Research directory

Greetings!

The adventure before us is none other than re- inventing American civilization.

Americans have inherited a concoction of cultural documents, forces, and vehicles including: The Holy Bible, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

But we need not settle for merely floating downstream on the split logs that, like a passing storm, divinity or evolution accidentally has felled for us. Not only do we captain our ship. We also design and build the vessel in which we negotiate the rapids, even if we settle for the rotted log.

Though we may never redesign our own physical bodies, we surely can re-invent the teachings and institutions which carry us from generation to generation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1. PURPOSE


1. RE-INVENTING


1. Who decides the re-invention?

Within the free market, a new invention gets no advantage over the old technology. Thus, the People decide the re-invention in comparison with all the other alternatives.

Inventors may offer new inventions. However, the surviving technology of the future derives not from the choices of the inventors, but rather from the choices of the buyers, the People, the voters, the commentators, the quoters, the users, the believers, and the teachers of the young.

2. AMERICAN


1. Isn't this a world civilization?

Partly. But, to be effective, the re- invention must target specific problems that the old technology ignores. And the specific problems always manifest in a specific civilization. Here, the discussion centers on the uniqueness of the problems in American civilization.
2. What about re-inventing Japan, India, or Germany?

The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for re- inventing those civilizations would be quite different from this FAQ. No other country has the particular combination of The Holy Bible, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution.
3. What is the role for non-Americans?

Non-Americans provide a mirror. Observers from outside point to inconsistencies and unconscious habits. For example, the folly of the current budget battle between the Republican Congress and the "Democratic" President is obvious to Europeans. Americans cheer or Americans boo; but Americans join with the American phenomenon that others see as folly.

The American itch to join the folly of the budget battle may derive from the flawed sources of the American civilization.

3. CIVILIZATION


1. Is not civilization the heritage from the past?

Partly. In a similar legacy, technology is a heritage from the past. But the technology of the future derives from the inventions of today.
2. How can you just "invent" civilization?

The American Founders certainly did.

4. THE HOLY BIBLE


1. Why replace the Bible?

Re-invention does not replace. Re-invention creates a competitor. After the re- invention, the buyers may replace the items on their shelves. But that is the decision of the buyers.
2. Does this include a re-write of the Torah?

No. The torah includes not only the first five books of the Bible from Genesis through Deuteronomy but also commentaries and explanations which were excised in the King James Version. American civilization did not consult the torah's conception of Yahweh. Rather, American civilization grew from a militant Christian tradition in which the report of a "God said" could unify armies to conquer the "heathen."

In contrast, the torah's concept of Yahweh is a two-way process of creation by covenant: People create Yahweh and at the same time establish a covenant that binds Yahweh to create the People. This two-way creation of Yahweh has been dramatized in Leonard Bernstein's Kaddish Symphony where the Speaker calls Yahweh "on the carpet" to hold Yahweh responsible for serious breaches of the covenant. Thus, the Yahweh concept already has a built-in "re-invention" and a re-competition with the old inventions.

3. What part of the Holy Bible requires repair?

The "God said" approach of the Holy Bible encourages an American search for an absolute truth to serve as a sword and shield against facing reality when problems arise.
4. What is wrong with a "God said" approach?

Nothing. If God regularly appeared to deal with the People, then many public policies necessarily should consider what "God said."

However, in American life as in the days of old, no one actually hears a "God said." But there are many conflicting reports of a "God said." And Americans vote and teach their young on the basis of the rumor while ignoring reality that must be faced.

5. THE AMERICAN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE


1. How can you "amend" the Declaration?

The Declaration of 1776 should remain untouched.
2. Why re-invent the Declaration of Independence?

In American culture, the Declaration of Independence states a particular view of the relationship of government to the citizen. Though the Declaration of 1776 might have served well the purpose of unifying American colonists against the King of England, this same Declaration may fail to provide insights for solving current problems.
3. What part of the Declaration requires repair?

The Declaration of 1776 encourages Americans to think of "rights" as pre-existing the formation of the community.
4. How could a document ever compete with the Declaration of 1776?

In 1775, many persons might have said, "How could a document ever compete with . . .?" naming any revered document of 1775. But the American Founders wrote the Declaration of 1776 to solve the immediate problem. And the People adopted it because it rang true.

People who quote the Declaration of 1776 for the situation of today are using a sword for a screwdriver. What the People need today is a good magnet that will solve the problems of joining. But inventors so far have failed to conceive of a magnet to join together in solving American problems.

Why should an American citizen join with the community, state, and nation to address the problems in America? That is the question the re-inventor must solve. Then the inventor must provide an inspiring document that will compete with the misuse of the Declaration of 1776. The switch should occur, not because "Someone said" it, but because the new document rings true.

6. THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES


1. Don't you have to "amend" the Constitution?
   For the American People, the Constitution is more than the words in the document. Most UseNet arguments over the Constitution are over the "interpretation," not over the written words. Thus, re-inventing the Constitution is an on-going activity of the culture.


2. Doesn't the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution?

Yes. However, the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court is the ONLY interpreter. Surely the People should interpret the Constitution that begins with "We the People."
3. What part of the Constitution requires repair?

First, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause must be changed to face reality. The current policy of banning teacher-led prayers is a mere superstition.
4. What's wrong with BANNING religion if it is wrong?

Banning falsehood only makes falsehood stronger because whoever is suppressed cannot distinguish between "truth" and the "appearance of justice" in fighting against oppression.

7. YOUR ROLE IN THE RE-INVENTION


1. What can I do?

Look to your heart of hearts. What problem recurs but even so does not attract enough attention? Talk about the reality that you see.

2. PUBLIC DELIBERATION


1. COMPETING OPPOSITIONS OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH


1. What is Reality?

No one observes reality directly. Everyone observes only a cognition of reality.

Thus, sight is a cognition. Hearing is a cognition. Everyone observes what they see, hear, and feel. But no one can observe reality directly.

Beliefs are a part of everyone's cognition of reality. Thus, even if the objects of belief do not exist, at least the beliefs exist.

For example, during re-invention, some will assert that "God is real." Others will assert that this is unknowable. In any case, some cognize "God is real." Others do not.

Thus, when anyone states what is real, that person only recites a personal cognition which includes beliefs. But the beliefs are part of the political reality that any true solution must incorporate.

2. DEALING WITH OPPONENTS WHO HAVE FIXED POSITIONS


1. What can be done?

The inventor does not attempt to change reality. The inventor merely faces reality and responds to reality so that the solution emerges from the identified natural forces.

Thus, those with fixed beliefs merely state the reality that the inventor must hear, not change.

The solution emerges from the inventor changing the inventor's beliefs.

3. C ONVINCING


1. EFFECTIVENESS: MASTER HEURISTIC ALGORITHM


1. How can I measure my effect?

Effectiveness does not derive from getting your opponent to parrot what you believe. You want your opponent to deal with reality. What good then could come from getting your opponent to chant what does not come from the heart!

You want your opponent to see without your aid. Effectiveness therefore derives from getting your opponent to look. In the meantime, your opponent's method of looking may consist of disagreeing. Thus, you cannot measure your effectiveness by a poll of your opponent's agreements with you.

Rather, your effectiveness derives from getting your opponent to engage with the reality you see.

Hence, you must sketch your view of reality clearly.

2. WRITING STYLE


1. What makes writing easy to understand?

When your reader sees what you see, your writing becomes transparent. And your reader responds directly to reality.

Several interferences, like the "snow" in a television image, can make your "transmission" less clear.

For example, changing your viewpoint even slightly creates confusion.

2. How can I maintain a single viewpoint?

The sentence structure of the English language creates unintended changes of viewpoint. For example, generally succeeding sentences have different subjects and different verbs. And every new subject and verb generates a spurious change of viewpoint--unless you tie your argument together.

You can tie your argument together by beginning EACH SENTENCE with a "connector." The connector then signals the effect you intend each new sentence to have. The following is a table of "connectors."

----------------------

CONTRASTS

However, = The next sentence states some reality that the previous sentence omitted.

But = The next sentence states some reality that most people forget when they agree to the previous sentence.

In contrast, = The next sentence states a reality at the other extreme from the reality in the previous sentence.

Nevertheless, = The next sentence states a reality that prevails even if I concede to you the reality of the previous sentence.

To the contrary, = The previous sentence criticized what you mistakenly believe. And the next sentence will hit you with the reality that your belief ignores.

Rather, = I have stated what is NOT true in the previous sentence and I have labeled it as UNTRUE. Since in the next sentence I will state what IS true, I don't want you to linger any longer with that UNTRUE feeling from the previous sentence. Clear the Untrue_Flag.

----------------------

INCREASING EVIDENCE IN THE SAME DIRECTION

Furthermore, = I have an even bigger snowball to throw.

Moreover, = And an even bigger one.

Additionally, = I want to make sure that you don't follow your suspected tendencies and read the next sentence as disagreement with the previous sentence.

Similarly, = Warning! The next sentence may look to you like a different topic. But I want you to see that if the previous sentence is about the number 4, then the next sentence being about the number 8 is NOT a different viewpoint because they are both about even numbers, which is the reality that you should be viewing right now.

---------------------

I CONCEDE A SMALL POINT, AND WILL STILL WIN

Although = I'll give you 2, but I'm going to take back 10 after the comma.

Even if = I'll give you what follows and you still won't win.

--------------------

BECAUSE OF THE REALITY ASSERTED BEFORE

Therefore, = The previous sentences stated that E=mc**2 and asserted that a small amount of matter can be transformed into a vast amount of energy. The next sentence will state that people have reason to fear what the atomic bomb does. Steps will be left out. So you had better think fast.

Thus,
That is, = The next sentence is a restatement of the reality in the previous sentence.

Hence,
As a result, = The next sentence is a special case of the reality in the previous sentence.

Accordingly, = I'm warning you that there is a hidden clockwork behind the previous sentence and the next sentence. I won't take the time right now to explain the clockwork. But, since my previous sentence stated that it is night on one side of the globe, my next sentence is going to state that it is daylight on the opposite side.

-------------------

I WILL NOW STATE WHAT I WANTED TO PROVE

[[In geometry it is done with "therefore."

However, it CANNOT BE DONE convincingly in an argument in English. "Therefore" worked in geometry only because the result was already assumed and conceded in the axioms and postulates. In contrast, when dealing with any argument that matters in English, the argument is ONLY over axioms and postulates.]]

--------------

3. How can I start using connectors?

Write a strong first sentence. This first sentence should state the problem Reality, not mere facts. Then, begin every following sentence with a connector. After you have completed every sentence, go back and adjust the connectors to proclaim how each sentence relates to the previous sentence.

Next, when you have an argument, move your sentences around so that the order of your sentences presents a string of similarities together followed by ONE huge contrast.

For a final draft, go back and remove any connector that does not drive your point home.

4. How can I make my writing interesting?

First, have a theme. The theme is a hook to pull on your reader's fascinations. Thus, an effective theme looks, not to your hobbies, but to the hobby horses of your reader.

Second, start your argument with the strongest chunk of reality you think your opponent ignores. Don't build to a conclusion. Start with it.

Third, give illustrations. People like pictures. Pick a random page in your favorite magazine for inspiration. Even your opponents will get a worthwhile chuckle from a clever picture.

5. What favorite arguments of mine don't convince?

Inductive arguments generally don't work in English--unless the reader already agrees with you. That is, if you start your argument with facts to build to your conclusion, your reader is given too many chances to draw the opposite conclusion, and WILL--because your reader has already examined whatever data you might present.

Although a "surprise ending" might entertain your reader, it likely will not alter your reader's view of reality.

The most convincing arguments in English start with a blockbuster reality and point to the effects of that reality.

4. HANDLING PERSONAL ATTACK


1. FLAMES


1. How can I make them stop calling me idiot and ignoramus?

You can't.
2. What makes them do it?

Flaming is a natural response to being reminded of a neglected problem.

In looking at a problem, people naturally anthropomorphize it--turn it into a human form, a symbol. It is a spontaneous and healthy step.

The statement, "My mom did it to me!" is an elemental cognition of the problem--turning the problem into familiar symbols in the search for an algebra that can be solved. "Mom" then serves as a symbol to provide access to the mechanics of the problem.

"Mom did it to me!" is dysfunctional only if that particular formulation of the problem does not evolve into cognitions that more closely conform to the Reality of the problem.

Likewise, when people flame you even when you did not provoke the flame, they are simply using YOU as the first convenient symbol for dealing with the problem Reality that you have posed, something that they cannot face yet.

Any reasonable person in the nineteenth century, if presented with the problem of the television, would respond, "Idiot. Ignoramus. Go back and learn elementary physics." That is the natural response to a problem that the flamer has not faced.

The same process occurs to the American President, any President of any political persuasion. Whatever problem the People encounter, their first spontaneous and healthy reaction is to flame the President. Thus, the President provides a symbol through which the People can access the problem as a first step at dealing with the underlying problem Reality.

The President's job then is to manage and control the symbol and the public's attention so as to turn the People to face the problem Reality.

3. Should I flame them back to keep them civilized?

Never. Even in their flame, look to whether they have responded to some element of the problem Reality that you talked about. A disagreement is as good a cognition of that Reality as an agreement.

Flaming is simply a result of the lack of an alternative set of symbols to talk about the problem. Consequently, people who are engaged with a problem session will appreciate it if you let them flame as they deal with the problem. And you will add to their ability to see what you send to them if you do not distract them with your return flames.

Of course, there is a place for deliberate flames. That is in alt.flames--and specialties thereof.

March 19, 1997