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
JFKs misguided “Ask not . . .”
In time for Constitution Day, 2020 (September 17) we
considered Kennedy’s famous question in 1961, one we always considered for celebration
more than admiration. Today, we articulate a hard-earned opinion.
Quora
What is your
interpretation of Arthur Rimbaud’s quote “Genius is the recovery of childhood
at will.”?
I’ve been waiting for a moment to read it in context, but
give up that hope. I see he died in 1891 in Marseille.
At 77, my attitude is, “I don’t know. Let me see what’s said
about it.” (And I start at Wikipedia). When I was a child, I asked whoever was
listening, “What’s that?”
I cannot go back to that blind trust: at daybreak, adults
still say, “the sun is rising” rather than “the earth’s axial rotation is un-hiding
the sun,” an awesome realization.
Does everyone have
equal access to the freedoms and liberties offered in our current American
society, and what do you think determines that access?
No and yes. Most citizens tolerate Anlgo-American, Chapter
XI Machiavellianism. Most families inculcate belief in a personal God and the
hope that their God will eventually relieve them of chaos. They accept neither responsibility
to constrain chaos, as expressed in Genesis 1:28, nor that whatever-God-is will
not usurp their assignment on earth. Citizens are responsible to hold
government officials accountable to the U.S. Preamble.
The First Congress unconstitutionally re-established the church-state-partnership
that imposes civil “freedom of religion” instead of opportunity to develop
integrity. Under Chapter XI Machiavellianism, the clergy-politician-partnership
lives high on the hog and the citizens neither rebel nor expatriate, hoping
that their God will relive their distant descendants of the loss and misery of
the chaos they should constrain.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution proposes an achievable
better future. So far, the citizens have neither considered nor accepted its
proposition: five public disciplines “in order to” establish responsible human
independence.
It is up to each individual citizen to interpret the U.S.
Preamble so as to manage his or her civic, civil, legal, and private living. My
interpretation holds me responsible to hold government officials accountable to
the U.S. Preamble. I’m working on it.
I disagree. The constitution is amendable so as to reform unjust laws in order to approach if not achieve statutory justice to living people.
However, its proffered people’s-purpose—-practicing five public disciplines “in order to” establish responsible human independence to “ourselves and our Posterity”—-has yet to be accepted.
Psychologically, the U.S. is held hostage by colonial, Anglo-American tradition more than its proffered intention: Each citizen’s chosen happiness in civic integrity.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-effortless-for-you-but-not-for-most-people-you-know?
What is effortless
for you, but not for most people you know?
I could not possibly speak for most people I know.
At age 77, my former person could not articulate that no
entity will usurp my responsibility to constrain chaos in my life and
surroundings. Today, I easily articulate my reform.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-reason-for-a-universal-ethical-standard?
What is the best reason for a universal ethical standard?
Physics
and its progeny, including psychology, proffer the standards by which human
individuals can discover and practice integrity.
The
journal of discovery and error to integrity records ethics. Thereby, peoples
can measure their responsible human independence in the constraint of chaos.
What is more important, 'what you can do for your country', or 'what your county can do for you'?
I thought I had an opinion until I read your question. Thank you. Now, I think Kennedy spoke to promote himself rather than to communicate with the audience. His speech failed humankind’s responsibility for peace on earth.
I think it is important to address the entire quotation of President Kennedy, 1961:
“[M]y fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.” Ask not what your country can do for you (Kennedy's inuagural address)
This lofty speech seems to fail in four ways: 1) responsible human independence is a consequence of self-discipline, 2) humankind cannot consign its responsibility—to constrain chaos in order to have freedom on earth, 3) it boasts that American “standards of strength and sacrifice” are actually high and should be applied in other countries and 4) it is appropriate for U.S. citizens to “ask of us”--the government officials. U.S. citizens ought to hold government officials accountable to the U.S. Preamble.
The U.S. standards are implied in the proffered, so far, unattended people’s proposition in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. For 1787 and future individual freedom, the 1787 authors left it to each citizen to develop his or her personal interpretation by which to manage his or her civic, civil, legal, and personal living. In my 77th year, by continually considering what I learn from fellow citizens, my interpretation is this: 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 the preamble and my interpretation tacitly assert that U.S. standards are to be discovered and practiced by the continuum of “ourselves and our Posterity.” In other words, the preamble proposes the process by which U.S. goals will be improved and achieved among appreciative citizens. The consequence will be approached by “our Posterity.”
Answering your question, I perceive that people of other countries can assume “This appreciative citizen” or equal and develop their interpretation and practice of the U.S. Preamble’s people’s proposition.
If there are no objections I will add to my appreciations page “Antonio Tela, 9/5/2020.” I think your focus is timely for Constitution Day, 2020, September 17.
https://www.quora.com/What-ethical-standard-do-you-base-your-solution-to-the-moral-problem-dilemma?
What ethical standard
do you base your solution to the moral problem/dilemma?
I watch for the-literal-truth so I can practice it.
The-literal-truth exists and can be discovered from its ineluctable evidence.
Much is unknown, so I often admit to myself:
I do not know. Humankind works to discover the-objective-truth then
invent new ways to perceive it so as to approach if not achieve
the-literal-truth.
For example, humankind discovered they cannot fly like a
bird but can use aerodynamics for atmospheric flying and jet propulsion to
explore the universe.
In this, my 77th year, my experiences and
observations convince me that Genesis 1:28, ancient as it is, nevertheless
charges me, as a member of humankind, with the responsibility to constrain
chaos.
To constrain chaos, the individual human neither initiates
nor tolerates harm to or from any person or society. This practice seems
ineluctable good. Not every human chooses the good. Therefore, the ineluctably
good people (IGP) must develop the public disciplines by which to encourage,
coerce, and ultimately force compliance. Dissidents may discover that
ineluctable good is in their self-interest.
The IGP encourage a culture of equity under statutory
justice, and provide lawful institutions to constrain chaos.
These principles are expressed in my interpretation of the
people’s proffered proposition in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution: 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 the original preamble and my interpretation tacitly
claim that with disciplinary integrity by the continuum of “ourselves” the
standard of ethics will be discovered by “our Posterity.”
That is to say, the journal of integrity is ethics.
Do you feel that AG
Barr is doing his job honestly and with complete integrity, or is he a
hypocrite just pushing Trump's agenda?
Yes, no, no, and supporting where possible rather than
“pushing”.
Please read my comments on Barr’s speech to Christian
broadcasters on February 26, 2020, at https://promotethepreamble.blogspot.com/2020/03/william-barr-speaking-for-nrb-audience.html.
Since then, I still like the phrase “whatever-God-is” to
express a more inclusive, humble expression than “God.” However, I have
discovered the civic distinction “ineluctable goodness” and the designation
“ineluctably good people” to represent civic citizens. I think Barr is an
ineluctably good person who has not yet considered that the U.S. must
psychologically free itself from the factional-church-government-partnerships
that holds the U.S. hostage to eastern-seaboard, colonial-British tradition.
I want to read Barr’s developed, individual interpretation
of the proffered people’s proposition in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution
to “ourselves and our Posterity” of 2020. The preamble accepts the charge to
humankind in Genesis 1:28. I like Ralph Waldo Emerson’s expression, “One is constrained to respect the
perfection of this world . . . it is well worth the pith and heart of great men
to subdue and enjoy it.”
Whereas some judges and lawyers are suspect, Barr is one of
the great civic citizens of our time.
Why should science be guided by an ethical basis that is not dictated by science itself?
We are subjected to a confusion of terms arising, perhaps, from the eighteenth century notion that nature is less reliable than reason (Locke d.1704, Hume d. 1776, and Kant d. 1804).
“Nature” is actually physics and its progeny including psychology. Physics and its progeny are objects of scientific research. The research is founded on the discovery of the-objective-truth and how to benefit from the discovery. Furthermore, that research and interconnected research continue and new instruments of perception are invented such that the-objective-truth is better understood. Eventually, the improvements may lead to comprehension of the-literal-truth.
Humankind has learned since the eighteenth century that reason eventually conforms to physics and its progeny. In other words, science, the study of physics is reliable.
Awareness that physics is reliable plus research that accepts the ineluctable evidence has integrity inspires scientific research. However, research that is designed to prove a belief is not science. Rather it is speculation about what has not been discovered---is not known. Studies to impose beliefs is metaphysics.
Ineluctably good people (IGP) reserve enough humility to resist metaphysics. IGP do not lie, in order to lessen human misery and loss. Also, being human, IGP neither fault a researcher who honestly resists the ineluctable evidence nor can be influenced by him or her.
Science is the study of physics and its progeny. In the research, integrity develops ethics and metaphysics records errors to avoid.
Can you explain
"a country should be defended not by arms, but by ethical behaviour"
meaningfully?
Yes: military strength is ethical.
Ineluctably good citizens (IGC) do not want to suffer attack
or war due to a foreign nation’s aggression. Unfortunately, some peoples, for
reasons they may or may not understand, tolerate their aggressive government.
To protect these tolerant people from their country’s war,
the IGC dedicate enough of their productivity to military strength. They report military inventions and purchases and
maintain foreign intelligence. They maintain military superiority in
integrity more than honesty. That is to say, in real-actuality rather than
appearances. Integrity defines ethics. In integrity, the strong country
protects human life in aggressive countries by discouraging their government’s
aggression.
The country that maintains military strength is ethical. Others
rent from allies or otherwise remain either weak or aggressive.
If countries with majority IGP maintain military strength,
humankind is likely to survive. If an aggressive nation or coalition ever gains
superiority, the IGP will resist so severely that world viability will be
threatened.
Please accept my opinion, because I do not know
the-objective-truth.
Abraham Maslow said
"The ability to be in the present moment is a major component of mental wellness"
What is your take on what is meant by "the ability to be in the present
moment"?
I haven’t studied Maslow and think it’s a question of
sufficient psychological discipline to not miss your person’s life.
For example, my wife and I were taking outpatient physical
theory to help her walk with my assistance despite PSP, a rare kin to
Parkinson’s disease. On a weekend, I suffered a stumble and said to her, “You
are abusing me: you walked much better with the physical therapist,”
inconsiderately blaming her. (I acted unaware of both my erroneous emotions and
my wife’s wounded yet reliable efforts.)
On our next visit to the clinic, I related the experience to
the PT and asked if they had a social worker (SW) I could talk to about my
failure to accept my wife’s best efforts. The SW trained me in “awareness
meditation”; https://manhattanmentalhealthcounseling.com/4-meditation-techniques-that-can-improve-awareness-and-mental-health/.
I objected, saying that my concern was that I had been willful toward my
beloved wife. He did not react.
As I write this to you, I have discovered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_body-awareness_methodology.
It relates to balance, and I have been diagnosed with neuropathy and balance
disorder. I will learn more about B-BAT physical awareness and perhaps inform
the social worker. Maybe he intended me to relate meditation to B-BAT, but I
did not get it.
I hope this story illustrates two points about awareness: 1)
my wife is one of the most courageous people I know long before she had PSP,
and staying aware of the fact helps me not lose patience with our struggles,
and 2) diagnosis of my physical limitations positions me to help her without
risking injury to us.
A second story relates to a much more serious concern:
humankind’s assignment rather than consignment to constrain chaos. That is to
say, whatever-is-in-charge of actual-reality will not usurp each human
individual’s responsibility to constrain chaos. On this principle, human beings
divide themselves into two factions: ineluctably good citizens and fellow
citizens who don’t grasp self-interest in integrity rather than infidelity to
self.
Awareness---of being human; developing human individual
power, individual energy, and individual authority to develop integrity; and
perfecting his or her unique journey to the termination of body, mind, and
person---is essential to taking advantage in each moment.
Should the freedom of
expression include expressing the intent to cause harm to others, so long as it
isn't a mere 'bluff'?
I
think so, especially without the “bluff” limitation.
Pointing
a gun is an expression. The carrier has responsibility for sincerity. The
person who’s looking down the barrel has the responsibility to respond with
overpowering strength. Government should not prevent the responder from
learning of the need for self-defense.
This
consideration is not unlike the case against lying. Ineluctably good people don’t
lie in order to lessen human misery and loss. For example, the responder has
the strength to say to the gun-pointer, “One flinch and you will die,” with
sincerity and the required power.
Did Charles Darwin
say "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
meaning that the less you know, the more confidence you have in your opinion?
In my opinion, the quote seems an unfortunate arrogance
toward “the more I learn, the more ignorant I seem.” I hope Darwin had
sufficient humility to share without accusing.
In this forum, people ask for opinion. It seems
condescending to accuse the responder of expressing the-literal-truth, much of
which is unknown.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/No-one-knows-what-they-are-doing-we-are-all-just-making-it-up-improvising-as-we-go-along-What-do-you-think-of-this-statement?
"No one knows
what they are doing, we are all just making it up/improvising as we go
along." What do you think of this statement?
I think it is an erroneous statement.
Some people seem to accept individual responsibility to
behave in order to aid ineluctable goodness; in other words, discover,
practice, and promote unique-human achievable-perfection.
Not everyone participates. Some people try to take advantage
of ineluctable goodness---liars, dependents, tyrants, aliens, and evil doers.
Ineluctable goodness is measured by physics and its progeny,
including psychology and imagination. The ineluctably good people provide (IGP)
and improve written law enforcement so as to develop statutory justice. IGP
never lie, in order to lessen human misery and loss. Dissidents behave
egocentrically. For example, criminals think crime pays. People who are
sufficiently evil to commit heinous crimes try to persuade IGP to take the
responsibility to risk repetition of the atrocity.
Some people take “liberty” as license for vigilantism to
impose egocentric rights. However, IGP use integrity to develop the ethics by
which ineluctable goodness is measured.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-make-an-effort-to-protect-your-identity?
Do you make an effort
to protect your identity?
Yes, I do. For example, when someone tries to steal my
Facebook ID, I stop them, thanks to FB’s reliability. When my email is
commandeered, I hire a company to clear it. I use other means. I own guns I
know how to use them.
Concerning my ideas, I count on consistency to verify that
it’s me. I maintain the record of the changes in my opinion about
the-objective-truth. I copyright in order to protect my freedom to write old
ideas, but not to constrain other people. It is so easy to search for the
originator of an idea that citations have become a way for publishers to censor
thinkers, so I refer to other people’s ideas only to express appreciation. For
example, Ralph Waldo Emerson informed us that each of us can live to perfect
his or her unique person; that message is stronger without the words Emerson
wrote to express the idea. Also, I see no reason to cite Abraham Lincoln to
express that the proffered U.S. intention is discipline of by and for willing
citizens.
When I attend a public forum, I perceive that one or two
people might recognize me from my work, and I have some concern for safety and
security. I have slight concern when I pledge allegiance to the flag in public
and substitute “under ineluctable goodness” for “under God.” However, I have
faced threats and negotiated peaceful ends.
I sense almost zero fear
of a stray bullet as I move about.
Is it moral to use
the power of government to impose moral standards? At what level of government?
Whose standards? If your answer is "sometimes" where do you draw the
line?
Yes, and physics provides the evidence on which to act.
Ineluctably good people (IGP) accept responsibility to
constrain chaos in life. Chaos is judged by physics and its progeny including
psychology. IGP never lie so as to lessen human misery and loss.
Not everyone participates, so IGP develops statutory justice
to constrain dissidents such as liars, criminals, tyrants, aliens, and evil
doers. Not knowing the-literal-truth in all cases, IGP maintain statutory law
and its enforcement, using ineluctable evidence for adjudication and discovery
of injustice in order to reform the law and approach statutory justice. For
example, discovery of DNA as reliable
evidence is such an improvement. Use of non-unanimous jury verdicts, say 7:5 of
12 jurors or 5:4 of 9 jurors offers statistical aid to provide impartial
criminal-trial results in the U.S.
IGP communicate, collaborate, and connect in order to avoid
subjugation to unjust law and its enforcement. They do so in public and invite
dissidents to participate. Dissidents who choose to disconnect beg subjugation
to injustice they might have reformed. Dissidents who would impose egocentric
favor at the expense of IGP eventually either adopt or yield-to the ineluctable
good. Perpetrators of heinous injury or death to fellow citizens invite
execution.
The IGP accept that civic, civil, legal, and private
integrity are in their self-interest. Therefore, they sponsor education,
encouragement, coercion, and force as public incentives for dissidents to
reform. For example, when a category 5 hurricane is approaching, IGPs agents,
local governments, order evacuations. In some cases, they knock on individual
doors to coerce evacuation. In another example, when IGP learns that parents
handle poisonous snakes with their children they may start legal procedures to
remove the children from snake-handlers’ care.
Physics is the evidence on which ineluctable goodness is
measured, and that’s where IGP draws the line.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-ethical-issue-exists?
Ethics comes from physics. For example, ineluctably good people don’t lie so
as to lessen human misery and loss.
Humankind dutifully researches physics and its progeny
including psychology and imagination. Each time it discovers the ineluctable
evidence of the-objective-truth, it focuses the research on how to benefit from
the discovery. The leading edge of ethics improves.
Then, humankind continues the research by inventing new
instruments for perception. Upon discovery, ethics may again improve.
Eventually, humankind perhaps perceives the-literal-truth and how to benefit.
At that point, ethics respecting that issue seems fixed yet remains vigilant
for new discovery that demands improvement.
Scholars today who focus on the eighteenth century notion
that nature
is less reliable than reason (Locke d.1704, Hume d. 1776, and Kant
d. 1804) seem to subscribe to intellectual-construct rather than integrity as
the path to ethics. Some writing (and careers) to defend tradition is nonsense.
If everyone in the
world could know one thing and hold it as a truth - what would you want that to
be?
As a human being, I have the individual power, the individual energy, the
individual authority, and the ineluctable
duty (HIPEAD) to constrain chaos.
You are a unique human being: right? So am I.
How can unique persons be equal?
The Greeks, 2,400 years ago, suggested that citizens can
develop equity under statutory justice. There will always be politicians who
talk equality so as to divide the citizens---keep civic citizens from holding
the politicians accountable.
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