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 the five-U.S.-public
disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in
order to” develop responsible human-independence “to ourselves and 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
Do Congresspersons care about Constitution Day each
September 17? I don’t think many do. For example, Nancy Pelosi and others
attribute their allegiance to the useless “we, the people” rather than the authority
“We the People of the United States in order to . . .”
Authors of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, perhaps in
essence the 55 framers and the 5-person Committee of Style, but more credibly
the 39 signers, tacitly left it to each citizen to care enough to comprehend
the people’s proposition. It is proffered in the abstract of two thoughts in
the 52-word sentence.
My elementary-school teachers in the 1950s instilled in me
an appreciation for the preamble that eventually inspired me to interpret it to
guide my civic, civil, legal, and private way of living. My interpretation just
now (which I share for fellow citizens to improve) is: This appreciative citizen practices the U.S. public
disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in
order to” develop responsible human-independence “to ourselves and our
Posterity.”
To celebrate Constitution Day, September 17, perhaps consider
your interpretation of the preamble’s proposition “to ourselves and our
Posterity.”
This is your country. Don't let Congress bemuse you from your power, energy, and authority to hold them accountable to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Congress's worst tyranny is "freedom of religion" when fellow citizens need domestic integrity.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-really-a-principle-of-impartiality-in-human-beings?
Is there really a principle of "impartiality" in human
beings?
Thank you, Semra Oz, for a profound question.
Definitely! Impartiality is a consequence of integrity, and
humankind develops integrity rather than infidelity.
(That principle has not been demonstrated, because, so far,
no culture has ever promoted the practice of integrity. A proposal is proffered
in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Constitution Day, September 17, 2020,
is an appropriate time for families to consider the preamble’s proposition and
develop an interpretation by which to guide personal living: civic, civil,
legal, and private. Instead of 1787s integrity, the U.S. under Congress’
1789-91 tyranny, touts “freedom of religion.”)
Here’s an example of humankind’s march to integrity. Imagine
overhearing a debate among ancient spirits and two living people, a flat-earth
believer and an astronaut. You hear the ancients, then the flat-earth-believer,
then the astronaut.
“I can see
that the earth is flat. I worry that sailors could fall off the edge.”
“Maybe so,
but my boat-family has sailed for days into the curved horizon and never fallen
off the earth.”
“Astronomers
mathematically proved that the planets are globe-like, in orbit, and gravity
keeps them intact.”
“A new,
powerful telescope has confirmed astronomy’s view of the planets.”
“Scientists
and historians cannot be trusted. We trust what we see.”
“I’ve seen
from orbit that the earth is globe-like. Look at my pictures.”
Impartial observers consider the flat-earth believer in
error.
Again, it’s more awesome to observe the earth’s rotation on
its axis un-hide the day-light than to believe the sun is rising and crossing
the sky.
Or consider how U.S. laws favor organized crime by requiring
unanimous juries. Some socially-connected criminals say they believe DNA
evidence for exoneration but don’t believe DNA evidence for conviction. If a DNA-criminal
gets through the vetting process, they control trial results when DNA evidence
is involved. Statistically, an impartial judicial system employs non-unanimous
jury verdicts. Much like the Supreme Court’s 5:4 provision, 7:5 verdicts may be
best. In 1967, England instituted 10:2 verdicts to reduce organized crime’s
influence on criminal trials.
Consider one more example: a human being begins as a viable
ovum, and appreciating its equity and dignity, the woman has assured her
physical and psychological wellbeing. She bonded with a mate who similarly
cares for himself and his spermatozoa. They agreed to monogamy for life, taking
the best ideas from the four grandparents and applying the couple’s modern
comprehensions so that their grandchildren may benefit from their ancestors’
ineluctable goodness.
One child acquires the notion that their psychology differs
from their physiology and demands a gender-change. The family explains the
irreversibility and life commitment the change would require. They cite
appreciation of the person’s conception and the equity and dignity due the ovum
and the spermatozoa therein. Sex change would permanently alter the lives of any
descendants. Also, it could invite the person into deceitful relationships with
other people. The family challenges the inspiration and motivation behind the
proposal and proposes social counselling. (I use social counselling any time I
perceive my family monogamy is threatened by my failures.)
If the child insists on the sex-change, the monogamous
family faces a dilemma: they must
support their family-monogamy for life---not exclude the sex-changed child.
They weigh the issues and are impressed with three observations. First, the
child addressed the proposal with due diligence, is aware of how much lifespan must
be dedicated to effecting the change, explained prudent preparation for the
challenges, and intends no deceitful conduct. Second, the child’s conceived
embryo committed to neither the gender nor to family-monogamy for life. Third,
physics entails many unexpected outcomes, and a psychology-physiology mismatch
is not rule out. The family embraces the gender-change with appreciation for
their member’s integrity.
If the family discussions and perhaps counselling led to the
child’s decision to not effect the gender-change, the family may expect a less
eventful future, for example no recovery from elected surgery. However, they
are no less enriched by the integrity they shared in the commitment-to and
trust-in family-monogamy for life.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-characteristic-of-liberty?
What are the characteristic of liberty?
Freedom-from oppression provides the liberty-to responsibly
act.
Constraints on freedom are political and can be either
arbitrary, wrong, or tyranny or can be just and fair. For example, taxation to
pay for public infrastructure is fair yet individually limiting.
Constraints on liberty are imposed not by government but by
physics and its progeny including psychology. For example, taking liberty to
fly like a bird invites injury. Taking the liberty to be intimate without
another person invites denial. Taking the liberty to play the violin for tips
can invite starvation.
Liberty acts on prudence regarding personal talent,
preferences, and self-interest when you have satisfied government, physics, and
civic integrity. By civics I mean appreciating each fellow-citizens’ liberty.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-think-is-the-definition-of-truth-and-virtue?
What do you think is the definition of truth and virtue?
Truth is the consequence of physics and its progeny,
including psychology; also imagination about the unknowns. Truth exists and
humankind works to discover and benefit from it.
Virtue is conformity to physics and its progeny in order to
accomplish the ineluctable good.
Albert Einstein’s example of virtue, in my interpretation,
is: Ineluctably good people don’t lie so
as to lessen human misery and loss.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-important-that-we-constantly-engage-others-to-help-us-examine-and-reflect-on-the-truths-that-we-hold?
Why is it important that we constantly engage others to help us
examine and reflect on the truths that we hold?
Human beings have the individual power, the individual energy, and the
individual authority (HIPEA) to pursue integrity rather than tolerate another
person’s errors, arrogance, or evil.
There is so much to know; we cannot live our daily lives and constantly
consider first-hand all the concerns that will come our way. Further not every
concern will come our way. However, we can observe fellow-citizens’ concerns
and how they address them. In fact, this is a principle that binds human
beings: they want mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that each
individual may responsibly pursue the happiness they perceive rather than
tolerate the happiness some else or a society envisions for them. That is to
say, many civilizations are merely oppression of the opportunity to pursue
individual happiness with civic integrity.
One of the chief struggles in the aware portion of my 7 decades is the
arrogance of “In God We Trust,” as though we need no humility toward whatever
controls the unfolding of the universe. Such a radical concern by an
“insider”---born into a Southern Baptist, lower-middle class family, with
father a Mason and mother an Eastern Star---takes decades to nurture until
articulation is possible.
I published my first proposal to amend the religion clauses of the First
Amendment in 1999; Let’s
Revise the First Amendment. Since then, I realized that the U.S.
Preamble assigns spirituality and religion to privacy rather than to civil or
legal imposition. The U.S. Constitution, or the entity “We the People of the
Unites States in order to . . .” does not authorize the claim “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.” Only in this moment did the last sentence come about.
No one articulates encouragement or coaching to continue to urge the U.S. to
reform from pride in “freedom of religion” in order to encourage human
integrity. However, I trust-in and am committed-to the ineluctable goodness of
U.S. Citizens and expect the reform from Anglo-American-tradition to
responsible human independence.
I came to these expectations by conversing with both fellow citizens and
foreigners from over 40 ethnic backgrounds with whom I worked as a chemical
engineer. Moreover, I am reforming during our sixth decade of marriage with a
Louisiana-French-Catholic woman and our children.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-ethically-wrong-with-The-Fountainhead-written-by-Ayn-Rand-Why-do-so-many-people-oppose-the-book-and-slam-it?
What is ethically wrong with The Fountainhead, written by Ayn Rand?
Why do so many people oppose the book and slam it?
Albert Einstein (d. 1955) suggested, in my interpretation,
the-literal-truth derives from physics and its progeny, including math,
biology, psychology and imagination about the unknowns. His only example was
that ineluctably good humans do not lie so as to lessen misery and loss.
Objectivism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism)
posits that physics responds to reason. This is a fallacy of eighteenth century
British philosophy on evaluating “nature” vs reason. They did not comprehend
that “nature” changes with invention of new instruments for perceiving the
ineluctable evidence: eventually the-objective-truth approaches
the-literal-truth and in the meantime is more valid than reason. Perhaps Ayn
Rand (d. 1982) did not appreciate Einstein as a political philosopher.
https://www.quora.com/Do-we-live-in-a-society-that-values-high-intelligence-wealth-talent-and-fame-above-morals-and-ethics?
Do we live in a society that values high intelligence, wealth,
talent, and fame above morals and ethics?
I don’t think so.
I think morals and ethics are civilization’s tyranny to
distract a person from self-interest. In self-interest, whether coached and encouraged
or, rarely, discovered, the human being develops the self-discipline to take
advantage of the intelligence and talent he or she has, developing wealth by
saving and investing.
Self-discipline is difficult unless coached and encouraged
from delivery from the womb. It takes about 3 decades for a human being to
acquire the comprehension and intention to develop integrity rather than
infidelity to their person. Another 3 to 4 decades of self-discipline in
service to fellow-citizens leads to the wisdom with which a human may perfect
their person. Another 2-3 decades with reflection may complete the benefits of
discipline: perfection of the unique person.
The most egregious tyranny in history is the U.S. First
Congress’ repression of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution as a “secular”
sentence. The U.S. Preamble tacitly assigns spirituality to privacy by not
including it in the five public disciplines it specifies or the purpose served.
It is in every citizen’s self-interest to develop a personal interpretation of
the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition in order to manage their civic, civil,
legal, and private way of living.
I share my interpretation, which benefits from suggestions
by over 70 fellow citizens, to invite further improvements. Today, my interpretation
is: This appreciative citizen practices the
five-U.S.-public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and
prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible human-independence “to
ourselves and our Posterity.”
I appreciate fellow citizens who share my behavior for
mutual, comprehensive safety and security so that we can each pursue the
happiness we perceive we desire rather than submit to someone else’s hopes for
our lives. I know nothing about my afterdeath, and therefore have nothing to
say about a fellow-citizen’s spirituality. The summer of 2020 convinces me that
when the mob takes the license to harm people and property to express their liberty,
I want the independence to leave the scene and its associations. I want my
integrity to aid posterity’s determination of posterity’s disciplined
self-interest.
I think the U.S. Preamble’s proposition offers the world
relief from arbitrary morals and ethics so as to encourage the self-discipline
by which to develop individual talents and happiness.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-self-1?
What is your "self"?
I think “self” is the accumulated choices at any point in a
human life.
Physically, a human infant, at the moment the umbilical
chord is severed, may be whole in body and mind. Psychologically, he or she is
feral---totally ignorant and dependent; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child.
For example, they cannot find their mom’s tit and may walk in a year; a foal
walks within an hour of birth and finds a tit within 3 hours.
With coaching and encouragement, a human being accepts their
unique person. If a culture like that existed, it might take about 3 decades
for the person to acquire the comprehension and intention to live a complete
human lifetime. And some might intend to perfect their person. The young adult
accepted the human, individual power, individual energy, and individual
authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity to self. That is to say, they trust-in
and commit-to fidelity to the-literal-truth, much of which is unknown.
They behave so as to help humankind discover and utilize
the-objective-truth for ineluctable good and invent new instruments of
perception so as to eventually approach or attain the-literal-truth. This
process of discovery accepts only ineluctable evidence. That is to say,
the-objective-truth can be examined by any person and the conclusions will be
the same until a new instrument of perception is invented so as to alter the
repeatable observation. The-objective-truth/discovery does not yield to reason,
imagination, or any other human construct.
As the human individual progresses chronologically, they
develop the integrity to choose the ineluctable good rather than infidelity.
Human mistakes and egocentric satisfactions do not become habits. The
reliability of personal decisions creates a path or journey toward the person’s
ultimate psychology. With their accumulation of choices as they approach death,
they may have perfected their unique person.
https://www.quora.com/What-theory-is-the-antidote-to-the-notion-that-the-ends-justify-the-means?
What theory is the antidote to the notion that the ends justify the
means?
The adage “speak for you audience” is a means to an
erroneous end. To share your thoughts with an audience, you must speak in your
language and explain words so well that the individuals relate to the message and
accept it as worthy of their work to comprehend.
For example, Albert Einstein, speaking at a conference on
science and religion said, “Science without religion is lame, religion
without science is blind." The statement is controversial for many
reasons, especially the meanings of the terms “science” and “religion”. I
speculate that Einstein was expressing the importance of trust-in and commitment-to
ineluctable evidence. Faith in what-is rather than in what-could-be is
essential to both research and religion.
I think science is intentional research of the
ineluctable evidence in order to discover the-objective-truth if not
the-literal-truth. The object of study is physics and its progeny including
psychology. That is to say that everything comes from physics, including
fiction about the unknowns. Invention of new instruments of perception empowers
humankind to understand the-objective-truth so as to gradually approach if not
attain the-literal-truth. Religion seeks to refine doctrine so as to seem to
accommodate discovery.
I think religion is speculation about a heartfelt
concern, acceptance of the speculation, and development of a doctrine to support
the acceptance, eternally ignoring the ineluctable evidence that the heartfelt
concern was invalid. By
focusing on the doctrine, religion is blind to the ineluctable evidence.
Einstein
provided an example that supports my view of his meaning: research
that evades ineluctable evidence is lame; doctrine rejects ineluctable evidence
and is blind.
In
an evasion example, Einstein perceived that the universe is static. His
brilliant mathematical model informed him that the universe is dynamic. Ten years
later, Edwin Hubble proved that the universe is expanding, or dynamic. Einstein
admitted his doctrine, thanked Hubble, and deleted his “cosmological factor”. Einstein
had forced his genius to yield to his doctrine until he faced ineluctable
evidence.
Theism
provides a blind-doctrine application of my view of Einstein’s meaning. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
(d.1716) asked why anything exists and answered that God willed it; https://theconversation.com/answering-the-biggest-question-of-all-why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing-65865.
The notion that a mysterious intelligence caused the universe is speculation
that begs Leibniz’s response. In other words, the doctrine itself is the sole
justification for the heartfelt concern. Without ineluctable God-evidence, it
seems prudent to remain humble to the-literal-truth, whatever it is, so as to
not be blinded upon its discovery. That is to say, to remain open-minded.
Another Einstein story illustrates the advantage of
self-expression so as to leave a message that will survive an audience that
demands their proprietary language. Einstein delivered the speech, “The Laws of
Science and The Laws of Ethics” reprinted at https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/.
His message, in my interpretation is: The
laws of physics and it progeny including psychology come from the same source.
His only example is that ineluctably good people don’t lie so as to lessen
human misery and loss.
I have no way to affirm my interpretation of Einstein’s
political philosophy. The chief flaw in his generous sharing was his belief
that he should speak in the audience’s vernacular. I wish he had said what he
thought and left us to parse his words rather than the words he thought a
perhaps 1941 Chicago conference would accept.
How can a speaker translate his or her thoughts into the
language of each person in a diverse audience? How can he or she assume,
anticipate, explain, think, and feel what each person in the audience assumes,
anticipates, explains, thinks, and feels? I don’t think its possible.
I’m just glad I work hard to understand Einstein yet admit I
cannot receive his message. I think he did not apply the means that would allow
that end.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-USA-really-the-beacon-of-freedom?
Is the USA really the beacon of freedom?
No.
As proffered in 1787, it can be. However, so far, no generation has accepted
the freedom to develop responsible human independence under the five public
disciplines that are offered in the U.S. Preamble (the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution).
Since
the proposition is to “ourselves and our Posterity,” it is in every citizen’s
self-interest to develop a personal interpretation so as to manage his or her
civic, civil, legal, and private life. I share my interpretation hoping someone
will suggest improvement: This appreciative
citizen practices the five-U.S.-public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible
human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
The
first Congress deemed the U.S. Preamble too progressive, since it terminated
both 1) the confederation of states in order to discipline willing people in
their states to hold the nation accountable to the preamble and 2) the
traditional attempt to consign the human responsibility for peace (see Genesis
1:28) to Nature and Nature’s God or equal (see the Declaration of
Independence). They falsely/erroneously deemed the U.S. Preamble “secular,”
whereas it tacitly assigns spiritual pursuits to individual privacy rather than
to civil imposition.
I
have long struggled with Congress’s unconstitutional imposition of “freedom of
religion” whereas the U.S. Preamble proffers the opportunity to pursue civic
integrity. In freedom, citizens can behave for equity under statutory justice
but cannot effect favorable afterdeaths for themselves or for fellow citizens.
As
long as the spiritual tyranny---freedom of religion rather than encouragement
to develop integrity--- exists, the USA can only claim that freedom is
proffered. So far, the people have not accepted the Genesis 1:28 suggested responsibility
to constrain human chaos.
https://www.quora.com/%E2%80%9CThe-limits-of-my-language-mean-the-limits-of-my-world-%E2%80%9D-Is-Wittgenstein-correct?
“The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” Is
Wittgenstein correct?
I
imagine that in context, Wittgenstein correctly expressed himself but don’t
know that he was correct.
I
think the literal quote does not hold for the adolescent who has progressed
past “What’s that?”
I
know that “onion” identifies onion. If I show one to a Greek, I’ll learn it’s a
“κρεμμύδι”. If I open a gate to enter a Greek garden, I can tell from the
woman’s shaking finger and angry face that “einai APAGOREVMENO” means “It’s
forbidden.” First, you exit the gate. Later you ask a Greek friend to interpret
the command. If you enter a bus with all the seats on one side taken; say,
“Alone I’ll balance the bus”; and ask everyone how to say that in Greek, you
learn that the cacophony reflects their search for a Greek equivalent for
“balance”. There is none in modern Greek.
If
you ask a Greek and a French person how to say it’s a cold rain, the French may
say it’s a good time for the ducks and the Greek may say the only way it’ll
stop raining is to start snowing.
Perhaps
Wittgenstein expressed that if a person is too stubborn to listen to the other
person’s language and equivocate to their language, they limit themselves.
https://www.quora.com/When-liberty-is-abused-and-only-produces-anarchy-chaos-disorder-is-dictatorship-or-totalitarianism-or-something-close-to-it-by-a-good-and-responsible-government-justified-to-restore-peace-and-order?
When liberty is abused, and only produces anarchy, chaos &
disorder, is dictatorship or totalitarianism (or something close to it) by a
good and responsible government justified to restore peace and order?
It’s not that extreme. We live in the U.S., were the Union
guarantees to each state a republican form of government; that is to say, the
rule of law.
Generally, the U.S. military is used to constrain foreign
attack or domestic insurrection. Local and state police are used to constrain
domestic violence.
Democratic mayors and democratic governors are allowing
aliens and domestic terrorists to hijack Alinsky-Marxist organized (AMO) demonstrators---soldiers
for movements that tolerate violence when they deem that their egocentric
rights have been threatened or denied.
As you point out, AMO demonstrators abuse liberty by taking
it as license to harm people and property. Tolerating the domestic terrorists,
the democrats perceive they have a tool to defeat Donald Trump in the coming
election. (Incidentally, to your point, I recently changed my interpretation of
the U.S. Preamble’s purpose from “responsible human liberty” to “responsible
human independence.”)
President Trump operates under the U.S. Constitution, and so
far, he has, by law, left constraints to license to harm and damage to the
cities and states. I hear on the news that larger demonstrations are planned
after the election. It is important for fellow citizens to recall that when a
society erroneously chose to fire on Fort Sumter in 1861, the USA responded. If
it happens again, the response will be quicker.
I am careful where I go. Otherwise, I’d like to witness the
Democrats choose integrity under the preamble to the U.S. Constitution rather
than be forced to stop renting citizenship. I think Trump and the rule of law
is giving them that opportunity.
https://www.quora.com/Does-patriarchy-make-any-sense-in-todays-world?
Does patriarchy make any sense in today's world?
I think it does. Bear with me as I explain.
Patriarchy is required to constrain chaos in humankind’s
journey to discover integrity. That is to say, to act with responsible human
independence.
First, the possibility for a new human being is assigned to
the viable ovum the fertile woman produces. That is to say, the ovum who
progresses to adolescence may or may not choose to be a human being.
The woman’s genes, memes, and culture inform her that she
must care not only for herself but for her viable ova, too, perhaps
13-ova/year or 400 during her fertile years. Part of her non-consignable
responsibility is to choose a mate who attends to his well-being not only for
himself but for his spermatozoon, in order to maintain his spousal-viability to
family-monogamy for life.
Monogamy for life is essential in order for living families
to encourage their descendants to accept the individual integrity
to thrive in a future the family cannot imagine. In other words, the genes,
memes, and support the family proffers can only motivate the descendant to
develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity.
The family benefits from four lineages of monogamy for
life--extensions from the woman’s mom or dad and the man’s mom or dad. During
courtship, the man and woman may review the politics in these four family lines
in order to tentatively choose a plan for their family. Their plan may not
resemble the four precursors.
However, there are some actual-realities that must be
accommodated. First, accepting spousal obligations empowers accomplishment.
Gestation and delivery require about 10 months’ dedication. Transition from
feral infant to young adult with the comprehension and intention to live a
complete human life requires about a quarter century.
It seems prudent for the woman to be in charge of direct
child-care, for a family of four, for about 3 decades. If she can also manage a
career, too, that’s fine. However, she risks the children’s reliability if her
career is not actually viable.
It seems prudent for the man to assume the role of viability
provider. Thus, he is in charge of projecting family needs during each decade
and assuring that those needs are met. That is to say, his primary contribution
is to responsibly guarantee that the family never needs to appeal to charity
for human essentials—food, cars, college, weddings, births, and retirement.
Meanwhile, he counts on the woman’s authority respecting care-essentials, both
physically and psychologically. In other words, she is the social-practitioner and
he is the viability-provider.
Roles can be reversed and mixed, depending upon the spouses
and their unique talents. For example, in my spouse hood, I perceive my wife as
the reliable authority on safety and security, while I am the dreamer who
nevertheless reads, writes, converses, and listens in order to to keep the
family focused on actual-reality. Both of us listen to and appreciate our
children and perceive they are prepared for the future we cannot imagine.
A family of 5 is not unlike a nation. Everyone’s heartfelt
thoughts need appreciation and when a decision must be made, only one person
can make it. It is important for the family to know which member has that
responsible human independence. Because she has so much care-responsibility,
assurance of responsible family viability often rests with the male.
Although
personally I prefer equality and I don't like either matriarchy or patriarchy,
you put patriarchy in a positive light and the way you put it is a kind of
division of labor that one compensated another. The most important thing is
there is mutual love and respect for each other.
Phil
replied:
Equality?
In the continuum of families I tried to describe, I don’t see how children can
view their mom and dad as equals. Equitable spouses, yes, but equals? Tell me
how.
https://www.quora.com/What-about-inner-peace-is-not-possible-if-our-personal-values-contradict-one-or-more-universal-values?
What about "inner peace is not possible if our personal values
contradict one or more universal values"?
Universal values that conflict with ineluctably good
behavior are in error.
Your question adds to my list of human acceptances that are
essential to the body and mind’s perfection of its person: Each person must accept that many universal
values are flawed if not false. That is to say, universal values are no
surrogate for whatever-God-is. In other words, a human being cannot consign his
or her responsibility to constrain chaos during his or her
lifetime.
The person who accepts that he or she is a human being
accepts that one lifetime is insufficient for discovering a reliable higher
power. In self-interest the person accepts human, individual power, individual
energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than
tolerate infidelity in his or her life. He or she accepts the responsibility to
constrain chaos during his or her lifetime, and humankind benefits.
The ethical journal of universal values is measured by
integrity to physics and its progeny. Humankind works reliably to approach
integrity, and some individuals may reform in order to participate.
If there are no objections, I will add “Jeany Bernas,
9/8/20” to my appreciations page. Before your question, I was overlooking
encouragement to accept self-reliance.
https://www.quora.com/How-true-false-is-this-statement-You-shouldnt-have-children-unless-you-have-the-income-for-it?
How true/false is
this statement: "You shouldn't have children unless you have the income
for it"?
I would not encourage that thought for many reasons.
However, I think every Education Department needs to reform
so as to coach and encourage students to accept being human and the obligations
he or she received at ovulation.
Specifically to your question, wanted human life begins with
an ovum who benefits from a woman who attends to her well-being both physically
and psychologically. Consequently, she chooses a mate who takes care of his
wellbeing. Further, he offers monogamy for life to his spouse and their
offspring and descendants.
Spouses like that ought to have children.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-most-cruel-things-that-are-happening-in-the-world-right-now-which-are-kept-under-the-blanket-to-favor-specific-people?
What are some of the
most cruel things that are happening in the world right now which are kept
under the blanket to favor specific people?
Humankind works to discover and practice the ineluctable good.
Each individual is more or less aware of his or her role in the discovery
process. The descendants of living families may enjoy more awareness and
integrity to the good. In other words, the
family’s children may achieve a better world.
However, families who either oppose or neglect the
good pass on the genes and memes that invite infidelity to
self-interest. Therefore, their descendants must either unlearn their family’s
expectations for them or risk disadvantage. Most cultures have traditions that
hold their youth hostage to error.
For example, most cultures inculcate the urge to rely on a
higher power. But the human species is assigned responsibility to constrain
chaos during life, and no entity will usurp that assignment. The human being
has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority
(HIPEA) to develop integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to his or her
self-interest. Each human has the HIPEA by which to perfect his or her unique
person; to responsibly develop the happiness he or she wants rather than yield
to the happiness someone else imagines for them.
No religion on earth teaches these principles. No
politicians on earth teach these principles. Yet these principles offer an
achievable better future. That future can begin with acceptance of the
principles with the intention of improving and sharing the updated statements.
Additionally, I know of one proposal that compliments these
principles. It is proffered in the goals that are stated in the preamble to the
U.S. Constitution. To preserve freedom, the proposition is abstract: Each citizen must interpret it in order to
manage his or her civic, civil, legal, and private way of living. My
interpretation today, offered for further improvement by fellow-citizens
is: This appreciative citizen practices the
five-U.S.-public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and
prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible human-independence “to
ourselves and our Posterity.”
The preamble offered an achievable better future on
September 17, 1787, 233 years ago. However, beginning on March 4, 1789,
Congress repressed the preamble, erroneously/falsely labeling it “secular”
whereas the preamble reserves religion for private consideration rather than
civil imposition. The preamble’s civic, civil, legal, and private authority is
“kept under the blanket to favor” Congresspersons and their supporters.
Only the ineluctably good people of the U.S. can reform this
travesty against ourselves and our youth. If you have not yet decided how your
family will celebrate Constitution Day, September 17, consider interpreting the
U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition according to how you’d like your neighbor
to guide his or her civic, civil, legal, and private living. Then, write your
own interpretation and share it for improvement.
https://www.quora.com/Is-stealing-ethical-if-carried-out-in-order-to-feed-a-starving-family?
Is stealing ethical
if carried out in order to feed a starving family?
Absolutely not for a human being, according to readily
available literature on integrity.
The writer of Genesis 1:28 suggests that humankind is
assigned to constrain chaos on earth. Greeks suggested 2,400 year ago that
humble citizens neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from any person or
society.
The human individual makes certain that his or her family
has a continuous supply of essentials, either by working for sufficient
earnings or by applying to charitable services. He or she never causes harm for
the last meal.
https://www.quora.com/In-your-opinion-should-it-be-considered-ethical-for-a-mother-to-abort-her-fetus-on-the-basis-that-it-has-down-syndrome-a-genetic-disorder-that-results-in-learning-disabilities?
In your opinion,
should it be considered ethical for a mother to abort her fetus on the basis
that it has down syndrome (a genetic disorder that results in learning
disabilities)?
I don’t care to comment on that particular human challenge.
However, in general, the mother has been assigned rather
than consigned the responsibility for her viable ova, about 400 potential human
beings during her fertile years.
I take my interpretation of Genesis 1:28 seriously and
perceive that it expresses assignment to humankind the responsibility to
constrain chaos on earth. The human being who does not accept personal
responsibility to constrain chaos in his or her sphere of influence begs woe.
Parents are responsible to inform their children to
constrain chaos. The mature woman knows she is responsible to protect her live
ova and does not risk conception without appreciation of the fetus’s
potential to become a human being and intentions to care for him or her for life.
She therefore chooses a worthy mate. A mature man would not threaten a woman’s
live ovum let alone the woman.
If a pregnant woman receives a doctor’s recommendation that
her fetus is not likely to appreciate his or her life, and the woman agrees
that under their circumstances, she and her child are not likely to develop a
life the child can live, she has a difficult decision that was assigned to her
alone. No one should interfere in the decision.
Let the humans who would interview the woman to explore her
decision take responsibility for the chaos---not only the anguish to her and
her doctors. Let the questioners prepare to answer for usurping her assigned
authority. However, do not impose tyranny to preserve chaos on the fetus and on
the ineluctably good people who work to constrain chaos.
A pregnant woman was assigned the responsibility to remain
pregnant or not. Let no person try to usurp her assigned responsibility.
https://www.quora.com/Is-free-will-the-greatest-human-right?
Is free will the
greatest human right?
The freedom to develop integrity is the only human right, I
think.
https://www.quora.com/Can-humanity-survive-without-love-and-compassion?
Can humanity survive
without love and compassion?
I think so. More important is appreciation and integrity;
adoration and reliability; mutuality and independence; humility and resilience;
intentions and awareness; opportunity and initiative.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-decide-the-proper-limitations-of-a-right?
How do you decide the
proper limitations of a "right"?
Listen to a fellow citizen’s claims and consider whether you
want to supply his or her wants or not.
For example, R. E. Lee, in 1856 (https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Letter_from_Robert_E_Lee_to_Mary_Randolph_Custis_Lee_December_27_1856)
was aware that Frederick Douglass referred to himself as a “fellow citizen,”
for example, in 1852 (https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/2945#).
Douglass’ 1852 assertion “There
is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is
wrong for him” seems clear from his view. However, to the 1856 Lee meant
he did not envy God’s judgement of black ancestors and punishment of their
descendants. Lee was focused on white abolitionists “evil” in trying to
accelerate God’s plan: “The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in
Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are
undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will
prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be
necessary is Known & ordered by a wise & merciful Providence.” Lee’s
erroneous religious beliefs cost him his family fortunes.
Lincoln asked Lee to be his general in defending the U.S.
from the Confederate States of America and their “more erroneous religious belief”
(www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm).
He could have sold all his property, moved to a non-slave state, accepted
Lincoln’s commission, and saved his family-fortunes by accepting the-objective-truth
to be honed by new perception so as to approach if not attain the-literal-truth.
That was 1861. Today, I consider rights in light of all that
has happened, my interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s preamble, and the-objective-truth
if not the-literal-truth. In the preamble, one thought specifies the articles
of the republic under the rule of law, and another proffers the people’s
proposition: five public disciplines “in order to” establish responsible human
independence to “ourselves” as measured by “our Posterity.” Since the preamble
offers no standards, each citizen is free to choose either the self-interest of
integrity or tolerate the appetites that nourish infidelity.
My interpretation this morning of the U.S. Preamble’s
people’s proposition, tendered for improvement, is: This appreciative
citizen practices the five-U.S.-public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace,
strength, and prosperity, "in order to” develop responsible
human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
To Bill Sands:
I understand the concern that inspires your opinion and
offer one exception: Each human being has the opportunity to develop integrity,
and governments ought to appreciate, promote, and defend that opportunity. In
the U.S., the First Amendment needs reform from “freedom of religion” to
encouragement of integrity, a practice.
How did Merleau-Ponty
define the word self and explain how your concept of self is compatible with
how they conceived of the self?
Thank you for a brief introduction to “the self as embodied
subjectivity.” I’m not confident of Google’s paragraph: “Maurice Merleau-Ponty believed
the physical body to be an important part of what makes up the subjective self.
This concept stands in contradiction to rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism
asserts that reason and mental perception, rather than physical senses and
experience, are the basis of knowledge and self.”
I
consider myself body, mind, and developing person. By measuring what I think
against what I can learn, I consider changing my opinion from “I don’t know” to
“I think” and may add the caveat “and still don’t know.” For example, I know
the sun will not rise tomorrow, because the earth’s rotation on its
axis hides the sun each evening.
I
have no regard for subjectivity respecting myself and interest in rationalism
and empiricism only for informed research for an achievable, better future. I
want to consider opposition to the-objective-truth and new instruments for
perceiving it in order to approach the-literal-truth.
Law professors
https://lawliberty.org/hopelessness-in-the-new-history
I cannot imagine more hopefulness than this U.S. citizen, a
non-Anglo-American-originalist, Phil Beaver, perceives on reading this
essay. Hans Eicholz has, intentionally
or not, written the arguments for considering the proffered preamble to the
U.S. Constitution (the U.S. Preamble). Its intention is ineluctable goodness among
fellow citizens rather than civilly imposed Anglo-American “common
good” or Anglo-American Christian doctrine.
Ineluctable invokes civic goodness more than privacy.
Perhaps taking negative cue from authors of the books of the Bibles (from the
diverse canons: Hebrew, Greek Orthodox, Ethiopian Tewahedo, Catholic,
factional-Protestant, etc.), the U.S. preamble’s authors declined civic,
civil, legal, or private standards, such as factional-American Protestantism
and laws/traditions that could not be amended. Under the U.S. Preamble, the
individual decides his or her norms for personal happiness while practicing
civic integrity.
Having experienced or observed that their youth was prepared
for a future the 1774 founders could not imagine, the 1787 signers of the U.S.
Preamble approved an abstract proposition: living citizens include posterity
in the people’s disciplinary goals and purpose in order to develop ineluctable
goodness. Consequently, posterity’s posterity
will discover the ineluctable goodness the 2020 “ourselves” hope for. However,
only 2/3 of 1787 delegates signed the document that changed from a
confederation of states to public discipline of by and for the people in their
Union of states: perhaps 1/3 of delegates were dissidents.
The First Congress, too traditional to tolerate the U.S.
Preamble’s progressive proposition, reinstated, as much as possible,
British-colonial, Anglo-American, Chapter XI Machiavellianism in order to
repress the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. Chapter XI’s church-state partnership
picks the people’s pockets with immunity; each family expects their personal
God to eventually relieve them of the misery and loss to the government.
Believers tend to overlook Genesis 1:28’s non-consignable charge to constrain
chaos on earth.
Eicholz cites “the contending views of authority and law . .
. as they related to the various factions within Christianity” without
admitting Christianity’s doctrinal arrogance, exclusions, abuses, and tyranny.
Without accepting the Congressional tyranny,
Eicholz is not positioned to include fellow citizens like me. Excluding me from
the U.S. debate is taken for granted.
Consider the direct topic, I think citizens who
unfortunately volunteer for AMO-Alinsky-Marxist organizations’ causes. The
Alinsky form of Marxism is that if his egocentric rights are threatened, his
violence is justified. Listen to the last 2 minutes of https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=OsfxnaFaHWI.
Notice in the introduction Alinsky does not object when Buckley describes him
as “the pet revolutionary for church people in America”. He represented the
radical African American Christianity; https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-kings-radical-biblical-vision-1522970778.
Alinsky’s Marxism hinges on self-adjudicated victimization
to generate racial animosity. He tacitly rejects his own human, ineluctable
good—the good that motivates individuals to behave for mutual, comprehensive
safety and security. The misguided attraction to AMO has America distracted by
“progressives” who may not understand that they are straining for ineluctable
goodness under the U.S. Preamble’s abstract proposal more than for specific
“distribution of economic wealth.” Distracted by both 1) AMO violence over “a
loose construction of fact” they don’t know enough to refute and 2) the
Anglo-American Christian tradition or Judeo-Christianity or the Vatican or
African-American-Christianity no one can articulate, they may indeed feel
hopeless. I don’t feel hopeless.
Rather than “revolutionary reformation of society,”
progressives strain for the 1787 intended U.S. way of living: public discipline
“in order to” practice responsible human independence. After 231 years under
Christianity’s beliefs it is evident that civic integrity is based on
ineluctable evidence, some of which is erroneously discussed in the Bibles.
Civic integrity addresses performance during life rather than destiny in the
afterdeath. The separation of life and afterdeath; reality and spirit; earth
and otherworlds; known and unknown; integrity and infidelity is valid for every
individual. Each one knows how life is going but can only speculate about the
afterdeath. When Eicholz cites Berman’s Christian channel “And here was the
ultimate source of history’s hopefulness,” he seems to affirm the civil
imposition of Christianity but does not admit to its tyranny.
It is not difficult to assess the U.S. Civil war as a
military victory under the less erroneous Christian opinion. However, scholars
work to hide Christianity’s responsibility. Eicholz wrote “slavery represented
not a capitalist, but a re-feudalized order of society.” He references
“tolerance towards that which is radically evil,” yet overlooks
factional-Christianity’s evil in opposing U.S. abolition of slavery. Frederick
Douglass objected in 1852; bleeding Kansas suffered in 1856; R.E. Lee wrote to
his wife about abolitionists “evil” in 1856; and the Confederate States of
America fired on the U.S. in 1861, citing “more erroneous [Christian] beliefs.”
These are elements of factual history that are suppressed by U.S. civil
Christianity. This is no time for AMO soldiers---I write daily to convince them
to reform. However, it is time for U.S. citizens to stonewall Christian
doctrine at the civic, civil, legal, and private tables. Ineluctable goodness
has been stonewalled too long.
Eicholz could promote the U.S. Preamble in “A commitment to
voluntary choice and the liberty of free association hold out the hope for
mutual gains from individual exchanges and the possibility of incremental
improvements in society over time.” A more difficult self-examination is
offered in “commitment to the wrong ideas mark [fellow citizens] as enemies,
and when you are an enemy of the [ineluctable good] then there can be . . .
only the freedom to renounce.” And again in “[H]opeful narratives give some
quarter for redemption through acknowledgement that [ineluctable] good can
exist simultaneously in this world with evil, and that anyone can come to see
the tensions between them and choose the positive over the negative, affirming
ultimately the salutary order of a society of free and [equitable] laws.”
Eicholz seems critical of people who interpret history.
However, it seems clear that people who wrote history interpreted the events
they experienced or observed. To say that a citizen cannot interpret the
interpretation seems arbitrary censorship. People who continue to insist on the
imposition of Christianity can’t imagine that their “freedom of speech and
expression” severely attacks fellow citizens who have no interest in Christian
doctrine. There’s no reason for civic citizens to accept the tyranny. The
citizen who cannot keep his or her religion private no longer deserves a seat
at the civic table. “There can be no acceptable order where there is opposition
[to] the [ineluctable] good.”
The U.S. Preamble is remarkable in that it demands
interpretation. It has two major thoughts: declaration of the laws and
organization of the USA and the people’s proposition for public discipline. The
second thought is abstractly stated yet specifically directed to the
continuum of living citizens: “ourselves and our Posterity.” In
2020, AMO has made it clear that “liberty” is too often taken as license to
express egocentric “rights” by harming fellow citizens and our properties.
Also, the U.S. Preamble offers no norms for the goals and purpose. Consequently,
my interpretation today, offered for improvement is: This appreciative citizen practices the five-U.S.-public
disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, "in
order to” develop responsible human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Much as I choose to accept developing my person as a human
being who behaves for statutory justice, I am offered the opportunity to be a
U.S. citizen according to my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble. The first
Congress thought the preamble was too progressive for Anglo-American
Christianity. However, these 231 years later, the entity “We the People of the
United States in order to . . .” can hold Congress and other government
officials accountable to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.
I have yet to read a post in this forum that makes the case
better than Eicholz’ essay in my view.
https://lawliberty.org/solely-on-the-basis-of-race
To R2L:
Mission accomplished? Really?
How many of the 40 million people would envy municipal
settlements over controversial police shootings--awards like $6 million just to
avoid the court? Awarding that demand would require $240 trillion.
https://constitution.laws.com/we-the-people? (see my comment thread)
To Chet Russell:
Sorry. I only now discovered your kind comment.
The 1787 "ourselves" provided for amendment of the U.S. Constituion,
so the September 17, 1787 "our Posterity" accumulates for the
duration of the USA. If on average a generation covers 20 years, then there
have been 11.6 generations since ratification in 1788.
We are the "ourselves" to the coming generation of "our
Posterity," and the 12th "our Posterity " of the 1788
"ourselves."
Once we accept this notion, the idea of saddling "our Posterity" with
$30 trillion federal debt to satisfy ourselves becomes a tyranny we want to
remedy and must hold our government officials accountable to end.
Notable writers I won’t read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Cioran (deciding not to buy “The Trouble
with Being Born”
“According to Cioran, as long as man has kept in touch with his
origins and hasn't cut himself off from himself, he has resisted decadence.
Today, he is on his way to his own destruction through self-objectification,
impeccable production and reproduction, excess of self-analysis and
transparency, and artificial triumph.
Regarding God, Cioran
has noted that "without Bach, God
would be a complete second rate figure" and that "Bach's music is the
only argument proving the creation of the Universe cannot be regarded as a
complete failure".[19] In
an interview he stated that Bach had been a "kind of religion" for
him. He mentioned that Bach and Dostoyevsky were
the two great obsessions of his life, but that while his passion for
Dostoyevsky ended up diminishing somewhat, his obsession with Bach
"remained intact".
William H. Gass called
Cioran's work "a philosophical romance on the modern themes
of alienation, absurdity, boredom, futility, decay, the tyranny of history, the
vulgarities of change, awareness as agony, reason as disease".”
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