Saturday, August 29, 2020

Introduction to cant

 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:  This appreciative citizen practices and promotes the 5 U.S. public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and encourage “our Posterity. 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

Introduction to cant

I had not encountered the word “cant” until I read Theodore Dalrymple’s essay at https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-expanding-tyranny-of-cant .

Merriam-Webster online informs us it means “the expression or repetition of conventional or trite opinions or sentiments especially: the insincere use of pious words.” Interestingly, the third usage is “the private language of the underworld.”

With sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is, the first usage brings to mind “In God We Trust.” Thinking of Nancy Pelosi, it’s “we, the people.” With attention to Portland vigilantism and Chicago murders, its “black lives matter.”

When will public intentions turn to “We the People of the United States in order to [develop responsible human independence]“?

Quora

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-determine-whether-you-re-projecting-your-own-negative-baggage-onto-a-situation-or-have-a-real-basis-for-concern-about-another-person-s-integrity?

First, it is essential that the parties mutually understand integrity.

Integrity is a practice:  research a heartfelt concern so as to establish that it’s actually-real rather than a mirage; research actual-reality so as to comprehend how to benefit; behave so as to benefit; share with the other party your reasons for your behavior and LISTEN to their response for possible improvement of your understanding; remain open minded to ineluctable evidence that demands change. (With this process, humankind uses the-objective-truth and new instruments of perception to approach the-literal-truth.)

If one party is merely honest, the person who practices integrity is powerless to resolve the difference, and it is better to seek re-assurance from a third party professional that you are not imposing your baggage into the conflict.

The professional is at a disadvantage, because they hear only your side. However, if you are careful to describe the other party’s behavior with integrity, you may establish well-informed patience for relief rather than dissociating from the other party altogether.

https://www.quora.com/Is-human-life-insignificant?

Is human life insignificant?

I think each person answers that question for himself or herself on a 2,400 year old Greek suggestion: Willingly civic citizens behave to develop statutory justice. In statutory justice, most citizens connect to constrain chaos and encourage dissidents to reform in self-interest.

It is a culture’s obligation to promote these principles (or better) to living and future citizens, but that does not relieve the individual from his or her obligations to reform an errant culture.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-ethical-to-use-someones-work-without-citing?

No.

However, who’s to say you did that? I think only you know. Use of exact wording is strong but not ineluctable evidence. Accusation is insufficient to integrity.

Does freedom of speech allow a publisher or media to censor your expression they vaguely associate with prior thought? I think it’s a question for Congress more than the Court to answer.

Powered by the Internet, I can discover ideas expressed in the past. Consequently, if I name a writer I’m reminded of as I express myself, I perceive I have fulfilled integrity, whether particular civilization or not.

For example, when I use my phrase “the-objective-truth,” sometimes Flannery O’Conner comes to mind. If so, I say so. But my thought emerged before I read her, and she did not express my thought. I feel no obligation to cite her.

Recently, someone blocked my essay perhaps saying I did not cite previous use of my own words. That’s a case of unethical censorship that publishers practice according to their rules.

It’s easy to discover who’s credited with thinking democracy is the best form of government. However, I doubt Churchill was the first to say so.

Anyway, you pose an interesting question I view addressing censorship more than ownership.

https://www.quora.com/Do-past-events-carry-an-inherent-meaning-that-philosophers-could-objectively-discern?

Do past events carry an inherent meaning that philosophers could objectively discern?

I think so.

For example, starting in 1991, I participated in the original Great Books Reading and Discussion Program. We read Plato’s “Symposium,” and I liked it so much I went to the library to read the section that was replaced by a row of asterisks, identifying the omission. It was Agathon’s speech; see https://platosymposium.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/agathon%E2%80%99s-speech/.

I read it and was so impressed that I re-read it often, and usually edit my writing about it. Here is my update tonight:

Mutual Appreciation

Appreciation is first an intellectual activity. Not every person participates, for where there is inflexibility or egocentrism appreciation departs. Appreciation’s greatest power is that it can neither impose nor tolerate wrong to or from any person. Appreciation shuns force, for people earn appreciation in mutual free will. Where there is mutual appreciation, there is justice. Where persons are treated as objects there is harm.

Appreciation inspired by Plato, “Agathon’s speech,” Symposium, about 385 BCE.

prb, 08/28/2020

[Also posted the above, perhaps unsuccessfully at https://platosymposium.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/agathon%E2%80%99s-speech/]

 

Similarly, I read and re-read Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Divinity School Address,” 1838, and interpret it to mean that I can perfect my unique human being, low as I may be at this point in my path toward the termination of my functioning body, mind, and person.

More important to me, my interpretation of the proffered preamble to the U.S. Constitution is:  This appreciative citizen practices and promotes the 5 U.S. public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and encourage “our Posterity.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-person-be-empathetic-and-not-sympathetic-or-visa-versa?

Merriam-Webster online under “empathy” gives a short essay on its difference v. “sympathy.”

I interpret “empathy” as a projection of your perception on the circumstances before you, whereas “sympathy” is accepting the actual-reality.

For example, a beggar sees you escorting two women to an urban wedding and crosses the street to solicit you. In stride, you open your wallet and hand him a dollar.

He says, “Awgh. it takes $3 to check into the shelter for a night.”

You ask the ladies to quicken the pace with you, and they do.

In empathy, you gave a dollar; in sympathy you hurried on to the wedding. .

I write to learn and welcome comments.

 

https://www.quora.com/When-does-freedom-of-speech-have-its-limits-and-why-should-there-be-limits-to-freedom-of-speech?

The principle: neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from anyone is about 2,400 years old.

Speech that can harm someone ought not be uttered. That is why falsely yelling “Fire” in a crowded place can bring the speaker subjugation to the law. The parent who handles poisonous snakes to express religious faith with children present may lose the children to law enforcement.

https://www.quora.com/Is-privacy-really-important-if-you-possess-integrity?

I think so.

For example, the father whose daughter has regurgitated 17 times, is 300 miles away, and whose friend has called to say emergency room is in order but there’s no credit card available gives the credit card information, asks a couple questions, gets out of the way by saying “good luck”, then feels his knees collapse for prayer needs the silence of relying on whatever-God-is to know what’s needed.

The couple who shared spontaneous, monogamous love for 50 years, each time experiencing new, mutual rewards, need no interruptions during discoveries that are in progress.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-overcome-the-fears-of-doing-the-wrong-thing-and-always-do-the-right-thing?

Consider this nest of acceptances:

I am a human being with the ability to develop responsible human independence.

I will make mistakes but not turn them into habits, by exercising discipline.

It takes about 3 decades to acquire basic human knowledge and intent to live a complete human life.

It takes another 3-4 decades service to fellow citizens to undergo the experiences and observations that empower an individual to practice integrity rather than tolerate infidelity.

The human being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to perfect his or her human person.

A life of responsible human independence is worth sharing with children and grandchildren.

The order of these acceptances is not critical; a human can develop integrity to his or her unique person from the moment he or she decides to do so. There is no opportunity for fear, provided he or she reserves sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is rather than adopting/creating a doctrinal God.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-biggest-liability?

When my body and mind stop functioning my opportunity to develop and practice integrity by my unique person will end.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-have-a-good-example-of-a-circular-argument?

Love God, because God is love.

(On this doctrine, churches encourage individuals to neglect whatever-God-is.)

https://www.quora.com/If-you-pay-someone-for-something-and-they-refuse-to-give-it-to-you-are-you-morally-entitled-to-take-it?

If you pay someone for something, and they refuse to give it to you, are you morally entitled to take it?

In general, Agathon, 2,400 years ago suggested a willingly good (civic) person neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution. The civic citizen develops the strength to avoid harm in daily living.

To negotiate or practice payment before service or item is rendered invites harm. When the harm comes, it ought to be reported to a third party, embarrassing as the disclosure of imprudence will be. However, vigilantism is a harm in in itself. The other party is due the chance to defend his or her side of the issue.

If the other party is somehow innocent of an offense---erred in completion of the service, for example, the report to the third party creates a chance for discovery and restitution.

Agathon pointed out that mutual appreciation is not for every person, because some people choose to take advantage of civic people. Reporting to the third party can inform the offender of the opportunity to reform. In no case is vigilantism responsible human independence.

https://www.quora.com/Our-lives-are-the-sum-of-our-choices-and-our-choices-a-balance-between-value-and-cognition-do-we-really-have-free-choice?

Our lives are the sum of our choices and our choices a balance between value and cognition, do we really have free choice?

Beyond accepting the constraints of physics and its progeny, I think we can pursue our motivations and inspirations.

Human beings are constrained by physics and is progeny---mathematics, chemistry, biochemistry, and perceptions. On perceptions, an individual discovers preferences: blue color, dark-chocolate taste, opera sounds, velvet touch, baked almond aroma, and appreciation.

On such perceptions an individual chooses lines of vocation and avocations. As he or she psychologically matures, certain lines of pursuit inspire and motivate him or her. For example, I long ago, chose piano over violin, then voice over piano, then expression over voice. Also, science over liberal arts, engineering over physics or chemistry, chemical engineering over mechanical engineering. Stories from my 35-year chemical engineering service to one company thrill me when they flashback. Some stories recall a fellow engineer’s correction of my error: our company worked to conform to physics’ constraints.

Late in my career, opportunities I observed from the privilege of working with people from perhaps 40 ethnic backgrounds excited me to read, write, talk, and study to answer two questions: what does it mean to be a human being and what does it mean to have been born in the U.S.?

I am excited and driven to pursue these two questions as much as time allows. At this moment it seems the answer is: accepting these two provisions offers individual opportunity to develop integrity to the-literal-truth while pursuing individual happiness. That requires expressing the humility “I don’t know” when that is so.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-objective-means-by-which-society-should-determine-normative-and-epistemological-values?

What is the best objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values?

“Normative” as behavior seems civilized excuse for not practicing integrity. For example, Congress would impose on U.S. citizens the civil appeal “In God We Trust” as a substitute for “E Pluribus Unum” when prudent people have too much humility to turn their backs on whatever-God-is.

“Epistemological values” seems like “known values” or “valuable values.” What do you mean by it?

I think the-literal-truth exists. Humankind works to discover the-objective-truth then invent new instruments by which to improve perception so as to approach if not acquire the-literal-truth. Living citizens practice integrity in research for ineluctable evidence of the-objective-truth, so that posterity may reliable invent needed instruments. Error is inevitable, and its determination helps related future research.

Thus, a reliable journal of the achievements that approach the-literal-truth establishes ethics based on integrity rather than on civilization.

 

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Are-civil-Western-societies-starting-to-break-down-as-third-world-behaviours-are-more-evident-on-their-streets?

Are civil Western societies starting to break down as third world behaviours are more evident on their streets?

Who are the civil Western societies? What does “civil” mean? Is an alternative to civil society and to civil Western society offered?

Is third-world behavior novel?

https://www.quora.com/If-an-otherwise-good-person-is-for-all-intents-and-purposes-bad-towards-you-should-you-treat-them-as-a-bad-person-or-take-their-good-side-into-consideration-although-its-irrelevant-to-their-relationship-with-you?

I appreciate people as they are, where they are and take a lot of abuse, speaking my opposition and letting them react as they will. When my wonderful wife begins to resist one of my contacts, I’ll forgive a couple more times, then withdraw if the abuse continues.

If the offending party ever shares remorse for the past, I ask my wife’s opinion, and if possible resume the contact.

As I see it, I never intended harm to anyone yet regret some past losses. If contact is potentially resumed, I explore my possible offense, and if the other party was offended, I ask forgiveness.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-sympathy-a-symbol-of-humanity?

I don’t think so. Perhaps civil sympathy is an intellectual construct intended to control people’s emotions.

Merriam-Webster online tells us “sympathy” means “an affinity, association, or relationship between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly affects the other.” I have empathy for the innocent victims of crime. I have sympathy for other citizens who behave for statutory justice. I have contempt for criminals.

Consider a hypothetical case, wherein I cannot relate to any of the players, except those of us who are charged with the expenses.

An AMO group wants to draw negative attention to first-responders. They consult with pastors to identify local people with long-standing drugs, guns, illicit sales, brawn, and community acceptance. From there, they wait and plan to act independently.

They befriend a selected person, then drug him up and place a gun in his clothing. They call 911 and report a man was waving a gun.

The police arrive, and the drugged man, passionate that he is being mistreated, gets physical. The police can’t control him and suddenly discover the gun. One shoots him dead. The police chief retires to save his pension.

Accustomed to incidents like this that generate $5-6 million law-suit settlements, my first question is; who called 911 and why?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-purpose-of-reflective-listening?

I suppose reflective listening is like an echo. You speak or write your mind then listen to your person either agree or object. If there’s any distortion, you have a chance to reconsider.

If you’re in Sunday school and the class agrees you are a heretic, you’ve discovered the chance to seek an open door.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-so-hard-about-taking-responsibility-for-one-s-actions?

Responsible human independence seems in our DNA and in our family memes, and the U.S. has special opportunity to encourage willing integrity.

However, civilizations evolved from abject ignorance, much as a newborn baby is totally uninformed.

Erroneous belief that the sun is a god was shared by many extinct civilizations and cultures, and humankind had to discover that the sun is a natural nuclear reactor. However, many cultures have not accepted sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is. As a consequence, seemingly civilized peoples do not encourage their youth to take responsibility to control chaos. The results we can observe in 2020 is that chaos controls humankind. Prudent individuals will want change.

Humankind is aware of some basic acceptances, but extant cultures are too young to accept them. The list includes:

Accept being a human being and develop your person.

Accept human, individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to practice integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to self.

Accept that some humans either neglect HIPEA or use it for dependency, for example on family, bureaucrats, drugs, abuse, etc. The willing citizens must constrain dependent inhabitants by developing statutory justice.

Accept the mandate: neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or institution.

Accept that termination of body, mind, and person ceases individual human accomplishment.

These principles have not been accepted because no culture has ever coached and encouraged their youth to consider them.

I think these proposals or better are proffered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. I recommend that every citizen develop their independent opinions about the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition. 

 

https://www.quora.com/What-if-almost-every-moral-code-you-were-taught-by-society-has-been-a-lie-Would-you-open-your-heart-to-a-new-moral-code?

I dropped out of commonly competitive Christianity and Chapter XI Machiavellianism “in order to” accept my humility toward whatever-God-is. That empowered me to accept Genesis 1:28 as literature on par with Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Divinity School Address.” Then, I accepted my responsible-human independence to practice integrity.

I am glad I voted for Trump/Pence a third time. With his alacrity, wit, willingness to subsequently re-consider a question, and fidelity to secrets that are vital to each U.S. citizen, President Trump, V.P. Pence, and their administration-members who practice integrity, express Matthew 7:6 CJB, as I interpret it for the situation:  Don’t give to [enemies] what is [vital to the willing U.S. citizen], and don’t throw your [strengths] to the [media]. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, then turn and attack you.

Listening to my family members, friends, fellow citizens, and other inhabitants, I accepted the proffered U.S. Preamble as: 1) documentation of the amendable laws and systems for the global nation styled the United States of America and 2) declaration of willing-citizens’ 5 public disciplines “in order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and encourage “our Posterity.” No standards for each of civic, civil, legal, or spiritual constraints are specified, implying that disciplinary improvements “ourselves” exemplifies “our Posterity” can improve. We ought to pay our debts.

Dissidents to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition (for whatever reasons---ignorance, opposition, alienation, insufficient humility toward whatever-God-is) invite subjugation. I assert that many willing citizens assume other preamble-citizens accept “God bless America” as a humble statement; however, whatever-God-is may not accept it. Intentionally, the preamble does not address theism as a public discipline.

Dissidents invite constraint if accusation and discovered ineluctable-evidence shows 1) they caused injury to any person or 2) they tolerate/abet harm from any person or institution. In the summer of 2020, dissidents have shown once and for all that the 1688-1789 slogan “liberty” as license to vigilantism invites woe; when a mob invites woe, the willing citizen who is not a first-responder exercises the responsible human independence to leave the scene. Mayors and governors who support dissidents invite civil constraint.

I read, write, and converse to practice these principles. Comments are invited for this continuously achievable U.S. proposition. It was abstractly articulated by the signers of the U.S. Constitution for themselves and their Posterity, for whom they could not speak. Our generation has the opportunity to effect it.

Please improve and share this message according to your preferences: for or against.

https://www.quora.com/There-are-intellectuals-and-there-are-people-that-are-very-intelligent-What-are-the-core-differences-and-how-much-overlap-is-there?

Little to none; the person with high intelligence and no cognitive work seems a dunce.

https://www.quora.com/If-moral-reasoning-is-largely-about-providing-good-reasons-for-moral-claims-where-do-feelings-enter-the-picture-Is-it-possible-to-present-a-good-argument-that-you-feel-strongly-about?

I do not accept the premise that justice can be discerned by reason.

Justice can only come from the-literal-truth, which humankind may discover by examining/researching the ineluctable evidence. The-literal-truth is perfect knowledge, which may be approached by continually improving instruments of perception of the-objective-truth about the ineluctable evidence.

For example, some ancient seafarers perceived the earth was like a ball, because 1) the ocean’s horizon seems to have reliable, slight curvature and 2) no how matter how long they sailed into the horizon, they never fell off an edge. Land lubbers argued a flat earth until observers viewed the planets with telescope. Today, satellite-photos convince us that the earth is globe-like.

The-objective-truth does not respond to emotions. For example, the sun does not rise, poetic as that may be; rather the earth’s rotation on its axis hides the sun each evening and un-hides it each day. If anything, the awe and romance can be greater with actual-reality more than with erroneous perception.

On local emotions, many Americans in the summer of 2020 are trashing cities they visit for that purpose. They express the license to vigilantism on egocentric “rights.” However, most of them are not willing to accept the U.S. purpose, or even consider it. They claim citizenship because they exist.

However, the U.S. has a purpose that each citizen considers for self-interest---or not. Willing citizens trust-in and commit-to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, and dissidents neglect or reject its proposition.

My interpretation is:  This appreciative citizen practices the 5 U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and to encourage “our Posterity.”

The citizen who neglects this proposition may find himself or herself having harmed others and facing statutory law-enforcement. Adjudication of the case will focus on the ineluctable evidence and will not respond to emotions. The judge or jury will respond to the evidence presented in choosing guilt or innocence.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-competing-and-participating-more-important-than-winning-a-trophy-accolade-itself?

Engaging to connect as a human being is essential to civic, civil, legal, and spiritual living.

So far, no culture or civilization has developed this principle, because human-evolution had to go through physical-survival stages before psychological maturity could seem in the individual’s self-interest.

Fortunately, I live in the U.S., where exploration then exploitation of the land developed regardless of indigenous people. Scandinavian, Portuguese, Spanish, French, British, Russian, Dutch, Swedish, and Dane explorers considered colonization. Portugal and Spain had papal “authorization” to colonize the Americas and buy African slaves to provide agrarian labor. Later, England, France, Holland, and Denmark competed.

By 1763, loyal colonial subjects began to realize their homeland fellows were enslaving them to be overlords for the agrarian commerce, with long-term responsibility for the African slaves. In 1784, 13 free and independent global states were recognized by England in the 1783 Treaty of Paris. They were the former British colonies on the eastern seaboard and occupying about 13% of N. American land. Louisiana, for example was a French colony.

In 1787, 12 of 13 states debated in Philadelphia and proposed a global nation predicated on discipline by the people so as to hold both their states and a union of states accountable. Under the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, engaged citizens managed their state constitutions and assigned specific, limited responsibilities to officers, some elected and some appointed, in 3 branches of central government. The states could elect officers by popular vote, and the Union guaranteed the states a representative republic.

There was no political unity. Only 12 states had sent delegates. Of 70 delegates only 55 agreed to serve, and 16 did not sign the document. The required 9 states ratified the Constitution under the agreement that the First Congress would amend it, at least to include an English-mimic: a Bill of Rights. Two more states joined before Congress was seated with 11 states. Ten of 14 states ratified the Bill of Rights. Congress, as much as possible, re-established Anglo-American tradition. Most egregiously, Congress established Protestant-American, Chapter XI Machiavellianism---church partners with state to pick the people’s pockets and the people neither rebel nor emigrate, expecting their personal God to eventually relieve their descendants of the loss and misery. As typical of nations, no citizens’ faction within the urges fellow inhabitants to reserve sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is in order to take responsibility for constraining civic chaos.

By not specifying standards of integrity, the U.S. Preamble offers continual discovery of statutory justice such that posterity’s posterity may approach political perfection. The objective may be expressed as mutual, comprehensive safety and security, which implies not a utopia, but a system that applies the constraints of physics and its progeny to establish responsible human independence rather than infidelity to self. It is in every citizen’s self interest to develop an interpretation of the U.S. preamble’s people’s proposition so as to manage his or her civic, civil, legal, and private-spiritual living.

Here’s my interpretation today, offered for criticism so that I might improve:  This appreciative citizen practices the 5 U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and to encourage “our Posterity.”

https://www.quora.com/How-is-freedom-from-related-to-freedom-for-Answer-with-conviction?

At first thought, it seems misused prepositions confuse a noun. But worse, it neglects physics and its progeny.

It seems to me Merriam-Webster online’s 1.a. “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action” works well.

Accepting that definition, MW goes on to consider freedom-from slavery, power of another or released, unrestricted, and such. Thus, freedom-from seems to express absence of external constraint. Another list includes “freedom of speech,” “freedom from want,” and other human constructs.

It seems to me, though, there is one constraint humans cannot escape: physics and its progeny---such as mathematics, chemistry, biology, psychology, economic viability, and imagination. In life, it is critical to discern imagination from actual-reality.

An essay on freedom-from and freedom-to is posted at Freedom From & Freedom To | The Art of Manliness, and the author suggests Positive and Negative Liberty. Also, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/24721049?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents and Freedom “to” vs. Freedom “from” | SPH | Boston University. Thus, these four sources suggest “freedom-to” or “liberty-to” as perhaps synonyms to “freedom-for.” Indeed the literature on “liberty” is replete with confusion over liberty vs. freedom. “Civil-rightists” seem to portray freedom as arrogance against physics: Fifteen Definitions of Freedom from #OccupyWallStreet. It seems “liberty” cannot be taken as license to harm others without risking woe.

I resolved the freedom/liberty dilemma for my use with “freedom-from” oppression so as to have the “liberty-to” develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity. In the first, there’s external constraint, and in the second, there’s individually chosen action. When we re-consider physics and its progeny, we perceive that both freedom and liberty ought to conform to physics. Both external constraints and internal desires ought to conform to physics.

Thereby, we independently discover that physics and integrity conform to the same laws. Thus informed, we want freedom-from liberty so as to develop integrity to physics and its progeny. That is to say that both external integrity and internal pursuits ought to conform to physics rather than human constructs such as reason and mystery.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-connection-between-self-knowledge-and-freedom?

The human individual has the power, the energy, and the authority (HIPEA) to choose to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity. The path to this discovery is so difficult that few people would articulate it.

The newborn is totally uniformed about a confused and conflicted human society. Most members want mutual, comprehensive safety and security in order to responsibly pursue happiness rather than submit to the happiness bureaucrats choose for him or her. The evolution of cultures and civilizations produced conflicted sub-societies, and parents tend to inculcate their social jealousies to their children.

The only culture I am aware of that proffered a proposal to end this travesty is repressed by “freedom of religion” rather than encouragement to human integrity. An achievable better future is possible if 2/3 of one nation’s inhabitants adopt their individual interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for civic, civil, and legal living in responsible human independence with privacy in spiritual pursuits.

Application of HIPEA to develop integrity positions the individual to hold government officials accountable to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition or better; individually behave for civic, civil, and legal living; and privately pursue his or her motivation and inspiration with sufficient humility to whatever-God-is. Such citizens enjoy responsible freedom from external constraints and internal fears. Borrowing words from Mark Twain, they have replaced their conscience with integrity.

The seeds to the above principles were given to me by H.A. Overstreet (d. 1970) in his book, “The Mature Mind,” 1949. If anyone knows of a better book on development of psychological human maturity, I’d like to read it.

https://www.quora.com/The-ultimate-objective-of-good-governance-is-to-provide-general-welfare-to-the-people-Can-you-justify-the-statement-with-an-example?

Your premise imposes dependency, which I cannot practice. The human individual has the power, the energy, and the authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to self rather than infidelity such as allowing government to decide his or her happiness. The individual cannot consign his or her HIPEA, and upon the acceptance or neglect he or she chooses objective independence or subjective dependence.

I think good government encourages self-discipline, and such a government is proffered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It is in every citizen’s self-interest to develop his or her personal interpretation of the preamble’s people’s proposition in order to manage his or her civic, civil, legal, and spiritual living, accepting the mystery of “souls.”

Here’s my interpretation today, offered for criticism so that I might improve:  This appreciative citizen practices the 5 U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and to encourage “our Posterity.” Both civil liberty and private spirituality are expressed in the phrase “human independence.” Non-civil liberty, or license, or vigilantism, is observed nightly in Portland Oregon’s 2020 August. Failure to express sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is is expressed in the 1954 pledge of allegiance.

Defying the rule of law was expressed by Congressional Democrats and a “religious man” in the impeachment and trial of President Donald J. Trump. Denying the U.S. Preamble was expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in both Ramos v Louisiana (2020) and in Greece v Galloway (2014), both of which also defied the U.S. Constitution.

I hold elected and appointed officials accountable to the U.S. Preamble and the-objective-truth and vote in my self-interest.

 

https://www.quora.com/What-should-we-do-to-contribute-something-to-the-needy?

You live in the Anglo-American Chapter XI Machivellianism that was restored by Congress under 11 U.S. states in 1789. That is to say a religion-government-partnership wherein the bosses live high on the hog by picking most people’s pockets. Most people accept this religion-government tyranny. And pray to their personal God to relieve their children and grandchildren while they indoctrinate youth into the faith. Religion, like a professional sport, is to attract adult spending.

It seems human to retain sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is, and institutional religions continually demonstrate that doctrinal God too often opposes whatever-God-is. In 2020 it seems self-evident that human individual is charged to either constrain chaos or suffer rather than achieve human living.

By working for the lifestyle you want, you are paying enough taxes to both maintain civil religion and take care of the needy. Anything else you pay detracts from your accumulation of wealth for old age if not retirement. Retirement is that time when a person’s labors are rendered and he or she can take time to explore his or her person. However, it’s also a time when the body starts falling apart, the mind soon follows, and the person begins to accept death. It comes at an inflationary time, and you can prepare now to not be needy.

Thus, you can take care of the needy by continuing to pay for and prepare for a human lifestyle. Don’t allow Chapter XI Machiavellianism pick your pocket more than it does. Individually engage in politics and make certain your votes are in your self-interest and with civic integrity.

Also, develop your own interpretation of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution so as to discern the people’s proposition therein. To me, the preamble proffers the agreement to nurture 5 public disciplines “in order to” make possible responsible human independence to “ourselves and our Posterity.” The U.S. Chapter XI Machiavellianism has amassed nearly $30 trillion debt to “our Posterity.” Don’t add to your descendants’ misery. Work, live a human life, and accumulate wealth for your old age.

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-define-your-own-humanity-or-your-own-sense-of-what-it-is-to-be-human?

I think being human requires the acceptance of individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity. It is a commitment to perfect your unique person as your life develops psychological maturity, in other words, freedom from both external and internal constraints.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-moral-integrity-Write-on-its-significance-in-Civil-Engineering?

Please search using “Phil Beaver”+”integrity” to see my expressions that integrity is a practice.

The-literal-truth exists and humankind researches to discover the-objective-truth then invent new instruments for perceiving it so as to approach the-literal-truth. The-literal-truth conforms to the same laws that control physics and its progeny---such as chemistry, biology, psychology, and imagination.

Use of the above principles is the practice of integrity. The journal of research and discovery is ethics. Civilizations, cultures, and societies whose ethics conflict with integrity are immoral and may use discovery to reform.

People of integrity neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or institution. Of the engineering profession, the most reliable to my knowledge is civil engineering.

“Doing the right thing” does not inform integrity: the practitioner can mistake heartfelt conviction for integrity. Also, supervision, reason, emotions, beliefs, and other human constructs have no impact on integrity since the-literal-truth exists independently.

https://www.quora.com/What-would-you-really-do-if-you-had-to-make-a-choice-between-the-one-true-love-of-your-life-and-one-of-your-values-that-you-have-already-stood-by-full-heartedly-Now-be-honest-with-yourself-then-answer-the-question?

Reared Southern Baptist, I fell in love with my Louisiana French-Catholic wife. In our first quarter-century of marriage I came to realize her religion is more important to me for her than Mom and Dad’s religion is important to me, even though I cannot accept transubstantiation for me. After another decade, I accepted that from adolescence, I had developed trust-in and commitment-to whatever-God-is rather than any doctrinal God.

I recognize that my story is one of self-discovery more than allowing Christian competition drive me away from my bride. Nevertheless, I am glad the Protestant women I dated rejected me before any chance of falling in love. I might never have discovered my person if I had not met a serenely confident young woman who accepted my proposal of marriage.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-rational-reflection-and-gut-instinct-when-understanding-someones-decision?

Once I realized how complex my person is, I stopped trying to understand more than what a person says. If the statement does not seem reliable, I say so as kindly as my person is, and continue the conversation to conclusion if possible.

For example, this afternoon, my usually reliable daughter said a particular agency is a state provision when I know it to be a parish (county) tax-supported non-profit. I asked her to check her cell-phone-search to be certain. She was annoyed with the inconvenience and challenge, but left more informed.

To me, I practice something I learned by re-reading and re-writing about Agathon’s speech to describe Ero’s character rather than effect on men and gods. (Plato’s “Symposium”). My interpretation: a civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or institution.

It is worthwhile to offer and receive understanding. Fortunately, my daughter is resilient. But Agathon’s speech is not for everyone, and he said so.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-get-over-knowing-you-might-not-be-important-at-all-to-history?

At age 77, my greatest reward is developing integrity, low as I may be. I know so little that much of my wit is expended on creative search for the facts.

For example, I can almost explain the conclusion in the declaration of secession under which 7 slave states chose to cause war with the 34-state USA (27 states on the defensive side): “[A]ll hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” It was a Christian debate over whatever-God-is punishing black people for their ancestors’ sins at a pace white, Christian abolitionists ought not accelerate, and I admit I cannot explain the modifier “more.” However, the USA’s military might approved the abolitionists’ opinion. Once again, Genesis 1:28 is born out: whatever-God-is charges humankind to constrain chaos on earth.

In 2020, we have the exclusive African-American Christianity, with Bible canon more complete than its third-century competition. U.S. elites may accept that the Orthodox Tewahedo canon adds to DNA evidence that Africa seems the seat of whatever-God-is. Once again, humankind is prudent to accept the responsibility to constrain chaos on earth, no matter who first imagined that charge from a mysterious entity.

I do not seek appreciation for discovering such observations about history: the discovery is reward enough. On the other hand, I appreciate every “thumbs up” I ever received and moreover appreciate a few followers. (BTW: appreciation seems un-objectionable, whereas love can be unwanted.) Finally, it does not bother me that some people dislike my dream: mutual, comprehensive safety and security wherever I need to go on earth or beyond.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Should-decisions-be-made-by-people-who-have-no-desire-to-be-part-of-a-solution-to-the-issue-being-decided?

Absolutely not.

In fact, American citizens who have no sincere interpretation of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution should not be allowed to vote. The preamble has two thoughts: maintenance of the amendable U.S. Constitution’s republic and expression of the proffered purpose, whereby inhabitants can divide themselves as the willing and the dissidents.

My interpretation today of the U.S. Preamble’s proffered purpose is:  This appreciative citizen practices the 5 U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and to encourage “our Posterity.” Both civil liberty and private spirituality are expressed in the phrase “human independence.” Non-civil liberty, or license, or vigilantism, is observed nightly in Portland Oregon’s 2020 August. Failure to express sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is is expressed in the 1954 pledge of allegiance.

Defying the rule of law was expressed by Congressional Democrats and a “religious man” in the impeachment and trial of President Donald J. Trump. Denying the U.S. Preamble was expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in both Ramos v Louisiana (2020) and in Greece v Galloway (2014), both of which also defied the U.S. Constitution.

I hold elected and appointed officials accountable to the U.S. Preamble and the-objective-truth and vote in my self-interest. That is to say, integrity is in a person’s self-interest.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-actions-that-take-great-courage?

Foremost is to accept that you are a human being with the opportunity to develop your unique person.

Second is to accept human, individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to your person.

Third is to self-discipline in order to practice the responsible human independence whereby you may perfect your unique person as dying approaches.

Fourth is to encourage fellow citizens no matter where they are on their paths to HIPEA for integrity.

I write to learn and would appreciate comments.

https://www.quora.com/How-are-we-as-a-society-going-to-demand-our-elected-servants-to-stop-being-our-overlords-and-masters?

Perhaps two acts would get the job done.

First, accept that the Holy Bible is merely literature with ancient quests to perceive whatever-God-is collected as a canon that promotes the mystery for business purposes, and that Genesis 1:28 means what is says to you. To me it’s: the human individual is charged to constrain chaos in his or her life.

Second, accept your interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition. Mine is:  This appreciative citizen practices the 5 U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and to encourage “our Posterity.” Both civil liberty and private spirituality are expressed in the phrase “human independence.” Non-civil liberty, or license, is observed nightly in Portland Oregon’s 2020 August.

I hold elected and appointed officials accountable to the U.S. Preamble and the-objective-truth and vote in my self-interest.

The presidential candidate who offers best hope for the U.S. Preamble’s proposition under the-objective-truth is Donald J. Trump, and his administration seems to agree. In the future, I will continue to promote government accountability under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as each civic citizen interprets it “in order to” constrain dissidents.

https://www.quora.com/Does-technological-advancement-ensure-advancement-in-morality-decline-not-at-all?

I think so; congratulations on expressing the suggestion. For example, several cultures among humankind once thought the sun was a God. The sun is now known as a natural nuclear reactor. Yet human competition over whatever-God-is rages on! So far, humankind fails its duty to constrain chaos.

A culture that encourages personal discipline has not yet flourished. One was proposed in 1787 and so far has not caught on. It is suppressed by Chapter XI Machiavellianism; in the U.S., Anglo-American freedom of religion rather than opportunity to develop integrity.

So far, U.S. citizens have allowed Congress to repress the proffered U.S. Preamble, which proposes responsible human independence or better. The proposal to accept the U.S. Preamble can be accelerated by inspired citizens, using the Internet.

Pew Research and other sources inform us that religion is losing its hostage hold on public integrity. So far, religious decline seems to foster chaos. However, most people want mutual, comprehensive safety and security, so perhaps we approach the abyss and an achievable better future will begin.

In 1941, the unheralded political philosopher, Albert Einstein, informed fellow citizens of his suggestion, in my interpretation: physics and its progeny such as biology and psychology conform to the same laws. His only example was that people of integrity don’t lie in order to lessen human misery and loss rather than to follow some divine law, such as, “Thou shalt not lie.” The essay is reprinted in https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/. The discovery of integrity is journaled as ethics, but writers for the press neither accept nor develop the required discipline. Freedom of the press is an abject failure.

I suggest that Einstein expressed the validity of the-literal-truth and that the framers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution imagined a system that continually discovers the-objective-truth and invents new perceptions of it “in order to” approach the-literal-truth. The September 1787 Committee of Style perceived the framers’ accomplishment and wrote a 52-word sentence, the U.S. Preamble that abstractly specifies the requirements. But Anglo-American traditionalists, beginning in 1789 falsely labeled the sentence “secular” and repress it to this day. They opine about “the founders” in a scheme to detract from the signers if not framers, who proposed to terminate dependency on colonial-British tradition.

It is in every citizen’s self-interest to develop a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble by which to guide his or her civic, civil, legal, and spiritual lives. I share my interpretation seeking criticism from fellow citizens, and improvements accrue. My interpretation this moment is:  This appreciative citizen practices the 5 U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and to encourage “our Posterity.” Both civil liberty and private spirituality are expressed in the phrase “human independence.” Non-civil liberty, or license, is observed nightly in Portland Oregon’s 2020 August.

Not only does the U.S. Preamble not mention religion as a discipline, it offers no standards for either the 5 public disciplines or for human independence. The framers accepted that children improve human integrity when their parents cannot imagine the practice. For example, the framers specified ending the slave trade 20 years after ratification of the preamble, but could not imagine termination of domestic slavery. In 1852 (fourth generation after ratification), Frederick Douglass railed against the framers’ first progeny (1808) for leaving termination of domestic slavery to their progeny’s progeny.

The role of religion in the ongoing failure to accept U.S. integrity is expressed both in the CSA’s 7:27 (states) erroneous-will to challenge U.S. military might and in their woeful Declaration of Secession: “[A]ll hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.” Our generation foolishly, stubbornly leaves to our progeny the resolution of erroneous religious belief.

However, it is not too late for ours, the twelfth generation, to accept the privilege of establishing the U.S. under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition and the-objective-truth if not the literal-truth. With the power of the Internet, this message can go viral and the needed reform can begin during the coming year.

The task ahead seems formidable, but responsible human independence is in mutual self-interest and can be the destiny for “ourselves and our Posterity” if our generation accelerates the reform.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-we-seeing-so-much-revisionist-history-the-last-few-years-attempting-to-basically-say-what-weve-been-taught-is-wrong-and-the-truth-is-the-opposite?

I’d need to know the history you are talking about.

I think history itself revises the facts. Consider the example of an automobile accident with 10 witnesses, no two of whom have the same recollections as to how the accident occurred, and each driver blaming the other for the cause.

And consider the 1781 battle at Yorktown, VA. History informs us that it was America’s victory for independence from England, since Cornwallis surrendered to Washington. However, Cornwallis also surrendered to Rochambeu. England negotiated a treaty with France before negotiating one with the 13 states, formerly British colonies. The 13 free and independent states ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

The 13 states could not survive that way, and 9 states ratified the U.S. Constitution on June 21, 1788, establishing the USA as a global nation. The ratification was conditional on Congress (seated in 1789 with 11 states) amending the Constitution, at least to include a 1688-British-style Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was ratified under 14 states in December, 1791. The First Amendment, in its religion clauses, negates the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, which seems essential to responsible human independence.

By this factual account, the USA has not yet been established as intended in 1787, nor as ratified in 1789, nor as contradicted in 1791. Thus, the intended USA may be 0 to 229 years old, but most certainly cannot count 1776 as its birthday as a global nation.

https://www.quora.com/Has-American-individualism-been-shown-to-no-longer-be-a-virtue-in-the-21st-century-Is-not-some-level-of-the-greater-good-above-the-individual-needed-during-things-like-Pandemics-and-other-new-issues-this-already?

No. I appreciate the words and phrases you use in your question.

The chaos we are experiencing is the consequence of the 1791 U.S. codification “freedom of religion” instead of the 1787 proffered U.S. purpose: promoting the discipline required for responsible human independence. Dependence on whatever-God-is to relieve the people from political pocket-picking has prevailed in the 12 generations beforehand, leaving us the privilege to establish the intended U.S. humility that is proffered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble).

The popularity of AMO---Alinsky-Marxist organization, during the past 5 decades along, with an increase in adult infidelity to their “Posterity” has increased American dependency at the expense of U.S. independence. AMO has American church origins; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=OsfxnaFaHWI, especially 1) the introduction by Buckley with the church reference and 2) the student Q&A during the last 2 of 46 minutes, wherein Alinsky expresses his right to vigilantism (my interpretation). I understand that both Barack Obama (b.1961) and Hillary Clinton (b.1947) studied Alinsky (d.1972) and Alinsky (b.1909) once worked for Al Capone (d.1947).

Since the 1965 Great Society, American dependency on government has exponentially increased. Business benefit from consumption, so they try to keep the masses satisfied to settle for the provisions bureaucrats offer. Meanwhile, judges and lawyers help keep the elites accumulating enough wealth to protect them from lower and middle-class poverty. It’s OK that many men are reared so unreliably that women get pregnant so as to hope someone will love them for life. In other words, psychologically adolescent women have children to care for them instead of having children to care for them. It’s a ruinous spiral that ought to be reversed.

In political integrity, an authentic woman is aware that she may produce about 400 viable ova during her fertile years, and she attends to her well-being for both herself and her ova. An authentic man knows that attraction between him and a woman ought to lead to familiarity on which to pursue bonding or not. He attends to his well-being so as to be a good choice for an authentic woman. Consideration of bonding should lead to platonic intimacy on which to decide dedication for life or not. With mutual appreciation that justifies bonding for life, a couple experience joy they would like to extend to children and beyond. With mutual trust and commitment, sexual intimacy is justified, and the couple may want to codify their monogamy for life including their children by civil marriage, perhaps with religious ceremony. Thereby, the spouses codify their appreciation of the dignity and equity due their conceptions.

The evolution of the cultures we know of does not include the viable ova and the spermatozoon as objects of civic appreciation and potential personhood that demand equity and dignity before conception if not upon conception. No governments seem to be arguing ovulation as the moment human life is possible or the mystery of soul waits opportunity to become a person. If they did, human discipline rather than abortion would be a dominant political topic. No authentic man or authentic woman risks the future of a couple and her viable ova for egocentric satisfaction. Nevertheless, every person has the potential to reform, no matter how depressed their integrity may be. Thus, an achievable better culture is the one that encourages public discipline “in order to” enact responsible human independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”

The American individualism you may be referring to seems a consequence of neglecting if not repressing the U.S. proposition. Scholarship on 17th and 18th century Western though preserves British psychological hold on the U.S. independence proposed in the U.S. Preamble. Scholars cite “the Founders” of 1774, who inspired the 1776 Declaration of Independence. The U.S. was framed by 1787 delegates from 12 states, formerly British-American colonies. Only 39 of 55 framers signed the 1787 U.S. Preamble and its supporting Articles (the amendable 1787 U.S. Constitution). Some of the 16 dissidents wanted to preserve states’ rights instead of establishing the public discipline that is required for responsible human independence.

In 1789, Congress restored as much as possible colonial-British tradition, especially Anglo-American, Chapter XI Machiavellianism, or clergy-politician-partnership that picks the people’s pockets with immunity because the people wait for whatever-God-is to relieve the misery and loss. Our generation has the privilege of ending this tyranny so as to establish the U.S. as psychologically independent after dependency on “freedom of religion” since 1789.

This cultural reform seems complicated but is not. U.S. citizens may 1) do the work to consider the self-interest of the civic, civil, legal, and spiritual integrity proposed by the U.S. Preamble’s 52 abstract words, 2) require amendment of the First Amendment so as to promote integrity, a civic duty, rather than defend religion, a business enterprise, and 3) require reliable practice of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition as a condition for holding office in the U.S., including the office of voter.

The first step toward U.S. political independence is for most citizens to acquire a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble to guide their civic, civil, legal, and spiritual living. My interpretation implies that my practice is grounded in the-literal-truth. Very often, that trust and commitment takes me back to my childhood admissions:  I don’t know. It also reforms my mid-life arrogance:  My personal God saves us, and I need no humility toward whatever-God-is. I came to accept that whatever-God-is knows my thoughts, so it is prudent to practice humility.

I write to learn, so please comment.

Law professors

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-theological-roots-of-the-secular-world-order

Peters, like many Bible scholars, can’t seem to resolve its particulars. He asks, “How does one reconcile the omnipotent will of God with a rationally planned universe whose order might seem to limit that will in some way?”

 

The author of Genesis 1:28 seems to claim that [whatever-God-is] charges humankind to constrain chaos on earth. Whatever-God-is won’t usurp humankind’s charge: responsible human independence.

 

Peters reasons, “[I]nternational order . . . cannot abandon God and carry on. They need to replace God with something else, in this case human beings or “. . . a quasi-religious faith.” But . . . human beings are not absolutely good like the Christian God, and “humanity” turns out to be a weaker concept than [whatever-God-is].”

 

This seems a double indictment of the Christian God as both 1) weaker than Genesis:1’s whatever-God-is and 2) contradicting humankind's sufficiency to constrain chaos. Perhaps the author of Genesis 1 had it wrong: only chaos appeals to humankind for control. In other words, humankind independently responds to chaos by discovering and applying constraints.

 

Peters resolves this dilemma in “This makes politics not a means of ordering the world according to God’s inherent design, but an outward discipline of order on an otherwise chaotic and sinful world.” But he misdirects with “The validity of his law depends not on its coherence with a natural law embedded in the universe, but with its enactment by the sovereign.”

 

Chaos is an artifact of physics and its progeny. Therefore, to constrain chaos, humankind researches the laws of physics in order to discover integrity.

Failure to consider the laws of physics as the same as the laws of integrity invites Peters to choose “secular justifications for moral limits on power lack teeth because they lack substance.”

 

Peters shares Bain’s notion, “the American founders’ focus on equal rights and the legitimacy of power coming from consent is ultimately derived from Ockham and the Council of Constance.”

 

The ideas “equal rights,” “political consent,” and “common good” seem Anglo-American propaganda that the signers of the U.S. Constitution proposed to retire so as to promote public discipline. The signers’ proposal is in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which I interpret today as follows:  This appreciative citizen practices and promotes the 5 U.S. public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and encourage “our Posterity.”

 

I would like to consider fellow citizens’ interpretations of the proffered-preamble’s people’s-proposition. I think the proposition mimics Genesis 1:28:  citizens are charged to constrain chaos in the U.S.

[Approved and posted.]

https://lawliberty.org/repent-the-end-is-at-hand

Rarely is the reader treated to humor in the thesis of an essay:  “A great deal more could be said about harnessing human creativity and goodwill toward prosperity and environmental stability.”

However, Schwennesen did not offer a remedy. I suggest activation of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). It is in every citizen’s self-interest to develop his or her individual interpretation of the people’s proposition by which to manage civic, civil, legal, and private living.

Last evening, President Trump, was unapologetic in his allegiance to “Almighty God.” Soon, he said, “under God” will never be removed from the pledge, but the DNC had eliminated it. It seems the DNC tolerates the removal but is not ready to civilize it. The controversy is analyzed at https://www.truthorfiction.com/did-dems-strike-under-god-from-the-pledge-of-allegiance-at-the-2020-dnc/. I did not see the reminder that President Eisenhower’s 1954 act was motivated by the Knights of Columbus. It’s also reviewed with initial suggestion to delete “under God” at The Pledge of Allegiance - USHistory.org”; see the online link with the quotation of the prayer-less pledge.

I thought nothing of Staub School adding “under God” when I was eleven-years old, but today, I consider the pledge coercive. Not only do I object to the prayer “under God,” I object to “liberty” which is often taken as license to harm others over egocentric “rights.” Violence over “my rights” is a Saul Alinsky practice and a hallmark of AMO---Alinsky-Marxist organization. I think “liberty” is a 1688-1789 European call to solidarity against responsible human independence. When “my mob” starts harming people and property, I want the independence to exit.

It seems to me the phrase “whatever-God-is” expresses sufficient humility for individually accepting the human responsibility to constrain chaos---whether the individual is a theist or an atheist. I seek a better expression and have considered: posterity’s integrity, ultimate goodness, perfect appreciation, and civic justice as less arrogant than “under God” or “under the One.” With such qualifications, I could accept “Almighty God” to express U.S. humility, if most fellow citizens agreed. However, it seems “God” carries unavoidable doctrinal implications, and even “whatever-God-is” seems ultimately arrogant.

It’s good that the DNC started with the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. All public functions could start with unison reading of the preamble and no other ceremony---no prayer, since we don’t really know what we need and wait for posterity’s posterity; maybe a skeletal pledge I am not prepared to suggest beyond “"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.” (I do not condone “justice, strength, liberty” instead of the preamble’s public disciplines: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity.) See https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/democratic-national-convention-dnc-night-1-transcript.

I appreciate Schwennesen’s concerns and hope he likes my suggestion:  Activate the repressed U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition. My interpretation today is:  This appreciative citizen practices and promotes the 5 U.S. public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and encourage “our Posterity.

[2 b posted on approval.]

https://lawliberty.org/forum/is-the-past-prologue

Professor Schneider’s assessment is brilliant yet empty of a way forward: “What we have is a natural backlash against a global economic order which has produced safety and security for elites, and economic insecurity for the majority of Americans. It is time to address those concerns and take a turn away from the liberal internationalism responsible for it, being careful to balance the concerns of our population with those of the world.”

As always, I’d like to interpret so as to propose a solution. My interpretation of Schneider’s brilliance: As economic policeman of the world, America’s elites used Anglo-American and Judeo-Christian, Chapter XI Machiavellianism to develop consumerism among “ourselves,” eventually loading “our Posterity” with debt due to adult satisfaction. Humankind expresses the consequential chaos, and looks to the U.S. for survival.

Now, to suggest a solution for improvement by the writers in this great forum. First, the elites may accept that the Orthodox Tewahedo canon is among those as old as the Roman Catholic canon and develop sufficient national humility toward whatever-God-is. That is to say, encourage inhabitants---civic citizens, dissidents, legal residents, aliens, and enemies, to consider the possibility that their personal God alienates whatever-God-is.

In the competition between the Tewahedo canon and others, I cannot discern how the charge to humankind in Genesis 1:28 emerged. For all I know, it was a prehistoric observation that if individuals do not constrain the chaos near them, they will personally perish. For example, overexposure to the sun could kill you. Regardless, I cannot extract the directive that I should assume a mysterious soul and take charge of its destiny.

Many Americans, intentionally or not, detract from the U.S. intentions that are proffered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution (1787): to constrain chaos. The Constitution’s signers if not the framers set forth the disciplines by which the Anglo-American founders’ dependent psychology may be replaced with responsible human independence and due appreciation for whatever-God-is.

In 1763, the 14 eastern seaboard British colonies discerned that their loyal countrypersons on Great Britain were enslaving them to be overlords for British ambitions for the Atlantic slave-trade. In 1774, Nova Scotia, with a significant French-Catholic faction, was left out of the confederation of the other 13 colonies, who changed their global status to 13 free and independent states. They took the license to declare war against England in 1776, and the French provided military strategy and power to win the deciding battle at Yorktown, VA, 1781. They ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris in January, 1784. By May, 1787, 12 of the 13 free and independent states convened to establish states’ unity.

Through September, the 55 framers debated a republican federalism, and 16 either dissented or otherwise left Philadelphia. One of the chief objections was the preamble’s 5 public disciplines “in order to” enjoy responsible human independence to “ourselves and our Posterity.” We are the 2020 “ourselves” with “our Posterity.” The Congress of 1789-1793 substituted dependence on whatever-God-is for humankind’s responsibility to constrain chaos, and the federal government has maintained the tyranny ever since. It is time to reform “freedom of religion” with encouragement to develop integrity.

The originality of this U.S. intent becomes evident when the individual develops a personal interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition by which he or she manages his or her civic, civil, legal, and spiritual living, keeping afterdeath concerns private. My interpretation today is:  This appreciative citizen practices and promotes the 5 U.S. public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in order to” enjoy responsible human independence among “ourselves” and encourage “our Posterity. Both civil liberty and private spirituality are expressed in the phrase “human independence.” Non-civil liberty, or license, or vigilantism, is observed nightly in Portland Oregon’s 2020 August. Failure to express sufficient humility toward whatever-God-is is expressed in the 1954 pledge of allegiance.

I seek criticism of my interpretation in order to improve it.

[Approved and posted.]

https://lawliberty.org/book-review/the-expanding-tyranny-of-cant

“Few people . . . would deny that the political temperature, not only in the United States but elsewhere in the world, has risen of late.

A . . . cause of the polarization of opinion . . . is cant. To cant is to utter moral sentiment far in excess of what is felt or could ever be felt. The purpose of cant is either to present the person who utters it as morally superior to others or to himself as he really is, or to shut other people up entirely.

The social—or antisocial—media have been a powerful catalyst of cant.

Perhaps the most valuable . . . is its typology, that is to say the various species of cant: piling on (. . . adding one’s voice to a target already under attack), ramping up (. . . extending outrage yet further), trumping up (. . . the finding of severe moral problems where there are none), displays of strong emotion (. . . exaggerating one’s emotional responses) and dismissal (. . . assuming that one’s moral position is so self-evidently correct to all decent people that any other view can be brushed aside like a noisome little insect and do not even have to be considered).

And surely it should be bogeyperson?

I note that my spellchecker does not draw my attention to this locution, though it does to hangperson. I am furiously, incandescently angry at this gross inconsistency.”

theodore dalrymple

PRB Comment:

I was uncontrollably, outrageously rewarded by Dalrymple’s last sentence.

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