The Layman's Petition
by
Book Cover & Preview Text
From The Layman's Petition preface: ...We seem to have forgotten or never really understood why we require individuals to reach a certain age before becoming eligible to vote. The objective must relate to the concept of an adult as opposed to the concept of a child...the realization that policies and legislation must originate from a larger view of society than the initial/subjective and oversimplified desires of a chronologically conditioned and socially inexperienced individual (child/adolescent). In The Layman's Petition, I am trying to point out that our defining policy statements, (Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc.) are flawed in their failure to define what an 'adult' human being is...what a "Universal" adult human being is. What we have inadvertently done, in the absence of that, is to enshrine the rights of what is essentially a childhood perspective into international law and therefore into the public's palette of general, oversimplified and short sighted expectations at large... ...In The Layman's Petition, my view is that academic society has inadvertently perpetuated an auto-verifying lie of omission effectively obstructing the world's population from reaching a timely and spontaneous global adulthood. I do not expect the average person, with their basic consumer/market driven education...clinging desperately to the precarious social and financial symbols of that conditioning...to have the energy or opportunity to enthusiastically entertain such unsupported questions. But if one considers oneself to possess a higher education, to be a creator or sustainer of society, then I expect him or her to understand immediately (and profoundly) what thought is and what its full ramifications are... ...In Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "thought" (the irrefutable fact of it) is the primary (hence first to be stated) issue; followed by its subsidiary issues of: "conscience," "religion" and "belief," followed in turn by their subsidiary issues of what amount essentially to individual self-expression. Because we have not 'identified' what 'thought' (subsidiary belief) actually is, and because we have consequently and conversely guaranteed the unqualified protection of 'unidentified thought' (subsidiary belief) into law, we have effectively validated and intrusively established the finite chronological/philosophical particulars of one's 'personal entry tradition' (childhood/sequential conditionings) into the context and territory of universal adulthood. We have legislatively and therefore systemically obstructed both the primary acknowledgement and practical development of our own collective global adulthood. Ask anyone you meet, "What is thought?" and you will see how and why Article 18 refers to the normal and natural developmental perspective of a child and not that of a fully realized and neurologically conscious contemporary adult human being. 'Belief' (subsidiary of thought) in and of itself, taken as an authoritative and universally guaranteed personal right...and the 'honor' and 'dignity' that therein follows ('honor' as discussed by Steven Pinker)...is really the luxury of childhood and a perfectly logical/forgivable adult imperative of earlier historic times (my words). I 'believe' that most human beings today understand 'belief' to be a 'practical working premise in the absence of larger factual information or perspectives'. We can still celebrate and respect the sincerity, innocent thought and unimaginable human costs of each others 'entry traditions,' but that is what they are...sincerity and innocence by virtue of their time/place thought-generated aspirations for a better world. They exist inseparably together...in the context of a universal 'grappling with thought' found in every human entry tradition (spiritual or material)...as viewed through our contemporary insight into 'thought itself' (global adulthood)... ...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 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, Steven Pinker). To proceed with timely, unprecedented and globally legitimate prosecutions, an injunctive functional benchmark in human behavior had to be 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
Formats
Book Details
About the Book
New Forward: "Has the US President's 2017 electoral success underscored the imperative for a human context beyond the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The Layman’s Petition ©Copyright 2002, 2007, 2010.
About the Author
Born in Canada in 1959 to British parents, the author found traditional education unaccommodating to his psychological reality and subsequently dropped out of school at age sixteen. Inspired by the 1985 CBC television series "A PLANET FOR THE TAKING" with David Suzuki, the author initiated direct communications with provincial education authorities toward the development of a clearer explanation as to why he, as an ageing high school dropout, had found it necessary to reject the assumptions underpinning formal education. Although made to feel welcome in that 1990-91 overture, education authorities were unable to identify an 'authorized process' or 'vehicle' through which the former high school dropout could participate in meaningful discussion. In 1994, the author made a significant written submission to the subsequent Ontario Royal Commission on Learning, on the understanding that a central purpose of the Commission's work was to 'provide a forum (authorized process) for all stakeholders to participate'. When the Commission's extensive findings were published, the only possible or remotely relevant trace of the author's topically legitimate submission were the categorical and ambiguous words, 'profound questions had been raised'. Realizing that his government's commission had effectively negated, silenced and withdrawn the 'Charter Status' of his peer community's 'non-academic citizenship,' as 'stakeholders in the issue,' the unschooled participant set about developing the communication skills he would need, no matter how rustic, to challenge the established mythology-of-purpose in education.