I’m curious as to how we define right and wrong, and good and bad. I’ve been coalescing on this idea of biology being the foundation of our moral, social, interpersonal and religious definitions of good and bad and what is ‘evil’… and I believe I’ve spotted a missing cog.
I cannot understand how women and gays are supporting Free Palestine. Based on the evidence of interviews with people who live in that area and the spiritual values they ascribe to, women and gays are the number one targets of covert and overt violence.
Yet the liberal side of politics in the West, regardless of nation, is presenting this bleeding heart activism to a group of people who, once they enter another nation, seek to destroy that society in favour of their country of origin’s.
Don’t get it.
Or I didn’t until a series of interactions with someone who is incapable of processing a wider context of his actions and decisions. I’ve thusly understood that many people process emotionally. They have a feeling which leads them to a conclusion which leads them to an action.
At no point do they consider that their feeling might be based on something whimsical, nor do they consider discussing their feelings or decisions, and they do not bother to consider any evidence. They also demonstrate absolutely no contrition.
This is the essence of delusion.
The Bayesian Hierarchy explicitly details how we develop from children into adults with increasing layers of interpretive sophistication. In NLP, we call these layers ‘filters’. Filters are our suppositions about reality and what ought to be. We eventually give more weight to some suppositions but when new evidence comes to light, we must intellectually revisit our assumptions and update them or we are, then, out of touch.
Emotional processing is quick and extinguishes incongruities which then results in dopamine i.e. a feeling of satisfaction. Rational processing takes time and energy, discipline and discussion, which requires delayed satisfaction.
Where someone is not prone to nutting out complex issues and enjoys reacting, an indicator of low IQ, it is natural they will be drawn toward other people who facilitate this kind of reactive social interaction: critical thinking not required or admired.
What we have in the UK, the USA, Australia and many other countries is a new social group which offers unrelenting forgiveness for the chosen victims of their causes at the expense of all others. Woke ideology seems singularly focussed on the destruction of evidence in favour of immediate emotional highs: ‘Weeeee did gooooood!!’
These people function like drug addicts.
The conservative side of politics, on the other hand, seems focussed on evidence: what harm is being done by what group and how, and how do we stop it?
Horrified as I am at the foolishness of the Left, as I believe in cosmopolitan philosophy and also in national sovereignty, I cannot morally or ethically or humanely support any group which both actively and passively supports murdering others.
Woke feminism and woke ideology has repeatedly indicated elitism, favouritism, exclusive group membership and unfailing retribution, and none of it is based on evidence, merit, or accountability.
Religious extremism must be tempered by secular law: secularism is the administrative function in the West which ensures impartiality, evidence-based decisions and rationality. We already have the mechanisms in place to ensure minimum harm and maximum equality, and secularism successfully ensures people of all and of no faith live together in peace.
I do hope Woke and Islam are forced to match secular values to prevent these two social phenomena doing even more harm.
IF we want less harm, we must actively reduce delusional thinking and promote critical thinking.
A D R A N 