The Laymanís Petition/Preface 2017 US Federal Election Print E-mail

and legitimacy in one’s personal entry tradition—to the exclusion of another’s—then one must likewise expect to be excessively, personally, and legitimately ‘excluded’ by that other.

I ‘believe’ that most human beings today have already moved beyond Article 18 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) with its vulnerability and obviously divisive consequences and have recognized that as modern adults, we are not “free,” to “think,” to “believe,” whatever we want—but are bound by our collective adult humanity to grasp our true global relationship to each other and our larger sustaining environment. I am not talking about a legislative end to ‘developmental belief,’ (innocents/unconscious sequential development), just a corresponding legal and realistic treatment of what ‘thought actually is’—what a global adult human being actually is. If it is legally acceptable to describe the one (luxury of childhood/forgivable adult imperative of earlier historic times)—then it is likewise legally acceptable to describe the other (as viewed through our contemporary/physical insight into thought itself/global adulthood).

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights allows us (in fact implores us) to challenge the inherent/strategic neurological ambiguity of Article 18.

I say “inherent/strategic neurological ambiguity,” because among many other things: “...The need for an assertion of ‘universal’ human rights had ‘become evident’ during the Nuremberg Trials of 1945-46, when some lawyers had argued that Nazis could be prosecuted only for the portion of the genocides they committed in occupied countries like Poland. What they did in their own territory, according to the ‘earlier way of thinking,’ was none of anyone else’s business.” (Page 258, BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE) (My quotations/underlines)

To proceed with timely, unprecedented and globally legitimate prosecutions, an injunctive functional benchmark in human behavior had to set—Article 18—with the delicate, respectful and universally validating language concerning ‘thought itself’ to be realized later through Article 19.

It was toward this end that The Layman’s Petition was written.”

Paul Young, author: The Layman’s Petition, April 24, 2017

___________________________________


So here then, with an acknowledgement of its many compositional challenges, is The Layman’s Petition as previously presented (©Copyright 2002, 2007, 2010).

(The author does not question or challenge the necessary and strategic mechanism behind the social/political expedient of the individual’s inalienable rights, only the neurological ambiguity of it.)

View/Purchase


 
Website Design & Development
^