The quest for reliable truth

 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 Born a fellow-citizen, I choose to join We the People of the United States and aid 5 public disciplines---integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” establish and maintain 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 quest for reliable truth

I think the word “truth” is inadequate to help humankind pursue collective reliability and fidelity to self. I use “the-ineluctable-truth” to offer dialogue. The hyphens invite the other party to address the three-word phrase rather than drop a component. “The” adds specificity. “Ineluctable” means “not to be alienated, changed, or resisted”. The phrase expresses that I do not offer “Phil’s truth”. Nevertheless, I often write that I don’t know the-ineluctable-truth.

I write to learn suggestions that could improve precision and accuracy of “the-ineluctable-truth” or better.

Quora

https://www.quora.com/Can-we-learn-anything-from-our-history-as-a-nation? by Jim Killeen

I doubt it, but work on it anyway.

The problem is this: The political philosophy that female&male-humankind can&must independently provide order&fruitfulness to the living species and to the earth is 5,000 years old. However, civilizations, cultures, nations, and individuals continue to seek a higher power that will usurp responsible-human-independence (RHI).

In 1782, the USA adopted the motto “E Pluribus Unum”. It can be applied to the-God, in order to accommodate theisms, ideologies, commitment to the-ineluctable-evidence --- whatever necessity&justice seems to require, in the responsible-individual’s view. Thereby, no civic-citizen is expected to impose personal spirituality on another.

So far, it seems no one is interested in the-ineluctable-truth.

In fact, in 1956, “E Pluribus Unum” was forsaken for “In God We Trust”.

The 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” can reform by amending the First Amendment to encourage&facilitate civic RHI instead of civil-religious-beliefs.

https://www.quora.com/Benjamin-Franklin-said-Whatever-is-begun-in-anger-ends-in-shame-What-do-you-think-of-Franklins-sage-advice? by Graham C Lindsay

I think the quote is too vague to have impact.

A civic-citizen acts on emotions by evaluating the cause, assessing necessity and options for action, choosing the action that ought to deliver justice, and planning for success.

In general, the prudent person is driven by necessity&justice more than by emotions. The emotion of seeing a loyal-British colonist killed by red coats can motivate other colonists to exonerate the-God from their plan to kill red coated fellow-subjects from hiding rather ethically squared off.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-politics-of-bigotry-and-how-does-it-affect-a-true-democracy/answer/Phil-Beaver-1?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=25255547872&comment_id=217013800&comment_type=2? by Donald Pierce comment

Mr. Pierce, thank you for your views.

The-God, whatever it is, determines whether/not the believer turns their back so as to favor their personal-God, a circular commitment.

Yes. We, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” can&must revise the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate civic humble-integrity rather than civil religious-pride.

I’m glad that you perceive me an independent thinker, and hope you additionally perceive me as not-knowing and open-hearted. My theory is not scientism at all. Rather I assert that the-ineluctable-truth is discovered by researching the-ineluctable-evidence. It does not yield to reason, as John Locke asserted.

John Adams was a Tory and the author of the 1788 cabal to restore Anglo-American negation of the 1787 Constitution’s commitment: to develop statutory justice to be continually determined by the continuum “ourselves and our Posterity” including legal immigrants and theirs. The entity We the People of the United States is we living citizens who are obligated to 2021 living in RHI and owe nothing to politicians, past or present, other than to hold them accountable to the 1787 U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, James Madison betrayed Genesis 1:26-28 political-philosophy, the 1776 Declaration, and the 1787 Constitution for Anglo-American tradition. May he rest in peace anyway.

I hope your interest in my work increases and you offer more appreciative clarifications and suggestions. I have on my desk a 2022 calendar by Judicial Watch, and I want to write a post with appreciative suggestions about the quotes of “founding fathers”. I have a restrictive use of that term, and it does not go past 1784, when Congress ratified the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

https://www.quora.com/Is-cancel-culture-justice-or-undeserved? by Jamie Feren

I think human beings are motivated by necessity&justice. And “cancel-culture” is not new. Not every person accepts that they are a human being.

I am 78 and have always been an outcast, because I trusted-in and committed-to the-ineluctable-truth before I could articulate it. Even in 2021, no one claims to understand my expressions: it takes an open mind and an open heart to even consider them.

It’s not that difficult to break down the elements. “Trust-in” means rely-on or better. “Commit-to” means uphold or better. “Ineluctable means “not to be avoided, changed or resisted” (MW online). “The-ineluctable-truth” cannot be subjected to reason, evaluation, revelation, doctrine, or any other human construct.

There’s the rub: “ineluctable” has been avoided for the past 400 years, because of European claims to “human rights granted by God”, constrained by the partnership of church&state as truth.

The culture of truth imposed by government is so engrained that people, so far, have not been able to assert the responsible-human-independence (RHI) to hold government accountable to the-ineluctable-evidence rather than to legal precedent.

The partnership of church&state is disestablished by the literature: Genesis 1:26-28, the 1776 declaration of independence from England, and the 1787 U.S. Constitution. However, most fellow-citizens do not accept 1) that they are a human-being, 2) have the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to behave so as to maintain fidelity to their person, 3) can commit-to the humble-integrity that is required for RHI, and 4) can&must hold both pastors&lawyers accountable to the 1787 U.S. Constitution.

Anglo-American religious-tyranny imposed cancel-culture on U.S.-independence all my life. The new cancel culture is an immature, unconstitutional reaction to 234 years’ tyranny over the intentions of the 1787 U.S. Constitution: RHI in fidelity-to self rather than to Anglo-American tradition.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-lawyers-more-important-than-pastors-in-our-society? by Faith Matthew

I don’t know. I have an opinion, based on my work to understand the U.S. I think whereas pastors attempt power over people through metaphysics --- doctrine that purports to explain the unknowns of ineluctable-reality, lawyers manipulate both physics and metaphysics so as to distract We the People of the United States from establishing and developing the intentions of the 1787 U.S. Constitution.

My argument might start with 5,000 year-old political philosophy from a culture of polytheism, perhaps featuring “the-God of creation”. The suggestion was recorded 2,000 years later in a different language for a different culture. We read it in further interpretation in our favorite publication of Genesis 1:26-28. With 3000-years more human discovery, I interpret it as follows:  Necessity&justice motivate female&male-humankind to independently provide order&fruitfulness to the living species and to the earth. To the individual, this means to behave so as to minimize infidelity-to self and to comprehend physics and its progeny, in order to thrive in a complete human opportunity; that is, flourish during a lifetime of personal development.

Skip to 1215 and Magna Carta, whereby the king of England granted the (Catholic) Church of England and Parliament legislative authority: Pastors and Lords would rule the commoners. Then in 1689, a Protestant monarchy was required, settling a constitutional church-state partnership.

Skip to 1517 and Nicol Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, an explanation of diverse political systems for controlling fellow-citizens to the prince’s advantage. Chapter XI on church-state partnership is the only one I often re-study. I think it is written in irony, so as to protect the author’s life. My interpretation is that believers in a personal God empower the easiest tyranny if government partners with the churches: both pastors and politicians live high on the hog and believers neither rebel nor emigrate, because they are busy grooming their children in the faith: their personal-God will eventually free the descendants of misery and loss to the church-state partnership. Machiavellian declines to comment then relents to share an example that ends with all princes falling to church wealth and military power, which seems moral.

The uSA founders, in 1776, declared war for independence from England in a document that separates church from state. “The good People of these Colonies” claimed authority on “Nature and Nature’s God” (in my view physics and its source) rather than disparaging the English Trinity --- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, to whom some colonists prayed.

The 55 U.S. framers, in 1787, wrote a constitution that excludes religion from it disciplines. The 39 signers clarified the intention to assign religion/none to adult privacy in the preamble, just 5 days old at the signing. The signers were benevolent tyrants operating behind closed doors and windows.

Politicians took over in the ratification process ending June 21, 1788, authorizing the First Congress to add an English-mimicking Bill of Rights. In December, 1791, Congress ratified, as much as possible, restoration of English precedent in the U.S. rule of law. One consequence is the First Amendment’s unconstitutional church-Congress partnership that lessens the 1787 Constitutional intentions: responsible-human-independence (RHI).

These 234 years later, U.S. judges, based on English-precedential-God-given-human-rights, allow an adolescent girl to submit to entrepreneurs promoting double mastectomy, defying the unique opportunity physics provided her. The U.S. needs to reform from the-rule-of-law by legal precedent to law based on the-ineluctable-evidence. “Ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted” (Merriam-Webster online). Only a dreamer would imagine that the entity We the People of the United States will reform and hold justices accountable to the-ineluctable truth rather than legal opinion.

Among the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity”, I am a dreamer. The chief problem is that most citizens perceive they are too busy living to comprehend the dots from necessity&justice suggested 5,000 years ago to the ongoing tyranny since 1788 that produced divergent-chaos in 2021. I hope a few people wade through my complex response to a profound question I think I affirmed, despite Machiavelli’s example.

https://www.quora.com/As-a-nationalist-and-patriot-of-your-country-what-can-a-foreigner-say-about-your-country-that-will-definitely-offend-your-sensibilities? by Nami Anzu Hanamura

As a fellow-citizen of the world, I take no responsibility for what foreigners think: they can’t possibly understand what most U.S. citizens don’t articulate yet practice: responsible-human-independence (RHI).

RHI seems infused in the genes of Americans by heritage and in the blood of both legal-immigrants and some illegal inhabitants. On the other hand, there are Tory aristocrats, commoners, and: people who strive to preserve Anglo-American tradition dating from Magna Carta, 1215 rather than develop the culture of humble-integrity that was proffered by the 1787 U.S. Constitution, the 1776 declaration of war for independence from England, and the 3,000 BC political philosophy (1200 years before Abraham was born) inscribed in 900 B.C. in Genesis 1:26-28.

I’ve been writing for over 2 decades, urging the entity We the People of the United States to amend the First Amendment to reform from “freedom of [theism]” in order to encourage&facilitate the humble-integrity that is required for RHI. It is in the individual’s self-interest to constrain chaos in their way of living and to encourage fellow-citizens to avoid dependency --- indolence, crime, tyranny, evil, and worse. I think the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” are getting the message, and as soon as 2/3 of fellow-citizens are involved in the establishment&development of the 1787-U.S.-RHI-culture, the world will celebrate.

It would not hurt my sensibilities if a foreigner got the message, convinced their nation to take advantage of the above mentioned 3 documents, and moved ahead of the U.S. in humble-integrity for RHI. Either way, the world has an achievable better future based on RHI cultures. There’s nothing wrong with RHI-nations reforming in concert.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-foundation-of-truth-based-on? by Jim King

I don’t know. I can only offer my opinion.

Truth is based on the-ineluctable-reality. Ineluctable means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted” (Merriam-Webster online).

The human-being, while the most powerful living individual&species, has limited powers to perceive reality, and is constrained to research the-ineluctable-evidence. They journal research successes and failures (residual unknowns), comprehend each new discovery’s interactions with prior understanding, research possible discovery-applications, and encourage responsible-human-independence. Their research is guided by necessity&justice for survival. For example, if ordered to evacuate due to an oncoming Category 5 hurricane, civic-citizens evacuate, with lesser risk to personal-safety. Again, the civic-citizen who acquires comfort and hope by pursuing a personal-God retains sufficient humility toward the-God, whatever it may be.

Since humankind is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, they must address two influences: physics and metaphysics. Physics and its progeny (physics) is the body of ineluctable-evidence --- weak forces and strong forces, mathematics, the chemistries, biology, psychology, imagination, fiction (imagination about an unknown), doctrine, dependencies, and more --- everything.

Metaphysics is reasonable, not necessarily reliable, imagination&speculation about an apparent unknown. For example, a researcher may speculate that mirages indicate an undiscovered power of perception rather than repeatable mistaken-impression. It seems, so far, that metaphysics is eventually corrected by physics. But not everyone accepts the source of physics. Is it the-God? Potential energy? An infinitely dense and infinitely small singularity?

With this duality --- discovered-physics and metaphysics (physics undiscovered), the truth cannot be known, and the word “truth” is inadequate to express the dilemma. Without articulating their comprehension of physics and metaphysics (the unknowns), many speakers debate diverse claims to the truth, without realizing they express differing reliance on physics. Some insist that ultimately, physics will respond to reason. I doubt that, but don't know.

To avoid participating in this fruitless dialogue, I express “the-ineluctable-truth”. The hyphens invite the reader to not separate the elements of the phrase. The article “the” makes the phrase specific to the reliable resolution of the physics vs metaphysics conundrum. Some people stonewall my proposal, never realizing that I continually seek a better expression they might offer.

So far, it seems no one values “the-ineluctable-truth”, and books do not reflect an increase in the usage “ineluctable”. The Google ngram for inevitable, inalienable+unalienable, and ineluctable have relative usages in 2014: 100, 6.4, and 0.4, respectively. “Inevitable” usage almost doubled from 1810 to 2014, and the others remained about level, “ineluctable” barely off zero. “Inevitable” gets 250 times the attention as “ineluctable”. I feel fortunate to have discovered the word.

Perhaps the scholarly book-data is evidence that most cultures are reluctant to face the-ineluctable-evidence. If so, reform may be on the way: 2021 marks critical confrontation with chaos. Never, never, never give up on the civic-citizen --- the one who neither initiates nor accommodates injury to or from any person or association.

Mr. King, the wording of your question motivated this outpouring, and I express gratitude at promotethpreamble.blogpsot.com, the “appreciations” post.

To Donna Halper:

Ms. Halper, your conclusion, “. . . truth can be found in analyzing and understanding the facts; and our response to truth is found in ethics— in fairness, in compassion, and in doing what is honorable and just” seems contradictory to me.

You seem to assert that the facts, ethics, and justice respond to emotions --- fairness, compassion, and honor. I think ineluctable-evidence does not respond to emotions.

I’m reminded of a statement by the renowned, neglected political-philosopher, Albert Einstein:  “The concepts which [science] uses to build up its coherent systems are not expressing emotions. For the scientist, there is only ‘being’, but no wishing, no valuing, no good, no evil; no goal. As long as we remain within the realm of science proper, we can never meet with a sentence of the type: ‘Thou shalt not lie’.” This is from his speech “The Laws of Science and the Laws of Ethics” [come from the same source], copied online at https://samharris.org/my-friend-einstein/.

I would appreciate your comment on my opinion.

To Donna Halper again:

Thank you, Donna. I’m reminded of my late sister and a best friend, Dona Bean, educator.

I assume you are aware that your Einstein-attack exposes will to employ Alinsky-Marxist organizational (AMO) training: ridicule the other party, e.g., by accusing them of hypocrisy.

Here’s a recent writer’s interpretation of Einstein: “’I am sure you know that most men (as well as quite a number of women) are not monogamously endowed by nature,’ he wrote, according to a translation from the original German published decades later. ‘Nature will come through even stronger if convention and circumstances are putting resistances in the way of the individual’”, GENIUS ALBERT EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF INFIDELITY.

As a person erroneously reared Protestant and admires a Louisiana-French Catholic woman with whom he has shared monogamy for 52 years, I address the weakness of polygamy& promiscuity: the polyamorous-person foregoes the rewards of monogamy. Not long after our wedding, my wife began to finish my adoration “You are so beautiful . . . [I know; you’re not talking about my looks]”. Now 80, she is more beautiful, especially in her serene-goodness against the tragic disease PSP, progressive supra-nuclear palsy.

Marrying a beautiful woman, as women are, requires mature, male commitment for life. She is so beautiful, throughout our marriage, men just had to sneak a kiss despite their risk I would see them, and in one case, breast contact viewed in a mirror. I discussed incidents with her (“I didn’t kiss him”) and wooed her even stronger. I never told the men, some of them my bosses, then, that they are chronologically-maturing-male-adolescents; I think “pitiful behavior” when I see one of them.

With my experience&observations, I interpret Einstein’s statement as follows: Female-male-attraction is so strong that being human rather than living as animal, vegetable, mineral, dependent, or soul, must be encouraged&facilitated for life. In family monogamy, the parent experiences their child’s potential for a world the parent could never imagine. Fortunate is the parent who entrusts their end of life to their adult offspring. A culture that promotes sexual infidelity discourages rather than prevents monogamy. In other words, fidelity is an emotionless commitment: it’s an irreversible fact.

Einstein’s brilliance as a political philosopher cannot be imagined in his popular language: “science” vs “research”, “ethics” vs “integrity”, “endowed” (interpretation) instead of “empowered”, and “resistances” instead of “opportunities”. I see no reason to credit almost-Einstein-syntax when I write this thought: Research without integrity is self-deceiving, and integrity without research is egocentric.

The world’s existing cultures do not encourage fidelity-to self through responsible-human-independence (RHI). Lucky is the individual who, in their first quarter-century accepts that they are a human-being; discovers that the individual has the power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop humble-integrity; and chooses to employ HIPEA to perfect their unique person, hopefully during 3 to 4 quarter-centuries.

Most cultures inculcate in their youth the belief that they need a higher power to avoid ruining their singular opportunity. Therefore, a complete lifetime of fidelity to self-interest, or RHI, is rare. That does not mean that someone inculcated in infidelity in their early quarter-centuries cannot develop humble-integrity before they die. Consequently, it seems prudent to accept a civic-fellow-citizen as-they-are-and-where-they-are in their path to either RHI or potential-reform to fidelity-to self.

Addressing “. . . things are a bit more complicated than ‘focus on facts only and ignore emotion.’ Why must it be either/or?” First, your quotation marks refer to your mind: neither my statements nor Einstein’s. Second, fidelity-to-self relies on the-ineluctable-truth, because ineluctable-evidence does not yield to emotion. Consider, for example, the passionate criminal-trial-jurist who on the one hand accepts DNA to exonerate a man falsely accused of rape, then renders jurist’s doubt when photos show a woman’s provocative presence before the accused deposited his DNA.

I think your background, Ms. Halper, positions you for serious consideration of what I think affirms the self-interest in RHI.

Additionally, you can shed some light on another interpretation that is important to my work to promote the 1787 U.S. Constitution. I think the political philosophy in Genesis 1:26-28 is 5,000 years old, reflects Sumer’s system of Gods, and that the student is better off applying humankind’s discoveries since then than to attempt to study the message in its original culture. Consequently, my interpretation is: Whatever the-God is (perhaps the physical source of the laws of physics) assigned to female&male-humankind the independent-responsibility to provide order&fruitfulness to the living species and to the earth.

In my view, this suggestion, RHI, comes from human-necessity&justice rather than from a metaphysical being. It encourages&facilitates the human-being to self-control emotions exacerbated by a confused world, in order to comprehend&intend to live a life of fidelity-to self. If Abraham&Sara had understood this 1200-year precedent-political-philosophy, they might have resisted the ancient, egocentric fertility option: ménage à trois. Their infidelity unleased ancestral chaos that in 3 millennia humankind made divergent.

I would be grateful for your appreciative suggestions to improve my opinions.

To Donna Halper, perhaps dismissal:

It takes bold and impudent behavior for an estranged woman to write to an unknown man “Much love to you” as egocentric escape from the recorded evidence.

In a civic culture, a simple “no” is well-known as RHI. See Matthew 5:37, CJB.

I entered “Donna” on my “appreciations” page at A Civic People as an illustration of 8/21/2021 dialogue that drove one fellow-citizen to stonewall another . I don’t report the reasons for entries, and rely on memory. I use only first name when the other party informs me they prefer to disconnect from my work and me. If you would like your last name added, just let me know.

To Donna Halper, who won’t let go:

To assume that love is a friendly surrogate for appreciation is arrogant. Nevertheless, my appreciation for the dialogue is independent of your impudence and I am prepared for your return to your busy schedule.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-meant-in-the-Declaration-by-the-phrase-certain-unalienable-rights-What-does-it-mean-for-rights-to-be-unalienable? by Khalia

Merriam-Webster online (MW) has for “unalienable” the usage “impossible to take away or give up”. Google Chrome offers “’Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.’ Each of us, Locke argued, has “a property in” his or her person, and that property is inalienable, that is, it cannot be transferred to another” (Cato opinion about Locke and for some reason omitting Locke’s thought that these rights are God given) from https://www.cato.org.

The usage in the Declaration is: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Perhaps the founders opposed Lockean “property”, which held that each individual human is God’s property and all are equal.

The world observed in France in 1789 that “liberty” can be taken as license to spill fellow-citizens’ blood. We saw it again in Democrat-run cities in the United States in Summer, 2020. Demonstration-soldiers, protest-soldiers, for Alinsky-Marxist organizations (AMO) emerged in the late 1960s. The soldiers face law enforcement, while the organizers are absent from the scene. AMO is advocated today by Alinsky-students Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, that any government can warrant “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is laughable, and that was so in Locke’s day.

The essential human right is ineluctable, which means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted”. And that right is to develop responsible-human-independence (RHI). That is, to develop humble-integrity to prevent chaos in your own way of living and strength to constrain external threats.

The discipline to develop RHI is proffered in the 1787 U.S. Constitution. It is amendable so as to amend unjust law-enforcement with statutory justice and to promote 5 public disciplines --- integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity “in order to” encourage&facilitate RHI “to ourselves and our Posterity”.

Reforming the U.S. to its 1787 intentions is not a civil issue. The opportunity to develop civic-integrity to necessity&justice is the-human-right. All else is political power struggle. Right to life? Tell the 12 who were murdered in AMO protests of 2020.

https://www.quora.com/Samuel-Butler-said-The-best-liar-is-he-who-makes-the-smallest-amount-of-lying-go-the-longest-way-Can-you-be-ethical-and-a-liar? by Graham C Lindsay

Aug 22, 2021 retraction of former "I think so". First, my orignal response:

I think so, depending upon two word usages: ethical and liar.

A liar is someone who makes an untrue statement with the intent to deceive.

Ethics is either 1) the rules rejected or adopted by an association, whether private, institutional, or representative of the people or 2) the journal of humankind’s discovery of responsible-human-independence (RHI) based on the-ineluctable-truth. Ineluctable means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted” (MW online). I’ll address the latter consideration.

Necessity&justice require the human-being to constrain chaos in their way of living, because they can. That is, the human-being has the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to develop the humble-integrity that is required for RHI.

Thereby, a doctor who just discovered cancer in the patient’s body, facing the question, “You mean to say in a few weeks we could be talking how much time I have left to live?” can answer “We’re going to do everything possible to prevent that” instead of “yes”. There’s neither falsehood nor deceit.

Again, a spouse who regrets a tryst in the past, need not “clear their conscience” when their dying loved-one asks “Did you ever cheat on our marriage?” The response “No” preserves the actuality of dedication to the spouse despite past infidelity to self and marriage vow. Whereas honesty would clear egocentric conscience, integrity preserves the marriage-bond at death.

I doubt the question would remain when the practice was promiscuity, but if it did, at-death-confirmation of the other’s gullibility seems egocentric.

The retraction:  Overnight, I admitted that I had contradicted my principle: A civic citizen never lies, in order to lessen human misery and loss. The product of the deliberation that followed is this:

The spouse who had a tryst in the past lied at that time --- broke commitment to self to be faithful to spouse till death parts them. The spouse who asks before dying, "Did you ever cheat on our marriage?" knows the answer and has been living with it ever since the lie. They are expressing forgivness by giving the cheater the chance to reform from being a liar before death parts them. It's a tough surprise. A loving spouse would welcome the opportunity to accept forgivness and restore commitment until death parts them.

I appreciate Mr. Lindsay, your tough question, and Quora's operating plan: allowing the responder to update, and in this case, retract a self-contradiction.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-are-the-principles-of-nomological-perdurantism? by Tiana Lavrova Porter

Thank you for the introduction to the topic.

It seems “nomological” was introduced in 1850. “Physics of the laws of reasoning” seems metaphysical to me; perhaps a contradiction made possible by equivocating physics and its progeny with “nature” (and its god). “Perdurable” was used in 1800 more than now.

The above abstract terms are swamped relative usage by the common words: research, reason, and science at 100, 45, and 29, respectively, in 1988 when “research” peaked. Multiplying the abstract terms’ relative usages by 100 each gives for laws of physics, nomoloigcal, perdurable, and laws of reasoning, 8.7, 3.0, 0.6, and 0.1, respectively.

I read to Page 8 the thesis at https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/187990131.pdf. It seems interesting as metaphysical reasoning but at least 100 times less interesting than the laws of physic and its progeny.

I prefer to answer another good question on quora.com rather than finish the above reference. Perhaps your comment will prompt my return to nomological perdurantism.

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-does-one-search-the-space-of-all-possible-worlds-in-philosophy? by Tiana Lavrova Porter

I rely on my independent thoughts, after reading perhaps the first ten hits on my topic of interest at plato.stanford.edu. For example, https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=truth finds 1708 documents, the first 20 of which is essential. Beyond that, I do not know --- have not opened the other 1688 documents.

I have no ambition to master philosophy regarding even one word, let alone “the space of all possible worlds”. I consult philosophy on my need to consider the range of thought on a topic I’d like to comprehend. Philosophy offers no advice on what to conclude from comprehension of all thought. However, it affords me a basis for thinking I’ve earned my opinion, admitting that I still don’t know.

For example, I think “truth” is unreliable, because human-individuals are unwilling to accept it. Most persons insist on evaluating it so as to draw and express their own conclusions. Adults are unwilling to maintain their infantile frankness “I don’t know” when that is so. I believe is no surrogate for I don’t know.

Consequently, over the last couple decades, I developed, in order to be specific, the phrase “the-ineluctable-truth”. The hyphens invite the reader not to separate the three words in the expression, especially the specific article “the”. And “ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted” (MW online). The-ineluctable-evidence yields-not to reason or imagination.

I recently discovered an ancient suggestion in 2021 comprehension: female&male-human-being can&must independently constrain chaos in their way of living. Imagine developing a family with that attitude. I think civic-human-intention can be developed by acquiring the comprehension&intention to succeed during your brief, unique opportunity. Philosophers can help define the boundaries but cannot provide the intention to develop responsible-human-independence (RHI).

I also think the person who acquires these principles can readily find a reliable mate, even though existing governments neither encourage nor facilitate individual RHI. RHI is a human characteristic that needs encouragement&facilitation, just as walking, talking, and grammar do.

https://www.quora.com/Doesn-t-the-truth-always-lie? by Emana Umoadiaha

Yes.

The dictionary reports temporal usage of words (and now some phrases, like “ultimate reality” at Merriam-Webster online--MW). Truth has become an egocentric term, much like “God” or “Jesus” or “civil rights” or “the rule of law” or “the U.S. Constitution or “reality”. So “truth” means whatever the speaker thinks. It is not at all strange that you seem to personify “the truth”.

In 2006, I wrote a speech, “Faith in the Truth”, to object to President Bush’s “faith-based political policy”. I think it promoted Anglo-American Judeo-Protestantism. Harold Weingarten, PhD, chemistry, asked “Did you represent God’s truth, ultimate truth, absolute truth, or Phil’s truth?” I was stunned, yet after a moment answered “I don’t know: the truth I speak of exists and does not answer to human evaluation.”

A few years ago, I replaced “faith” with “trust-in&commitment-to . . .” because listeners tend to equate “faith” with “religion”. Also, I replaced “the truth” with “the-objective-truth based on the-evidence”. The hyphens invite the reader not to divide the phrase; to address my topic. The article, “the”, draws attention to evidence rather than opinion about reality.

Recognizing that in research, new instruments of perception often change the perspective on the-evidence, and thus demand amendment of the-objective-truth, I added that the intentions of research is to discover and responsibly practice the-ineluctable-truth. “Ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted” (MW).

When it seems someone perceives evidence, researchers do the work to confirm-it-is evidence rather than a mirage. If a mirage, the proof is journaled to lessen repetition and to consider applying new instruments of perception. Positive research is resumed to discover the physics&progeny of the evidence and how to responsibly use it. Physics-progeny includes weak&strong forces, mathematics, the chemistries, biology, psychology, imagination, unknowns, fiction, indeed everything. If the research-conclusion is positive, the researchers may have confirmed the-ineluctable-evidence and the-objective-truth awaiting new instruments of perception.

Future research, with new inventions of perception, approach if not attain the-ineluctable-truth. For example, the earth, once considered flat with heaven above and water below, and later the center of the universe, is known to be in orbit about our galaxy’s sun somewhere in the universe and globe-like.

Consider, for example, Jesus. There are at least 4 levels of human-appreciation for the entity “Jesus”: egocentric passion, institutional politics, and possibility, all competing with reality. During my first two quarter-centuries, I passionately developed “my Jesus”; he would not accommodate the word “hate” regarding a human-being (despite St. John’s opinion in John 15:18-23 that Phil Beaver hates God).

Early in my third quarter-century, I began to find possibilities about Jesus in my literature studies. If he said “Be perfect as your father in heaven was perfect” he meant perfection as the unique individual in the image of the father constraining chaos in their choice in life. If he said “Render unto Caesar . . . “ he meant to behave for law-enforcement and development of statutory justice according to the-ineluctable-evidence. I doubt he taught “the Lord’s Prayer”, because it seems to politically oppose responsible-human-independence (RHI). I attribute “the sermon on the mount” and “the sermon on the plain” to scribes for tyrants over human-beings---in the image of the father or gods-facing-death.

The possibilities I express in the above paragraph suggest that Jesus metaphysically influenced or physical authored the 5,000 year-old political suggestion in the 3,000 year-old interpretation recorded in Genesis 1:26-28, in 2021 comprehension of discovery since then: female&male-human-being can&must independently-provide order&fruitfulness to the living species and to the earth. In other words, there is no higher-power that can usurp the human-individual’s responsibility for peace on earth. It seems possible the ancient philosophy expressed in Genesis 1 was founded on necessity&justice: the human-being must constrain chaos in their way of living.

I work hard to find more precise and more accurate expressions of the-ineluctable-truth in order to accept it if encountered.

Mr. Umoadiaha and other readers, I express gratitude for your rhetorical question on my “appreciations” post at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com. I read, write, speak, and listen to learn, so please comment.

https://www.quora.com/From-a-heavy-political-standpoint-but-also-in-other-areas-is-it-our-social-responsibility-to-educate-our-fellow-human-beings-when-theyre-misinformed-misguided? by Emirey Jackson

Necessity&justice compel the individual to develop humble-integrity by which to gage their personal-integrity as they acquire the comprehension&intention to perfect their unique human-being. In my fourth quarter century, I perceive that my performance is low and chance for achievement of that lifetime-quest is lessening each day.

Once a person accepts that they are a homo sapien, or the “knowing” mutation of humankind, they may then discover their individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to develop the humble-integrity that is required for responsible-human-independence (RHI) and civic-citizenship.

But not everyone who discovers HIPEA chooses civic-living. Some apply HIPEA for indolence, crime, tyranny, or evil. Therefore, civic-citizens must bear the cost of law enforcement and continual improvement toward statutory justice, so that dependent-citizens may act favorably to encouragement-to-reform. In 2021, the rule of law needs reform from the “legal precedent” basis, in order to conform to physics and its progeny --- weak forces and strong forces, the chemistries, mathematics, biology, psychology, imagination, fiction, etc.

The civic-citizen never lies, so as to lessen human misery and loss; consequently, when they don’t know the physics, they profess “I don’t know.” They might follow with what they think then reiterate “But I don’t know”. For example: will the sun come out tomorrow? No: the earth’s daily rotation on its axis will un-hide it at 1000 mph surface speed.

A characteristic practice by the civic-citizen is that they neither initiate nor accommodate injury to or from any person or association of people. It is injurious to-self to assume another person is misinformed or misguided merely because their expressions seem different. For example, after 2 decades’ living, I stopped pursuing the diverse Southern-Baptist-Gods that each Mom and Dad hoped I would worship. I perceived the-God, whatever it may be, discourages egocentric, competitive assumptions. I accepted my developed trust-in and commitment to the-ineluctable-truth; “ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted”. I do not impose my inspiration on others, because I accept that I could be wrong in the conviction that “souls” are metaphysical constructs, never to be discovered.

“I don’t know” is the key to civic-citizenship, as it keeps you from acting on honesty rather than humble-integrity and encourages kindness whether you are aware of the-ineluctable-truth or not. Thus, if the group-you-are-with plans injury to persons or property, you announce that you are exiting so as to report to first responders. If a co-member asks your advice, you express that first responders may be lenient to gullible people, but if they think someone inflected injury, they may lose independence. If parents talk about their child’s gender change, kindly ask if they have considered the entrepreneur’s disregard to the consequences in the child’s future. Let them either continue or drop the conversation. If someone fears the Bible as the word of God, state that you regard it as literature about ancient political philosophy that deserves a read and discussion regarding recent experiences and observations. If they turn to racism, ask if they know about the Ethiopian Tewahedo Church, adopted in 320 AD. If some asks what Jesus would do, say “He recommended responsible-human-independence” and let them explore your statement if they choose to. Be ready to say that the literature supports the possibility that Jesus was metaphysically responsible for Genesis 1:26-28.

There is so much I don’t know. I do not intend to close my mind or heart to fellow citizens.

https://www.quora.com/Who-deserves-to-run-the-world-in-the-21st-century-and-beyond/answer/Phil-Beaver-1 Comment by Anthony Ibbott

Such literature-stonewalling does not benefit the individual.

Genesis 1 expresses 5,000 year-old political philosophy, opinionated by a scribe 3,000 years ago, that can be interpreted with the discoveries homo sapiens has accomplished since then.

The essential message is this, in my view: the homo-sapiens-individual can&must constrain chaos in their way of living.

If homo sapiens does not effect peaceful cultures, perhaps the next humankind-mutation will. Maybe they are among us already.

 https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Founding-Fathers-of-America-commit-treason-against-England? by Chuck Bluestein

No.

England (along with the rest of Europe) had used religion (substantially Roman Catholicism) to abuse its commoners for centuries. Consider, for example, the 116 years’ war with France, 1337–1453. Quoting https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/7-facts-about-the-hundred-years-war/, “. . . battles had enormous religious and symbolic significance. Not only was victory or defeat an indication of divine judgement, but for many it might bring one decidedly closer to divine judgement of a very personal nature”.

After the “Glorious Revolution”, Parliament legislated a Protestant monarchy, in their 1689 Bill of Rights.

By 1640, civic-Americans realized that African slaves were being imposed on them to be maintained (fed, clothed, housed, and kept healthy) for England’s benefit. Then, in 1763, England began taxing colonists, only perhaps half of whom were loyal British subjects. But all colonists opposed taxation to benefit a nation alienated by the Atlantic ocean. They begged relief, and with no response, in 1774 organized as a confederacy of 13 colonies self-styled states. With shots fired in 1775, the founders declared war for independence from England in 1776.

The popular view is that the 1776 declaration references the American, factional Christian-God as “Nature and Nature’s God”. However, I think the phrase refers to “Physics and its Source”. Regardless, the founders did not disparage the English Trinity --- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit --- since about half the colonists believed in the Trinity their way, including the Unitarians. “The good-People of these Colonies” took responsibility for war and for killing fellow-subjects in red coats. In 1778, they negotiated military providence from France. Having learned from the 116 years’ war, the founders separated church and state.

The 1776 Declaration, regarding responsible-human-independence (RHI), comports to a 2021 view of a 5,000 year-old political suggestion. It was interpreted 2,000 years later by a scribe, in Genesis 1:26-28. In my 2021 view, the text expresses:  Female&male-human-being can&must independently provide order&fruitfulness to the living species and to the earth.

Conserving the wisdom of the founding father, the framers of the 1787 U.S. Constitution continued the separation of church and state in order to protect the spiritual privacy of the individual citizen and the nation of people. The amendable 1787 Constitution proffers a culture with five public disciplines --- integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” encourage and facilitate RHI “to ourselves and our Posterity”. This, too, comports to Genesis-1 RHI.

Whereas England formed a Catholic-Parliament partnership in 1215’s Magna Carta then constitutionally required a Protestant monarchy in 1689, Ethiopia has been a nation under the Tewahedo Church since 320-360 AD. Their bible canon is the largest known, and “Tewhedo” means “unity”. The U.S. proffered RHI in both 1776 and 1787.

England’s religious pride discourages RHI, and there is no excuse for human-individuals to choose chaos when they have the opportunity to develop order&fruitfulness on earth.

The 2021 ‘ourselves and our Posterity” have the opportunity to amend the 1787 U.S. Constitution to undo Congressional and Supreme-Court wounds, especially ending Anglo-American traditionalism. At last, independence from England would be established.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-events-scenarios-and-conversations-differentiate-ethics-and-philosophy? by Romelyn Cantara

I think despite the religious-political power-seekers the civic-citizens of the world, during their lifetimes, gravitate toward the 5,000 year-old suggestion a scribe interpreted 3,000 years ago in Genesis 1:26-28: female&male-homo-sapiens can&must constrain chaos in their way of living.

Discovery of how to constrain chaos in temporal living, with records of failures and successes, is journaled as the code of human ethics. So far, journalism is failing this responsibility, and careful default to Wikipedia is my best hope (know something better I could use?).

Philosophers journal temporal considerations involved in each word or phrase, leaving it to the reader to apply the record of development. Consider, for example, “truth”, with 1708 documents found at https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=truth. I read, then invented “the-ineluctable-truth”; ineluctable means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted”.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-ever-consensus-in-science-Isnt-that-consensus-in-science-antiscientific? by Roger Cassiano Ribeiro Ramos

Mr. Ramos, you present the evidence that the human-being is too individually powerful, too individually energetic, and too individually authoritative (HIPEA) to accept the notion that metaphysics can alter physics: research rather than reason discovers the-ineluctable-evidence and how to responsibly use it. “Ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted” (MW).

Urban usage that has been created by the despotic media, in collaboration with “social sciences”, accommodates confusion that the dictionary, itself a temporal-record of usage, can barely constrain.

Merriam-Webster online (MW) has for “consensus” definitions implying opinion and judgement; in unanimity. They don’t attempt to define “scientific consensus”. However, Wikipedia happily quotes "Scientific Consensus". Green Facts, October 24, 2016.

For “science” MW specifies knowledge rather than ignorance or misunderstanding. Wikipedia’s article “Science” has valuable insights. First, “. . . social scientists may rely on statistical approaches to better understand social relationships and processes.” And second, “The formal sciences [differ] from the empirical sciences as they rely exclusively on deductive reasoning . . . to verify their abstract concepts.”

MW has for “truth” reality and facts [for examples, the earth is like a globe, and my name is Phillip or Ray or Beaver; then MW-truth-usage drifts off into spirituality, judgement, proposition, acceptance, and sincerity, reflecting public confusion. To help constrain confusion, I use the phrase “the-ineluctable-truth” to invite the reader/listener to focus on what I am suggesting in dialogue about what the human-being may seek to discover. For example, is my personal-God the-God? Since I’ve neither confirmed discovery-of nor encounter-with the-God, I don’t know. Nevertheless, the mysteries I experience cause me to think something metaphysical controls events. I have no instruments for perceiving metaphysics: I do not attempt to influence what I don’t know.

Researchers work hard to not fall prey to their own paradigms and preferences, because their purpose is to discover whether they are studying ineluctable evidence or a mirage. Statistics is only a tool to them, and they know that if they do not include the controlling variables in the statistical study, the collected data could entice them into wasteful pursuits. The researcher who habitually misses controlling variables eventually cannot fund their research proposal. The researcher uses the scientific method to explore the-ineluctable-evidence and how to responsibly use it. The research is limited to the available tools of discovery, and therefore, positive research results may be reserved as the-objective-truth until new instrument of perception confirm the-ineluctable-truth. For example, the earth, once perceive as flat, is known to be like a globe, and it orbits about our galaxy’s sun and rotates on its axis. And the sun won’t come out tomorrow. Hidden in the earth’s shadow at dusk, the axial rotation un-hides it a dawn.

The media have learned that politicians want to be re-elected, that public-opinion polls influence politicians’ expectations, that social scientists can design poll-statistics to favor an opinion, and that their statistical designs can make the media ultimately powerful. Consider gun control, for example. The social scientist designs a questionnaire to help choose subjects to respond to a poll. They ask if the person feels responsible to protect their family or to rely on first responders, if they are a hunter, and if they are Democrat, Republican, or Independent. To select poll receivers, they choose Democrats and Independents who both call first responders and do not hunt; they choose Republicans who hunt and feel responsibility to protect self and family. The press reports a study that shows Republicans oppose gun control.

Researchers use the scientific method to discover the-ineluctable-evidence that will eventually guide them to the ineluctable truth. They are well aware that reason can neither affect nor effect ineluctable evidence. The product of research is discovery rather than confirmation of opinion.

Mr. Ramos, I appreciate your question and say so in the “appreciations” post at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com.

https://www.quora.com/Why-and-how-did-the-world-societies-break-We-seem-to-be-in-selfish-freefall-unless-you-have-enough-money-to-stay-above-the-putrefaction-of-society-What-were-the-catalysts-of-it-all? by Kaylee Smith

Of course, I don’t know. However, I have an opinion and a proposal for remedy.

Human-kind as homo sapiens (knowing) is only about 300,000 years old and created grammar just 5,000 years ago. Hopefully, homo integritas (integrity) is already among us, and the reform to responsible-human-independence (RHI) is underway.

RHI was suggested by a political philosopher about the same time humans invented grammar and some cultures were changing polytheisms to a monotheism. Chances of discovering the-God were slim to none, as today. The ancient philosopher could-have --- might-have --- suggested RHI from necessity&justice. However, scribes reported the story perhaps 2,000 years later in Genesis 1, with the suggestion in Verses 26-28. I view the passage, with meager awareness of humankind’s discoveries in the recent 5,000 years, as follows:  Because they can, female&male-homo-sapiens must independently provide order&fruitfulness to the living species and to the earth. That is, no higher power can usurp human-kind’s RHI and if homo sapiens fails, the next mutation has the opportunity.

The message came as a creation story with a God of both plural pronoun “we” and singular-male pronoun “he”. Competitive cultures since then worked to construct a God that would usurp RHI.

So far, homo sapiens neglects necessity&justice so as to pursue adult satisfaction. In the U.S., for example, adults loaded posterity, including the adults’ descendants with $28 trillion debt.

The U.S. did not intend the chaos we now observe. The 1776 uSA declaration of war for independence from England separated church and state, and the 1787 U.S. Constitution specified five public disciplines, assigning religious pursuits or none to privacy. The U.S. intends to conform to Genesis 1’s RHI.

The God of Genesis 1 would not usurp the human individual’s responsibility and privilege to constrain chaos in their life. However, the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court arrogantly impose civil religion on U.S. citizens. We, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” can&must amend the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate RHI rather than impose religious pride. RHI requires humble-integrity.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-individuals-role-as-a-citizen? by Dhruval Patel

The individual can&must discover humble-integrity by which to gage personal-integrity. Thereby, they can fulfill their duty to live in responsible-human-independence (RHI).

Only the individual who accepts that they are a human-being may discover their individual power, individual energy, and individual authority (HIPEA) to constrain chaos in their way of living. But some individuals discover HIPEA and use it to develop dependency --- gaming the welfare system, plying religion, crime, tyranny, evil, and worse.

Consequently, the civic-citizen also must fund both law enforcement and research to discover statutory justice, in order to encourage&facilitate arbitrarily-dependent fellow-citizens’ reform. Some behavior is so severe that the fellow-citizen invites termination.

In summary, I think a civic-citizen practices RHI and pays taxes needs to constrain dissident fellow-citizens unto reform or termination.

https://www.quora.com/What-change-does-the-society-need-today? by Mathew Christensen

It has been obvious since Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, 1517, that church-legislature partnership is tyranny that believers accommodate, teaching their descendants that their personal-God will eventually relieve the people of the misery and loss to the partnership --- that is, Chapter XI Machiavellianism. It was obvious to James Madison when he took the responsibility to compose an American Bill of Rights (1791) to mimic England’s (1689), which constitutionally requires a Protestant monarchy. Machiavelli wrote that since Chapter XI tyranny involved the-God, only a fool would object and goes on to say that if he were asked about it, he would use history to prove that eventually the church defeats all princes.

Despite Genesis 1, the 1776 declaration of war for independence from England, and the 1787 Constitution for five public-disciplines that reserve religious-pursuit/none to the mature adult, the 1789 Congress and the U.S. Supreme court impose civil-religion on the Chapter XI Machiavellian “good People [of this country]”.

We, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” can&must immediately amend the First Amendment, in order to encourage&facilitate civic humble-integrity rather than civil religious-pride. Only then can the entity We the People of the United States initiate its intentions for responsible-human-independence rather than Anglo-American contempt against the-ineluctable-truth: neither a human, an institution, nor a nation represents the-God.

We, the fellow-citizens of 2021 can&must effect reform to responsible-human-independence.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-okay-to-break-promises? by Britt22

No.

Like so much misguidance I accepted, my rearing was under the saying “Never make a promise you can’t keep”. That is just one of the excuse inculcations attributed to the Anglo-American religious tradition: Christianity. Mind you, I am without excuse, because the traditional training continually seemed suspect to the-ineluctable-evidence, “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted”.

In my fourth quarter century, I can innumerate my “white lies”, and every one of them is among my excuses for a ruined life. Yet I do not intend to ruin my person.

A friend shared their struggle with alcohol, and thinking they sought help, I asked if it would help for me to be a teetotaler. I made a promise and kept it for a couple months then went to Europe on assignment and begged a break for expected wine-toasting. Two months after my return my friend died in a tragic auto accident involving their alcohol content. I am crushed every time I think of my broken promise, and I am fully aware that I am not responsible for what another person fails to do. Losing them surpasses regret for my broken promise; I carry two burdens.

I thought a friend might fall, and turned my back to fetch something, only to return my attention soon enough to see the fall, pain, and their concern. Now, when I envision such a mishap, I go immediately to prevent it. The replay of that fall will never leave me.

If Britt22 shares your age, I think you live in a confused, conflicted world, and do not have to accommodate it. You can perfect your journey to the personal happiness you perceive rather than try to respond to other people’s visions for you. So, here are my suggestions for developing humble-integrity.

Continually, publicly connect with fellow-citizens, listening for appreciative sharing rather than “constructive criticism”. By “appreciative” I mean mutual gratitude that both parties are unique human-beings at their progress toward being their person. When you don’t receive appreciation, offer it anyway, unless you must depart for safety. Respect is out of the question when there is no appreciation.

Accept that a civic-citizen neither initiates nor accommodates injury to or from any person or association. By “civic” I refer to human-connection in mutual, comprehensive safety&security so that each person may responsibly pursue the happiness they perceive rather than submit to someone else’s vision for them. Accommodating injury is out of the question.

Accept the challenge that necessity&justice drive the human-being to the joy of taking responsibility: everyone can&must live under physics and its progeny --- weak forces and strong forces, mathematics, the chemistries, biology, psychology, imagination, fiction, lies, etc. Neither the-God nor a government will usurp an individual’s opportunity to constrain chaos in their way of living.

You are reading both my opinion and what I am too ignorant to consider. However, I am not the first to express such ideas. Three documents are critical to us.

A political philosophy from 5,000 years ago is reported in the literary-scribe’s interpretation in Genesis 1:26-28. In my 2021 view, it expresses this:  The species female&male-homo-sapiens can&must independently provide order&fruitfulness to the living species and to the earth. If they fail, the next human-being, perhaps homo-integritas will carry the responsibility.

The uSA’s 1776 declaration of war against England claims human-authority under “Nature and Nature’s God” or, in my view, physics and physics’ source. In 1778, the founders negotiated military providence from France and shared victory at Yorktown, VA in 1781.

The 1787 U.S. Constitution proffers a republic under five public disciplines --- integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to” encourage&facilitate responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”. Since physics controls life, the Constitution does not impose spirituality as a discipline. Hoping to perfect “E Pluribus Unum” the framers chose “our Posterity” rather than “our Descendants”. Influenced by the European revolutionary drive for “liberty” (ending in 1789 with France’s “bloody revolution” and revived in U.S. Democrat cities in 2020), the signers left incentive to amend the preamble to “independence”. That revision would complement the signers’ expectations from “ourselves and our Posterity”.

Regrettably, the politicians who were elected to the First Congress, seated soon after March 4, 1789, restored Anglo-American tradition as much as they could, including a Protestant-legislative-branch to mimic the Church-of-England-Parliament partnership, made constitutional in 1689. So far, the Supreme Court has upheld the unconstitutional legislative-tyranny. Only We the People of the United States can restore the U.S. commitment to responsible-human-independence “to ourselves and our Posterity”.

Britt22, and readers, I hope these ideas help your journey to the person you perceive in your happiness. These ideas and listening to fellow-citizens for improvements are helping me. Self-reliant discovery in pivotal literature more than scholarly commentary about it is essential.

https://www.quora.com/At-what-point-if-any-is-it-appropriate-to-lose-compassion-for-the-ignorant-and-treat-them-as-dangerous-rather-than-simply-misguided? by Neil Kuchinsky

Your question brought to mind many tribal challenges . . . nothing pleasant. Of the many antonyms to “ignorant” I choose to focus on people who are aware that humble-integrity is in their best self-interest and therefore never lie.

Thus, the mature adult responds “I don’t know” when asked a question they cannot answer in humble-integrity. If they have an opinion, they may then share it, if it seems essential to do so.

For example, if the question is “Does this gun scare you?” the victim of affront might be qualified to say “No, and if you don’t put it down I’m going to kill you”, pause for response, then incapacitate if not kill.

Or if the question is “Does God bless America?” they might ask, “Which God? Your God or the-God?” then follow with either “No”, or “I don’t know and don’t think so”, respectively.

So many individuals do not accept the 5000 year-old suggestion in Genesis 1:26-28 viewed with the discoveries through the year 2021:  Female&male-human-being can&must independently provide order&fruitfulness to the living species and to the earth. In other words, the aware individual can&ought-to constrain chaos in their way of living.

Humankind is ignorant about the source of physics and its progeny --- weak forces and strong forces, mathematics, the chemistries, biology, psychology, imagination, fiction, lies, government, etc., and fellow-citizens can&should encourage&facilitate necessity&justice in responsible-human-independence (RHI). If hoping in a personal-God motivates RHI for living, good, and there is no incentive to impose it on the-God and on fellow-citizens.

Humble-integrity to physics --- while researching its source --- is the gage by which a person can, in civic self-interest, continually reduce personal ignorance.

Email to Paul Marchand distribution

Recently, I have put together a case for the 5000 year-old political philosophy in Genesis 1:26-28, interpreted by 2021 comprehension has this suggestion:  Female&male-human-being can&must independently constrain chaos in their individual ways of living. I perceive the suggestion coming from human-necessity&justice: physics rather than metaphysics; acceptance rather than dependency. 

The suggestion came 2000 years before Judaism versus Arabic competitions, and 3000 years before Christianity. Thus, no civilization is innocent of responsible-human-independence (RHI) to provide peace on earth: no higher power will usurp human-responsibility. And 4750 years later, a RHI culture was claimed then proffered, in conformity to the ancient, pre-Abraham, suggestion.

 

The uSA declaration of war for independence from England separated church from state. "The good People of these Colonies" claimed 1776 authority on "Nature and Nature's God" rather than the English-Trinity, to whom many colonial-subjects prayed. Also, in 1778, they negotiated military providence from France. On their lives and fortunes 40% of free inhabitants claimed RHI.

  
Only a decade later, delegates from 12 of 13 free&independent states accepted George Washington's plea for a nation and framed a republic predicated on 5 public disciplines "in order to" encourage&facilitate RHI to "ourselves and our Posterity".

 

However, the adolescent Congress re-established, as much as the Supreme Court allowed, Anglo-American tradition, with factional-Protestant-partnering-with-Congress. Politicians in Congress would be as "divine" as members of Parliament with 26 seats constitutionally assigned to the Church of England.

 

We, the "ourselves and our Posterity" of 2021 can&must amend the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate civic RHI instead of civil religious-pride. 

Conservatives and Republicans can&must conserve RHI rather than Anglo-American tradition.

Write to your representative's today, and never, never, never give up on civic-citizens of the U.S.: We the People of the United States.
 

Thanks always, Paul for your civic leadership.

”Louisiana Needs Education Savings Accounts”, Daniel Erspamer, pelicaninstitute.org, Aug 19, 2021, 6:30 PM https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeBlwnEdCOcvVhKtwrjBIsvFqh9ZKr3m2qkz38BarVaXXRnXA/viewform and https://docs.google.com/forms/u/0/d/e/1FAIpQLSeBlwnEdCOcvVhKtwrjBIsvFqh9ZKr3m2qkz38BarVaXXRnXA/formResponse

First, it seems most parents are themselves adolescent human-beings, at best. They're no better parenthood-prepared than to argue, unaware of the 4 opinionated-traditions they inherited from their child's 4 grandparents. Some parents don't even want their children. ESA's are a disaster for such parents' children, grandchildren, and beyond. Lucky is the child who overcomes the conflicted education they are subjected to. And a few develop independence. Reforming Education Departments so as to encourage&facilitate a culture of civic-integrity is preferred to supporting more parental-chaos.

What we, the 2021 "ourselves and our Posterity", needs is to reform all Education Departments (local, state, and national) from "educating the workers we need" (Barack Obama's 2nd inaugural address) to encouraging&facilitating each person's transition from education-object to human-being with the comprehension&intention to responsibly-develop the-happiness-they-personally-perceive rather than submit-to someone else's vision for them.

Educators can&must accept that as adults they have no idea the future the student will need to manage, so the best teachers can do is 1) present humankind's ineluctable-truth-discoveries in order to transfer comprehension of the chaos that has developed and 2) to enhance each child's appreciation for their opportunity to develop a human-being rather than accept an opposite: animal, plant, mineral, dependent, or soul. "Ineluctable" means "not to be avoided, changed, or resisted" (Merriam-Webster online).

A human lifetime is an opportunity to develop responsible-human-independence, and no person needs to either waste it or die young. Inevitably some will, but the fraction of dependent-persons can be lessened by a culture of civic-integrity, guided-by human-necessity&justice.

Whereas it takes a foal 3 hours to find its mare's tit, a human-infant must be fed for about 3 years to begin transferring a morsel of food to their mouth. Whereas a thoroughbred peaks in 3 years, a human-being requires 3 quarter-centuries to mature to their person's unique human-excellence. Perhaps the human-thoroughbred perfects their unique-person before dying, low as they may have been at points along the way.

Please contact me to develop this Louisiana (U.S.) reform.

Phil Beaver

225-907-8658 cell

225-766-7365

phillip@beaver.brcoxmail.com

1624 Leycester Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70808

 

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.