Belief yields to earned-opinion

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

Earned opinion about the-ineluctable-truth is stronger than belief

The classical liberal believes-in liberty, if they regulate the licenses.

The religious conservative believes-in the-God, whatever-that-may be.

The fiscal conservative believes human-kind requires responsible-independence.

The democrat believes-in power of a coalition of minorities if not their majority.

The republican believes-in “the rule of law” as long as they regulate the laws.

The capitalist believes-in reward for risking the provision of needs.

The socialist/communist/religious believes-in dependency.

The civic citizen pursues humble-integrity, in order-to practice RHI: responsible-human-independence.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/In-your-own-words-what-are-personal-values? by Eby Cadiz

The human infant is totally unaware of the happiness they prefer. Their parents or caretakers share opinion about the happiness they could seek, having no idea of the future the infant faces.

With encouragement&facilitation, the person develops from infancy to maturity personal opinion about the happiness they want rather than the image anyone else has for them.

Intending personal happiness, they then know the behaviors they value. Some people want dependency such as crime or tyranny: others want responsible-human-independence.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-example-of-Western-self-as-individualistic? by Kiminiah Jose

This is to show the consequence of an individual accepting 1) that they are a unique human-being, 2) that they have the opportunity to develop humble-integrity by which to measure their honesty, and 3) that their purpose is to perfect their unique person before their body&mind stop functioning. These are the acceptances I am nurturing in my third quarter-century.

When I was about 12, I didn’t know it, but I initiated individual trust-in&commitment-to the-ineluctable-truth. Physics&its progeny, including biology&psychology are constrained by the-laws of-physics, and female&male-human-being, able to discern necessity&justice, are charged to discover&responsibly-use the-ineluctable-evidence.

My mom and dad were such good providers, and I am so stubborn: I tried, into my fifth decade, to be the Southern Baptist each wanted me to be. Half of that half-century I was married to my wonderful wife, whom I have wooed for 53 years. Again, I did not know it at first, but her serene-confidence attracted me to her. I attended pre-Cana, bought a Catholic Catechism book, and attended both Mass and Baptist services for about 2 decades, never attending communion (to this day).

Three decades ago, I thought it would be nice to attend with my family, and approached a monsignor, whose homilies I enjoyed, and asked him to provide me a wafer in Remembrance rather than Transubstantiation. After several weeks of discussion, he concluded that he loved the Church too much to bend its rules. I would have to convert to Catholicism. If not, we had no reason to meet again. The next and last time I saw him, I struck up a conversation about baseball.

My wife&I formed a spouse hood on mutual trust&commitment, not to change each other. She maintained fidelity in self-interest and so did I. Thereby, I discovered how fortunate I am that none of those Protestant girls I courted accepted me. They could not accept me as I was, but my wife did, and I am the luckiest man alive: comprehending Phil Beaver and appreciating Cynthia is still in progress.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-live-in-a-world-of-such-terrible-injustice? by Volevach Nickolay

I don’t know the-ineluctable-truth, but it seems to me this world is on a journey toward statutory justice. That is to say, as the-human-beings discover injustice to fellow citizens they carefully improve their-written law-enforcement-system so as to approach statutory justice. If so, this is not a world of terrible injustice.

Fellow-citizens who accept that they are human-beings behave and encourage&facilitate reform to dissident fellow-citizens. Being a human-being requires responsible-independence in order to personally develop humble-integrity. This is because neither the source of creation nor the government will usurp the fellow-citizen’s opportunity to develop responsible-human-independence (RHI). There will always be fellow-citizens who do not accept RHI as a self-interest and consequently develop dependency such as crime, tyranny, or worse against fellow-citizens.

The fellow-citizen who constrains chaos in their way of living can live happily in this world, because there are many fellow-citizens who are likewise responsibly pursuing the happiness they desire rather than submitting to the vision someone else has for them. Constraining chaos in life seems personally appealing, whereas self-discipline seems like an imposition.

Additionally, appreciation seems more appealing than love of fellow-citizens or other entities that deserve privacy. Even agape is unappealing to the subject who does not feel worthy. However, appreciation is desired when it is earned.

These principles are not at all new. Agathon, in Plato’s “Symposium”, about 460 BC, suggested, in my 2021 view:  The civic fellow-citizen neither initiates nor accommodates injury to-or-from any human-being. When injury occurs, the civic citizen does all they can do to repair or restore the injury and aids to amend the system so that it does not re-occur.

With 2/3 of fellow-citizens constraining chaos in their personal ways of living rather than accommodating infidelity, an achievable better future would emerge.

https://evolvopedia.quora.com/Shouldnt-other-great-apes-be-given-at-least-some-of-the-human-rights? by Tamer Aydogdu

I am attentive-to and will share my opinion to the question, “Under law, should great apes be treated as persons?” “Persons” is key to my interest and a suggestion I will articulate: Should a human-being who has earned the death penalty be treated as a person?

Apes should be treated not as persons, but as animals.

The human-being accepts the necessity&justice to pursue responsible-personal-independence (RPI) and is thereby developing a person. Other great apes have not the human individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop the humble-integrity required for RPI.

Psychological evolution follows physical evolution, and within Anthrapoidea evolution, genus Gorilla divided about 10 million years ago, then genus Pan 7 million years ago, leaving hominins. Their 9-step evolution led to homo Sapiens about 300 thousand years ago. See for  example, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/chimps-belong-on-human-branch-of-family-tree-study-says.

Not every human-being accepts their responsibilities-to necessity&justice. Persons (the people) behave to constrain opponents-to necessity&justice and to encourage&facilitate their reform. Should a human-being who uses HIPEA to not reform from irresponsibility&injustice be treated as a person? I don’t think so.

Uninformed as I am, I think people who behave as an opposite of human-being---animal, plant, mineral, or metaphysic entity---ought not be counted as a person.

One other point, derived from your reference “under law”. The-law your question suggest derives from physics and its progeny including psychology. Human legal-constructs attempt to use metaphysics to skip the hard work of discovering the-ineluctable-truth.

The system in the U.S. is laughable:  Legislators attempt to hold their opinions as worthy of debate and the nine judges debate obsolete precedent to represent their majority-vote as supreme. The human-being is too powerful for this legislative&judicial tyranny. The-ineluctable-evidence is that in only 234 years, “We the People of the United States” has accommodated the development of chaos in the U.S. The notion that “the rule of law” can undo physics is as obsolete at John-Locke-English-philosophy.

I learned from your question, made profound by the word “person”, and express appreciation at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.

Usual FB add on: None:  As of May 25, 2021, Facebook’s Community-Standards-agents made my comments invisible to others, so henceforth I will not post on FB. I think FB is the loser, due to their committee’s retreat into Plato’s cave. I happily accept their censorship.

https://www.quora.com/Do-humans-tend-to-behave-strangely-when-they-are-free? by Shigeki Akanuma

I don’t know.

I think “freedom” is misleading in that it is a condition that is granted to a human-being under any of arbitrary-authority, coercion, or force. I think the human condition at birth is dependence-to-live and independence-to-develop the newborn’s person during life. Unfortunately few families and almost no cultures operate under that principle.

The predominant civilizations inculcate lifelong-pursuit of a higher power that would usurp the person’s ineluctable opportunity to responsible self-interest. In reality, there is no entity that usurps the individual’s opportunity. Responsible-human-independence (RHI) springs from the human-being’s acceptance of the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to acquire&practice humble-integrity to the-ineluctable-truth. Under the vagaries of physics&its-progeny, many persons who discover HIPEA use it for crime.

In a culture that encourages&facilitates RHI, civic-citizens who practice humble-integrity influence dissidents to reform and pay the bills to execute and improve statutory justice, eventually approaching perfect law-enforcement.

People who develop and practice RHI are atypical in this strange world, yet we often encounter such people. They cannot articulate the excellence they are living because it has not been promoted . . . before.

RHI is proposed in the 1787 U.S. Constitution and repressed by Congress’s 1791 Bill of Rights.

FB add on: The civic fellow-citizen, who is responsibly-independent, accepts neither a bestowal of freedom nor a license to liberty.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-necessary-elements-which-qualify-one-to-judge-others-justly? by Idris Abdullah

I don’t know. I think it is not possible for a human-being to judge another.

A human-being’s behavior can be assessed under the demand that a person neither initiate nor accommodate injury to-or-from another person or association of people.

https://www.quora.com/Human-beings-to-be-or-not-to-be-free-Is-that-the-question-Which-philosopher-was-more-right? by Dan Popescu

Which philosopher suggests responsible-human-independence to “ourselves and our Posterity”?

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-collectivism-and-individualism-are-inherently-ethically-neutral? by Andrew Martin

I don’t think so, except as a metaphysical utopia, neither of which seems reliable.

Humankind, is controlled by physics&its-progeny. That is to say the laws of physics control psychology, including deception.

Physics produces some individuals so alike they may be grouped as a species, for example, the genus cat is in the animal species. However, within the species there are statistical variations, and every cat is unique.

Humans are in a class with apes, but have the distinction of language&grammar by which to responsibly pursue private happiness. For example, many 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” privately&publically behave for necessity&justice and vote for fellow-citizens who encourage&facitlitate responsible-human-independence (RHI). They accept being human and thereby having the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop the humble-integrity needed for RHI.

But not every fellow-citizen accepts being human. Some use RHI to develop infidelity to the self-interest of humble-integrity. Because of the statistical variations in physics and its progeny, biology&psychology, there will always be a need to constrain criminals and facilitate their reform.

I speculate that the current inhabitants are split about 1/6 developing humble-integrity, 1/12 developing crime, and ¾ bemused by collective distractions from RHI, such as the liberty bestowed by the victor in war or elections. If each individual would decide to develop fidelity to the-ineluctable-truth rather than accommodate infidelity to self, the inhabitants might become split by thirds and fellow-citizens who encourage&facilitate RHI might develop to 2/3, achieving a possible better future.

Developments after that might approach a culture of RHI, but there may always be a need for statutory justice.

The decision to constrain chaos in public&private way of living distinguishes the individual in their local culture as well as on earth.

I write to learn, so please comment.

FB add on: Collectivism cannot equal individualism.

https://wonder.quora.com/What-is-a-social-construct? by Rich Kutney

Fortunately both Google and Merriam-Webster-Online define well-used phrases. The latter has “an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society”.

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.