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 appreciation: For discussion, I convert the preamble’s predicate phrases to nouns and
paraphrase it for my interpretation of its proposal as follows We the People of the United States proffer &
practice 5 public disciplines —- integrity, justice, peace, strength, and
prosperity, “in order to” encourage & facilitate
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
U.S. equality under John Locke’s God?
Last week, I discovered (despite mysterious Anglo-American
scholarship) that John Locke’s “property” in natural rights theory stems from
the assertion that human-beings are the-God’s properties, assuming Locke’s-God
is the-God. From the Second Treatise of Government (1690): “For Men being
all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker; All the
Servants of one Sovereign Master, sent into the World by his order and about
his business, they are his Property, whose Workmanship they are, made to last
during his, not one anothers Pleasure.”
This profoundly impacts my view of the 1776 Declaration,
which alters Locke’s “life, liberty, and property” to “life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness”. I think the founders rejected Locke’s claim and asserted
that each USA citizen has the personal-privacy to pursue the spiritual
happiness they perceive rather than accommodate the English vision for them. It’s
part of their provisions to separate church and state.
It’s also part of the need to amend the First Amendment so
as to encourage&facilitate responsible-human-independence (RHI) “to
ourselves and our Posterity” rather than accommodate religious-excuses to
Congress and the Supreme Court. Ever notice that the Chief Justice, in leading
the President’s oath of office unconstitutionally adds the question “so help
you God?” I guess to maintain an Anglo-American tradition?
Quora (I appreciate the question-author’s
view or concern; some are profound)
https://www.quora.com/What-if-anything-does-society-owe-its-members-and-more-importantly-why?
by D.J. Elliott
Mr. Elliott, this seems a brilliant corollary to: Why is individual behavior critical to
society? Here’s my opinion (because I cannot offer the-ineluctable-truth).
Society owes the individual justice regarding
responsible-human-independence (RHI). As a consequence, society must&can
constrain fellow-citizens who do not accept that they are human-beings so as to
behave as a dependent. Dependency includes indolence, crime, civil religiosity,
substance abuse, body abuse, tyranny, evil, and worse.
Society owes the individual encouragement&facilitation
of the opportunity to develop humble-integrity that is needed to practice
personal RHI.
Society owes the individual personal-privacy in using
metaphysics to contend with the unknowns in physics and its progeny:
mathematics, strong&weak forces, the chemistries, biology, psychology,
imagination, fiction, indeed everything. By personal-privacy I mean not only
using metaphysics for personal comfort, I mean not trying to impose metaphysics
on fellow-citizens. In summary, in an RHI culture, each fellow-citizen
responsibly pursues the happiness they perceive at each stage of their lifetime
rather than submit to the vision someone else has for them.
The individual owes society acceptance that they are a
human-being with the above mentioned obligations and a plan to achieve them.
https://www.quora.com/When-has-this-quote-Truth-is-not-what-you-want-it-to-be-it-is-what-it-is-And-you-must-bend-to-its-power-or-live-a-lie-by-Miyamoto-Musashi-applied-to-a-situation-in-your-life?
by Judith Engelstad
I
was 48 when our son, age 19, died in a violent, head-on car crash.
Ten
years later, I mentioned to a friend that it ruined my life. The friend said,
“That will be so, as long as you think so.” I thought it was a wonderful
suggestion and pretended to change. Much later, I reformed to the statement “My
life is ruined, yet I will not let that fact ruin myself: I altered&resumed
my journey to perfect Phil Beaver.” Fortunately, I am approaching my eighties
in fair physical condition and grounded psychological steadiness.
I
read, write, speak, and LISTEN to encourage&facilitate
responsible-human-independence (RHI), a practice I
perceive my son was building. If his dad had only known that the human body
does not complete the risk-constraining parts of the brain until age 25, there
might have been more caution that day.
https://www.quora.com/What-makes-you-strive-to-do-only-what-is-moral-even-if-difficult?
by Cristy Narvacan
Every
mistake I’ve made cost me dearly in the long run. Therefore, I work hard to
understand what is necessary to act on and what the responsible action must be.
This
is a process of perceiving a need to act; comprehending the perception so as to
identify mirages and set them aside; evaluating options for action respecting
possible injury to myself or to others; choosing the option that will cause no
injury; announcing my choice and LISTENING for appreciative suggestions; making
needed adjustments; and acting. If there was unexpected injury, I evaluate how
it happened and make amends.
In
this process, I neither try to evaluate another person’s silence nor debate
suggestions I cannot accept. For example, if a judge assigned me to guard a
woman to assure she would gestate and deliver her baby, I would decline and
accept the consequences. Or to force COVID19 vaccination when the person felt
it would threaten their life —- same option.
If
someone demands I must accept the truth, I discover whether they are
referencing the-ineluctable-truth or not and choose accordingly.
Otherwise,
I have failed and can expect regret.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-try-to-blackmail-historical-facts-What-are-they-trying-to-hide-from-Are-they-insecure-about-their-own-history-Do-people-view-history-as-a-threat-to-society?
by Druff Geldmacher
I think you use blackmail as ”coercion by threats of public
exposure”, which applies to the other person rather than to “historical facts”.
I think you clarify with “[is the other person] insecure about their own
history?”
With that assumption, I think every individual should doubt
history, first, because it is a record of the contemporary writer’s bias
regarding a temporal event. Commenters on the historian’s record are especially
suspect, because they are not addressing the facts, unless they present
verifiable new evidence the historian excluded. Further, historical facts must
be viewed in light of humankind’s subsequent discovery of the-ineluctable-truth.
For example, we discovered that the sun is a natural nuclear reactor, not a God
and one that intends to destroy people. However, the discovery is not valued as
evidence that there is no God: sunscreen protects people from harmful rays but
bargaining with the-God is still practiced.
Further, you ask “Do people view history as a threat to
society?” I hope so. It is essential that people spend the time and energy to
examine what they are taught or told, whether it’s accepted history or revisionists’
version. For example, “The 1619 Project” should have prompted many people to
learn for the first time that the Catholic Church in the 1450’s “authorized”
Portugal to purchase African slaves to provide labor for colonization. Then the
Church divided the authorization with Spain in the 1490’s. Then at least four
Protestant European Nations joined the Atlantic Slave Trade in the 1600s. Loyal
Catholics and Protestants as loyal citizens of their European nations included
N. American in their colonization with African slave labor.
When the U.S.A. began to think of itself as a slave to
England and charged with managing slaves for England’s benefit, they included
the slaves in their intentions for freedom. They formed a nation with an 8
slave states to 5 non-slave states ratio and provided for emancipation when the
advantage reversed. The rebel states were numbered 7 to 27 when they fired on
Fort Sumter then grew to 13 to 22 as the war progressed.
The undisclosed history is that the U.S. Civil War was a white-Christian
doctrine vs white-Christian doctrine showdown. Combine a letter from R. E. Lee
to his wife and the CSA Declaration of Secession for evidence that may be new
to some people; https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/letter-from-robert-e-lee-to-mary-randolph-custis-lee-december-27-1856/
and https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
.
I doubt any history that does not hold the Catholic Church
responsible for colonization with African slave buying, African culture for
selling human beings, and Arab traders for marketing the “bitter fruit”.
Furthermore, Christian ministers in slave states did not take care of their
flock. For example, General R. E. Lee could have in 1856, reacted to the
white-on-white murder in “bleeding Kansas” by selling all of his property and
moving to a non-slave state, then in 1861 accepting President Lincoln’s request
that Lee be general for the USA instead of the CSA.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/What-goals-do-you-think-humanity-is-not-focused-enough-on-achieving-to-make-our-world-a-better-place?
by Alvin Funk
Mr. Funk, I’m grateful for your logic and added your name on
my “appreciations” post at promotethepreamble.blogspot.com, if you do not
object.
I have a short and a long response. First, don’t be stupid
by habitually nourishing banal appetites. Second, develop
responsible-human-independence (RHI).
RHI requires personal-integrity continuously gaged by
humble-integrity to self, based on the-ineluctable-evidence. “Ineluctable”
means “not to be avoided, changed, or resisted”, merriam-webster.com (MW).
The human-being who accepts that they are a human-being may
develop the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual
authority (HIPEA) to choose either humble-integrity or dependency. Dependency
includes indolence, substance abuse, sex abuse, believing, crime, tyranny,
evil, and worse.
It takes about 4 quarter centuries for a human being to perfect
their individual person. During the first quarter century, they are responsible
to acquire the comprehension and intention to live a complete human life. By complete,
I mean perfect their unique person with their potential at conception. For a
complete lifetime, they respond “I don’t know” when asked for facts they don’t
know. If necessary for justice, they may answer, “However, I think . . . “
For example, Bush to CIA: “Do you think Saddam Hussein has
weapons of mass destruction?”
Answer: “I don’t know. However, based on his taunt about a
surprise if you invade, I think there is no stockpile.”
I am not alone in suggesting these principles and deem them
accepted in three documents then resisted in one: Genesis 1 with an impersonal
God and an ordered story compared to Genesis 2’s God of Adam and his subjects,
the USA-founders’ 1776 declaration of war against England for independence and
1778 negotiation for military providence from France, the U.S. framers’ and
signers’ 1787 draft U.S. Constitution, all three resisted by the first
Congress’ 1791 Bill of Rights, respectively.
In (my) 2021 view, Genesis 1 suggests that in
necessity&justice female&male-human-being must&can independently
“make our world a better place”, using your phrase. However, Genesis 2 changes
the nature&name of the Genesis 1 metaphysical authority and thereby
initiates a history of human struggle for the-God that will usurp female&male-human-being’s
purpose: RHI. The rest of the Bible is a literary journal of humankind’s
struggle during the recent the 3,000 years bargains with doctrinal-Gods to
usurp RHI in one group’s favor. And during the recent 2,000 years the
human-chaos has become divergent.
No President except George Washington excluded religion from
“four things, which . . . are essential to the well being . . . even . . .
existence, of the United States as an independent Power”; https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-11404.
And the premier Alinsky-Marxist organizer (AMO), President Barack Obama,
subjugated students in his second inaugural address: “Together we determined
that a modern economy requires . . . schools and colleges to train our
workers.” In an RHI culture, civic-citizens voluntarily earn their way of
living by providing goods or services fellow citizens need or responsibly want.
I think the entity We the People of the Untited States is
neglecting separation of church and state, in order to encourage&facilitate
RHI “to ourselves and our Posterity”. We, the civic-citizens of 2021
must&can reform by amending the First Amendment so as to
encourage&promote civic humble-integrity to fellow-citizens rather than
accommodate religion-Congress-Supreme-Court “divinity” to them.
https://www.quora.com/If-the-government-violates-those-rights-natural-rights-life-liberty-and-property-people-are-justified-in-rebelling-Do-you-agree-with-this-Why?
by Gian Acebo
I don’t agree at all. That political propaganda came from Englishman
John Locke, 1632-1704. He was a Calvinist then Deist and always the
personal-God of his Bible. Human-beings were equal, because each was a property
of the-God. Let me repeat that: Lockean human-being was a property of Locke-God,
without humility toward the-God, whatever that entity may
be.
The 1774 founders of the USA wanted independence from such
religious speculations and in writing the 1776 declaration of war for independence
from England expressed the personal-privacy of spiritual choices by changing
“property” to “pursuit of happiness”. They also claimed human-authority from
“Nature’s God” rather than from the Trinity of the English, constitutional
Protestantism.
Bible authorities ignore the pre-Adam, pre-Abraham political
suggestion in Genesis 1:26-28: female&male-human-being must&can
independently provide order&prosperity to the earth and its inhabitants.
Genesis 2 renames the-God and changes the story, and subsequent books increase
the human-chaos.
The Congress and the Supreme Court’s tyranny in
re-establishing Anglo-American tradition cannot long continue. The entity We
the People of the United States must&can reform to the framers’ 1787
intentions: develop responsible-human-independence (RHI) “to ourselves and
our Posterity”. The first, essential act is to amend the First Amendment so as
to encourage&facilitate civic-integrity to fellow-citizens rather than
accommodate religion-Congress-Supreme Court-unconstitutional partnership.
There’s no excuse for the U.S. mimicking England’s tyranny:
church-state-partnership.
To Samuel Shipley:
Mr. Shipley, I appreciate your heartfelt opinions
and want to apologize for a couple days’ distraction due to Hurricane Ida. I need
about 4 more sessions of back-yard cleanup and consider our home and family
very fortunate.
Let me start by accepting your view that Congress
and the Supreme Court don’t attempt to make themselves as “divine” as the
Constitutional English Parliament with its Church of England seats. There
remains the issue of personal-privacy in the choice to be religious or not and
moreover the choice to agree “In God We Trust” or maintain appreciation-for and
humility-toward the-God, whatever that entity may be. For
personal-privacy, there should be no religion clauses in the Constitution and
if they can’t be simply deleted, then “Congress
shall make no laws constraining the individual-citizen’s opportunity to develop
humble-integrity”, or better would suffice. I realize this human,
self-interest is not inculcated, so far, in any culture, yet it was proffered
in the 1787 U.S. Constitution.
I’m a fiscal conservative and responsible-human-liberal,
reading&writing to propose a successful, reformed Republican Party, or a replacement
--- maybe the Human-Integrity Party or better. The point is to protect
religious pursuits to personal-privacy rather than public-civility and
constrain election of persons who do not separate church and state. For
example, a Mormon “saint” who would vote against the Constitution for religious
reasons, as I think Mitt Romney does. For politicians to claim they are
Catholic and vote against doctrine, as it seems Biden and Pelosi do, is a
private issue. I think my ideas can attract Independents, moderate Democrats,
and civic-minorities. By “civic” I mean more than faithful to local, state, or
national politics. I mean judicious in necessary human-connections: intending
and practicing necessity&justice as self-interest. The collective-consequence
must&can be an achievable-better-future.
In my fourth quarter century, the U.S. is more precious than
ever, because of its 1787 intentions. Toward the end of my second quarter
century, public-confidence in reading the founding fathers’ declaration of war
for independent from England waned as I continued to host Independence Day
parties each July 4. The intentions expressed in the 1776 Declaration of
Independence do not seem confirmed by my experiences and observations. Why
would they claim authority from “Nature’s God” and how did that entity differ
from the competitive Trinity-mysteries Mom and Dad presented for me to choose
from? And why change “the good People of these Colonies” appeal from Nature’s
God to “the
Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions”? I think they
perceived in 1776 the possibility that they would appeal to France for military
providence,
as they did in 1778. I’ll say more about that later.
I’ve been an avid reader of American literature since
sophomore English in 1962. Scoring only 30 on the verbal part of the GRE (70%
of test-takers scored higher), I can’t say I comprehended AmLit, yet the
professor wrote “A+” on my final. Re-reading during my third quarter-century,
it took me 2 decades to comprehend that Ralph Waldo Emerson, in “Divinity
School Address” writes that Jesus was a man who uniquely understood, in my art,
that each human-being has the opportunity to perfect their person before dying
and that Christianity suppressed Jesus’s message, perhaps forever, by appointing
Jesus the-God.
Further, once a fan of James Madison, I now perceive he was
a perfected-politician who lacked civic-integrity: could not admit&witness
“I don’t know” when he did not know. For example, on June 20, 1785 Madison
said, “Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must
be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of
Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal
Sovereign.” As a literal reader, I take Madisonian-English-influence to say:
only properties
of Locke’s-God can be civic-citizens. I recall Locke’s “life, liberty, and
property” vs the USA-founders’ “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
In other words, human-beings are equal, because they are Locke-God’s property.
Both Locke and Madison, in my view, are guilty of attempting to usurp the-God.
The framers, in negotiating the 1787 draft Constitution would not allow English
negligence of the-God, and therefore did not include religion in the
preamble’s list of public disciplines. England constitutionally requires a
Protestant-God, a Protestant-Trinity, as of their 1689 Bill of Rights.
I think there’s bogus citation of Madison as a source of the
Thomas Jefferson phrase ”wall of separation”, from his Danbury Church letter;see
https://www.loc. gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html. This
is an extensive, interesting article.
Yesterday, my friend Chris Nalepa, PhD Chemist, suggested
that “truth” is a journey rather than a viable goal: expressing that the the-ineluctable-truth
exists does not imply hope to discover its entirety. I agree with Chris. For
example, as long as a person has not met the-God,
in physics rather than through metaphysics, they are obligated to themselves to
accept “I don’t know” as they did as a child, who intended to-learn more than to-accept. These principles are as valid for me as they were for James
Madison.
I attribute to George Washington before James Madison the
awareness of the opportunity for the Atlantic Ocean together with U.S. foreign
policy to shield the USA from European conflict. And General Washington,
religious in personal-privacy and responsibly expressive in public, did not
hold religion to be essential to the USA’s success as a nation. See https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-11404,
which I consider American underground literature, because it is so hard to
find.
The 238 USA-years since General Washington’s farewell to the
Continental Army have demonstrated that for some people, religious fervor ignores
civic-integrity. For some persons, veneration of sex prevents fidelity to self.
Too many persons lust for power over fellow-citizens. Almost no one appreciates
the-God
enough to reserve sufficient appreciation-for or humility-towards that mystery,
perhaps eternal phantasm. Dependency dominates chosen ways of living.
Also, the Seven Years War, 1756-1763, between France and
England for global-empire dominance was more 1803-U.S. recent and more
influential on colonial events than the Thirty Years’ War. Related French vs
English battles in America were called the French and Indian Wars, 1754-1763. Loyal
colonial subject Washington served England under the Province of Virginia until
1758 and afterwards could not gain an English commission so retired to plantation
life. In 1763, King George II decided to tax the colonies to pay debts from the
Seven Years’ War against France, and “taxation without representation” eventually
led to USA-independence with England’s surrender to France and the continental
army at Yorktown, VA, 1781.
There have been some 8 trillion man-years’ experience,
observations, and discovery since homo
sapiens emerged about 300 thousand years ago. In only 80 years’ lifetime,
it seems impossible for an open-minded, open-hearted person to acquire the
humble-integrity needed for RHI. Things are never what they seem
to the human individual, yet self-reliance, in self-interest, is
key. Until the person knows the physics of an issue, they must accept their
ignorance of the facts, by admitting to self “I don’t know” when they don’t
know. For example, I don’t know if Jesus is the originator of Genesis 1:26-28.
If statements attributed to him are true, ignoring Genesis 1 could be ignoring
Jesus. Statements like “before Abraham was born I AM”, “render unto Caesar . .
. “, “do unto others . . .”, “be perfect” suggest that ignoring the RHI
inferred in Genesis 1 is arrogance toward Jesus.
The latest extreme example of an elected official allowing
religious-pride to dissuade them from RHI is running mate V.P. Mike Pence
“witnessing for Christ” in Georgia on January 4, 2021, then betraying the
Commander-in-Chief and his President and the entity We the People of the United
States by not acting under the U.S. Constitution on January 6, 2021. In the
first place, no person can represent Jesus.
No presidential candidate should trust a Christian to be a
running mate until the U.S. amends the First Amendment to encourage&facilitate
civic humble-integrity instead of civil religious-pride. Only then can the U.S.
begin to develop independence from England.
I address these issues not to refute your opinion, but to
share my observation and experience that “E Pluribus Unum” (1782) is far more
inclusive and motivating than “In God We Trust” (1956). In the first place,
nobody knows if the Catholic-Trinity that supported the 1956 motto-change is the-God.
What about the myriad Protestant Trinities and Protestant Unity; Allah; Yahweh;
Brahmin; ancient Gods still being worshipped; and the abundant philosophies:
Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, etc? How can Judeo-Christianity imagine meeting
the Genesis 1:26-28 suggestion that the-God left it to
female&male-human-being to provide order&prosperity to the earth and
its inhabitants? Does E Pluribus Unum apply to the-God? Maybe “In
the-God We Trust” would suffice.
Lastly, it matters not what the First Amendment’s intentions
may be: the U.S. consequence is as awful as the entire history of religious wars,
persecutions, and tyranny. It is tyranny over the necessity&justice
expressed in three documents: Genesis 1:26-28, the 1776 declaration of war for
independence from England, and the 1787 Constitution for 5 public disciplines
in the U.S.: integrity, justice, peace, strength, and prosperity, “in order to”
foster responsible-human-independence (RHI) “to ourselves and our
Posterity”. Maybe the Republican Party will change to the Responsible Human
Independence Party.
It is essential --- to the success of this opportunity for U.S.
reform --- for you, Mr. Shipley, to consider it. I appreciate learning from you
and hope to learn more.
https://www.quora.com/What-individual-rights-should-a-government-protect?
by Christopher Cervantes
Any right promised by any government is metaphysical
propaganda intended to control the population, excepting one: The right to the
opportunity to develop responsible-human-independence (RHI). Not every citizen
will take the opportunity, as some persons prefer dependency for reasons they
may not understand.
To develop RHI, a person must&can choose
four acceptances: 1) they are a human-being rather than one of the dependent
opposites: animal, plant, mineral, or soul, 2) they can master humble-integrity
by researching for ineluctable-evidence (“ineluctable” means “not to be
avoided, changed, or resisted”, merriam-webster.com) and otherwise preserving
“I don’t know”, 3) the human-being has the individual power, the individual
energy, and the individual authority (HIPEA) to choose RHI rather than a
dependency, and 4) practicing RHI is in their best self-interest.
Not only to protect the individual opportunity to choose RHI,
government should encourage&facilitate RHI, in order for most civic
citizens to enjoy the happiness they prefer at each stage of human-living
rather than accept the happiness someone else envisions for them. And also to
urge fellow citizens who are dependent due to indolence, crime, tyranny, evil,
and worse to reform.
This form of government is not something I thought up. But it
is
how I view the combination of the founders’ 1776 declaration of war for
independence from England and the framers&signers 1787 draft U.S.
Constitution. Together the two documents separate church and state. They
proffer a representative republic based on 5 disciplines that leave religion to
adult personal privacy for “ourselves and our Posterity” to aid the discovery
of RHI.
In other words, the 1787 draft Constitution offers no standards of performance,
leaving the ultimate-RHI discovery to posterity’s
posterity.
Unfortunately, We the People of the United States has
struggled under the England-mimicking religion-Congress partnership that was
re-instated by the First U.S. Congress in 1789 and codified in the First
Amendment’s religion clauses in 1791. It’s an original,
factional-American-Protestant-Congress partnership to mimic the
Protestant-Parliament-partnership. It seems now morphed to
Judeo-Catholic-Congress&Supreme-Court-partnership at the expense of the
civic-citizens, whether religious individuals or not. In an RHI
culture, theistic-citizens who are civic have a personal-God yet reserve
sufficient humility to the-God, whatever it may be.
It is time for atheists to stop accommodating the label
imposed on them by so-called theists and to hold the U.S. accountable to its
1787 intentions: to encourage&facilitate RHI.
The first essential reform I perceive is to amend the First
Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate the civic-integrity needed for
individual&collective RHI instead of the-religion-Congress-Court
civil-pride.
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Is-collectivism-a-disease?
by Alex Orta
“Disease” means “a harmful development”, http://merriam-webster.
com (MW). So, yes, collectivism is a disease. Individual
responsible-human-independence (RHI)
is a cure. What’s interesting is to comprehend the cause of the disease then
facilitate individual reform. So far, freedom&liberty have collectively
distracted the U.S. from independence if not RHI.
I think too many individuals attempt to maneuver physics to
conform to metaphysics. By “physics” I mean all its progeny: mathematics,
waves, chemistries, biology, psychology, imagination, fiction; indeed
everything. Metaphysics --- “a study of what is outside objective experience”,
MW --- derives from ineluctable-evidence that humankind has not yet discovered,
including illusions. “Ineluctable” means “not to be avoided, changed, or
resisted”, MW.
Illusions are difficult, since the ineluctable-evidence does
not exist. Therefore, no one can disprove an individual’s metaphysics. I can’t
prove that my-God is ineluctable, so I reserve appreciation for the-God, whatever it may be,
hoping my humility is sufficient. I think yet don’t know.
Even individuals who claim to know God and do, for all I know, could . .
. should pay attention to ancient thoughts that could inspire and motivate RHI. One such thought,
unnecessarily made metaphysical, is recorded perhaps 2,000 years after it was
expressed, and the record was written 3,000 years ago. Discovery in the last
5,000 years has been exponential; in 2021 objectivity, Genesis 1:26-28 can be
viewed as: Female&male-human-being
must&can independently provide order&prosperity to the earth and its
inhabitants--- that is, provide RHI.
But not everyone accepts that they are a human-being with
the individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to provide RHI. Some prefer to feel
dependent, like any of animal, plant, mineral, or soul. Many individuals live
in constant pursuit of a reliable higher power rather than working to perfect
their unique journey to RHI.
In fact, Genesis 2 assigns a different name to the metaphysical power, or
“God”, and negates RHI by
positing female-male infidelity in the Adam&Eve story. The rest of the
Bible is opinion about human-chaos inspired by metaphysics: one “God’s people”
versus another. I have no sympathy/empathy and suggest reform to people who
judge me capable of hate.
A solution to the RHI
dilemma is a culture that encourages&facilitates humble-integrity rather
than pride in religion or none. Civic-citizens and dependent-citizens
should&can regard each other as fellow-citizens. Thereby, collectivism is
centered on civic-integrity rather than constraint. The fellow-citizen who is
accused of injury is alerted to the possible-need for civic reform, and
civic-citizens who are funding law enforcement facilitate reform to RHI rather than religion.
Three documents together, the pre-Adam, pre-Abraham Genesis
1, the USA’s declaration of war for independence from both England and the
Church of England, and the 1787 draft U.S. Constitution proffer a culture of RHI, featuring separation of
church and state.
Regrettably, Anglo-American factions during the 1788
state-ratification conventions and Tory-members of the 1789 Congress restored
dependency on English law as much as erroneous independents in Congress
accommodated. I doubt independents empowered with the RHI-articulation would have
allowed it. Also, some patriots still celebrated Englishman John Locke’s “life,
liberty, and property” despite the 1776’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness”. Also, before the French Revolution’s 1789 liberty to let
fellow-citizens’ blood, patriots aided Congress to repress the U.S. independence the founding
fathers&France had won and the framers&signers proffered. The
consequence is the tyranny of the 1791 U.S. Bill of Rights.
We, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” must&can hold
the U.S. (us) accountable for the tyranny of re-establishing Anglo-American
tradition rather than upholding U.S. RHI.
An essential reform is to revise the First Amendment so as to
encourage&facilitate civic-humble-integrity rather than to maintain
Congressional-religious-pride supported by a U.S. Supreme Court that has not
yet imagined RHI.
Since 1789, the U.S. has suffered the collectivist disease
of “freedom of religion” instead of the intended RHI: responsible-human-independence. We must&can end the
tyranny.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-freedom-for-you-Are-you-satisfied-with-your-definition-of-freedom-Why?
by Tina Grande
“Freedom” means “the absence of necessity, coercion, or
constraint in choice or action” merriam-webster.com. Since physics and its
progeny, such as biology and psychology, place demands on the human-being,
freedom is a metaphysical, false promise. That is, no entity can reverse
physics so as to provide freedom.
For example, this weekend, I placed plywood boards over a
fancy door with 5 foot beveled glass mirror to protect my wife, who is in a
hospital bed in the den. She needs a suction pump, and the state said to call
the shelter for a portable loaner. When the power went out we called, and they
said they’d call back in 10 minutes to make arrangements. We felt free to
purchase a power supply and did. She needs 71 degrees F, and the temperature
rose to 78 during the outage. So far, I have worked two grueling days picking
up tree limbs, and have not begun to saw up the downed large limbs. This spring
we spent $5,000 getting our trees ready for hurricane Ida, 8/29/2021, and
consequently had no trees blow into our home. I perceive no freedom at all, yet
cherish something better: responsible-human-independence (RHI).
I did not come by this phrase on my own, even though I’m the
only writer who uses it. RHI is the suggestion made in the first book of the
Bible, Genesis 1. Most Bible advocates ignore Genesis 1:26-28, construct a God
they think will usurp RHI, and thereby miss the Bible’s message.
RHI is also proffered in the 1776 Declaration and the 1787
draft Constitution. In 1789, Congress unconstitutionally imposed metaphysics on
the U.S., codifying their evil in the 1791 Bill of Rights.
We, the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” must&can
amend the Frist Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate RHI instead of
religious pride.
In a culture of RHI, fellow-citizens earn their way of
living and freedom-from government interference by paying taxes on time in full
and observing the law. Included in the taxes is funding of first responders and
continual improvements in the law so as to approach statutory justice.
Physics often corrects metaphysics: the human-being is
prudent to avoid metaphysics.
https://www.quora.com/Why-would-you-entertain-the-rights-of-others-if-they-do-not-entertain-yours?
by Brecht Corbeel
I
focus on humble-integrity and accept fellow-citizens responsibly pursuing the
happiness they perceive at their journey in self-interest at this time in their
life.
During
my second quarter century, I accepted a couple principles.
First,
I was no longer a student, but a professional chemical engineer, taught to
think, to consult the literature for any pertinent information, to consider
whether there were any analogies or parallels to my problem, consult with an
expert if needed, then apply all the evidence to solve the problem.
Second,
since I was a professional, I need not consider anyone’s hopes or impositions
about my work. I need not seek approval of my opinion or purpose: I needed to
focus on solving the problem. One boss told me I was too sensitive. I asked,
“May I revise that statement according to my view?” With yes, I said, “What you
interpret as sensitivity I regard as acute awareness.” Eventually that boss
promoted me.
During
my third quarter century, I applied what I had learned as a chemical engineer
to my presence as a human being. For example, someone spoke a racial slur, and
I said, “That was an expression of racism, and I oppose racism.” I had dropped
out of the circle of friends and hoped that some silent ones benefitted.
In
my fourth quarter century, I work night and day to persuade fellow-citizens to
amend the First Amendment so as to encourage&facilitate civic
humble-integrity rather than civil religious pride. I consider my work a
privilege and do not object if fellow-citizens disagree.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-concept-of-inalienable-rights-according-to-John-Locke-Why-cant-I-cut-off-my-arm-or-take-my-life-just-because-I-want-to??
by Saad
Ali
I think you express responsible-human-independence (RHI)
by questioning the controversial Englishman’s theory.
John Locke (1632-1704), was first a Calvinist then a Deist
and always his Bible authority. See “All human beings are ‘the Servants of
one Sovereign Master, sent into the World by his order and about his business,
they are his Property, whose Workmanship they are’ (ST §6). “ at https://www.cambridge
.org/core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy/article/selfownership-and-despotism-locke-on-property-in-the-person-divine-dominium-of-human-life-and-rightsforfeiture/62B4312A7B2054DACC1AC383BA7269A5.
As far as I know, this principle is supported by scholars of
Anglo-American-tradition. Bible-thumpers, ancient and modern, typically ignore
the Genesis-1 assertion that humankind can&must independently provide
order&prosperity to the earth and its inhabitants.
However, the uSA founders, in the 1776 declaration of war
against England, advocated “spiritual” personal-privacy by changing Locke’s
“life, liberty, and property” to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness". In other words, a civic human-being responsibly pursue the happiness
they perceive at any moment in their progress to maturity rather than submit to
someone else’s vision of their happiness.
The 1787 draft U.S. Constitution continued this effective
separation of church and state by providing for amendment by the people and
preferring 5 public disciplines “in order to . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity”. There are no standards, so posterity’s posterity will
discover the-human-good. Also, in 1789, events of the French Revolution expressed
that “liberty” is too often license to let fellow-citizens’ blood.
However,
the First Congress, starting in 1789, re-established as much as possible
Anglo-American tyranny of church-state partnership, with factional-American-Protestantism
unconstitutionally partnering with Congress so as to mimic the Church of
England’s constitutional partnership with Parliament. The First Congress
surrendered, by tyranny, the independence of personal-privacy respecting
motivation&inspiration vs imposed-spirituality the entity We the People of
the United States had won, not only for themselves but for humankind.
We,
the 2021 “ourselves and our Posterity” must&can end the tyranny now,
starting with amendment of the First Amendment so as to
encourage&facilitate civic humble-integrity rather than
establish&impose civil religious-pride.
https://www.quora.com/The-only-cause-of-fear-is-ignorance-do-you-agree-or-disagree-Why?
by Czarek Plotczyk
I disagree, because constraining fear strongly motivates RHI.
“Fear” means “an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by
anticipation or awareness of danger”, merriam-webser.com.
The human-being who accepts that they are a human being,
whether by encouragement&facilitation or by experience&observation, can
acquire the individual power, the individual energy, and the individual
authority (HIPEA) to develop responsible-human-independence (RHI).
The person with RHI practices self-interest to constrain fear.
Unlike the freedom-to-think or the liberty-to-act, RHI
is lived by the individual rather than bestowed by some external power,
energy, or authority. However, the person who accepts being human and accepts
HIPEA is not forced to develop RHI: Some persons choose-to depend-on an external
power.
To illustrate, I recall my decision not to attend Mardi Gras
in New Orleans. I read news of a person who died after some float-rider threw a
brick instead of beads. I decided not to attend Mardi Gras, even though crews
promised better rider-control. Other people felt the awareness positioned them
to safely attend, and I responded, “That’s an OK choice, but I prefer private-absence
rather than defensive-participation.” I feel the same way about casinos: I
prefer not to be there.
Since no one was arrested for public endangerment &
injury, I was not confident in the news-report. The brick could have been some
carelessly placed on the float for a purpose I can’t imagine, then it fell off.
I had no knowledge of the real cause of the injury and death. However, for the
future, I acted on my independence.
Similarly, when I discovered that the Apostle John, in John
15:18-23, used the word “hate” 5 times to build a case against me (the fifth
usage that I hate the-God) I dropped out of Christianity. That was a
quarter-century ago, and now I realize I dropped out of religion altogether. I
think it is my obligation as a human-being to reserve sufficient-humility to
the-God, whatever that entity may be. I no longer yield to a human-contract or
doctrine to claim I know the-God.
It doesn’t bother me if someone establishes hope&comfort
in their personal-God, as long as they don’t accommodate violence like throwing
a brick when beads are expected. Worse is to demand vigilantism when civic-fellow-citizens
provide first-responders and fund continual development of statutory justice to
encourage&facilitate RHI to the earth and its
inhabitants.
https://www.quora.com/Which-of-the-following-personal-practices-is-most-essential-to-human-necessity-justice-and-why-compromise-intention-resilience-or-strength?
answer by Holly
PRB to Holly:
I
appreciate your thorough consideration of my awkward question.
First,
let me offer a revision: To individually proffer human-interaction with
necessity&justice, which of the following practices is most essential and
why: compromise, intention, resiliency, or strength? Notice I revised
“resilience” to “resiliency”: I want to address political adversity rather than
misfortune.
I
omitted emotions, because I think the other party can take them as imposition.
Even appreciation can be pitied on the one hand and resented on another.
Leaving emotions out of the human connection preserves personal-privacy.
Please
consider my revision, perhaps first by asking me to revise again.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment