Discover Necessary Goodness That Motivates Good Behavior

 Workshop to Discover Necessary Goodness That Motivates Good Behavior

Mutual civic integrity preserves citizens’ opportunities to discover and aid civil justice.

Five seemingly ineluctable principles:

1.       Only the person may and can constrain chaos in her or his way of living: higher power, Church and state, fails.

2.       The civic person is humble to a mystery: necessary goodness at the recent edge of discovery.

3.       Every human infant innately desires to pursue good behavior yet many children puzzle over erroneous social influences. Good behavior defines human being (verb).

4.       Civic citizens do all they can to aid children in natural desire to comprehend and intend good behavior; lesser species often neglect the children.

5.       A civic faction, We the People the People of the United States, pursues statutory justice “to ourselves and our Posterity”. Posterity includes legal immigrants. The civic people amend the Constitution when injustice is discovered; through representatives, they
legislate reform.

Preface to the workshop

Dream:  The civic people reform every education institution and function so as to inculcate in children the comprehension and intention to develop good behavior for life. Civic people mutually preserve each other’s opportunity to pursue goodness. They collaborate to accomplish what nations and religions have failed: the pursuit of statutory justice when harm is discovered or imposed; in other words, they pursue necessary goodness. Adults may and can choose to aid children.

Colloquially, “civic integrity” displaces the “freedom and liberty” slogan: 1) Civic citizens do all they can to aid children in their natural desire for good behavior or, to the mirror, “I do all I can to aid children”. 2) Civic citizens listen with appreciation, in order to establish mutual opportunity. 3) Civic citizens develop the law as statutory justice, in order to avoid and resist harm. 4) Responsibility to goodness prevails yet does not expect utopia.

Origin of this proposal: At Perkins Road Park, Baton Rouge, LA, in Summer 2025 Harry Dunn with Donovan Gray paused Phil’s walk-in-the-park to tell a squirrel story. Phil segued to the discovery of the mystery of necessary goodness, which ineluctably motivates a person to good behavior. The 3 people agreed to work together to present the story to listeners in Baton Rouge. Phil immediately began sharing with them his opinions about Genesis 1:26-28, 31. Delights continued and are expected in the future.

Reform from Machiavellian-force to humble-goodness can only be done by individual people collaborating to good behavior: civic integrity. History has proved that power higher than a civic people renders chaos. We three men perceive we are insufficient civic-citizens, and our first task is to add women or a woman to the team.

We intend to initiate a global movement grounded in necessary goodness, each element of which must be discovered as time unfolds.

Intention to Develop a Grass-Roots Presentation to Baton Rouge Inhabitants

We propose to develop this movement at Baton Rouge libraries then present it to Baton Rouge fellows.

Workshop approach:  Each month, we will choose an essential topic for iteration with the participants, listening for civic improvements; hope to perceive improvements to the improvements then re-discuss. Continue this iterative process until all listeners perceive collaboration has approached the ineluctable* truth: conclusions from which mutual listeners cannot currently emerge. Then record the process and conclusions. We welcome discussion with groups who have not participated.

They establish and maintain a steering committee with nomination by participants.

After this initial year’s meetings, continue the process from generation to generation – “to ourselves and our Posterity”, referring to the preamble to the United States Constitution.

*Ineluctable: together, not to be avoided, changed, or resisted (Merriam-Webster online).

Participation: Participants leave each meeting with discussion-conclusions for consideration and possible improvement. Each person seeks opportunity to modify the path and direction of the work, in order to pursue humankind’s necessary goodness rather than a narrow view, such as submitting to higher power or mere force. Every participant’s contribution is precious to humankind.

If necessary, a previous topic may delay the next planned topic. A steering committee chooses such delay.

Knowledge: Presenters declare they can only express opinion. That is, much as they pursue it, they know they do not possess the ineluctable truth. Rather than cite references, they use key words so participants may independently search Online.

FIRST MEETING

Part I

First Year’s Workshop Scope

the participants will direct the actual path.

The Civic People converse, in order to collaborate

Premise:  Humankind regressed to this 2025 abyss yet may and can responsibly rise to necessary goodness; it is necessary for adults, individually and collaboratively, to do all they can to aid humankind’s children.

Intention:  Reform every education department in the United States, in order to inculcate in children both the comprehension of human being (the practice) and the intention to perfect their unique goodness. Personal goodness can only pursue perfection, because humankind discovers necessary goodness at a leading pace.

Method:  Develop together a reliable report of humankind’s journey and discovery so far, in order to observe the consequences of human choices and establish evidence of goodness versus badness. Thereby, create guidance for avoiding and resisting adult mistakes that also hurt children.

Constraints to humankind:  It seems the laws of physics and progeny constrain the consequences of human choices; quantum biology empowers psychology and imagination. Usually, humans discern goodness based on the ineluctable evidence more than on rational values.

Introduce the root and tree depiction of a civic people’s work.

Initial 12-month plan:  Consider history’s timeline of discovery of necessary goodness. This workshop collaborates to simplicity yet integrity, both as wholeness and as truth, without emotionally or rationally resisting recent discoveries. Physics does not yield to emotions.

Part II

Preview of First Year’s Planned Workshop Topics

for participants to change as collaboration unfolds.

 Timeline (to be improved by the workshop):

1)      In the beginning, goodness was necessary even though awareness did not exist.

2)      About 4 billion years ago (ya), earth’s first biological molecule appeared.

a)       The earth cooled, biology developed, and species emerged.

3)      A superior species, Homo sapiens, emerged 200,000 ya as hunter-gatherers

a)       Homo sapiens’ brains are fast enough to consider, discover and apply goodness

b)      Living in remaining mystery, they work to discover and invent, primarily hoping to survive

c)       At last, a species was capable of discovering and pursuing good behavior, late as it may be

4)      Modern humans developed agriculture 12,000 ya

5)      Semitic language originated 5800 ya then branched to Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew -- by 4100 ya.

a)       Egyptian, 5000 years old, is not Semitic.

b)      Sumerian is a language isolate – not of a family.

6)      Sumerian polytheistic-monarchies developed codes of law beginning 5500 years ago

a)       Fellow citizens either choose civil collaboration or imposed harm . . . If so, lost “eye for eye”.

b)      Civic citizens assure pursuit of necessary goodness; statutory justice

7)      Semitic-speakers competed in monotheism 4000 ya

a)       People from Ur segued from polytheism to a God.

b)      Competitive, elite Gods repressed goodness.

8)      (In China), 2600 ya, Kong Qui (Confucius) advocated goodness through rites and ritual

9)      Greeks developed democracy and Rome a republic, 2500 ya and later

a)       Agathon: goodness neither causes nor allows harm

b)      Socrates suggested that goodness enhances a God

c)       Zeno of Citium, about 2300 ya, advocated essential goodness to divine physics

10)   Yeshua, 2000 ya, reportedly lived and promoted goodness needed to fulfill Genesis 1:26-28, 31.

a)       Divinity schools obscure Yeshua by promoting God, Messiah, Jesus, Christ, Church, and more.

b)      Marcus Aurelius, 1850 ya, promoted accepting  the laws of physics to guide life.

c)       Competitive believers may and can choose to respond to physics, in order to improve their beliefs.

11)   A civic faction, We the People of the United States, proposed independent goodness, establishing a constitutional republic, in 1791.The civic faction, defined by the preamble, pursues statutory justice “to ourselves and our Posterity”. Posterity includes legal immigrants.

a)       The First Amendment fails to separate state and Church; resists necessary goodness.

b)      The civic faction may reform education departments, in order to aid the children.

12)   In 1905, Albert Einstein explained the sun as a natural nuclear reactor rather than a God. In 1950, “[physics and ethics] stand the test of experience”.

13)   In April 1961 humankind traveled into “the heavens”

14)   In July 2025 at Perkins Road Park, Baton Rouge, after a squirrel story, by chance,

a)       3 ordinary people imagined humankind pursuing necessary goodness to inspire good behavior

b)      extraordinarily committed to develop an initial, comprehensive local presentation

Part III. The first month’s topic:  Primitive Sumerian-polytheistic political philosophy, which monotheists abstractly expressed in Genesis 1:26-28, 31.

And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule . . . over all the earth and over all [life on] earth." And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over [all species] on the earth." And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good.

(PRB emphasis and condensation; opinions follow)

Opinions about this Genesis-1 passage:

1.       Genesis 1:26-28 seems to affirm actual-reality.

2.       Each person may accept the power, the authority, and the responsibility to constrain chaos in their actions.

3.       “Our image” implies both 1) rule to the good rather than a bad and 2) humankind can choose to behave.

a.       “Image” implies awareness rather than visage or appearance.

4.       The Genesis-1 judge expects humankind to behave.

5.       Plural then singular: polytheism to monotheism; female and male to unity; neither ethnicity nor race; no worship, praise, sacrifice, or coercion.

Genesis 1 invokes broader controversy, including:

1.       New International Version (NIV) uncharacteristically omits “rule . . . over all the earth”.

2.        Genesis 1:1-2 cites God and the Spirit of God, omitting Yeshua’s presence, suggested in John 1:1-3.

3.       Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:3 leaves/makes humankind responsible for order on earth.

4.       From Genesis 2:4, God no longer allows humankind to “rule over all the earth” (Genesis 1:26, except in NIV); comes to earth and wants obedience.

To collaborate during the coming month, study Genesis 1:26-28, 31, draw conclusions using your own resources, intending to suggest improvements on the opinions expressed herein. (Don’t dawdle, because the next essential controversy is on the way.)

Meanwhile, we will prepare a timeline: consequences of elite humankind seeking higher power to impose force rather than pursuing necessary goodness.

Q&A

Second topic:  The complete Bible reports the consequences when civilizations do not accept the Genesis-1 message, for whatever reason.

Genesis 2:4 begins a saga of the God seeking a faction’s obedience, branching to factions who claim obedience is not essential.

1.       A king and priest, anointed to solve the dilemma, is prophesied in Zechariah 6.

2.       The faction was disobedient, so God flooded them out, beginning in Genesis 6.

3.       God made a blood covenant not to flood the people again in Genesis 8.

4.       Centuries later, Israel emerged after a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12.

5.       A faction of Israel predicted a messiah in Isaiah 7 and 53.

6.       Israel alienated many peoples, including Arabs.

7.       Hebrews 9, dismissed by Israel, claims that Christ is the blood sacrifice for all believers, whether circumcised or not and whether obedient or not.

a.       Anyone who acknowledges Yeshua of Nazareth 2000 years ago is not a Jew, because Jews still wait for a Messiah, not.

b.       Christians project Yeshua onto Old Testament, scattered prophecy.

c.       “Jesus” is a miracle-working, western imposition onto Yeshua.

d.       “Christ” is the executed then resurrected Yeshua to some, like Messianic Jews, or Jesus to others.

Prophecy, miracles, and blood sacrifice confound the Bible’s influences to necessary goodness. The consequence is that differing believers exclude civic people. The civic people among the various believers may and can reform use of the Bible story, in order to facilitate rather than prevent good behavior.

If Judeo-Christianity collaborated on necessary goodness and good behavior became evident the rest of the world, humankind might be on the way to order on earth according to Genesis 1:26-28’s message.

(To be developed.)

Third topic:   Extensive New Testament reports of Yeshua influencing necessary goodness that accommodates the Genesis-1 message. Yeshua influences 55% of the world’s population and is a controversial topic to 90% of the world’s population. However, the entity Yeshua has been repressed by the miracles of “Jesus” and the “blood of Christ”. Focus on necessary goodness may and can resolve this worldwide dilemma. (To be expanded.)

Fourth topic:   European or western thought accommodates Yeshua-improved Genesis-1 message. For example, negating eye-for-eye so as to avoid disabling offenders (to be developed).

Fifth topic:   Humankind’s achievements respecting necessary goodness. Humans classify themselves according to harm they perpetrate or none:

1.       Civic citizens practice necessary goodness and influence civility, impacting,

2.       Passives and divines, who may accept civic responsivity,

3.       Dissidents and rebels to the law, who may choose to reform,

4.       Criminals, who harmed others or their property, who may be constrained along with

5.       The wicked, who perversely abuse others, e.g., sex trafficking, and

6.       The evil, who perpetrate atrocities, such as microwaving babies, who may face annihilation.

Civic citizens aid necessary government of the other classes; facilitate reform, constrain, avoid and resist, and annihilate, respectively. Categorizations are based on practice rather than values. Practice follows comprehension and intention. Thus, a person born into a criminal community may accept his or her desire for good behavior and therefore pursue comprehension of necessary goodness.

(to be developed).

Sixth topic:  United States thought, including the United States Constitution, which improves western thought (to be developed).

Seventh topic:   Opportunities to amend the US Constitution respecting the Genesis-1 message; Machiavelli Chapter XI (to be developed including indications from the 1774 Congress’ development of the Declaration of Independence).

Eighth topic:  How education departments repress children’s natural desire to acquire good. The decision to parent a child according to necessary goodness (to be developed including Kahlil Gibran’s “On Children”).

Ninth topic:  Proposals for the first city-wide presentation:  Necessary Goodness in a Confused World: how adults may and can aid children in the pursuit of good behavior during life (to be developed).

Tenth topic:  Review and finalize the work.

Eleventh topic:  Organize the first city-wide event (to be developed).

Eleventh topic:  to be discovered.

Flyer (draft attached)

Do you feel your church (like-minded participants) should reform your religious institution toward pure goodness?

Do you long to justify the claim that you do all you can to aid children’s natural desire for goodness?

If so, join our 12 month-project to develop a theory of necessary goodness that inspires and motivates good behavior. Our intention is to share the results with Baton Rouge in about two years, or in 2027.

Our audience is civic people -- Baton Rougeans who pursue good behavior as they understand it.

We need a steering committee to help design the 11 presentations for accurate, precise, and deep impact toward comprehending and reporting necessary goodness in human being (the practice).

Participants will, by mutually listening for shared concerns and empathy, direct the steering committee.

Please consider contributing to this work.

Volunteer registration (draft attached)

Help to Phil

https://nonprofitleadershiplab.com/free/5practices/?

Copyright©2025 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.