Necessity&justice appreciate life more than afterdeath

 

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:  "The good People of these" united states facilitate and encourage five civic 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

Necessity&justice appreciate life more than afterdeath

Traditionally, scholarship, at least in the west, grounded political philosophy on the mystery of human afterdeath, that vast time after mind, body, and person stop functioning.

As cultures evolved, some political philosophers focused on life more than death. A Sumerian, 4,500 years ago, suggest that humankind must independently constrain chaos on earth. A Greek, 2,400 years ago, suggested that the-good need not be labeled “God”. A Jew, 2,000 years ago, suggested that the human-being can perfect their person during life. A mathematician, 80 years ago suggested that civic-citizens don’t lie so as to avoid inevitable disclosure by physics and its progeny.

Essay this week expand on these issues.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/Does-it-seem-more-logical-to-have-faith-in-a-creator-as-opposed-to-faith-that-nothing-created-everything-Why-or-why-not? By Bryan Whitson, comment by Barry Goldberg

The human being is born ignorant. It seems rational to encourage and facilitate acceptance of ignorance until the-ineluctable-truth is known by female&male-human-being.

It’s alright to form opinion. For example, my opinion is that necessity&justice is the-good sometimes referred to as the-God. The laws of physics and its progeny control the-good. Thus, civic citizens don’t lie, expecting physics will eventually deliver the human loss and misery that lies invite.

Human conformity requires discovery of the-ineluctable-truth, how to responsibly apply it, and perfect integrity to the two discoveries.

Necessity&justice are so demanding I see no rationality to take the leap of faith to advocate either atheism or theism.

 

https://www.quora.com/Should-we-accept-the-way-all-humans-exercise-their-individual-free-will? by Rodney Vessels

Absolutely.

Every human being experiences and observes necessity&justice and has the opportunity to use their individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity in self-interest rather than tolerate dependency on fellow-citizens. Thus, humankind divides itself: civic-citizens vs dependents, where “civic” refers to necessary&just human connections more than municipal compliance.

Dependency can be gaming the welfare system, crime, tyranny, evil, vigilantism, terrorism, and worse. To maintain the opportunity for dependents to reform to responsible-human-independence, the civic-citizens provide a system of written-law enforcement. They continually discover injustices and eliminate them so as to approach statutory justice. This burden is necessary so as to proffer to dependents the self-interest to reform.

Even subjected to law-enforcement, the fellow-citizen is free to resume or replace the dependence once the constraint has expired, if it does.

What do you think?

FB add on: Subjugation to law-enforcement proffers opportunity to reform to responsible-human-independence.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-integrity-and-consistency/answer? by Malak Ali

Integrity maintains “I don’t know” as long as the-ineluctable-truth is unknown.

Consistency maintains belief without regard to the-ineluctable-truth—hit or miss.

 

 https://www.quora.com/How-can-life-satisfaction-among-young-people-be-linked-to-collectivism? by Semra Oz

Young people can accept the necessity&justice demand: constrain chaos in personal way of living rather than tolerate infidelity to self. The first requirement is to develop humble-integrity so that your impact may be appreciated rather than resented.

In practice, neither initiate nor tolerate injury to or from any person. If an associate proposes that your group inflict injury, object. Depart if the objection is not heeded. If you are convinced injury will happen, report the intentions and proponents to first-responders.

To elders who propose injury, youth can object without imposing personal-opinion.

With most youth behaving this way, dissidents would observe the self-interest that responsible-human-independence serves. The majority would enjoy an achievable better future satisfaction with the humble-integrity way of living.

FB add on:  Collective youth can proffer an achievable better future.

https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-define-good-in-this-statement-It-is-much-better-to-do-good-in-a-way-that-no-one-knows-anything-about-it? by Debra Williams

I would define the-good in that statement as necessity&justice.

This is 2021, and we have the benefit of humankind’s the-ineluctable-truth-discoveries since political-philosophers of the past had their suggestions reported (with then-woke corrections or not).

Appreciating a creative thinker as political-philosopher (PP) is a personal preference by a human reader who accepts their individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to form personal-opinion and gauge it by humble-integrity. Here are three suggestions about the-good in personal development:

First, a Sumerian PP 4.5 thousand years-ago (tya) suggested that the-God assigned to female&male-human-being the temporal responsibility to constrain chaos on earth; Genesis 1:27-28. The PP implies that the task is attainable since the-living humankind is in the-God’s image.

Second, a Greek PP 2.4 tya reportedly asked “Is the-good God, or is the-God good?”; “Euthyphro”.

Third, a Jewish PP 2 tya reportedly suggested the human-being can perfect their unique person; Matthew 5:48 and Matthew 6:1 (addressing your statement).

Connecting these three suggestions, the human-being in the-God’s image is intentionally developing the humble-integrity to perfect their unique person---privately practicing necessity&justice.

What do you think?  

FB add on: The-good: necessity&justice?

 

https://www.quora.com/What-are-universal-rules-and-guidelines-for-everyone? by Herman Hermans

I’d appreciate getting one rule on your list.

The individual who accepts being a human-being neither initiates nor tolerates injury to-or-from any person. Others tolerate infidelity to themselves.

Thank you for the opportunity.

FB add on: Avoiding infidelity to self.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-source-of-morality-among-humans-does-it-come-from-the-innate-survival-instinct-of-the-human-as-a-social-animal-or-from-an-external-something-someone-requiring-humans-to-behave-morally? by Samuel Yap

I think necessity&justice drive human integrity.

Interestingly, the newborn human-being cries when hungry and does not have enough innate survival instinct to independently find mom’s tit. It takes about a year for the child to walk. In contrast, a foal stands and walks in 1 hour and finds their mare’s tit in 3 hours. A thoroughbred horse peaks in 3 years, whereas a human-being requires a complete lifetime to perfect their unique person.

With encouragement&facilitation, the human-being can, in their first quarter century, acquire the comprehension&intention to live a chronologically&psychologically complete life. If so, the person accepts the individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to self.

In a culture the follows the above principles, fellow citizens know they are working to discover&benefit from physics&its-progeny rather than suffer in mystery. They accept that female&male-human-being is the only living species with the awareness and grammar by which to research the-ineluctable-evidence and learn to responsibly survive. For example, detection of an earthquake in the ocean is followed by tsunami warnings. People subject to the expected waves escape to higher ground. Less accepted is that civic-citizens never lie, expecting physics to eventually deliver the loss and misery that lies invite; herein “civic” refers to human-connection more than municipal-obedience.

However, much of the-ineluctable-truth is unknown. Some people construct theories to explain an unknown and, conducting failed research, develop mysteries to support the theory. Mysteries are harmless, as long as the mysteries are not believed as the-ineluctable-truth. It is alright to take comfort in salvation by a personal-God, as long as the believer retains sufficient humility toward the-God, whatever the-God may be.

Necessity&justice demand that each human being develop the personal integrity to neither initiate nor tolerate injury to or from any person or association. Vigilantism too often fails necessity, so civic-citizens provide a written law-enforcement system to constrain injustice. And they continually improve the system so as to approach statutory justice.

I think the civic-citizen behaves to aid the development of statutory justice in the human-being’s quest to benefit from physics&its-progeny.

What do you think?

FB add on: Necessity&justice drive the human quest for humble-integrity.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-worry-about-being-negatively-judged-when-you-speak-up-or-stand-for-what-you-believe-is-right? by Peter Coultas

No. But I developed self-appreciation only in my latest quarter-century.

First, I learned an aversion to “believing” anything. I wonder, research, experience, observe, think, and earn opinion but retain humility to the possibility I am wrong. I think many human-beings behave similarly, according to their unique past, methods, and preferences. Of course, not every person accepts that they are a human-being. Some think crime pays so chose to be a criminal.

Second, I have learned to clarify that I do not know much of the-ineluctable-truth. My purpose therein is to caution the other party that I am only expressing personal-opinion; I do not bore them with my work to gauge personal-integrity by humble-integrity, unless asked.

Third, I deny that people are naturally bad and initially consider (not assume) a stranger to be a human-being who also perceives self-interest-in mutual, comprehensive safety&security. I do not question their motive&inspiration to behave civically, where “civic” relates to human-connection more than to community compliance. If they are bad, they express it soon enough for me to withdraw.

Fourth, I read, write, speak, and LISTEN, in-order-to improve my responsible-human-independence rather than to impose on fellow-citizens who are not interested. In my dialogue, my opinion is my choice for me, even if the other party expresses an improvement I appreciate. With appreciation, I consider and may adopt their opinion---may change my opinion.

For example, I encouraged adherence to the-ethics-of physics until long-after the late Doug Johnson convinced me I had the cart before the horse:  In my words, the discovery of the-ineluctable-laws of physics&progeny plus adopting responsible-human-application creates the journal of human ethics. Thank you, Doug.

If it were not biased to the left (that’s my opinion rather than “my truth”), Wikipedia might be creating such a journal. With the help of search engines, quora.com, may be creating a good resource with biases plainly expressed. (Readers, please inform me of better resources.)

In another example, a Monsignor stonewalled me with “I love the Church too much to offer you The Host in remembrance rather than in transubstantiation. If you won’t join, we no longer have reason to meet and talk.” I responded, thank you very much. The next time we met, I talked baseball and the weather, and he was cordial.

Finally, a dear friend whose opinions I valued, said, “If you are to remain my friend, you will not approach me again to consider the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.” With acceptance, I told my dear wife that a former friend had announced acquaintance only. (She doesn’t stonewall my work, because she relies on me to plant and maintain the shrubs and flowers she buys.)

After 3 quarter-centuries taking my equal-opportunity to develop the unique-person my single-celled ovum&spermatozoon made possible, I urge fellow-citizens to study 3 global documents until they have an opinion about how they connect to proffer an achievable better future: the 4500 year old Sumerian political philosophy in Genesis 1:27-28, the founders’ 1776 declaration of military-war against England plus their 1778 appeal for French providence, and the framers’ 1787 constitution to order civic-discipline in the U.S. Only 39 of 55 framers became signers. Some of the 16 dissenters went on to aid re-establishing Anglo-American tyranny with the 1791 Bill of Rights to mimic the 1689 English imposition of Protestant Christianity.

Most fellow-citizens perceive they are too busy living their-way to take the time to discover the opportunity to develop responsible-human-independence the U.S. proffered in 1787. It’s their life, and I can only express my opinion, since I don’t know the-ineluctable-truth.

I write to learn and appreciate opportunity to respond to comments.

FB add on: It seems in a person’s self-interest to treasure hard-earned personal-opinion in civic-debate, unless another fellow-citizen attempts to either 1) impose their opinion on others or 2) consign their opinion to arbitrary authority. For example, some fellow-citizens erroneously agree that crime, racism, vigilantism, tyranny, and otherwise injuring human-beings rewards the individual.

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-society-is-currently-degrading-otherwise-possibly-on-the-downfall-to-something-worse-then-it-was? by Tyler Ainsworth

I think we are approaching the abyss and hope the long-needed assent will follow.

Bipeds-evolution began perhaps 7 million years ago, awareness to construct tools perhaps 3 million years ago, spiritualism perhaps 0.080 million years ago (80 thousand years ago), monotheism perhaps 4.5 thousand years ago, and competitive, Western-Christianity about 514 years ago.

A Sumerian political philosopher suggested that the-God he followed had assigned to female&male-human-being the independent responsibility flourish and order events on earth.

In 2021, the suggestion seems like necessity&justice appealing to the individual human-being to constrain chaos in their way of living.

I work daily to convince people to consider the suggestion and further to consider my assertion that the reference, Genesis 1:27-28 effectively separates church from state, church being the-God’s realm and safety&security female&male-human-being’s independent responsibility.

Further, the combination of the 1776 Declaration and the 1787 U.S. Constitution comport to public discipline in order to encourage and facilitate responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”.

I think U.S. citizens should be required to 1) write what the preamble to the U.S. Constitution means to them to obtain a license-to-vote and to 2) update their statement every 10 years to renew their license.

The opportunity to develop responsible-human-independence is a self-interest to the human-being, and the right to vote hinges on accepting the human-being’s individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity by which to gauge personal-integrity.

If developments like license-to-vote come from the current diverging chaos, the entity We the People of the United States face an achievable better future, and the world will be glad.

Now, let me find what you wrote.

https://www.quora.com/When-a-law-is-unjust-is-it-the-right-thing-to-disobey? by Jose Felipe Gil

Absolutely not, even for Supreme Court justices.

I think of the individual who personally interprets the law as a vigilante.

Necessity&justice requires every human-being to constrain chaos in their way of living. Persons who accept this responsible-human-independence (RHI) behave to develop statutory justice, by influencing amendment of written-law-enforcement that is found to be unjust. Vigilantes are found in all walks of life: the public, the Congress, the Court, and the Administration.

Every human being has the potential to develop their individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) in-order-to behave with RHI. But not every person accepts being a responsible human-being. Some develop a dependent way of living: gaming welfare, crime, tyranny, terrorism, evil, and worse. Therefore, citizens who behave for RHI, civic-citizens, must constrain dependent fellow-citizens, in-order-to encourage and facilitate their reform and thus corporate reform.

HIPEA is so powerful that fellow-citizens who prefer dependency constantly invent new practices. Therefore, legal systems inevitably lag statutory justice. Unfortunately, some of the fellow-citizens who most egregiously act as vigilantes are Supreme Court Justices. I doubt many of them possess a personal interpretation of the people’s proposition in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. I consider the preamble proffered public discipline, proposed to encourage and facilitate responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”.

Take for example the Court’s recent, egregious 6:3 opinion that individual-states must provide 12:0 criminal-jury verdicts (Ramos v Louisiana, 2020). The U.S. quest for justice based on the-ineluctable-evidence is competitively argued by the prosecution versus the defense and renders the unanimous-jury-verdict unjust. Only if a civic-people was willing to pay exorbitant cost could the court stall procedural injustice until statutory justice is rendered.

A civic people continuously research in-order-to improve law-enforcement methods. About 40 years ago, the use of DNA in matching crime perpetrators with their victims was introduced, and today it is well established.

There are fellow-citizens who game the legal system by “believing” DNA-evidence to exonerate accused associates and “misbelieving” DNA-evidence for conviction. The consequential injustice is guaranteed with unanimous jury-verdicts and lessened with majority verdicts, such as 7:5, closer to Supreme Court 5:4 opinions.

Louisiana established 9:3 verdicts in 1880 to improve statistical impartiality when a jury is biased 50%;50%. England adopted a 10:2 majority verdict in 1967, reforming their centuries-old unanimous requirement. With majority verdicts, a jury of 11 DNA-evidence observers with 1 DNA-gamer can render a just verdict. With 9:3 verdicts, there can be 3 DNA-gamers.

Likewise, a jury comprised of 6 criminals and 6 civic-citizens may render 7:5 justice rather than hung-jury  or other injustice to civic-citizens.

In a culture with the intentions for the continuum “ourselves and our Posterity” to constitutionally pursue statutory justice, the opinion “Such nonunanimous procedural rules are unconstitutional . . . because the prevailing public meaning in 1791 of “trial by jury” always and everywhere meant only a unanimous jury verdict, based on “400 years” of English common-law practice, colonial agreement at ratification, some Founding-era state constitutions, and court practices at the time” is tyranny. DNA-evidence was not available in 1791, and Louisiana’s French influence was not possible until their statehood in 1812. Louisiana brilliance regarding Amendment VI impartiality with 9:3 verdicts came in 1880 rather than in the Court-alleged 1898 “white supremacy” convention. The Court selects both cases to consider and facts to deliberate. Ramos vs Louisiana is 700% more unjust to black-skinned fellow-citizens, who suffer disproportionate crime rates.

Many people are too busy living to think through issues like the Court’s tyranny in applying fourteenth century English common law to bully twenty-second century states. It’s this easy: English-law precedents are voided by the 1787 U.S. Constitution and its preamble. Unfortunately, we are all subject to the injustice of unanimous jury-verdicts imposed by the Court’s 6:3 tyranny.

Thank goodness, the 3 dissenters give hop of Court reform in the future. Meanwhile, dissenters like me will observe the law while we urge reform.

FB add on: It is important for fellow-citizens to oppose vigilantes, including some Supreme Court justices.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-selfish-not-to-fight-for-your-rights? by Blake Bollinger

I don’t think so.

But there is only one right for which I fight: the right to pursue humble-integrity, in-order-to gauge my personal-integrity. Otherwise, I express my opinion. For example, FDR’s four freedoms intend to gull the human being.

That does not mean I don’t express opposition to injury by any person to another person or self. Nor does it mean I would not use one of my guns or other strength to defend my home and family. It means no one can persuade me to believe or join their association intended to arbitrarily constrain the individual human-being. I work daily to persuade fellow-citizens to amend, before 2022, the U.S. First Amendment from promoting religious-opinion to encouraging and facilitating civic-integrity.

My method of pursuit is to experience&observe, read, write, speak, and LISTEN in-order-to either discover&responsibly-use the-ineluctable-truth or maintain my newborn status from three quarter-centuries ago: “I don’t know” (what I don’t know).

After 3 quarter-centuries, no person or association can persuade me to profess what I don’t know. I think the political philosophy of humble-integrity can be inculcated in youth and beyond so as to create the possible politics rather than a “next best”. In such a culture, most citizens would understand why human-beings who reject humble-integrity suffer constraint to maintain necessity&justice.

If someone asked me if they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (1776 declaration of war against England), I’d respond, life and happiness cannot be offered by either the-God of necessity&justice nor government nor “the good People” of this land. Further, liberty is license bestowed by the victor in war and can be easily revoked. Therefore, it is better to accept responsible-human-independence (RHI). If they asked how to acquire RHI, I’d answer: experience&observe, read, write, speak, and LISTEN in-order-to either discover&responsibly-use the-ineluctable-truth or maintain newborn status: What’s that?

If someone asked me if a culture using the above principles has been proposed on earth, I’d answer: yes. Amending “Blessings of Liberty”, which is too often taken as license to injure fellow-citizens, to “opportunity to develop RHI”, the amendable 1787 U.S. Constitution proffers a culture of humble-integrity. Its purpose is 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” encourage and facilitate responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”. The preamble offers no standards for the disciplines, leaving it to the continuum “oursevels and our Posterity” to approach if not attain statutory justice. Since religion is excluded from the public disciplines, it is left to the individual-human-being to choose their motivation&inspiration.

If someone asked me if the 1776 Declaration and 1787 Constitution reflect an ancient thought, I’d answer that a Sumerian political philosopher perhaps 4,500 years ago suggested, as recorded in Genesis 1:27-28 and in 2021 interpretation, that of necessity&justice, female&male-human-being must constrain chaos on earth.

I’d be grateful to learn your opinions about my views and the three historical-documents I cite.  

FB add on: Fight the right to pursue humble-integrity.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-chronological-order-of-Socrates-Plato-and-Aristotle-What-were-their-major-contributions/answer/Phil-Beaver-1 Comment by Mark Chandos

Mr. Chandos, I added my appreciations to you today on the post at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com. Your comments are provocative and you motivated me to discover the rest of an Otto von Bismarck (d. 1898) quote:   “. . . the art of the next best” regarding politics as the possible.

Judges and lawyers praise Western law as a consequence of the Magna Carta, 1215. However, they practice the Machiavellianism(s) expressed in “The Prince” (written 1513, published 1532). They use England’s Glorious Revolution and its 1689 Bill of Rights (stipulating a Protestant monarchy) to justify Machiavelli’s Chapter XI irony:  In a church-state-partnership, the clergy and politicians live high on the hog and the citizens neither rebel nor expatriate, inculcating in their young their hope that their-God will eventually save them from the misery and loss. Machiavelli presented an example in which the Church eventually reigns. Interestingly, judges, lawyers, clergy, and legal-scholars never mention Chapter XI Machiavellianism. They persuade citizens to ignore responsible-human-independence (RHI) and await a personal-God to relieve the misery and loss.

The 1787 U.S. Constitution assigs to privacy the individual citizen’s motivational beliefs. Some citizens do not perceive the humble-integrity required for RHI. However, a few citizens accept the human-being’s individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity rather than tolerate infidelity to self.

I think I know some people who practice civic-integrity, hope their-God fulfills their hopes against the unknown, and sincerely have no objections to fellow-civic-citizens’ differing personal-Gods. I would not interview them about their private inspirations. But I appreciate their civic-integrity.

The First Congress, in 1789, should have comprehended, assimilated, encouraged, and facilitated the humble-integrity the combination of the 1776 declaration of war for independence from England and the 1787 U.S. laws for public discipline of, by, and for the continuum “ourselves and our Posterity”. Instead, they re-instated Anglo-American, Chapter XI Machiavellianism, codifying it with the 1791 First Amendment’s religion clauses. Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has exacerbated the tyranny with opinions like Greece v Galloway (2014); my concerns are niggling to them.

China is not going to shoot the horse that’s feeding them and would not prevail if they did. However, U.S. chaos is now divergent, so we need our own reform. The 2021 “oursevels and our Posterity” could . . . should amend the First Amendment to encourage and facilitate civic-integrity instead of civil-religious-opinion, before 2022 ushers in.

Religious opinion is not “next best” to civic integrity. Dependency on personal-God or government is not “next best” to responsible-human-independence.

Mr. Chandos, thank you again for your comment, and what do you think about these additional considerations?

Updates for December 7, 2016 post

I read my December 7, 2016 post on April 20, 2021 to consider response to Mark Chandros’s welcome expression of concern. Since 12/7/16 a few of my ideas have changed, thanks to growing reader-idea-contributions, and I did not want to update the original post. I write about 4 new views:

First, civil “liberty” seems practiced as license that is arbitrarily bestowed (blessed) by the victor in war and willfully demanded by destruction, injury, and murder. Also, its “solidarity” enslaves gullible “brothers”, who risk constraint, imprisonment, perhaps execution. Recall the bloody revolution’s motto: liberty, equality, brotherhood. Therefore, I advocate “responsible-human-independence” rather than either liberty or freedom. I suggest the “ourselves and our Posterity” retitle the French gift in New York Harbor “The Statue of Independence”, consistent with 1787 U.S. civic-intentions affirming 1776 war-intentions.

Second, “the rule of law” is praised as a historical consequence of England’s “Glorious Revolution” of 1688. The U.S. suffers the tyranny of some Supreme Court justices preserving British precedent at the expense of U.S. intentions to develop statutory justice rather than arbitrary-law enforcement. The 1787 U.S. Constitution proposes five public disciplines with no standards to facilitate the continuum “ourselves and our Posterity” to discover statutory justice. Of course, that is my view, but anyone who studies the documents can reach their conclusion, and it may be similar.

Humankind works to discover and responsibly utilize the laws of physics&progeny, including biology, psychology, and imagination that comports to physics rather than metaphysics.

Third, the 1787 U.S.-public-disciplines exclude religion, implying that the individual-human-being is free to decide their choice of motivation&inspiration and trust&commitment in the necessary&just demand that they constrain chaos in their way of living and thereby aid humankind’s responsibility to provide peace on earth. (This human-independence was expressed by a Sumerian political philosopher and recorded in Genesis 1:27–28 and affirmed in the 1776 declaration of war for independence.)

Fourth, while Agathon wrote about “force”, which I changed to “harm”, I now think “injury” has more impact.

As always, please comment.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-okay-to-openly-criticize-woke-cancel-culture? by Ricky Anarion

I think so.

It is especially important to neither initiate nor tolerate injury to any person or their property.

It is also important to note that woke-cancel practices begin with religion and cannot be disguised with civil “freedom of religion” when what the human-individual needs, in self-interest, is responsible-human-independence by which to develop humble-integrity so as to gauge their personal-integrity.

The “ourselves and our Posterity” of 2021 need to oust from elected and appointed office clergy&politicians who take both sides---secular woke-cancel and religious woke-power.

The citizen who has not the integrity to vote in self-interest ought to be presented the U.S. preamble and the opportunity to interpret it according to the way of living they are developing. If they decline or make no sense, they lose their license to vote and are on notice to reform their regard for citizenship.

The necessity&justice of responsible-human-independence seems self-evident in this U.S. age of divergent chaos.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-can-we-make-sense-of-influential-movements-organizations-and-campaigns-without-an-equal-attention-to-those-that-lacked-influence? by Lawson Shepherd

I appreciate your concern and offer my support to those who at last lack impact: their opportunity to independently establish civic integrity has passed. If they now accept responsible-human-independence (RHI) as self-interest and “do the right thing” it will be to assuage the coalition that previously lacked influence. I encourage them to take this opportunity to establish RHI.

I absolutely oppose woke&stonewalling violence, destruction, injury, and murder. We are fellow citizens, after all. However, I also oppose the imposition of “freedom of religion”, Protestantism Judeo-Christianity, a Catholic-dominated Court, English-law precedent, and the 1787 U.S. unconstitutionality of imposing civil-religion when citizens require civic-integrity. U.S. psychological tyranny is shocking!

It’s another case of political ends don’t justify legislative means. I refer here to the reinstatement of U.S. psychological dependency on English, Chapter XI Machiavellianism, 7 years after French military-providence helped the 13 British colonies win their war for the people’s independence (not liberty bestowed by the victor in war). The 1787 U.S. Constitution proffers the civic-disciplines for RHI to the continuum “ourselves and our Posterity”. The 1791 First Amendment bemuses 1787-public-discipline.

The 1789 Congress created a factional-American-religion-Congress-partnership to compete with the Canterbury-Parliament-English-“divinity”. Congress codified legislative tyranny with the 1791 First Amendment, and the Court has increased the hubris against necessity&justice ever since. The Court’s 2014 opinion in Greece v Galloway holds my objections to be “niggling”. I assert that I am addressing the obvious: neither the-God nor government will usurp the individual’s self-interested duty to constrain chaos in their way of living nor their opportunity to risk abdicating responsible-self-interest.

To originate reform so as to establish the 1787 U.S. intentions, we, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” must amend the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate individual-humble-integrity rather than impose civil-religious-opinion.

Mr. Shepherd, if any of this comports with your experiences and observations, please think of how this U.S. opportunity can be made a happening, perhaps as soon as 2022. Either way, what is your opinion about my concerns?

FB add on: At last, the entity We the People of the United States (formerly "the good People of these Colonies) has the immediate opportunity to establish the-necessary&just responsible-human-independence (Genesis 1:27-28) that remains proffered in the 1787 U.S. Constitution. It is a privilege that we, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” can make it happen.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-tradition-so-important-for-some-peoples-political-ideology? Comment by Karlan Demmin

I appreciate your concerns (I changed former personal-opinion) and hope you can propose a way to establish what was proffered in the United States in 1787: I think, responsible-human-independence (RHI). RHI, a civic-self-interest was distracted&repressed by “separation of church and state” as “freedom of religion”.

In my post, I didn’t write anything about the 1776 reference to “Creator” but can share my opinion, at this point in my search for the-ineluctable-truth, most of which is unknown.

First, Phil-Beaver-worship-and-praise did not influence origination of my ovum, or my spermatozoon, or my embryo. Likewise, I make no claim to power, energy, and authority to bargain with doctrinal-God for salvation of my mind, body, and person during my afterdeath: the vast time after those three entities stop functioning. Consequently, my first concern is that capitalizing “creator” seems an act of ignorant, arrogant confusion; hubris. It is Western European if not pure English imposition of doctrine about theism. And therein represents Anglo-American pride; America’s psychological-dependency&cowardice.

Second, even though a Sumerian political philosopher perhaps 4500 years ago claimed that his-God controls events, the philosopher expressed necessity&justice: female&male-human-being is charged to-independently-establish order-on-earth; peace.

Appreciating the research&discovery humankind has accomplished since then, I perceive events are controlled by the laws of physics and its progeny, including biology and psychology. The physics-unknowns empower imagination-to develop metaphysics. But eventually the construct yields to physics. That is why civic-people never lie: they expect physics to deliver lie-invited misery and loss.

I think potential energy is the source of physics&its-progeny. But for all I know Jesus is the-God of the Sumerian philosopher’s God, 2500 years before Jesus was born and 700 years before Abraham was born. I am sincere when I write “for all I know”; and am prepared to be judged by Jesus in my afterdeath.

Focusing on Genesis 1:27-28, we read in the New Testament that Jesus said a few mysterious things: be perfect; render unto government . . .; before Abraham “I AM”. Regardless of church doctrine, I perceive evidence of Jesus’ lessen/message before Jesus’s was born. Thus, I imagine Jesus influenced the Sumerian philosopher. If so, the Genesis 1 message is valid: by accepting responsibility to constrain chaos on earth, people are accepting Jesus’s message: they can and should perfect their unique person. If so, humankind can approach perfection. The message also holds if physics is the-God of events.

It seems evident that the newborn human-being is pure. If reared with encouragement and facilitation to develop the humble-integrity required for responsible-human-independence, they can choose to perfect their unique person before their afterdeath begins, yet are free to pursue infidelity if they don’t perceive the self-interest of humble-integrity.

What humankind needs is a culture that advocates these principles. A perhaps sufficient proposal was proffered in the 1787 U.S. Constitution. It negates the Anglo-American hubris that a civic-citizen must first be a theist and if not a theist, a believer, and if not a believer, a subject of the church, and if not of the-church, of a church. But not an Eastern Orthodox Church, or an Oriental Orthodox Church, or many of the other non-Western Christian churches. The 1776 declaration tolerated differing theism, maintaining theistic division of humankind, while the 1787 U.S. Constitution assigned religion to the adult-individual’s privacy.

It takes courage for the individual human-being to accept the challenge of perfecting their person before their afterdeath, meanwhile responsibly pursuing a religion for hope against mysteries, such as death. What the U.S. has not yet accepted is that the Lord discouraged cowards. The U.S. must terminate its dependency on obsolete English precedent, whether it be unanimous-jury-verdicts imposed on states by a 6:3 Court opinion, reformed-Catholicism, Judeo-Christianity, or any other failure by legislators and Justices to accept responsible-human-independence as fellow-citizens rather than as tyrants.

Mr. Demmin, I hope you have empathy for these concerns and remedies: how can they be established in one of the world’s countries, if not in the U.S.?

FB add on: The majority is, after all, part of female&male-human-being and by necessity&justice responsible to frankly consider the minority-coalition's woke&stonewalling-movement. For 234 years, the U.S. has suffered the imposition (tolerant-stonewalling) of English, reformed-Catholic (factional-Protestant?) Anglo-American-religious-tyranny. It is time to amend the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate the humble-integrity needed for responsible-human-independence.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-a-good-thing-that-the-world-is-not-fair? by Amy Potter

You have a good question. I think the word choices are erroneously influenced by the “scholarship” of John Rawls; see https://www.jstor.org/stable/24354129?seq=1, skip Rawls’ book, and oppose speakers who try to equivocate justice. Here’s why:

Both necessity and justice inform every human-being to serve their self-interest by developing the humble-integrity needed for responsible-human-independence (RHI). Unfortunately most civilizations don’t inculcate those principles to their youth, and egregious fellow-citizens bemuse their civilization with reason that is faulty if not perverted. Physics-and-its-progeny does not respond to reason.

I’m a chemical engineer, married to one woman and 3 children for life. Nonetheless, I have a view of the political philosophy proffered some 4,500 years ago by a Sumerian thinker. Genesis 1:27-28 asserts that necessity (due to higher psychological powers than other living species) demands female&male-human-being to independently constrain chaos on earth. In other words, neither the-God (whatever-it-may-be), nor government, nor humankind can usurp the human-individual’s responsibility to discipline self.

If there were a RHI-utopia, it could be ruined by either humanity or an individual equivocating justice.

To constrain chaos on earth, the civic culture must limit human-dependency: nourishing banal, carnal appetites like drugs and sex; committing crime; aiding tyranny; terrorizing fellow citizens; and worse. Therefore, citizens who develop RHI aid discovery&enactment of statutory justice. That is, as unjust-written-law-enforcement is discovered, it is amended so as to approach if not attain justice.

A culture of humble-integrity may seem unattainable. I think that is only because it has never been tried.

Revising the word “liberty” (license bestowed by the war victor) to “responsible-human-independence”, the 1787 U.S. Constitution, together with the 1776 declaration of war for independence from English-law proffers such a culture. In the amendable law, the entity We the People of the United States holds both their state and the union of states accountable to statutory justice to the continuum “ourselves and our Posterity”.

The preamble proffers public discipline that consigns to privacy anyone’s choice to pursue a religion. We the People of the United States encourage and facilitate 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” develop responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”.

We, the “ourselves and our Posterity” of 2021 have self-interest in amending the First Amendment so as to encourage and facilitate civic integrity rather than civil religious-opinion.

There’s justice in physics-and-its-progeny not yielding to human constructs like John Rawls’ “justice” and religion’s mysteries.

FB add on: Confronting John Rawls’ “justice”.

https://www.quora.com/Is-an-eye-for-an-eye-still-a-viable-option-in-our-world? by Bill Sands

I don’t think so. Vigilantism nourishes injustice, and mutilation increases dependency.

Necessity demands that human-beings constrain chaos on earth. But not all human-beings constrain chaos. Therefore, part of their work to constrain chaos is to constrain dissidents.

The civic citizen neither initiates nor tolerates injury to or from any fellow citizen. They aid the development of statutory justice.

When they suffer injury, they report to law-enforcement for determination of guilt and any punishment due the perpetrator. Only when stoppable injury is imminent should the civic citizen police an incident. When the prevented-incident ends, law-enforcement should be informed.

What do you think?

Bill Sands:

i think it helps to hear differing opinions and then come to a conclusion one person said an interestng thing at the time eye for eye was written it was writen not as license but as constrant as revenge was unrestrained it was too limit people to a measured response i fond that interesting, and am interested in how the concept of revenge is evolving in modern society i grew up in a mob town it was a rough place with rough justice

do times change do people change ? let us hope they do or will some day

Phil responds:

I see your point and am glad I asked.

Connery says “Well . . . the Lord hates a coward.” I relate to that.

My obsession these days is to persuade U.S. citizens to consider the demands of both necessity and justice: to constrain chaos in personal living.

Few fellow-citizens accept the demands and therefore tolerate infidelity during their lifetimes. This is so, because of their failure to separate church and state. They wait for their doctrinal-God to usurp their responsible-human-independence (RHI).

Both government and the-God make it plain that humankind must independently develop RHI, even though some fellow-citizens prefer dependency—-drugs, sex, crime, tyranny, terrorism, theism, etc.

Governments that partner with theism inculcate in their youth and beyond a lifetime hope for a higher power that will relieve the excesses of clergy and politicians; relieve the tyranny. This evil is described in Machiavellian irony (to protect his life, I think) in “The Prince”, Chapter XI.

Neither the 1776 declaration of war against England nor the 1787 U.S. law suggests the civil imposition of theism. The 1787 Constitution proffers five public disciplines—-integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” develop responsible-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”. Neither religion nor theism is included in the disciplines.

However, Congress, with hubris against necessity and justice, created a religion-Congress-partnership starting in March, 1789, and codified the tyranny with the 1791 First Amendment.

A Sumerian political philosopher perhaps 4500 years ago suggested that the-God assigned to female&male-human-being the independent responsibility to constrain chaos on earth. See Genesis 1:27–28.

If the fellow-citizens who want RHI wish to legally challenge 234 years of stonewalling the 1787 U.S. Constitution, we must amend the First Amendment so as to encourage and facilitate humble-integrity rather than theistic-hubris.

The Lord will not usurp the power assigned to female&male-human-being.

Thank you, Mr. Sands, for sharing.

Notable writers I won’t read

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11324722-the-righteous-mind (deciding not to buy “The Righteous Mind”

It seems Jonathan Haidt recommends fellow citizens tolerate and nourish each other’s emotions rather than encourage and facilitate responsible-human-independence. I strongly disagree.

 

 

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.