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 good citizen practices the U.S. 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
Quora obsoletely sensors people’s dialogues
Some people pose profound questions on quora.com. Some civic
people choose to respond, creating a potential conversation. Quora, erroneously imagining its reliability, wants writers to pretend they know rather than think in creative spontaneity.
I suppose the owner wants "reliability" more than possible creativity when two humans with humble-integrity engage each other. Such
people do not need the human constructs of “knowledge.” Any proprietary unreliability of
their thoughts is subjective. Did Socrates agree with me that goodness is sufficient and
does not need the aura of “divinity?” In other words, did Socrates advocate sufficient humility toward the Supreme Judge of the world (1776 Declaration of Independence) as more precious than nourishing a personal God? Who cares what Socrates thought: one philosopher’s divinity is
another’s evil. That's not to say I regret the little I have read about Socrates (he did not write).
In responding to fellow-citizens' creative questions, I have no time for Quora's desire to compete: “In that sense Quora is not reliable. But a good question can reliably get a wide range of responses, and that is nearly always interesting at least. But unless people are prepared to offer references or links to other reliable sources, much of the material posted as answers and discussion can be hard to verify.”
If readers want a source that is designed for proprietary reliability, Wikipedia has that objective. In other words, Wikipedia sacrifices the spontaneous creativity of unconstrained dialogue for traditional "reliability," which often is unreliable. But Quora has value to civic citizens' unconstrained dialogue.
When it comes to civic citizens in conversation to discover
statutory justice as a means to a better future, there is no reliability: only
creativity in a world that has fallen to an abyss respecting humble-integrity. Even the U.S. Supreme Court followed Congress's lead. Congress turned their back on the Supreme Judge of the World so as to favor the latest Judeo-Christianity or other human construct based on controversial Anglo-American tradition.
My Quora responses during any week will be recorded in this
blog, as long as I work to respond.
Quora
https://academyofideas.com/?s=Self;
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-self-for-Socrates-Plato-Augustine-Descartes-hume-kant-ryle-meleau-ponty-aristotle-and-Aquinas-After-doing-so-can-you-explain-how-your-concepts-of-self-are-compatible-with-how-they-conceived-of?
What is the meaning of self for Socrates, Plato, Augustine,
Descartes, hume, kant, ryle, meleau-ponty, aristotle, and Aquinas? After doing
so, can you explain how your concepts of self are compatible with how they
conceived of the self?
The question: What are listed philosophers’ meanings of self? What do I think?
Perhaps like the group Aquinas, Kant, and Hume, I think the self is body, mind, and person. My concept differs from them in that I think body& mind-wellness, together with intention, empowers the person to perfect their unique-self before dying. Think of “be all you can be”.
Individual philosopher study:
Socrates - Soul
Plato - Soul in 3 parts: desires, awareness of reason, and anger toward injustice
Augustine - recognizing and responding-to God's love (there is no self? the person is God’s property (Locke)?)
Descartes - The mind is what matters.
Hume - Psychologically balancing interrelated perceptions
Kant - Consciousness: both internal and external
Ryle - Mindless behaviors caused by the physical workings of the body
Meleau-Ponty - Embodied subjectivity rather than mental reasoning
Aristotle - Embodied capacity for self-sustenance, growth, and reproduction
Aquinas - Response to experiences of objects in our environment.
Grouping my perceptions of their philosophies:
Soul only: Socrates
Body, mind, and soul: Plato
Accepting God’s love, or mind only: Augustine and
Mind only: Descartes
Civic perception: Aquinas, Hume, Kant
Body only: Ryle, Meleou-Ponty
Body and mind: Aristotle, Aquinas.
It seems the philosophers you listed may be grouped according to the self being one of the following: soul only; mind only; body only; body and mind; body, mind and soul, civic body and mind, and God’s property. Self as body and mind seems “person” to which some philosophers attach soul. Perhaps self is body and mind in appreciation of other persons who develop responsible independence. The groups might then be Socrates; Descartes; Ryle; Meleau-Ponty and Aristotle; Plato; and Aquinas, Hume, and Kant. Augustine attempts to displace appreciation with love and impose God on consequences of human choice; he thus stands alone. Perhaps for Augustine, the person who does not love God is not a human-being.
The self is the accumulation of individual choices during a person’s unique lifetime. The human being has the individual opportunity, the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIOPEA) to either develop humble-integrity toward his or her unique person or accommodate infidelity.
The person may monitor their humble-integrity by discovering and responsibly applying the laws of physics and its progeny, such as biology, psychology, and economics. For example, a person of humble-integrity does not lie, in order to reduce human misery and loss rather than to obey some rule.
Perhaps physics and its progeny inspired “the founders” in their 1776 declaration of independence from England “to appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world” for humility of their intentions. Early in the document, they grounded authority on “Nature and Nature’s God”, following John Locke’s claim that by “nature” human-being is a property of God.
When body, mind, and person stop functioning, the person achieved psychological maturity that may be measured by the humble-integrity and good-humor he or she achieved with the accumulated choices and the chronological path so generated. The person who is encouraged and coached in these principles may mature faster than others. I don’t think it has been tried.
Perhaps the achievement-standard for the individual human-being is the efficiency by which they comprehend& practice responsible-human-independence (RHI). On the other hand, the standard may be set by the consequences of human decisions. Either way, the controller of consequences of each human choice might be called “the-High-God” to facilitate conversation with people who have a personal-God.
Perhaps my conception conflicts least with the group Aquinas, Kant, and Hume. What do you think? I think my conception conforms to the 1787 U.S. Constitution and Ralph Waldo Emerson’s message to the human-being: Jesus advised us to perfect our person before death. Emerson perceived Jesus a man: I prefer to consider the metaphysical Jesus, without constraint beyond civic-connections.
quora.com/What-is-truth-Is-truth-absolute-How-about-the-existence-of-our-conscience-It-seems-that-from-culture-to-culture-every-human-being-has-a-single-or-unified-version-of-what-is-right-and-what-is-wrong-Does-it-really?
What is truth? Is truth absolute How about the existence of our
conscience? It seems that from culture to culture every human being has a
single or unified version of what is right and what is wrong. Does it really
prove that truth is absolute?
Actual-reality exists and evolves. Additionally, humankind’s
perception improves with new instruments of perception and with discovery. The
object of research is physics and its progeny such as biology.
Research applies to the-ineluctable-evidence of physics, and
the first step is to discover that a concern is a mirage rather than actual
reality. In that case, the discovery is recorded and awaits new instruments of
perception that would reverse the conclusion. If the-ineluctable-evidence
affirms actual-reality, the research turns to the responsible option to benefit
from the discovery.
The consequence of the research is regarded as
the-objective-truth, subject to new instruments of perception. Eventually,
the-objective-truth fits well with the interconnected discoveries, and the
theory may be regarded as the-literal-truth. Appreciating the power of
invention, sufficient humility is reserved in order to approach
the-ineluctable-truth.
At any time in humankind’s quest our construct, “absolute
truth,” may yield to the-ineluctable-truth.
I write to learn and hope you will comment. If Quara censors
our conversation, you may find it on my weekly blog, cipbr.blogspot.com, for
the Saturday ending this week.
A
sincere interpretation of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
My
interpretation today is: Phil Beaver practices the five disciplines—-integrity,
justice, peace, strength, and prosperity—-“in order to” encourage responsible
human independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Update on 10/22/2020: since writing this, I read the
conclusion of the 1776 declaration of independence from England without my
usual influence from the early phrase “Nature and Nature’s God.” I accepted
“the good People” appealing to “the Supreme Judge of the world” as a better
expression than “whatever-God-is,” since the judge, whatever-that-is, could be
physics and its progeny. Now, “the good People” is known as “We the People of
the United States” and we can demand amendment of the First Amendment in order
to encourage humble-integrity rather than support religious businesses.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-are-ethical-guidelines-used-by-researchers?
Research
without humble-integrity is lame; humble-integrity without research is blind.
(Adapted from quote by Albert Einstein.)
https://www.quora.com/Which-are-the-most-incredible-and-controversial-inaccuracies-and-or-falsehoods-that-continue-to-be-taught-in-school-as-true-events?
Which are the most incredible and controversial inaccuracies and/or
falsehoods that continue to be taught in school as true events?
That
the USA is a democracy based on freedom of religion and speech is error if not
mendacity. The U.S. is a constitutional republic, expresses humility toward the
Supreme Judge of the world, and constrains speech that may cause harm.
Beginning in 1763 and British-homeland taxation of the 14
colonies on the eastern seaboard of America, colonists attracted to the
independence they had enjoyed began violent resistance. In 1774, 12 of the 14
met and formed a confederation of 13 states, all factional-American-Protestant,
with resistance to both the Church of England and Catholicism. A faction also
wanted freedom from responsibility for slavery but could not dominate the
discussion, with 8 slave-states to 5 non-slave states.
In 1776, representatives declared independence from England
on behalf of “the good People” and “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the
world” for reliability. This was a clear statement of humble-integrity. With
providence from France, the Continental Congress won the revolutionary war, and
the 13 free and independent states signed the 1783 Treaty of Paris.
They tried to survive as the confederation until 1787, when
12 states sent delegates to create domestic order as a union of states.
Instead, the framers proffered a constitutional republic with a national
government held accountable by disciplined citizens in their states. Nothing in
the 1787 Constitution lessens the humble-integrity expressed on behalf of “the
good People,” who are re-titled “We the People of the United States.”
Fellow-citizens who do not accept the disciplines therein divide themselves as
dissident fellow citizens. Some of the 16 framers who did not sign on September
17, 1787 were dissident.
At least 2 of the 9 state-ratification conventions agreed on
the condition that the first elected Congress add a Bill of Rights. Beginning
in 1789, Congress rebuked the Supreme Judge of the world by re-establishing an
English-style church-state partnership but with unconstitutional,
factional-Protestant Congressional-Chaplains instead of the Church of England,
a constitutional partnership. In 1791, Congress codified its tyranny in the
First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Nothing in either the 1776
Declaration of Independence or the 1787 Constitution authorizes Congress to
turn its back on the Supreme Judge of the world.
Citizens who, like me have private motivations and
inspirations, yet develop the humble-integrity for civic, civil, and legal
living, reserve sufficient appreciation for the Supreme Judge of the world. In
some cases justice is expressed by allied military power, such as France’s
providence to the 1781 Continental Army.
And this is consistent with an ancient Sumerian thought
expressed in Genesis 1:28. Man and woman are charged to constrain chaos on
earth. In essence, it was obvious even in pre-history that the Supreme Judge of
the world or equal holds humankind responsible for peace.
Citizens who agree that Congress imposed the tyranny of
religion in the First Amendment may write now to their Congressional
representatives demanding that they amend the First Amendment so as to
encourage the people to develop humble-integrity for living rather than
subscribe to religious institutions that promise favorable afterdeath---that
vast time after body, mind, and person cease functioning.
I answer fellow-citizens’ questions that seem inviting for
my expressions; I appreciate their creativity. I don’t know
the-ineluctable-truth. I write spontaneously. If Quara censors our
conversation, you may find it on my weekly blog, cipbr.blogspot.com, for the
Saturday ending this week.
https://www.quora.com/What-does-freedom-from-fear-mean?
What does freedom from fear mean?
It means two conditions for me. First, to acquire resolve: I
applied humble-integrity to discover the actual-reality of a concern, dismissed
any mirages, eliminated lesser options for responsibly benefiting from the
discovery, acquired the means to benefit, shared my intentions with affected
fellow-citizens so as to learn and consider mistakes they perceive, and am
alert to take action and accept the consequences. Second, I want to consider
changing my mind if my wife disagrees.
I answer questions fellow-citizens pose that seem
particularly inviting for my expressions; I appreciate their creativity. (I
don’t know the-ineluctable-truth.) I write spontaneously, sometimes using words
and phrases I have written before. Sometimes, quora deletes my responses for
their reasons. I do not care to appeal their censorship. If they delete our
conversation, you will be able to find it on my blog, cipbr.blogspot.com for
the Saturday ending this week.
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-science-that-deals-with-morals?
Is there a science
that deals with morals?
I can’t answer for “science”, a process for discovering
the-ineluctable-truth by researching the evidence.
The 1776 declaration of independence from England appeals to
“the Supreme Judge of the world” for reliability of intentions for “the good
People.” An ancient thinker expressed in Genesis 1:28 that man and woman are to
constrain chaos on earth.
Revelation, codes, reason, laws, and other human constructs
generate chaos. However, humankind can discover how to benefit from
the-ineluctable-evidence that is discovered and continually improved through
new instruments of perception: Mankind
continually improves its view of the-objective-truth. The interrelated
discoveries create a theory of the-literal-truth, which ultimately points to
the-ineluctable-truth.
The object of human work is safety and security on earth so
that each person who accepts being a human being may responsibly pursue the
happiness they individually want rather than a life someone else would impose
on them, even in humble-integrity.
The journal of humankind’s development of humble-integrity
is a code of human ethics or human morality. The closest reference I know of
for this journal is Wikipedia, and that is why that is one of my annual
voluntary contributions of small money and time (when I observe an inaccuracy).
A philosophy encyclopedia, for example, https://plato.stanford.edu/, is another
reliable study of recorded thought about a topic. Often, I am bewildered by its
abundance of thought. Consider, for example, “truth.”
I write to learn, so please comment.
I answer questions fellow-citizens pose that seem
particularly inviting for my expressions; I appreciate their creativity. (I
don’t know the-ineluctable-truth.) I write spontaneously to creative questions,
sometimes using words and phrases I have written before. Sometimes, quora
deletes my responses for their reasons. I do not care to appeal or debate their
censorship. For the time being, I plan to post on quora. If they delete my
response to you, you will be able to find it on my blog, cipbr.blogspot.com for
the week ending October 24, 2020. Eventually, that may be the only cite for my
quora-responses.
https://www.quora.com/Does-truth-spring-from-argument-amongst-friends-Why?
Does truth spring from argument amongst friends? Why?
First, let me say that http://quora.com
censors some of my responses, all of which are spontaneous and motivated by
what seems to me sincerity by the questioner. Quora’s reasons for censoring
seem obsolete and indefensible. However, I have neither the remaining life-time
nor the desire to submit to quora propriety. I feel quora is capitalizing on
your creative questions but accepting bad lawyerly advice.
Now, to your inspiring question, my first thought is that “truth” became an
inadequate word long ago. What people need is the-ineluctable-truth, which may
be approached only through humble-integrity. That’s a form of
personal-integrity that relies on physics and its progeny to measure
reliability. Thus, research may discover the-objective-truth, improve on the
perception with new inventions so as to approach the-literal-truth, and through
the interrelated theories perhaps ultimately approach the-ineluctable-truth.
Ineluctably good people do no lie, because they appreciate that the laws of
physics reliably deliver ruin when an individual invites woe.
The most common lie is to fail to say, “I do not know,” when that is so.
Therefore a conversation with another human is diminished to the extent that
the parties pretend to express opinion as the-objective-truth or better.
Statistically, friends are likely to fail their “I don’t knows” in the same
direction, so their conversation may not help either party discover
the-objective-truth. People commonly discuss “God,” never realizing they are
talking two different entities. Enemies are not likely to converse without
lying.
If then when enemies express individual opinion without constraint, there is
a possibility for both parties to consider Idea A, then Idea B, and create Idea
C, which seems to meet the opponents’ individual needs in a way neither party
imagined.
For example, if I had the chance to discuss never lose “under God” with
President Trump, I would ask, do you mean never lose “appeal to the Supreme
Judge of the world?” Accepting the reliability claim of the 1776 Declaration of
Independence, I think Trump would say, “Yes.” Trump seems to be a person who
develops humble-integrity at an awesome pace. He knows that an individual can
pursue spiritual hopes and dreams and at the same time practice civic integrity
among living people.
Iterative consideration can be applied by friends if each looks for
opportunities to improve the other’s grounding for a shared opinion. Thus,
nuance C’ addresses nuance C, and together, the friends create Idea D. If they
then communicate with the proponents of Idea A and Idea B, the four might
debate C and D and create Idea E.
Returning to quora-censoring, I have used some phrases I used before. My
earlier posts can be researched on the key words and phrases. For example,
searching Chrome on “Phil Beaver”+“the-ineluctable-truth” yields the first six
URLs referencing my work, one with several hits. Using Bing yields only one
URL. Bing also finds one URL for the search "Phil
Beaver"+“humble-integrity” and many on Chrome. Many hits are gathered
under quora.
If quora wants to be an arbitrary censor to public conversation based on
creative questions and empathetic work to respond, that’s fine with me. But I
will not continue to spend my time to support quora revenues from individual’s
creative questions.
By my count, this is my second clear
statement of my situation. With the next deletion of my work to respond to a
question, I will take my humble-integrity elsewhere.
How can we understand the infinite when the majority of us look to
the facts of the finite to give us what we consider to be reasonable facts?
It seems your question touches the meaning of human life, a
question which, thinking with an essence from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s writing, is
renewed each time a person accepts that he or she is a human being. Fortunate
are the persons who accept being human. Also, I am reminded of an essence from
Albert Einstein: Integrity without
posterity is blind: posterity without integrity is lame. That is to say, living
adults reserve sufficient humility toward ineluctable-evidence their
descendants will discover.
We may benefit from the 1774 USA founders’ encounter with
humility in the words of the 1776 Declaration of Independence. The founders
expressed humble-integrity toward whatever controls the unfolding of the
world’s events, with four Deist phrases: “nature’s God,” “Creator,” “the
Supreme Justice of the world,” and “Providence.” They claimed to reliably
represent “the good People.” They claimed freedom and independence on their
“Fortunes [and] sacred Honor.”
With victory in hand, the Continental Congress failed to
unite the confederation of 13 free and independent states, and framers from 12
states met to propose a Union. Nothing in the framers’ 1787 U.S. Constitution
lessens the humble-integrity of the 1776 founders’ declaration. However, only
39 of 55 framers signed the Constitution on September 17, eleven days after the
Committee of Style received the preamble and added a people’s purpose, in my
interpretation: public discipline “in order to” develop responsible human
independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.” The articles provide posterity
the means to amend the constitution when injustice is discovered and reform is
comprehended.
Unfortunately, the First Congress, authorized by the
conditional 9-states’ ratification, unconstitutionally constrained Congress.
That is to say, the people do not authorize Congress to constrain itself. “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.” By this amendment, Congress defies both the good People and
“the Supreme Judge of the world” and distracts fellow citizens who work to
establish humble-integrity. So far, the good People tolerate this tyranny over
their lives and their posterity.
People who choose to think they
are human beings are awed by the prospect of procreation. They attend to
wellness, aware that their bodies and minds produce gametes. They enter spousal
intimacy after bonding for life. The spouses benefit from 4 family-traditions
in humble-integrity, each from their 4 parents and their ancestors. The spouses
include their children in monogamy for life; their grandchildren will benefit
from family-fidelity to their family-traditions.
Having been reared in
family-monogamy according to diverse humility, spouses know that a life worth
living prepares their descendants to discover ultimate-integrity.
We, the good People of the year
2020, especially those of us who are part of We the People of the United
States, can restore 1776’s humble-integrity toward the Supreme Judge of the
world. First, we can amend the First Amendment so as to promote civic
integrity, leaving religion to privacy.
I feel hopeful Mr. President will
lead this reform, as well as President George W. Bush’s recognition that the
First Amendment restricts only Congress, as soon as the awareness emerges from
the fog.
Law professors
https://lawliberty.org/the-duty-to-monitor-diversity-training
“The point here is not to reject diversity training.”
Perhaps it should be. Diversity training is an imposition on the privacy of
human integrity. It is sufficient for an individual to appreciate each
global-citizen’s personhood.
Also, a more urgent
consideration for reform is the humility of the USA founders’ 1776 Declaration
of Independence. For reliability to “the good People,” colonial
representatives, then subjects of the Church of England, humbly appealed to
“the Supreme Judge of the word.” The U.S. framers did not lessen the newly
globally-independent USA's humility in the 1787 U.S. Constitution.
But the U.S. Congress in 1791 (unconstitutionally---without
Congressional authority to interject religion) imposed civil defiance in the
religion clauses of the First Amendment. Congress, the executive after
President George Bush imposed faith-based-policy, and the Supreme Court who
uphold legislative prayer despite my "niggling" may reform to
encourage humble-integrity---reform twenty-first century pride to 1776
sufficient-humility. James Madison ought to turn over, wherever his afterdeath
is. And the Knights of Columbus (1954s “under God”) may consider sufficient
humility toward the Supreme Judge of the world “in order to” secure the civic
privacy to enjoy their salvation during their afterdeaths.
Erroneous political correctness is not new. The Supreme
Judge of the world self-evidently holds human individual men and women
responsible to constrain chaos on earth (Genesis 1:28). The Apostle John erred
to accuse non-Christians of practicing hate (John 15:18-23). Citizens in 2020
need not follow John to believe in Jesus. And Martin Luther King Jr. erred to
ignore the Ethiopian Tewahedo Bible, canonized in 360 AD;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Tewahedo_biblical_canon.
Comment on book review
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R29PYVZH8O4CKN/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_btm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00BPJOC7W#wasThisHelpful
To: reviewer
Jacqueline Simon Gunn:
I am grateful that you shared
Fromm distinctions, -to and -from, which are similar to my expressions: The preamble to the U.S. Constitution
proffers individual public discipline for freedom-from arbitrary oppression
"in order to" encourage the responsible individual-independence
to-practice humble-integrity among
living and future citizens.
The summer of the year 2020
convinced me that "liberty-to" would forever be interpreted by some
as the license-to hurt fellow citizen. In promoting use of the preamble to
self-discipline civic, civil, legal, and private living, I replaced
"responsible human liberty" with "responsible human
independence." When my crowd expresses their liberty-to harm other people
or civic associations, I want the independence to leave the scene and report my
crowd to first responders.
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.
SMALL SEO STAT
ReplyDeleteMOVIERULZ