7:5 verdicts and are statistically impossible
with 12:0 verdicts. Unjustly, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Ramos v Louisiana
(2020) unconstitutionally opined 6:3 that Louisiana ought to provide 12:0 jury
verdicts.
Louisiana’s rule came in 1880, as soon as French-influence
could take effect in meeting the state requirements of U.S. Amendment VI
(1791):
“In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public
trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall
have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by
law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
defence.”
The 2020 SC opinion
unconstitutionally hinged on colonial-American English-precedent for 12:0 juries,
which was corrected to 9:3 by French-influenced Louisiana in 1880 and to 10:2
by England in 1967 (to lessen organized crime’s influence on jury trials). In
other words, 1967 English precedent hinged on 1880 Louisiana justice and
corrected ancient English law.
If the U.S. Supreme Court
eventually corrects this tyranny against We the People of the United States, we
will be able to make the case that justice delayed is justice denied.
Dred-Scott is another example.
https://www.quora.com/Which-theory-sanctions-political-obligation-based-on-faith?
The Greeks, over 2,400 years ago pondered political
philosophy and expressed, in my insights:
1. Fellow citizens may develop
equity under statutory justice, an approachable goal.
2. Civic citizens neither initiate
nor tolerate harm to or from any person or institution.
3. Civic citizens observe unjust
laws while reform to statutory justice is being determined.
4. “Good” does not equivocate to “God.”
Yet faith in God is OK when there is sufficient faith in the good; in other
words, humility toward whatever-God-is.
Other Europeans interpreted the Greek suggestions in their
own insights, many with the desire to impose their erroneous view of
superiority.
The four principles expressed above comprise a proposal for
a civic culture, wherein fellow citizens consider, communicate, collaborate,
and connect to lessen harm by developing statutory justice. In other words,
civic-citizens self-discipline in order to encourage mutual, comprehensive
safety and security so that individuals may pursue the happiness each prefers
rather than tolerate crime, tyranny, and alienation.
Dissidents to justice depend on civic citizens to respond
when injustice is discovered. Dissidents thereby withhold essential
contributions---witness and time. A civic culture depends on the trust and
commitment (together, faith) that the behaviors of informed civic citizens
will eventually convince some dissidents to accept that discipline and justice are
in their self-interest. A utopia with no dissidents is not expected.
I discuss how the preamble emerged elsewhere and share my
interpretation for my use of the proffered (un-fulfilled) proposition in the
1787 U.S. Constitution: this civic
citizen practices and promotes 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice,
peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy and encourage responsible
human independence among inhabitants.
I commit-to and trust-in posterity since the Declaration of
Independence’s actors, “the good People of these . . . States” and in the U.S.
Constitution’s living “We the People of the United States in order to . . .”
I have faith in the civic citizens of the United States and
think these principles persist in their genes and memes. Just as a person
decides to be a human being, a citizen chooses the faith to be civic yet
constrain violence.
Thank you for a
stimulating suggestion and request for opinion/insight.
Much as a newborn infant is totally ignorant, humankind had
to develop language and then grammar in order to discover research.
Humankind uses research to examine the ineluctable evidence
to discover the-objective-truth. The imagination that inspired the research may
disprove the theory, in which case the theory may be saved for the invention of
instruments for new perception. For example, the telescope empowered the
discovery that the earth is not the center of our galaxy, and telescopic
innovations extended the observation to the universe.
Three-hundred years ago, research on physics and its
progeny, such as math, chemistry, and biology was thought to exclude psychology
and was distinguished by the term “nature”. Psychology was thought to be
comprehended by reason more than perceived-evidence. Some minds opened to
metaphysics.
However, humankind is now informed that psychology is
another progeny of physics and therefore may be discovered by research.
Unfortunately, metaphysics has labeled itself “social sciences” and thereby
continues to confound the discovery of physic and its progeny.
Social science failures are reported daily. Consequentially,
metaphysics continues to fade despite its adolescent media-writer-promotion and
the paucity of journalism as a record of human accomplishment.
In research, there is no good or bad: only discovery and
comprehension of benefits so as to approach the-literal-truth. The purpose of
research is to help humankind flourish.
Wow! I like your approach. You want my insight rather than
opinion or knowledge. I adopt “insight” immediately, for my hope for dialogue
and without your objection will add your name to my appreciations page, which I
will right away move to my blog, promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.
I like to distinguish two phrases, using hyphens: freedom-from
oppression “in order to” enjoy the opportunity-to develop responsible
human independence (RHI). Freedom of expression empowers liars, criminals,
aliens, and traitors to take the license-to identify themselves and
is therefore critical to RHI.
For example, if my neighbor helps burn his organization’s
American flag, I suspect him or her of not understanding America enough to admonish
the organization. On the other hand, if my neighbor burns his own flag for
attention to a heartfelt concern, I appreciate the notice and want to learn
what motivated the expense and risks. If it’s systematic tyranny, I want to
help him develop and propose sufficient legislation. For example, I want the
religion clauses in the First Amendment reformed in order to protect the
individual citizen’s opportunity/duty to develop integrity.
The First Amendment is in fact unconstitutional according to
the public disciplines with individual purpose that is proffered in the
preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Its controversies are Union, Justice,
Tranquility, defence, and Welfare “in order to” enjoy benefits to living
citizens. The U.S. Preamble does not proffer religion as a civic, civil, legal,
or spiritual obligation and leaves standards of performance to posterity’s
posterity.
Congress has not the authority to defy the U.S. Preamble;
their defiance is tyranny. The U.S. Supreme Court’s defense of Anglo-American
tradition instead of American reform to separated church-from state begs woe
and living citizens suffer the tyranny. Each branch has the right to express
support for both Anglo-American tradition and Judeo-Christian politics and
deserve rebuke from “the good People of these . . . States.” I quoted the
Declaration of Independence’s precedent to the U.S. Preamble’s “We the People
of the United States, in order to . . .” Citizens who neither understand, nor
practice, nor promote the U.S. Preamble’s proposition deserve to answer for the
risks they take.
Fellow citizens have the right to ignore RHI and suffer the
risks they are taking. Perhaps they risk their descendants’ freedom-from
oppression so as to have the opportunity-to develop integrity.
Perhaps some grandchildren are already exercising U.S. reform to the U.S.
Constitution’s 1787 principles: freedom-from English impositions.
https://www.quora.com/Where-apart-from-upbringing-do-our-morals-come-from?
I don’t know of a culture that teaches its youth to accept
that she or he is a human being with unique opportunity according to
development of her or his person.
In such as culture, there’d be further acceptances, like the
following.
The human individual has the power, the energy, and the
authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity.
Care-takers, such as parents, educators, and neighbors, can help the individual
comprehend existing knowledge and establish intent to live her or his unique
lifetime. However, adults need not address the future she or he faces, and
therefore should only coach and encourage her or him in self-reliance to choose
to develop integrity so as to enjoy responsible human independence.
Morals relate to civilizations, association rules, laws, all
human constructs by which some people try to establish authoritative standards
over others. Humankind steadily works to discover the-literal-truth, how to
take advantage of it, and how to share the advantages with fellow humans. But
not everyone participates. Some people take advantage of the fellow humans’
work for short-term, personal advantage. Thereby, they establish a negative
faction, against their self-interest, that favors infidelity rather than integrity.
The accomplished discoveries ought to be journaled,
including the negatives, so that humankind never has to re-discover
the-literal-truth. So far, a free-press has neglected this duty. Such a record of discovered integrity would be
human ethics, to which all associative ethics should ultimately accommodate. In
other words, civil ethics ought to conform to human ethics.
Morals come from social rules, and human ethics comes from
the discovery of integrity---conformity to the-literal-truth. The-literal-truth
is discovered by research regarding the ineluctable evidence or
the-objective-truth. It can change when humankind invents new instruments for
perception, so researchers maintain their open-mindedness, never losing
inspiration to discover the-literal-truth. People without this commitment can
be distracted by metaphysics.
I write to learn, so I hope readers comment.
No.
Each human ovum is unique and everything that happens
through adult maturity does not reduce his or her individuality. No two humans
can be made equal by any entity.
Every Education Department at every government level needs
to reform to teach what it means to be a human being.
Every human being has the individual power, the individual
energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to either develop integrity or
tolerate infidelity. It is critical for each human to discover and accept each
of being human, possessing HIPEA, developing integrity, and accepting that not
every person will do so.
In a culture that taught these 3 principles to its youth, most people could,
after about 3 decades, embark on their unique adulthood with the comprehension
and intention to completely live their unique, human lifetime.
Education Departments can be reformed immediately, there’s
no greater “infrastructure” project than to aid humans in their development,
and the recent world-wide chaos demands reform.
https://www.quora.com/Is-equality-a-virtue-in-itself-or-a-derivative-of-envy?
“Equality” and “envy” as human practices both come from
political impositions that ought to find their way to the
coercion-intolerance-trash-bin.
Each human being comes from a unique ovum and nothing that
happens on the way to mature adulthood lessens the individuality of that
person.
Your question struck a vein for today. The President of the
U.S. is perhaps the most powerful person on earth. Of the possible candidates
for President, with which persons would you like equality, as they are today?
Which one has more civic integrity than you possess? Now reach out to the pope
and other religious celebrities. Want equality? Think your civic integrity is
less?
HIPEA is of ultimate importance to the individual and
thereby to humankind.
Every human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the
individual authority (HIPEA) to either develop integrity or tolerate
infidelity. It is critical for each human to discover and accept each of being
human, possessing HIPEA, and developing integrity.
In a culture that taught these 3 principles to its youth, most people could,
after about 3 decades, embark on their unique adulthood with the comprehension
and intention to completely live their unique, human lifetime.
The-objective-truth
is based on the ineluctable evidence and improves each time humankind intents a
new instrument of perception. Ultimately, the-objective-truth may approach
the-literal-truth, which skeptics erroneously (my opinion) claim does not
exist.
The
universal code is integrity rather than morality. Integrity is the practice of
insisting on the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth. Morality is
conformity to a society or association, which is obligated to integrity but may
not accept that duty.
People
of integrity accept that there are people who are satisfied with a morality and
encourage them to reform by exemplifying the self-interest of integrity and
practicing intolerance toward infidelity.
When
2/3 of members of most societies and associations practice integrity, an
achievable better future may emerge and participation in a civic culture may
accelerate toward 98% or so, accounting for the transition from feral infant to
young adult with comprehension and intention to completely live his or her
unique lifetime.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-realistic-is-Rawls-vision-of-justice?
As a scholarly proposal for socialism, Rawls’ vision is
transparent. The very phrase “justice as fairness” represents arbitrary
evaluation of statutory justice, a noble pursuit.
“Equality of opportunity” is not possible when each human
being is unique: only equity is feasible, if human constructs do not constrain
ineluctable evidence.
At the heart of equity is intention. The newborn infant is
feral and must choose to develop into a young adult with comprehension and
intention to live their complete human life. Many individuals nurture
infidelity-to-self and some drift into early death for their person.
Individuals who lobby for the inequity of arbitrary equality
differentiate themselves from the individuals who enter adulthood with
intentions to develop (or maintain) integrity rather than tolerate infidelity.
Rawls would have people who choose integrity pay equal
lifestyle to the infidel. Government that imposes tyranny against responsible
human independence cannot survive.
The phrase “John-Rawls” motivates this civic citizen to aid
development of human equity under statutory justice by practicing integrity
rather than infidelity.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-biggest-problems-society-is-facing-today?
Dependence on food chosen for the consumer by a bureaucrat
and similar adult satisfactions.
I do not agree.
Three practices come to mind. First, appreciation is a
mutual exchange. Second, forgiveness immediately impacts the forgiver. Third,
integrity is in the actor’s self-interest.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-arguments-against-heterosexuality?
Homosexual partners can enjoy monogamy for life without
sharing their bond with a family. Thus, the partners can each avoid
heterophobia: the fear of fidelity for life with spousal progeny---children,
grandchildren, and beyond.
When same-sex partners choose monogamy for life, it’s nobody else’s concern, and they may record a civil union to obligate public
services to honor their monogamy.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-do-to-express-your-individuality?
I treat everyone who allows it as though I appreciate them
as they are, where they are in their path toward individual happiness with
civic integrity. I go as far as I can as fast as I can, hoping to learn
something that will help me improve in only a brief conversation.
If the other person does not want such dialogue, I let them
take it in other directions---maybe talk about the weather or sports events or
such if they don’t offer something or stop the dialogue.
If they ask my name, I answer “Phil.” If they say they’d
like to connect, I give them a card. I hope each one leaves with a positive
thought, perhaps “There’s a person who never offends a stranger.”
This attitude has not come easy.
https://www.quora.com/Are-moral-principles-absolute?
Yes.
“Moral” according to M-W online’s 3rd usage is “perceptual
or psychological rather than tangible or
practical in nature or effect,” as in “moral victory.” The dichotomy, then,
seems to be conformance to physic and its progeny (the objects of discovery
rather than the research). Human success hinges on conformity to physics and
its progeny.
If so (and I opine it is so), then, only in conformity to
physics and its progeny can a human expect success rather than woe. For
example, the people who decided to fly like a bird should have consulted with
those who were studying aerodynamics and later jet propulsion.
This prudence works with psychology, too. The person who
thinks he’d prefer to be a woman might expect success with therapy to
accommodate his physics rather than hopes for him (religion) of the lucrative
sex-change industry.
Don’t overlook heterophobia:
I know without doubt that I feared falling in love with my wife, because
I could not imagine being good enough for monogamy for life. Eventually, I
acquired some of her serene confidence. At a few rough spots, I got help from
social workers, but she always felt family should work out their problems.
Now, I understand that monogamy for life is not merely a
religious commitment to fidelity to your spouse: it is commitment to share your
spousal bond with any progeny and to accept commitment to each child so that
the family fidelity extends to their children (the spousal grandchildren) and
beyond.
Thus, monogamy is an absolute that emerges from physics and
for reasons churches and other entrepreneurs of doubt understand, religion does
not make this wonderful absolute clear to believers: monogamy is in personal
self-interest, like all absolute fidelity.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-someone-remain-ethical-in-difficult-situations?
I am humbled by the question, because my performance is so
bad. However, by sharing what I think, you will have the opportunity to inspire
me to better thoughts and an achievable better future. Since failure is so
obvious in 2020, we can appreciate that it isn’t easy in these cultures.
My first thought is that difficulty prompts humans to
self-reliance. People who have written about self-reliance (e.g., Ralph Waldo
Emerson and Albert Einstein) may not have fully described the practice, and I
can’t either. However, it involves several acceptances, which I will enumerate
for your consideration and comment:
1. A
human being is not the same as the unique feral infant that was conceived from
a woman’s ovum activated by a man’s spermatozoon. At some point, a person must
accept being human.
a. It
takes 2-3 decades for a feral infant to transition to a young adult with the comprehension
and intention to live his or her complete, unique human life. Some un-accepting
humans die young.
b. It
takes another 3-4 decades’ service-to-fellow-humans to gain the experiences and
observations that convince him or her to develop integrity rather than abide
infidelity.
c. Over
another 1-2 decades, he or she may consider his or her unique discoveries and
share them with posterity, at least with his or her grandchildren (recognizing
that our
children also may share with their children).
2. Integrity
is a practice: discover whether or not a heartfelt concern is either
actual-reality or a mirage; if a mirage, journal the discovery; if actual-reality,
discover how to benefit without harming another human being; behave so as to
receive the benefits of discovery; share the reasons for the behavior with
whomever is concerned and consider constructive comments; be quick to change
when new perception of the-objective-truth is discovered. (For example, the
telescope changed the perception that the earth centers the universe.) The
products of this practice are integrity and discovered error, and the record of
the two is ethics.
3. Ethics
informs a particular association’s expected conduct. (For example, while the
media are expected to maintain economic viability, economics does not authorize
writers for the media to lie.) An association’s ethics must conform to the
ethics that is discovered by integrity. In other words, ethic’s ethics is
discovered by humans who practice integrity.
a. Writers
for the media who justify “freedom of the press” record humankind’s
discovery-path and thus journal both the-objective-truth and error. When
journalists maintains error, integrity is regressed for dependent readers.
i. For
example, the Civil War was caused by factional Christianity. Ministers in the
South erroneously preached a) that blacks were being punished for their
ancestors’ sins and b) that ministers in the North were evil in trying to
accelerate the Trinity’s plan. The CSA, with 7:27 risk and denial of their
promise in perpetuity, fired on Fort Sumter because politics in the North was
influenced by “more erroneous religious belief.”
ii. Ironically,
a faction of African-American Christianity holds slavery to be a black God’s
plan for whites. It is important to accept that black-skin does not lessen a
human being, regardless of Christianity.
b. Mankind
invents new instruments to perceive the-objective-truth and thereby
deliberately approach if not attain the-literal-truth. We cannot claim today’s
“ourselves” to be close to the-literal-truth, and therefore, we look to “our
Posterity” for the standards that would serve our self-interest if we were
prescient. In other words, posterity’s posterity may discover civic integrity.
c. However,
we may accept the ethics that has been discovered in the past until new
viewpoints require change. For examples:
i. Observe
unjust law today and suggest amendment tomorrow.
ii. “The
good People” neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from persons.
iii. The
good people aid equity under statutory justice.
iv. The
good people connect for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.
v. The
good people pursue individual happiness with civic integrity.
vi. The
good people inspire fellow citizens to civic discipline for self-interest.
4. The
unique human being (every one) has the individual power, the individual energy,
and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate
infidelity. However:
a. Most
cultures erroneously inculcate their youth to seek higher power: whatever-God-is; government; or a partnership
of church-dominating-state.
b. Fortunate
is the human infant whose care takers coach and encourage him or her to accept
HIPEA and use it to develop integrity.
c. Since
there’s no proof that there is no God, it seems prudent to reserve sufficient
humility toward whatever-God-is, even if it’s chaos, in which case allegiance
ought to be withheld. “The good People” own comfort and hope in their personal
God yet reserve the humility to appreciate civic citizens who also ponder
whatever-God-is.
5. With
all the above considerations, the person who finds himself or herself in a
crowd that is about to harm other people or their property, for example,
claiming the license to do so for that crowd’s liberty, treasures the responsible
human independence to “walk away.”
The human being has the awareness to perceive wrong when it
is proposed: the pulse and breath quicken, the hair stands up on the back of
the neck, and the adrenaline pump. With these signals, the self-reliant person
takes a moment to reflect and then acts to relieve the personal, psychological
conflicts that made themselves known.
Additionally, the human being has grammar by which he or she
can evaluate the situation. If the evaluation informs him or her to act
independently, he or she does so immediately and evaluates the benefit of
self-reliance. Chances that error was made are slim to none.
An aside from here on: The above principles came from my random
study of two questions: what does it mean to be 1) a human being and 2) a U.S.
citizen. The first study informed me I am one of some 8 billion persons; the
second motivated work to comprehend the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, or
U.S. Preamble (1787). I’m not finished.
Yesterday, I was exploring expressions of whatever-God-is in
the U.S. Declaration of Independence from England and its God, the Trinity. I
found the expressions: Nature’s God, Creator, Supreme Judge, and Providence.
More importantly, I noticed the action sentence: “We
Representatives . . . do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of
these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are,
and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” This is the source of my
quotation above, “The good People.”
Moreover, for the first time,
I perceive the actor in the U.S. Preamble a confirmation of the actor in the
Declaration: the good People. The preamble has two thoughts. First: “We the
People of the United States” authorize this constitution. Second: “in order to”
practice 5 public disciplines to encourage responsible human independence. The
first thought seems inclusive or totalitarian. The second thought seems
exclusive; that is, only the people who volunteer to self-discipline can be
encouraged to independence. In other words, people who choose dependence
exclude themselves from self-discipline and from “the good People”. I prefer
“U.S. civic citizens.”
Over 70 fellow citizens
helped me develop my interpretation of the proffered U.S. Preamble proposition:
this civic citizen practices and promotes 5 public disciplines---integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---“in order to” enjoy and encourage
responsible human independence among inhabitants.
Not being wise, I’d have to listen to wise persons debating
which one is the wiser and how they measure wisdom.
There’s an exemplary experience in Plato’s “Symposium,” and
the philosopher I admire in that discussion is Agathon. In my interpretation
after 2,400 years of discovery, he suggested: a good person neither initiates
nor tolerates harm to or from a fellow inhabitant or public institution.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-determine-what-is-moral-and-immoral?
Humankind must conform to physics (the object of research
rather than the process) and its progeny, such as mathematics, chemistry,
biology, psychology, fiction, and discovery.
Human beings have the individual power, the individual
energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop either integrity to
physics or infidelity. In a civic culture, a good person neither initiates nor
tolerates harm to or from any person or institution.
Intolerance of harm to other persons need not be held
hostage. For example, holding elected and appointed officials accountable for
first response assures their availability when you need them. Strength protects
you and your loved ones under actual attack.
Law professors
https://lawliberty.org/yellowstone-and-the-faded-american-dream
Freedom of speech is precious to “the good People” (quoting
the Declaration of Independence), as it invites liars, aliens, and traitors to
express their hopes and comforts.
I’d be interested in Techera’s individual interpretation of
the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Mine, today is: This civic citizen of
the U.S. practices and promotes 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice,
peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy and encourage responsible
human independence among living inhabitants.
Techera seems too
civically adolescent to write reliable ideas and comes across as an
Alinsky-Marxist organizations’ (AMO) advocate: violence is OK if my “rights”
are at stake. For example, “The older Americans were not sufficiently attuned
to nature, because they believed in God more.” Most Americans long since
accepted that their God is theirs and not the object of civil debate, and that
fellow citizens have the same obligation to religious privacy. In other words,
most Americans, out of self-interest, reserve sufficient humility toward
whatever-God-is and do not yield private work for the afterdeath they hope to
enjoy. Atheism is a leap of faith they cannot take even under force.
Many Americans recognize that the 17th-18th century focus on
“nature” was an erroneous, religious assertion that physics and psychology have
differing integrity. However, humankind discovered that physics and its progeny
including mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and the unknowns have
the same ineluctable evidences by which the-literal-truth may be discovered.
With jet propulsion mankind can explore the formerly perceived “heavens.”
“Love” itself is overrated and abused. “Love of children” is
lame compared to accepting the dignity and equity due the human ovum and the
human spermatozoon. Each is unique and can combine into a single-cell embryo in
a series of events none of which will reduce individuality. Every child
deserves appreciation and encouragement to accept his or her unique-human
individual powers, energy, and authority (HIPEA) and use them to develop
integrity.
There’s no place for cruelty, violence, and tyranny among
the entity We the People of the United States, “the good People” who accept the
U.S. Constitution’s proposition. Citizens who aid the march to statutory
justice according to standards to be discovered by posterity’s posterity.
I am glad to have the insight not to waste more time with
the “Yellowstone” fantasy and similar work.
See more quotes from the essay on the fantasy in the addendum,
below.
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/who-are-we-the-people-anyway
It seems difficult to fathom a more intense illumination of
scholarly defense of a scholarly Plato-cave than to read Fumerescu’s book. Hats
off to Grove for changing the focus from “the People’s Two Bodies” to “We the
People” and I encourage him to take his leadership further.
Grove perhaps unintentionally suggests systematic
termination of “the Founders” in favor of simple American history. Colonial
charters, 13-states independence, the 1788 ratification, and the Civil War
severely constrain new thought. For example, what about Albert Einstein’s
political philosophy? A more instructive division of the history might cover
the entire country instead of the eastern seaboard’s English colonies. U.S.
citizens in my French-influenced state, Louisiana, were recently wronged in
Ramos v Louisiana (2020). Mention of Quaker elites should emphasize the Salem
“witch” executions. Christianity’s squabble that caused the Civil War
ought to be publicized along with the mystery of African-American
Christianity’s whatever-God-is. On the Christian struggle alone, the
traditional “the Founders” and their Nature’s God, the Creator, the Universal
Judge, and Providence to defeat England’s Trinity can be held responsible for
2016’s U.S. political chaos. However, the Founders cannot be held liable for
tyranny like Greece v Galloway (2014) or any civil defiance of physics (the
object of research) and its progeny such as psychology.
Hidden by scholarship’s endless scholarship is the reality
that American history has a pivotal change that was proposed by the 55 framers’
39 signers of the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble on September 17, 1787. The
preamble proffers termination of Anglo-Americanism and invites 5 civic, civil,
legal, and spiritual disciplines so as to encourage responsible human
independence to the continuum of U.S. citizens. Performance standards may be
ultimately discovered by posterity’s posterity. Congress unconstitutionally
repressed the preamble by re-imposing Anglo-Americanism as much as they could.
A civic people can end that tyranny.
Readers and writers may improve my personal interpretation
of the proposition the preamble proffered:
This civic citizen practices and promotes 5 public
disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---, “in order
to” enjoy and encourage responsible human independence among U.S. inhabitants.
After 12 generations rejected their opportunities, the generation of 2020 has
the privilege of establishing life with civic, civil, legal, and spiritual
order as each individual interprets the U.S. preamble and the ineluctable
evidence that is plain to us all.
By “civic citizens” I refer to people who intend to order
their lives so as to conform to the preamble (1787) and the observable
ineluctable evidence and accept that some fellow-citizens disagree. The
Declaration of Independence (1776) in its action statement makes a similar
distinction: “We Representatives . . . do, in the Name, and by Authority of the
good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United
Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” We the
People of the United States is a hoped-for totality, and “in order to” allows
some fellow citizens self-exclusion for individual reasons. Wonderfully, and I
doubt accidentally, the preamble leaves to posterity’s posterity the judgment
of “civic citizens” as “the good People.”
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.
Addendum:
More quotes from the
article about Yellowstone:
There’s always something
going wrong and freedom requires taking responsibility [to constrain] violence.
The horse is a power that will obey the rider, but not against its own
nature. . . . a horse [demands rider’s] endurance, courage, self-control,
and moderation—those habits that make man thoughtlessly sovereign. Without
these, you die when it’s suddenly dangerous.
The independents are not
Christians. But can they live in America, where most people have no family? There
is no noblesse oblige.
The independents are
patriots [and] stand up for law and order—if our freedoms are to be protected.
[The new America substitutes] love of children.
The older Americans were
not sufficiently attuned to nature, because they believed in God
more. Some turn to nature, because human beings are not trustworthy.
[Is] there also a human nature that we need to learn to respect by treating
physical nature with some respect, lest our elites treat us like pets as well .
. . especially men, like savages—as our elites do to the underclass.
The purpose . . . is to
persuade Americans to believe in nobility again. To face cruelty and violence
as preferable . . . to institutionalized despotism. We need to educate new
elites about what’s worth loving and defending. Americans have never accepted
tragedy before . . .
END
