Gonz: A Radical Centrist Vision of Truth and Progress

By @mikecgonz
We believe:
1a) There are objective facts that exist independent of human experience
1b) These objective facts, when taken collectively, contain all of existence
1c) A fact is a piece of incontrovertible truth which exists at a specific point in time, or over a length of time
2) Under no circumstances can humans be perfect (or optimized)
3) As a result, humans can’t have perfect knowledge of facts 

Result: No claim by humans of objective truth can be correct. Humans can only have working rules. 

1) Humans can’t have perfect knowledge of facts
2a) Humans can improve their situation by applying solutions based on correct understanding of facts
2b) The human situation is the current state of either a single person, a group, or collective humanity
3) As a result, humans can improve their situation, but their application of solutions is imperfect 

Result: There is a distinction between “correct knowledge”, which can help humanity improve its situation, and “perfect knowledge”, which is an impossibility involving total understanding. 

1) Humans can improve their situation, but their application of solutions is imperfect
2a) Humans can improve their situation through careful study and application of innovation
2b) Innovation is anything created or concocted by humans that exists outside of nature
3) As a result, careful study and application of innovations can improve humanity’s situation, though imperfectly 

Result: Broad (ideological, say) rules don’t suffice in improving the human situation. 

1) Careful study and application of innovations can improve humanity’s situation, though imperfectly
2) Even though facts don’t change, our understanding of facts can change
3) As a result, our imperfection in applying innovations is a reflection of a lack of understanding 

Result: When we change our position, it’s not an admission that we don’t think facts are absolute- it’s that we were wrong. 

Overall, we’ve: 

a) retained eternal objectivity, and removed objective truth from the controlling hands of humans
b) removed human perfectibility from consideration (destroying communism), yet protected things like transhumanism and futurism as incremental enhancement
c) defended the ability of humanity to continue solving problems
d) wholesale destroyed broad “moral imperative” ideologies (socialism, modern progressivism, evangelicalism), in favor of incrementalism

A Radical Centrist Vision for the Future by Billy Rojas

RadicalCentrism.org is proud to announce a monumental new work by Billy Rojas:

A Radical Centrist Vision for the Future

100 New Constitutional Amendments for the 21st Century

This exhaustive treatise lays out a comprehensive vision of not just how to interpret the constitution, but how to update it to address governance and civic issues of critical importance to the American body politics.
You’re guaranteed to find many things you agree with, some you disagree with, and a few that will challenge you deeply.
Please read it over, then come share your thoughts with Billy (and the rest of us) on our forum.


Part 1 – 100 New Constitutional Amendments by Billy Rojas

A Radical Centrist Vision for the Future:

100 New Constitutional Amendments

Billy Rojas – RadicalCentrism.org – 2011

Update: The contents of this page have become part of the sub-site A Radical Centrist Vision for the Future100 New Constitutional Amendments for the 21st Century.



Zoasophy: Re-Engineering The PreFuture of Philosophy

From Dr. Ernie:

I am “done” with philosophy.

I’ve moved on to something I call “zoasophy”.  Zoasophy is related to Philosophy the way Engineering is related to Science — the goal is to actually build systems that work, not just think about them.

The word “zoasophy” means “liver of wisdom”, in contrast to philosophy which means “lover of wisdom.”  It comes from the greek word “Zoa” meaning life, as in zoology and Zoe Girl.  Not “liver” as in the bodily organ — that would be hepatosophy. :-)

The foundational principle of Zoasophy is:

 The Truth is What Works 
 What Works is not the Truth 

That is, the ultimate test of truth is whether it actually works.  At the same time, just because something works does not mean it is true.  Truth emerges from repeated examination of results and competing hypotheses, as encapsulated in my Radical Centrist Manifesto.

As such, zoasophy shares much in common with pragmatism, in that we care about the “cash value” of ideas. But where pragmatism is traditionally analytic — trying to uncover truth — zoasophy is primarily synthetic, trying to construct useful (if imperfect) truths.  It is similar to what little I understand of Frank Ramsay‘s approach to truth. [Update: and, as pointed out by several people, the activism of philosophers John Stuart Mill and John Dewey, whom I need to learn more about].

Zoasophy is closed related to “prefuturism”, another neologism I toss around. The pre-future is — obviously! — what comes after the post-modern. :-)

More specifically, a prefuturist believes we are continually creating a future with a deeper understanding of truth and reality, but we aren’t there yet — and never will be.  Everything we make is flawed and imperfect, and usually in some ways worse than what went before, but overall we can move things incrementally forward.

Thus, zoasophers believe in the improvability but not perfectibility of human constructs — including perhaps our selves. In particular, we believe that rational arguments can approximate but not quite capture the real world.  That is, our mathematical and conceptual models can become extremely good at capturing many aspects of the real world, but are only partial approximations, and must continually be tested against reality — especially in new contexts.

Ultimately, the real test of a zoasopher is not what they say, but how they live.  Or rather, their ability to actually live as they say they will, and achieve the results they claim for the reasons they provide.

Which is why, as a good zoasopher, I should probably stop talking about it and go back to practicing it…

The Left is Seldom Right: New book challenges old Right-Left terminology in politics

From our newest Centroid, Norman Berdichevsky:

Canadian Free Press – This is indeed a book that suits the times with the approaching American presidential election of 2012 in which a large segment of the public may be expected to follow the same trajectory of political thinking by rejecting the ‘glamour appeals’ of the Left with its penchant for identifying itself with so called ‘progressive’ policies.


The Left is Seldom Right, Norman Berdichevsky

To all Conservative and Independent friends tired of the constant Right-Left invective in politics…..If you would like to stage an exciting event with a dynamic speaker….I believe your members will find my new book ‘The Left is Seldom Right’ challenging conventional wisdom and both novel and insightful. I would be pleased to speak about the book before your group.

Listen to two recent radio interviews; Go to  Tea Party Tribune radio show   and/or

Both interviews begin about ten minutes into the program.

I  argue that  the political terms Left and Right,  have often become stale clichés but that the Left has a vested interest in maintaining use of this terminology due to the pronounced left/liberal slant of the media, Hollywood, and many “celebrities”, artists and writers. My book also alerts the public to the imminent dangers of militant Islam and how Jihad has been tactically endorsed by both the Far Right and Far Left in the past

With best wishes,

Dr. Norman Berdichevsky

p.s. You can find my website at nberdichevsky.com. More details about my book below…

Read the rest of this entry »

Christian discussion of Radical Centrism –2009

A very intelligent take, or at least one that mirrors my own. :-)
from the site : Jesus Creed

January 9, 2009

Third Way as the Radical Center

Adam Hamilton’s Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White: Thoughts on Religion, Morality, and Politics is a perfect blog book. I would love to see a host of evangelical churches using this book for group studies and discussions. It will surely bring out how it is that many think about various topics; it will also reveal what folks think.

What Hamilton makes clear to me is that the Third Way is not the way of compromise; instead, it is the way working out a Christian view of things regardless of which “party” prefers that option. It is a refusal to be an ideologue, a refusal to say “liberal is always right” or “conservative is always right.”

Do you think the middle is expanding? Do you see a trend for those on the right to move to the middle? Is a radical center attractive to you? Both politically and theologically? Overall, what do you think of this book?
Read the rest of this entry »

The Honest Way to Teach Comparative Religion

An Open Letter from Billy Rojas to the Harvard Divinity Bulletin


A letter by Leo Shatin which appears in the Winter/Spring 2011 issue of HDB deserves serious comment. It is all well and good to teach about religion, following the template of Comparative Religion or similar programs, and do so starting at the public school level. As a retired teacher of history and Comparative Religion myself I can hardly argue with that premise.

This is crucial in a pluralistic democracy which is home to hundreds of millions of people who identify with a multitude of faith traditions. And it is crucial for anyone who intends to have dealings with people who live in other nations –India, China, Ethiopia, Iran, Japan, Brazil, Russia & etc– which do not share many of the assumptions and values that are foundational to American culture. It is a really good idea to promote the kind of education which allows US citizens to get along with each other and to understand the outlooks of the peoples of the Earth.

Cyrus the Great understood exactly this principle in the 6th century BC, which is what his famous Cylinder advocating religious tolerance throughout the polyglot Persian Empire was all about. And we can find similar sentiments expressed in such diverse sources as Malachi 1: 11 in the Bible, the Lotus Sutra, and Ludlul Bel Nimeqi, “I will praise the Lord of Wisdom,” of ancient Mesopotamia.

All of this said, however, Shatin made a vital point. If we are to teach religion truthfully shouldn’t we , as he put it, “incorporate historical instances and examples of misuses of religion” ? The reasons should be so obvious that further elaboration is not necessary. But there is an implication within this excellent suggestion that must be spelled out so that its importance is not lost.
Read the rest of this entry »

Billy Rojas: 10 Principles of Radical Centrism

A great summary of general principles we seek to follow. — Ernie P.

Prepared by :  B Rojas  /   Nov 8 , 2010  /  Revised  Nov 10,  2010

10 Principles of Radical Centrism

( 1 ) RC is anti-partisan, it is more than “non-partisan”
This principle should not be taken too far. About specific issues partisanship
may well be in order. And there is respect for partisanship when it is appropriate,
such as among leaders of a political party, or at various “inspire the troops” events.
But party-line thinking is abhorrent to RC. It is axiomatic that each major party
will be wrong about 40 % of the time, with the 20 % difference ( between the two
parties ) in the category of uncertainty ,  or right-and-wrong .Obviously this general
idea  also applies to “other” parties or political philosophies.

( 2 ) RC seeks to learn whatever is useful or good
from all political movements or causes.
The exceptions, in principle, are totalitarian ideologies  Yes, even here, it is
worthwhile to study the hard Left or the far Right, but the point is that
extreme caution is necessary and ANY ideas which might be borrowed
from either persuasion need to pass serious tests to screen out even
a hint of authoritarian values. Otherwise we are open to new and useful
ideas  from just about anywhere on the political spectrum, Greens, Libertarians,
Social Democracy, the Constitution Party, and you-name-it, even if, by
the nature or American politics, most, by far, of what we are all about
is within a range of views from Democrats on the Left to
Republicans on the Right.

( 3 )  RC seeks creative “out of the box” solutions to problems .
This says that partisanship  –any party–  blocks some solutions
because there are pre-established priorities set by a political ideology.
Therefore, forget partisanship and seek a new solution from scratch
if, that is, objectively the new solution is really worthwhile.

( 4 ) RC seeks to solve problems by seeking to find a synthesis
between extremes that incorporates the best from Left and Right.
The qualification is that this is just one option, it is not  the only option to seeking
to solve problems. This makes RC partly Hegelian, which, as I see it,
is all for the Good.  It is important to note, however, that RC is NOT
a fusion of Social Liberalism and Fiscal Conservatism, a combination
that has sometimes inaccurately been designated as Radical Centrism.
Actual RC is issue-by-issue in character such that Radical Centrists
may well be 60 / 40 conservative on social issue and 60 / 40 liberal
on fiscal issues, or still other configurations, 70 / 30, 50/ 50 and so forth.

( 5 ) RC is based on ”  cafeteria politics.”
RC offers a platform for Independent voters to put together, as seems
smart and good to each Indy, a combination of  positions on issues taken from
both Left and Right  –and sometimes Other– in new ways. This obviously
is also only one alternative within RC.  But the point is that a significant number
of issues are pretty much set in concrete,  and not much can be added by way of
discussion to what they are. The problem of diminishing returns applies
to political ideas too. How much additional research or deep thinking
can possibly “refine” the abortion debate further ?  Same for teaching
evolution in the schools. To use these examples as metaphor for all other
such issues, one is a typical Right view, the other a typical Left view.
A Radical Centrist may say that both are Good, combining clearly
solid Left and solid Right positions.And this may be the case for
100 other issues. But if it really is RC there will be an approximate
balance, over all, although the exact mix may vary, year to year.

( 6 ) RC insists that all positions one takes should be researched.
The ideal is the informed voter. RC places a premium on education
as a general rule which applies specifically to politics. “Research”
assumes serious thinking, testing ideas, and all the rest.

( 7 )  RC prefers market solutions to problems.
However, this principle does not say “only” market based solutions.
It is easy to think of a good number of areas where government has offered
the best alternatives, from the Interstate highway system created under
Dwight D Eisenhower to development of the ARPENET and then the Internet,
to today’s work at NASA in developing a host of new technologies with considerable
potential for the entire US economy. But we prefer market solutions as much as
possible, including solutions which arise from competition in the “marketplace of ideas.”

( 8 ) RC requires that all issues anyone champions should be moral.
Exactly what this morality should consist of is open to discussion and debate
but it is safe to say that one version of this morality compares to the morality
of Evangelical Christians. However, this also says that compatible moralities
for example of many or most Buddhists, is also Radical Centrist in character.

( 9 ) RC finds its highest political ideals in the US Constitution
before all other sources
This hardly says that there aren’t other sources, everything from the Code of Hammurabi
to British common law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the
US Constitution has a special place in RC thought and no ideas advocated
by Radical Centrists which can be deemed “unconstitutional” are acceptable.
When Radical Centrists arrive at new ideas which the Constitution does not address,
or when functional problems with the Constitution or its amendments are identified,
it is always acceptable to suggest new amendments.

( 10 )  RC is dedicated to responsible free speech
This means exactly what it says. Not all speech is responsible and free speech rights
can be abused. But otherwise Radical Centrists take the view that the First Amendment
is inviolable and essential to any kind of valid politics  –and much else. People should
be free to express their honest thoughts. Censorship, either de jure or de facto,
is abhorrent on principle. But in exercise of free speech it is our responsibility
to be constructive, fair, and honest. This may mean controversy, it may mean
criticisms of  vested interests and of public persons, but when we feel we should,
in conscience, speak out, that is our prerogative.   For this reason we feel an
affinity with many libertarians, who share this outlook,  even though, because
we regard morality as social necessity and libertarians seem to have
no obvious morality,  we are not libertarians ourselves even if some of us
are influenced by libertarianism. But others may be more influenced
by Teddy Roosevelt or a variety of personal heroes,

The Second Order Of Business

[Originally posted on November 16, 2006]

The following books seem to share a common mindset about the nature of modern business that represents a radical break from conventional thinking. But, what exactly *is* the common thread that ties them all together? I don’t know, but I hope that listing all their key findings here will leading to conceptual unification — what I call “Kepler’s Hedgehog.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The Purpose of Business: Sustainable Capitalism (2.0)

[Originally posted on October 5, 2005]

Eureka! Thanks to John Mackey’s debate with Milton Friedman, I believe I’ve finally figured out the subtle flaw in the neo-classical formulation of capitalism:

Read the rest of this entry »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.