truth by assertion

[_bcspace]

It's an invitation, even a clarion call if you will, to all those who believe the same and a warning to those who don't they they will be forced to live in a society who's law is based on such self evident truths.

In other words, majority rules.

So the question is who can get to a majority first?

Those words are from the Declaration of Independence -- not the constitution, bcspace.

Duh! Those same who went along with independence enshrined those values in the constitution.

[_huckelberry]

Hi Huck, you said:

: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain, inalientable rights that amoung these are life liberty and the persuit of happiness.

These words have had a lot of discussion over centuries, with seemingly a lot of grandiose sentiments of their meaning. Possibly ill-placed in loftiness beyond what is realistically "self evident". How about:

"Created equal" in that all are born, by the same process with, generally speaking, similar limbs, organs etc. that--as endowed by "their creator"--perform the "inalienable rights" to breathe, eat, excreet, etc as they experience the "rights" of all creatures, to live in "persuit" (sic) of basic needs (food, shelter, safety, etc.) that sustains them as individuals in relative "happiness"...

Seems more realistic--less "streets of gold" thinking--to me. Probably, at the time of writing, quite a step-up from the servitude that the "huddled masses" were destined to in the aristocracy of their past.

The question remains, was/is that Declaration the great-escape it has been interpreted to be for "all men"? Warm regards, Roger

Roger you propose your limitation to physical similarities is more reasistic than something you refer to as streets of gold, I have no clue what you mean by streets of gold. Clearly you are wishing to limit aspriaton to something more realistic. I am unsure whether your limitations would create any sort of intention toward one type of society over any other. I could imagine some rather repellant social structures which observe the human processes of growing eating etc for some unspecied time.(limited perhaps by the convenience of the folks in power?) couldn't a society of pirates agree with the form of natural rights you speak or am I missing your intention?

[_Moniker]

It's an invitation, even a clarion call if you will, to all those who believe the same and a warning to those who don't they they will be forced to live in a society who's law is based on such self evident truths.

In other words, majority rules.

So the question is who can get to a majority first?

Those words are from the Declaration of Independence -- not the constitution, bcspace.

Duh! Those same who went along with independence enshrined those values in the constitution.

Duh, indeed -- what would those values be? That all men are created equal?

Are those values in the constitution that created equal rights for the citizens of the new republic? Please explain that to me - the last time I reviewed the original constitution there were no Bill of Rights and it was merely a contract between the state and the governed -- the role of the state. Would you please explain what is outlined in the constitution (even the original Bill of Rights) that show those values were actually self evident to the men that forged those documents and to the citizens of the state that ratified them?

:)

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Huck, from your post:

These words have had a lot of discussion over centuries, with seemingly a lot of grandiose sentiments of their meaning. Possibly ill-placed in loftiness beyond what is realistically "self evident". How about:

"Created equal" in that all are born, by the same process with, generally speaking, similar limbs, organs etc. that--as endowed by "their creator"--perform the "inalienable rights" to breathe, eat, excreet, etc as they experience the "rights" of all creatures, to live in "persuit" (sic) of basic needs (food, shelter, safety, etc.) that sustains them as individuals in relative "happiness"...

Seems more realistic--less "streets of gold" thinking--to me. Probably, at the time of writing, quite a step-up from the servitude that the "huddled masses" were destined to in the aristocracy of their past.

The question remains, was/is that Declaration the great-escape it has been interpreted to be for "all men"? Warm regards, Roger


Roger you propose your limitation to physical similarities is more reasistic than something you refer to as streets of gold, I have no clue what you mean by streets of gold. Clearly you are wishing to limit aspriaton to something more realistic. I am unsure whether your limitations would create any sort of intention toward one type of society over any other. I could imagine some rather repellant social structures which observe the human processes of growing eating etc for some unspecied time.(limited perhaps by the convenience of the folks in power?) couldn't a society of pirates agree with the form of natural rights you speak or am I missing your intention?

You're not the first to have difficulty following my dots. :-)

"streets of gold" was/is intended (poorly:-) to reference two things: A, Religious as in Rev 3, and in DC 110. B, American hype used to lure immigrants to "THE Land of opportunity. I suggest "streets of gold" (dreams) are "assertions" without question. I hope this gives you a clue.

I misjudged your reason for the OP. Maybe i paid too much attention to the DoI?? Maybe not a good lead-in to what you were asserting"??

Are you digging for alternative political systems by your mention of "...repellant social structures..." "...society of pirates..."???

My "intention" is to present a pragmatic interpretion of the poetic, tinkling-brass, pie-in-the-sky (i hope those words don't leave you cluless :-) assertions attached to suppositions rather than reality.

You implied in your OP personal questions re assertions and the consequence of accepting them as truths. I respectfully suggest, "do not accept them as truth until they are poven so." To that point they are simply prospective. We know that most prospectors end up broke ;-)

Don't bet yer poke on a "Declaration" made by anyone... Hope that didn't go over yer head Bro :-) Warm regards, Roger, over....

[_huckelberry]

Hi Roger, I hope you do not mind our little exchanges even if you and I miss each others intentions from time to time. I enjoy them from time to time. Both you and I sometimes employ bits of personal shorthand. You are unsure about my reference to society of pirates and I am uncertain what you are think of with doI? I am almost left wondering, dollars?

Though you added that new tiny riddle you did clear up what you meant with the streets of gold reference. I understand you are referring there to boosterism seeking to make a profit from others credulity. That certainly a dangerous area in catogory of communicating by employing truths by assertion. In the danger zone there is not only nonsense proposed as truth but manipulation of peoples desires which is probably more dangerous. The second can sit closer to being true and even cozy up to evidence but contain a danger anyway.

My original intention was looking at different angles or kinds of truth by assertion. I think you have brougth up a significant example. I am interested in how you see it hiding behind the words of Jefferson which appear more idealistic. I am unwilling to let Jeffersons idea be sucked into expansionist hype. I may wish to resist it but his words can be so employed. Neither Jefferson or I have control over all the words possible meanings.

I mentioned pirates to try to ask you to be more specific on why you hope our society should be more of one kind than another. I do not get the idea you would be happy with our society becomeing a band of pirates more than it already is. You would like something different. How do you prefer to picture that and do you have a way of articulating why others could should, or may share your hope? Any attempt to change is some sort of prospecting venture.

prospecting, what a subject of tangled conflicting qualities. Got me searching for a heart of gold.

[_moksha]

I like what you have to say Roger.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Roger, I hope you do not mind our little exchanges even if you and I miss each others intentions from time to time. I enjoy them from time to time. Both you and I sometimes employ bits of personal shorthand. You are unsure about my reference to society of pirates and I am uncertain what you are think of with doI? I am almost left wondering, dollars?

Though you added that new tiny riddle you did clear up what you meant with the streets of gold reference. I understand you are referring there to boosterism seeking to make a profit from others credulity. That certainly a dangerous area in catogory of communicating by employing truths by assertion. In the danger zone there is not only nonsense proposed as truth but manipulation of peoples desires which is probably more dangerous. The second can sit closer to being true and even cozy up to evidence but contain a danger anyway.

My original intention was looking at different angles or kinds of truth by assertion. I think you have brougth up a significant example. I am interested in how you see it hiding behind the words of Jefferson which appear more idealistic. I am unwilling to let Jeffersons idea be sucked into expansionist hype. I may wish to resist it but his words can be so employed. Neither Jefferson or I have control over all the words possible meanings.

I mentioned pirates to try to ask you to be more specific on why you hope our society should be more of one kind than another. I do not get the idea you would be happy with our society becomeing a band of pirates more than it already is. You would like something different. How do you prefer to picture that and do you have a way of articulating why others could should, or may share your hope? Any attempt to change is some sort of prospecting venture.

prospecting, what a subject of tangled conflicting qualities. Got me searching for a heart of gold.

"Like WOW Huck!" I value $$$$$ our "exchanges" $$$$$. LUV YA BRO!! Sitting here in my undies sweating cuz it's hot this AM in Florida, and giggling cuz i'm amused, better than angered, by yer response. Don't have as much time as i need to adequately address all of yer issues--soon gotta do Kitchen Duty at Camp--but, as for "doI?": "Declaration of Independence" Was that too big a stretch ;-)??

You're correct--I resist using "right", Coggins might be reading :-)--about "pirates". I'll try to "articulate" my thoughts re change and hopes later. Me thinks you might be getting close to "...a heart of gold." It's attached to da Golden Rule...

Mok, thanks Bro. You are definitely in my circle of influential, worth-listening-to folks. Warm regards, Roger

[_huckelberry]

Roger, I think the golden rule is in some ways more sharply focused than Jeffersons famous words. I think your observations have pointed that out well. I suspect that all of Jesus words and actions could be seen as reflections on the golden rule. Perhaps the rule even if useful is helped by reflection upon how it interrelates with our experience. I think Jesus said we should do that. He was not much for laying out lots of rules about what people should do in every situation. Instead I think he instructed us to think clearly about them.

Jeffersons words could be seen as a variant reflection on this same idea. Well it has other sources as well. It may well be that the golden rule has other sources that Jesus. There is no rason to think the idea is new with Jesus. The two statements seem to address overlapping ideas.

The piece of my opening post I was probably most interested in was" there is something in the human awareness which responds to those words,(the created equal phrases) despite a lack of objective evidences. We suspect that there is objective truth in them which undergirds our desire to share their intention." This observation could apply to the golden rule as well.

People might point out that there is evidence of sorts which can be brought together in support of the golden rule. It has its practicality. I wonder if thinking about it only on a practicle basis would allow a lot of practicle personal fudging of it. I think Jesus saw just that in people around him and beleived and said that the rule is more real than that. It is better to apply it with a vigour beyond immediate practicality. One could perhaps say it, Jesus saw people using shortterm practicality to limit the golden rule and said if we believe the golden rule we shouldn't do that.

Of course that is a truth by assertion as well.

Now I thnk the golden rule is a good truth by assertion. There are some such which are not. Those either cut off the connections to evidence or manipulate immediate desires. The golden rule invites connecting itself with evidence.