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
The value of being a human-person
Every Department of Education can reform so that most graduates accept a nest of values that will carry them through adolescence unto young adulthood and on to complete development of humble-integrity.
First, in youth, accept being a human being and the attendant responsibilities. Read this week's essays.
Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-truly-moral-political-system-look-like?
What would a truly moral political system look like?
The only proffered proposal I am aware of is the amendable
1787 U.S. Constitution and its preamble.
Each citizen has the freedom-from oppression so as to either
consider or reject the preamble’s proposition, to order his or her civic,
civil, legal, and private way of living. My latest interpretation is: Phil Beaver commits-to and trusts-in the 5
U.S. disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in
order to” practice and encourage responsible human independence “to ourselves
and our Posterity.”
In this system, as humankind discovers the-ineluctable-truth,
U.S. posterity’s posterity approaches enforcement of statutory human justice
under the Supreme Judge of the world. (Re: the 1776 Declaration of Independence,
a humble-integrity that is affirmed by the 1787 U.S. Constitution.)
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-obey-the-law?
Why do people obey the law?
Obeying the law influences responsible human independence.
Some people think crime and other civic offenses pay. “The
good People,” referenced in the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence from
England, appealed to “the Supreme Judge of the world” for reliability of their
civic, civil, legal, and private intentions. Then, they authorized the 1787
U.S. Constitution, which establishes the amendable rule of law and does not
diminish the humble-integrity of the 1776 Declaration.
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution proffers a culture
wherein the good People, We the People of the United States, practice 5 civic
disciplines “in order to” promote responsible human independence “to ourselves
and our Posterity.”
It seems self-evident that dissidence from the preamble
makes a U.S. citizen dependent on the good People, and most people do not want
dependency.
Consequently, most citizens obey the law and aid amendment under
humble-integrity when injustice is discovered.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-does-truth-justice-liberty-and-rule-of-law-mean?
What does truth, justice, liberty, and rule of law mean?
Mr. Riegert, I nominate your question as the most valued for acceptance
to the entity “We the People of the United States,” in this, the 233rd
year since “ourselves and our Posterity” proffered this global nation. I ground
my answer in the 1776 Declaration, the 1787 Constitution, and civic discoveries
since then.
The Declaration expressed “the good People” appealing “to
the Supreme Judge of the world” for affirmation of their intentions. I relate
the intentions to interpretation of the 4,000 year old commentary in Genesis
1:28, wherein humankind is charged to constrain chaos on earth. The perhaps
Sumerian commentary has been variously interpreted by Jewish sects, Western-Christian
sects, Eastern-Christian sects, Ethiopian-Christian sects, Muslim sects, and
others. Military and monetary power from France provided the USA-victory
to 13 free and independent states.
The 1787 U.S. Constitution forms a union of states held
accountable by their citizens. Nothing in the Constitution lessens the
humble-integrity expressed in the Declaration.
With that grounding, my response to your question, taking
advantage of human discovery since 1787, follows.
“Truth” is too vague to express human integrity, so I
offer “the-ineluctable-truth” (TIET) to clarify conversation. TIET exists,
perhaps momentarily, as evolution unfolds. It can be researched as
the-objective-truth using the-ineluctable-evidence and the latest instruments
of perception. By continuously improving perception, humankind improves
the-objective-truth in order to approach TEIT.
“Justice” uses the-objective-truth if not
the-ineluctable-truth to resolve human dispute. In a culture of justice, the
court pursues equity among unique persons under statutory justice. In other
words, political equality can be expected among uniquely-individual citizens
who help develop statutory justice by which to motivate dissidents to reform.
“Liberty” is too often interpreted as “license,” and
many scholars use it interchangeably with “freedom.” When my group takes the
license-to do harm for egocentric liberty, I want the independence-to walk away
from their solidarity and report their harm. I try-to clarify by writing
“freedom-from” oppression and “independence-to” develop humble-integrity,
leaving “liberty-to” as “license-to.”
“Rule-of-law” refers to statutory law-enforcement, as
written “to ourselves and our Posterity.” When events disclose unjust law, the
Court is charged to explain the injustice, and Congress is constrained to amend
the law to comport to the-ineluctable-evidence, whether TIET is known or not.
Together, these 4 opinions don’t seem to lessen the civic
charge to humankind that is expressed in Genesis 1:28, the intentions of the
1776 “founding fathers”; and the constitution the 1787 framers proffered,
collectively. Let We the People of the United States begin to make America
great again on par with September 17, 1787 (rather than under British-colonial
tradition, which begs another essay).
Riegert and other readers, I write to learn and hope you
comment. If someone interrupts our conversation, find my comments at
cipbr.blogspot.com for the week ending 11/7/2020.
Bobby Riegert:
True
but do we follow this. NO
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-difference-between-the-basic-respect-decency-that-we-should-treat-everyone-with-and-the-respect-you-have-for-people-that-you-hold-in-particularly-high-regard?
Is there a difference between the basic respect/decency that we
should treat everyone with and the respect you have for people that you hold in
particularly high regard?
Late in my eighth decade (my 70s), I am learning that my
impression of Agathon’s speech in Plato’s “Symposium” serves if not answers
your question: promote the humble-integrity needed for responsible human
independence in an ineluctably-good culture.
The message is:
Ineluctably good citizens (IGC) appreciate human life enough to
neither initiate nor tolerate harm either to or
from any person or association of people. I accept and value Agathon’s
2,400-year-old expressions and appreciate Plato for reporting them as he did.
Behaving with these values, a citizen develops the
humble-integrity to constrain chaos in his or way of living and thus assures
that connections with mutually appreciable citizens are not challenged by
conflict.
Since he or she appreciates all citizens, other connections
are identical, untill the other person inflicts actual harm or attacks with
intentions to harm. If so, the IGC responds with the necessary strength.
If an errant citizen has caused no actually-real harm, it
suffices to inform the fellow-citizen that you object. For example, if the
citizen says, “My God rules you.” A mild response is, “Are you certain you can
depend on that?” If the other invites further conversation, words from the U.S.
Declaration of Independence help: the IGC might say, “I rely on “the Supreme
Judge of the world” respecting civic issues, and trust whatever controls the
afterdeath regarding my person’s destiny.” (Afterdeath is that vast time after
body, mind, and person stop functioning. I understand most Christian sects and
sometimes add, “For all I know, Jesus will meet me at a Pearly Gate, and judge
me: I am prepared for judgement.” But I never share my preparation, in order to
avoid spiritual offense.)
If the group I am with starts disturbing the peace, I inform
them that they ought to refrain and reform and then exercise my responsible
human independence by leaving. That is to say, if the crowd takes the license
to disrupt civic peace in order to express their liberties, I exercise my
independence to leave the group. I oppose “solidarity” and do not join groups
that expect subjugation to either violence, arbitrary
rules, or tolerance.
If a citizen intends to inflict harm on me or my family or
home, I confront them with sufficient strength and intention, in order to
influence their withdrawal from the ambition. Moreover, I do not invite
aggression.
I write to learn and would appreciate comments.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-moral-ground-For-example-if-someone-talks-abour-superior-moral-ground?
What is moral ground? For example if someone talks abour superior
moral ground?
It’s political jargon used to persuade people to act in the
speaker’s interest.
I googled the phrase “moral ground” and found the Wikipedia
opinion: “The moral high ground, in ethical or political parlance, refers to
the status of being respected for remaining moral, and adhering to and
upholding a universally recognized standard of justice or goodness.” Bing
returned the same.
The definition seems cultural or civil rather than derived
from the-ineluctable-truth, and thus is a matter of opinion. I’m reminded of
the “tolerant” opinion.
Some people who perceive they have the superior opinion wait
patiently for a friend to mature to the same point of view. Thereby, they both
risk the friendship and stonewall their own opportunity to learn by sincerely
hearing and considering how the friend earned the opinion they’d like to share.
When, in civic conversation I detect that the other party has hit the tolerance
button, I change the subject to local weather or sports to express my
intolerance of tolerance.
When someone claims they have the higher moral ground, make
certain you constrain both any philanthropic urge and your wallet’s security.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-role-of-values-and-education-to-the-development-of-the-nation?
What is the role of values and education to the development of the
nation?
Values are essential to a human being’s success.
Donie Andrianne Biyoyo your emphasis on “values” parallels
my usual “acceptances” and I appreciate your view. Values are paramount in
coaching and encouraging youth to perfect their unique person during life,
keeping hopes for the-afterdeath that the individual prefers. (“The-afterdeath”
is my expression for the vast time after body, mind, and person stop
functioning.)
Every Education Department in the world ought to reform so
as to transfer the-objective-truth if not the-ineluctable-truth for both
naturalism and realism---what’s physical and what’s imagined. For example,
imagining success by lying invites woe: physics inevitably outs the lie. Recall
the infamous blue dress.
Mimicking my usual nest of acceptances, here’s a list of
values:
I value being a human being and my unique life.
I value the opportunity to develop both awareness and
grammar by which to question observations and experiences.
I value each: the human individual power, the individual
energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA); civic encouragement to use HIPEA
to develop self-interested, humble-integrity; and accept that some fellow
citizens develop HIPEA for crime while others never accept HIPEA.
I value the self-evident human responsibility to constrain
chaos during my life and thereby aid peace; I appreciate the Supreme Judge of
the world (SJW)*, whatever that is, for reliability of my intentions.
I value motivation and inspiration and am developing my
person for perfection in life, accepting that SJW may not be adequate for the
afterdeath and appreciating fellow citizens who do not question my faith.
I value civic, civil, legal, and private citizenship but
deny that HIPEA can be consigned to government or other entity.
Education Departments ought to value humble-integrity.
I write to learn, and would appreciate comments.
* The 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence cites “the
Supreme Judge of the world” for reliability of the founders’ intentions. The
framers, in the 1787 U.S. Constitution wrote nothing that conflicts with the
1776 Declaration’s humble-integrity. Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural
address, similarly appreciated higher authority, using the phrase “the Almighty
Ruler of Nations.”
I feel intimidated but admit to being a dreamer.
The comment seems accurate respecting research undertaken to
pursue what is imagined or desired but misses regarding chance discovery, for
example, a fossil found on digging a foundation. In the first case, the method
of questioning can lead to a lifetime in error, whereas in the second, mistaken
identification can be corrected by colleagues. Also, not only research
intentions but instruments of perception can lessen observations.
Reviewing Merriam-Webster usages, “nature” seems
constraining. I prefer “physics and its progeny including biology and
psychology.”
quora.com/Frank-A-Clark-said-If-you-find-a-path-with-no-obstacles-it-probably-doesnt-lead-anywhere-What-do-you-think?
Frank A Clark said, "If you find a path with no obstacles, it
probably doesn't lead anywhere." What do you think?
I think it’s nonsense.
The human life is lived a decision at a time, with each
decision altering the journey. Furthermore, apparently insignificant external
events can alter the journey in unexpected ways.
Life is not like looking at highways and choosing one. It’s
more like having a dream, planning its achievement, and adjusting to the
inevitable obstacles.
I think Clark blundered.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-a-flaw-in-democracy-that-you-cant-go-against-the-majority-even-if-they-are-wrong-How-do-you-fix-that?
You avoid democracy. The U.S. promises a republic under the
rule of law. Aliens want to change the American republic. Some aliens are
Supreme Court Justices.
The truth must be faced with strength and falsehoods must be
avoided without exception.
The ineluctably good citizen never lies, in order to lessen
human misery and loss.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Accordingly-he-truth-will-set-us-free-Some-would-say-that-the-statement-is-true-most-the-time-but-not-all-the-time-How-would-you-justify-your-answer?
Accordingly "the truth will set us free". Some would say that
the statement is true most the time, but not all the time. How would you
justify your answer?
The phrase “the truth” has no specificity and thus no
promise.
Discovering and accepting the-ineluctable-truth set humans
free. It can be approached by research to discover the-objective-truth. It may
be modified by future improvements in instruments of perception. Eventually, it
comports to interconnected discoveries that comprise the-literal-truth, which
approaches the-ineluctable-truth.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-morals-develop-throughout-life?
How do morals develop throughout life?
In family monogamy for life, a child has 4 grandparents. If
each grandparent was reared to accept the human individual power, individual
energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) and to develop humble-integrity rather
than tolerate infidelity, the grandchild is benefitting from 2 posterity of 4
heritages of integrity. The child’s chances of being coached and encouraged to
accept HIPEA and develop integrity are good.
Such good fortune is rare. Most children are reared in a
confused, conflicted world and must discover HIPEA and humble-integrity without
coaching or encouragement. Chances of those discoveries improve with early
acceptance of being a human being.
Few adults much less adolescents experience these
principles. If a person discovers and develops humble-integrity, it’s usually
because of loss and misery so severe that the person discovers the
self-interest of reliable integrity. Again, few people suffer that greatly
without dying early, so most adults never encounter humble-integrity.
I know of no culture that inculcates these principle in
their youth, but one is offered. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution proffers
a people’s proposition that each citizen may interpret for personal guidance in
developing a civic, civil, legal, and private way of living. My interpretation
today is: This civic citizen practices the 5 U.S. public
disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity---“in order
to” encourage responsible human independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Perhaps 2021 will be the year the entity We the People of
the United States holds Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court responsible to
restore both the 1776 Declaration of Independence’s appeal “to the Supreme
Judge of the world” to affirm U.S. intentions and the 1787 U.S. Constitution’s
affirmation of that national appeal, leaving theism, philosophy, or other forms
of spirituality to private choice.
Just as the Supreme Judge of the world does not usurp the
human individual’s responsibility to constrain chaos in his or her life,
Congress cannot usurp authority in the metaphysical world.
"We are all equal" do you agree with this statement
considering the society of ours today?
No. Each of us began as a unique ovum and nothing that
happened on the way to personhood lessened individuality. What is unique cannot
be made equal, and perfection of the unique leads to unique perfection. Neither
government nor the Supreme Judge of the world will usurp individual opportunity
to develop humble-integrity.
https://www.quora.com/When-does-one-get-the-right-to-make-his-her-own-decisions?
The ineluctably good citizen neither initiates nor tolerates
harm to or from any person or association. Some citizens dissent from this
principle. Some dissenters invite woe, and invited woe inevitably comes.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-your-values-What-matters-most-to-you?
I accept the human individual power, the individual energy,
and the individual authority (HIPEA) to practice humble-integrity rather than
tolerate infidelity in my life.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-do-people-ought-to-have-responsibilities?
Each individual is charged to constrain chaos in their life.
Humble-integrity is a self-interest that lessens infidelity.
Does capitalism incentivate egoism, insolidarity, individualism, and
lack of compassion? Does socialism promote humanism and cooperation?
No and no.
Humankind must constrain chaos on earth for themselves and
their posterity. Most people are satisfied to earn the living their family
wants. A few people focus on increasing family-needs and for leading-edge
living. They undertake the risks and responsibilities of inventing goods and
service to meet those needs. They supply not only creativity to invent the
goods or service but the raw materials, money, employees, managers, and
government compliance for production. They price their product to include
profit as reward for entrepreneurship and risk.
Entrepreneurs who supply needed products at affordable
prices thrive, while those who took unwarranted risk fail. They can become an
employee and save money to prepare for another entrepreneurship or join the
majority who don’t take the required risks. Free-market capitalism is forgiving
and grateful for risk takers, so there is good will among buyers and sellers.
With socialism, the free market of buyers and sellers is
prevented by government planners and business owners. Instead of responding to
family needs, bureaucrats provide the goods and services they decide the people
will buy. Citizens read about free-market countries at the leading edge of life
while they lament repression because they are not benefiting from free trade.
Changing citizenship is difficult to accomplish, so few
people escape socialism. Preventing it where it does not exist is favorable to
families.
I express my view of some terms to explain that I prefer
the-ineluctable-truth.
Culture is a geo-political provision and thus is not
reliable for all locations on earth. Second, “science” refers to research,
which may not be reliable, depending on the humble-integrity of the researcher.
For example, “social science” is metaphysical or an attempt to resolve opinion,
and thus is unreliable.
Research with intentions to discover has as object physics
and its progeny, including biology and psychology. The initial consequence of
research is the-objective-truth, which may be responsibly used pending
invention of new instruments of perception or new dimensions. As
the-objective-truth evolves to comport to interconnect discoveries, it may fit
in the-literal-truth. Eventually, the-literal-truth may approach
the-ineluctable-truth.
I prefer to continue to accept “I don’t know,” until I can
express the-objective-truth and anticipate the-ineluctable-truth.
For example, to the question, “Will the sun come out
tomorrow?” I respond, “No: the earth’s rotation on its axis will un-hide the
sun tomorrow.”
https://www.quora.com/What-erroneous-belief-made-you-feel-good-thus-you-never-questioned-it?
Since the world is peopled by mostly good; since the 1776
Declaration of Independence expresses humble-integrity; and since the 1787 U.S.
Constitution says nothing to lessen the 1776 integrity, our posterity could
always expect better than self-interest to ourselves. We have devolved into
chaos.
Nevertheless, posterity’s posterity will develop statutory
justice in the U.S. I hold to this belief and think today’s chaos promotes 2020
vision for an achievable better future.
Freedom-from oppression allows each fellow citizen the
opportunity to develop humble-integrity in order to enjoy the self-interest of
constraining infidelity in living.
This way of living is
proffered in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. So far, the entity We the
People of the United States has not perceived the self-interest to develop it.
https://www.quora.com/Is-happiness-a-human-right-or-is-it-won-if-deserved?
Is happiness a human right, or is it won if deserved?
No and no.
“Rights” are overrated demands. For example, neither
government nor the Supreme Judge of the world can guarantee life or liberty or
the pursuit of happiness.
However, each human being is owed the opportunity to
constrain chaos in his or her life. Neither government nor the Supreme Judge of
the world will usurp the individual opportunity to develop the humble-integrity
by which to personally constrain chaos. Not every person develops
humble-integrity.
A person develops humble-integrity by accepting physics and
its progeny including psychology as the limitations on life. A person may
develop a personal theism or philosophy to aid the public-disciplines necessary
for responsible living despite the inevitability of dying, but cannot impose
that faith on others because of the chaos-constraint.
Accepting these principle is one way to promote peace on
earth, or constraint of chaos.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-unit-of-measurement-for-honesty?
Honesty is insufficient. Human beings develop integrity to
physics and its progeny, the objects of responsible research. Personal
integrity is measured by humility.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-the-difference-between-truth-and-dialectics?
What is the difference between
truth and dialectics?
Dialectics ignores truth.
A person may approach the truth using humble-integrity,
while dialectics is voluntary discussion of opinion established through
honesty. Both personal-integrity and honesty are insufficient to
humble-integrity, which is grounded in physics. We must consider definitions.
The Google online definitions of “dialectics” give insight:
“the art of
investigating or discussing the truth of opinions [and] inquiry into metaphysical
contradictions and their solutions.” Thus, dialectics is voluntary discussion
of opinion or metaphysics to seek resolution. The truth is not considered.
Dialectics seems to accept reason rather than the truth in the effort to
resolve psychological differences.
To
resolve dialectic-slavery to reason a more reliable phrase than “the truth”
might help. “The truth” is like “God” in that two people may discuss it for
their lifetimes, never discovering that they have different definitions of the
term. For example, one person thinks “nature’s truth” and the other thinks
“God’s truth.” If the first ever tried to clarify, the second might respond
“Nature’s truth is God’s truth.” The first might counter “Nature’s truth does
not affirm/deny God.” Then they might
resume the dialectics, neither party accepting that they need a referee:
perhaps the-ineluctable-truth.
I
think clarity is provided by the phrase the-ineluctable-truth (TIET) rather
than “the truth.” Further, humans may approach TIET through research on physics
and its progeny, including biochemistry, psychology, and imagination. Borrowing
syntax from unheralded political-philosopher Albert Einstein, research without
integrity is lame and integrity without research is blind.
Unfortunately,
the mature Einstein used expected words and phrases in 1940s contemporary
popular-dialectics; science v religion; science v ethics; physics v God. His
only example that humble-integrity appreciates physics is that ineluctably-good
citizens do not lie so as to lessen human misery and loss. That is, the liar
invites woe, and the-ineluctable-truth often delivers physical blows.
“Science”
is a research method that encourages humble-integrity to
the-ineluctable-evidence. Both opinion and metaphysics threaten research-reliability.
With
these principles, we may consider that dialectics seeks to resolve difference
in opinion without regard for the-ineluctable-truth. Lack of integrity may be
involved if one party is not aware that dialectics does not seek conformity to
the-ineluctable-truth.
BTW:
This discussion lends itself to the possible futility of tolerance. The
tolerating party perceives a higher opinion and stonewalls the opposition to
give them time to mature. Thereby, the tolerant avoid the challenge of moving
beyond reason so as to consider the-ineluctable-truth. Some fellow citizens
have learned that tolerance is stonewalling, so they merely adopt intolerance
toward tolerance. They accept the other party’s dialectic-arrogance and turn to
other people for opportunity to connect to discover the-ineluctable-truth. It
is good when tolerant-people perceive polite-intolerance.
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-freedom-of-speech-apply-to-minors?
I think so.
However, “minor” needs definition.
Some chronological minors are psychologically mature. In that case an adult is
drawn to the conversation by hope to learn from the minor. Few humans are more
likely to think creatively than a cognitively-precocious minor.
If the minor’s speech is dominated by “What’s that?” the
same adult may be dedicated to doing all they can do to help the youngster
psychologically mature.
If the minor has not accepted being human, there may not be
much speech.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-freedom-not-manifested-if-I-submit-myself-to-the-laws-of-society?
Is freedom not manifested if I submit myself to the laws of society?
No: submission to injustice is voluntary slavery.
Some ancient Greeks suggested that civic citizens behave for
equity under statutory justice. When “the laws of society” are unjust, civic
citizens hold officials accountable for legislative reform.
For example, about 12 generations of Americans have
tolerated “freedom of religion” rather than encouragement to humble-integrity.
Congress is accountable for the tyranny. The U.S. Supreme
Court is accountable for affirming religion as British-colonial-American
tradition, ignoring America’s 1776 “Supreme Justice of the world”, Genesis
1:28’s charge to humankind to constrain chaos in the world, and 1787s We the
People of the United States. Both the 1774 Declaration and the 1787
Constitution intend public discipline “in order to” establish humble-integrity
“to ourselves and our Posterity.”
We the People of the United States may now reform from
psychological British tyranny to 1787 U.S. freedom. First, we must revise the
First Amendment by changing the religion clauses in order to promote
humble-integrity.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-is-the-role-of-the-ethics-of-care-in-our-lives?
Appreciate each fellow citizens’ opportunity to both
privately live and publicly behave for equity under statutory justice; in other
words, neither initiate nor tolerate harm to or from anyone or any institution.
If you encounter someone who seems to need your care, ask if
that is so. If they confirm the need, suggest the help you feel you can provide
and get their confirmation that it would help. Proceed to help, having adjusted
to their wishes. If in the first inquiry, the person responds, “No”. Appreciate
their privacy and happily depart.
It seems prudent to refrain from any tendency to look for
someone to help. “Have you been saved?” may be the most inhuman, psychologically-uncivil
question I ever encountered.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-your-purpose-in-life-is-to-find-your-purpose-and-give-your-whole-heart-and-soul-to-it-Why?
Is it true that your purpose in life is to find your purpose and
give your whole heart and soul to it? Why?
Mr. Maher, I think you ask a profound question in
conventional language: civilization, scholarship, tradition, philosophy. So
far, convention seems to overlook humble-integrity.
A culture of humble-integrity is proffered in 3 sources:
Genesis 1:28, the 1776 Declaration of Independence, and the 1787 U.S.
Constitution. The unheralded principles offered therein include: humankind is
charged to constrain chaos on earth; the assignment came from the Supreme Judge
of the world or the actually-real entity, such as physics; and posterity’s
posterity may discover integrity, respectively.
The historical Jesus perhaps suggested that the human being
can perfect his or her person before death. Ralph Waldo Emerson suggested that
Jesus reached that conclusion through self-reliance, but the church bemused the
message by claiming Jesus was God. Like Emerson, each human being has the
individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA)
to develop humble-integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to his or her
person. HIPEA can be harnessed for harm, but cannot be consigned.
In the brevity of a human life, each individual may discover
HIPEA and choose to develop humble-integrity for self-interest. That alone
would be sufficient to satisfy Genesis 1’s chaos-constraint. If a “purpose”
such as saving a fellow-citizen from ruin was additionally accomplished, it
might seem trivial to perfecting the given life.
I write opinion so as to learn, so please comment.
https://www.quora.com/If-naturalists-morals-are-defined-by-well-being-then-why-are-most-of-them-pro-choice?
If naturalists’ morals are defined by well being, then why are most
of them pro-choice?
“Naturalists” understand that human life begins not with the zygote
(fertilized ovum), nor with the ovum, nor with the secondary oocyte, but with
the body of a woman who has chosen to be human and therefore maintains both
physical and psychological well being for herself and the 300,000 follicles in
a typical teenager. The follicles may produce 8,000 viable oocyte that may
become 400 ova during her fertile years.
Part of her responsibility is to bond with an authentic man. That is, not
mate with a male who has neither qualifications nor intentions to
family-monogamy for life.
The Supreme Judge of the world (1776 Declaration), whatever that is,
assigned to the woman the responsibility to assure the dignity and equity
of every oocyte her body produces. When her awareness informs her to
not remain pregnant, for whatever reasons, she is attending to the perhaps
4,000 year old Sumerian suggestion in Genesis 1:28, in my interpretation:
Constrain chaos on earth.
The Genesis source predates Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the British
Empire, but is well addressed in both the 1776 Declaration of Independence and
the 1787 U.S. Constitution. Both the Declaration and the Constitution predate
the contrarian 1791 Bill of Rights.
It is up to We the People of the United States to Make America Great Again
“in order to” comport with the suggestion 4000 years ago, 1776, and September
17, 1787 intentions.
Yeah
even so, you’re preventing the change for that baby from living, and that is
against the well bieng of that baby. So it should be immoral for a naturalist.
To Barock Caleb: My post invites a few
acceptances, in this country, expressed in the 1776 Declaration, the 1787
Constitution, and We the People of the United States.
First, that the woman is a human being. Second, that
the world’s higher power, whatever it is, assigned to the woman the
responsibility to remain pregnant or not. The 1776 Declaration of Independence
suggests the higher power is “the Supreme Judge of the world,” and the 1787
U.S. Constitution does not lessen that humble-integrity.
No human can authorize a human or an institution to
overcall both the Supreme Judge of the world and the woman it holds responsible
to terminate her pregnancy.
Humans who deign to deny the Supreme Judge of the
world (or whatever controls consequences) invite woe. Both the U.S. Congress
and the U.S. Supreme court stand in defiance of both the 1776 Declaration and
the 1787 Constitution.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-I-always-need-to-be-right?
Why do I always need to be right?
Mr. Sprehn, this is in response to your comment to me on asceticism, which
was unfortunately deleted this morning: I oppose someone arbitrarily censoring
our dialogue after inviting your creative questioning then requiring you to
constrain that creativity according to arbitrary rules. It’s like stealing from
you. You don’t “always need to be right” to connect with civic citizens
for humble-integrity.
Back to our censored conversation on asceticism, dated July 25, 2016; as I
understand it, the guru-student’s purpose is to study the art of Buddhism until
he or she becomes independent—-a master who can teach the Buddha.
I suggest that every human has the independent power, the independent
energy, and the independent authority (HIPEA) to uniquely develop
humble-integrity. Those who choose to follow a teacher have taken a path. It
may not accelerate their self-reliance toward humble-integrity.
If this gets deleted, you may find it on my Facebook for November 4; Phil
Beaver, Baton Rouge. Here1
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Kant-s-initial-argument-that-a-good-will-is-the-only-thing-that-is-good-in-itself?
What is Kant’s initial argument that a good will is the only thing
that is good in itself?
I don’t know: Did
Kant (d. 1804) comment on Socrates (d. 399 BC), who suggested that “good” need
not be re-branded as “God”?
https://www.quora.com/How-does-democracy-provide-equal-human-rights?
How does democracy provide equal human rights?
Mister Sunny, your question is profound.
The concise answer is: by reducing everyone’s life to chaos,
as we may observe by the U.S. Democrat Party’s conduct and the U.S. Supreme
Court’s defiance against the U.S. Constitution (the U.S. rule of law) during
the past 8 years and the woe it has wrought in the summer of 2020.
I may write an essay to elaborate and post it on my Facebook,
Phil Beaver, Baton Rouge, LA. Here1
Personal integrity is measured by humble-integrity.
https://www.quora.com/How-is-peace-and-freedom-compatible?
An ancient, perhaps Sumerian 4,000 years ago, suggested, and
someone recorded in Genesis 1:28, that humankind is responsible to constrain
chaos on earth. It is critical for governments to grant citizens the freedom to
civically connect for peace.
I know of no such government. However, one is proposed in
the proffered preamble to the U.S. Constitution. My interpretation today
follows: This civic citizen practices the 5 disciplines---integrity, justice,
peace, strength, and prosperity---“in order to” encourage responsible human
independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.”
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-more-important-to-be-right-or-to-be-honest?
I think it is best to develop nested acceptances. First, I
am a human being. Second, I accept humble integrity. Thus, honesty is
insufficient, and when I do not know, I readily claim, “I do not know.” If an
opinion is essential to the situation, a follow up with, “However, what I think
is . . . “ is good. I’m sometimes right for me, but seldom for someone else.
(My beautiful wife taught me humble-integrity on our first wedding-anniversary
dinner-out. I was merrily discussing buying our first house and noticed she was
distracted by something beyond my right shoulder. When I objected, she said, “You
ought to see this Italian man across the room.” She responded to my second
objection, “I don’t know why you should complain. You check out every woman
that passes our pew at mass.” I said, “It’s a habit you just killed.”)
BTW: I like one of President Trump’s frequent responses:
We’ll see how it turns out.
Biden’s “come on man” and “for god’s sake” are silly at
best, and “folks” is condescending toward We the People of the United States.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-a-good-idea-to-only-promote-the-truth-but-dont-question-the-truth?
Is it a good idea to only promote the truth but don't question the
truth?
Mr. Pandurangan, I think your question profoundly expresses
the futility of the phrase “the truth.” I think the naked “truth” is as
bemusing as “the truth.”
Consequently, I express actual-reality as
the-ineluctable-truth. Humankind researches diligently to discover
the-ineluctable-truth and how to responsibly use it. The researcher’s greatest
power is humble-integrity. Research without integrity is lame; integrity
without research is blind.
However, because humankind is constrained to perception,
instruments to aid perception, and discovered dimensions, initial discovery of
ineluctable-evidence can only be regarded as the-objective-truth. The system of
interconnected objective-truths may be considered the-literal-truth.
The-literal-truth approaches the-ineluctable-truth.
I write to learn, so please comment.
I don’t believe you.
I think if intellectual push came to shove, you would say that scientific laws which
are abstract general facts, don’t exist outside the mind.
I don’t believe you. I think if intellectual push came to shove, you would say that scientific laws which are abstract general facts, don’t exist outside the mind.
Fortunately, I can read what I wrote. I said
nothing about “science,” and I do not condone “scientific laws.” I research to
discover the-ineluctable-evidence.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Truth-is-not-relative-truth-is-not-a-matter-of-opinion-but-objective-and-absolute-by-plato-explain-why-you-believe-in-his-description-reasoning-about-truth?
Truth is not relative truth is not a matter of opinion but objective
and absolute" by plato explain why you believe in his
description/reasoning about truth?
I never directly studied Plato-truth, so cannot answer
directly. However, I think “objective” and “absolute” are human constructs which
cannot influence the-ineluctable-truth. For example, the sun does not rise each
morning: the earth’s daily rotation on its axis un-hides the sun.
The-ineluctable-truth (TIET) exists, even if evolution
imposed extinction or cosmic events caused annihilation. TIET conforms to the
laws of physics and its offspring, including biology and psychology. Humankind
works to discover the laws and responsibly use them.
Humans have developed scientific research that employs
humble-integrity to discover the laws of physics. That is to say the researcher
accepts that neither imagination, reason, belief, hope, opinion, doctrine,
statistics, nor other human construct influences TIET.
Albert Einstein could have expressed that research without
integrity is lame; integrity without research is blind. However, he modeled the
universe, and when his mathematical brilliance informed him that the universe
is dynamic, he applied a “cosmological factor” to force his static paradigm.
Fortunately, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding before
Einstein finished his work.
Also, human constraints limit perception until new
instrument or new dimensions are invented, and therefore, initial impressions
of ineluctable-evidence may be incomplete. It is prudent to regard initial
discovery of ineluctable-evidence as the-objective-truth and to measure its
interconnections with the-literal-truth. Humankind’s responsibility is to
approach TIET.
I write to learn and to develop words and phrases that most
humans can understand. Bling “a civic people+glossary” and choose the first
URL. I would appreciate comments on my opinions.
I know that if everyone did X, the world would be a better place,
but I can’t justify doing X myself because it would have such a small impact.
Is this irrational or is there some merit to it?
X is pursuing a nest of acceptances, the first being to
accept being a human being and therefore accepting the self-interest of
developing humble-integrity, by which personal-integrity is measured.
Law professors
https://lawliberty.org/is-the-spirit-of-1876-alive
The 1776 reference seems a timely reminder for the 2020
issues.
Without doubt 1776s “the good People” of humble-integrity is dormant;
neglected; forgotten; yet proffered. The 1776 posterity, We the People of the
United States, have the 2020 opportunity to constrain chaos in our lives
according to 1776s “the Supreme Judge of the world.” Nothing in the 1787 U.S.
Constitution lessens the Declaration’s responsible human independence to end
the psychological-tyranny imposed on America by the English-constitutional
Church-of-England-parliament civil-partnership.
However, the 1791 Congress re-established
factional-American-Protestantism, under English-colonial-American tradition, in
the First Amendment. The hubris of “freedom of religion” bemuses the people’s
proffered proposition in the preamble: public discipline “in order to” develop
humble-integrity as viewed by posterity’s posterity. That is to say, living
citizens continually develop statutory justice to reform unforeseen injustice
in the law.
“What put the country at risk was the careless indifference
to constitutional process.” In 1791, Congress unconstitutionally buried the
preamble’s proposition: five public disciplines “in order to” encourage
responsible human independence “to ourselves and our Posterity.” Congress
re-established colonial-British tradition, and Congress with the Supreme Court
developed originalism to English law instead of the 1787 U.S. Constitution,
especially its preamble. The 1787 Constitution excludes religion from its
disciplines, accepting that the individual’s choice to develop/nourish
religion is private, not public.
Restoration of the 1776 “Supreme Judge of the world” for
civic reliability among both believers and non-believers, leaving an
individual’s spirituality an appreciated private-pursuit, offers an achievable
better future. Government cannot consign to God humankind’s responsibility to
constrain chaos on earth as expressed 4,000 years ago by someone who lived
before Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in Genesis 1:28.
It is wonderful that both the 1776 Declaration and the 1787
Constitution comport to Genesis 1:28, making no pretense to usurp God’s realm. We
the People of the United States may hold Congress and the Supreme Court
accountable to accept humble-integrity under the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.
Approval by a moderator.
Facebook Post
Contemplating the USA founders’ 1776
Declaration of Independence’s humble-integrity. Founders appealed “to the
Supreme Judge of the world” to invalidate human-tyranny including the Church of
England’s constitutional-partnership with Parliament:
A Supreme Judge that is weak enough to
threaten human-integrity is neither appreciated nor respected to the world’s
civic-citizens. A person who is weak enough to stonewall humble-integrity
deserves neither appreciation nor respect. A-civic-citizen accepts
responsibility to constrain chaos during one lifetime and therefore neither
initiates nor tolerates harm to or from either persons or higher powers.
Each citizen may discover
humble-integrity, by which personal-integrity may be developed, even though the
world has not accepted integrity’s personal-interest.
An achievable better future is available
under humble-integrity, which is offered in the 1787 U.S. Constitution’s words
and phrases that do not diminish the 1776 Declaration. The preamble to the U.S.
Constitution proffers humble-integrity, which can be established in the United
States starting by each citizen interpreting the preamble for personal
development.
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