God No, Well Perhaps for Some

How do we define existence?
Or is god more like Schrodinger's cat, both exist and not exist at the same time?
Does something exist if we can see the effect of believing when we examine the lives of believers?

What I actually believe is twisted, but I need to explain it. Gods are at best concepts. Concepts are the only thing I know of which are beyond space and time. Concepts have no physical existence, but there existence can be inferred from there effect on people who believe. So, if we say that god is a concept only, then there is an effect which infers existence, but there is still no physical existence.
To believe is to use a full strength placebo, sort of effect. It is not real, but the effect is, to the point of having an effect. Based on observation the effect is real, yet we know that cause is only psychological. This, for some proves existence of a god.

So depending on the definition, god can be said to both exist and not exist at the same time, analogous to Schrodinger's cat. It all depends on the definition. We also see this in physics with some of the particles, where we cannot see the particle, only the effect. Some of this is waved off as a size issue. I have not yet heard a religious person claim there god is too small to see.

So we know now that god does not have a physical existence, but do concepts exist? Without a doubt, mathematics exists, yet has no physical existence. Schrodinger's cat. So god belongs to the concept class of objects that effects can be inferred but no physical existence in space nor time, and it's effects are equivalent to placebo effects. Well, OK.

This definition allows all people to be partly correct, or psychologically correct without understanding placebo effects, all the while praying to a non physical identity that is only an identity in their minds. So god only exists in the minds of the believer. End of.

After reading Peter Mickaelson, Why We Suffer, and seeing the multiple layers of emotion that Peter's muse conceives, while Buddha simplified it to "attachment to delusions", the placebo effect becomes a simple result of our "deadly flaw", or attachment to mental objects, emotions, thoughts, easily described as delusions. This we must learn to live with. For some, through a fluke of luck, the deadly flaw is weak, while for others it is strong. That attachment to our delusions is the basic problem, regardless or the delusion. The fourth Noble truth points to a solution for those of us with strong attachment to our delusions. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.   
 

Exposing the Roots of Addiction

There is a lovely little book by Peter Michaelson that claims to expose the root of Addiction, and while it may expose some of the roots, it does not expose them all nor tell how to destroy the roots or plants very well. If exposure is sufficient to kill the root, than it is useful to expose those roots.

He does identify correctly that while AA/OA/NA are useful for treatment, the cause of the problem is still there, uncorrected. Exposure may be enough to stir our own responsibility for correction, and some of the common issues are aired enough to provide correction. Our secret attachments are toward those environment that we learned to live within, but are no longer suitable for life. We like to live in the familiar, for sure, so do we create the familiar over again, or is that all there really is, and we are forced back into the familiar because that is what there is?

Some of his unnecessary phrases, like a child, I find quite off-putting. Some of us were forced into a subservient positions because of control freak bosses, and subservient position was one of survival in the position. Unhealthy environments do not just exist in homes but in workplaces as well. What started in homes is often carried in business, especially in poor economies and by brutal tyrants such as Trump.   

So if I grew up largely unsupervised, ignored, but provided for physically, just one more body living in a busy farm, am I secretly seeking attention or avoiding attention by staying away from people to avoid harassment? School was a way to keep me out of the way, homework was a way to avoid work at home, but not completely. Oh well, I survived and left. I was not prepared for life in the City, but who would be. And then I got adjusted, life was shaping up, and the computer came along and the economy went for shit, and never really came back in my chosen industry. It had a few good years, intermittently, and in some areas. Just enough to keep hopes alive, but it never delivered on the promises. I kept on trying, for I judged it was easier to keep on then change to a different field.  Oh well.  

So back to exposing the roots of what may be an addiction.  

I, Atheist

Coming out as a Atheist is equivalent to saying to my ancestors, relatives, and some friends, that you are wrong about your beliefs, I am right, and that is too bad. All the resentment between religions, the intolerance, bigotry, hatred, even persecution results from the innuendo of you are wrong, I am right is re-lite in the religious person. This is the natural response of being a faith/emotion/tradition based person rather than a hypothesis based thinking, logical person. I am sorry that we all cannot go through this mental evolution at once.

I recognize that religion got our society this far, but it is now time to let go of traditions and venture into the future in a rational manner, with our eyes wide open and hypothesis in hand, make decisions that are good for the world, ourselves, and others. With the indicators of climate change growing so wildly, and no rational political process available, we likely will be forced into action. So what is the rational response? Test for accuracy all that we know and project those forward and see what it points to. That is all is hypothesis, and there is likely no god, no after life, and that which is not common to most religions is likely wrong. Compassion, logic, reason, virtue... for other humans should be the foundation of treatment of others. Tradition, aka religion... intolerance, bigotry, persecution must go. We must determine what is right separately and together, based on science, evidence and truth not tradition or "scared texts."  For this I am responsible. 

The causes of climate change have passed the point of no return; carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is over 400ppm in the atmosphere, and methane is over 1600 ppb in the atmosphere. In 1960 these numbers were 280 and 500. The Arctic is 20 degrees C warmer, the September sea ice is down to 25% of 1960 levels, and methane hydrate is melting, releasing more methane about 200 times the rate it was in 1980. By 500 ppm Co2, we will be suffering. The second whammy will be methane at 3000 ppb. The third will be nuclear winter. Few others care so why should I? Oh well. 

    

The world cannot support this level of population, and nobody will voluntarily reduce their life style. We all are becoming protectionist, which is not a bad thing, I think. We have gone too far in trading, and not in producing everything we can ourselves. Oh well, the carbon dioxide and methane will likely finish us baby boomers off. The survival of our species is at stake here and now.
  

I am not going to take on any of these issues, but knowing the obvious, sit back and watch the young whirl away. Until there is a government in power that places the people first, the problem will not be resolved. Note that I did not say solved, for the only solution is reduction in world population back to 3.5b or so and stabilized industry of profitable carbon fixing established. We are the species at risk, if this is not done soon. We current humans do not do well in a methane rich atmosphere. The next sapient species may be able to breath in a methane rich atmosphere. Oh well. 

We see that the only solution to radical Islam is there extermination, and radical christian attacks on Islam is similar response, we see the non rational evangelists deigning reality of evolution and rational development. We see the "out of sequence" artifacts as possible evidence of seeding DNA onto earth, and we know we are not the first nor alone in this universe. The third mass extinction is just irrelevant, as there is only one species we should be concerned with. 

When I was a young fellow in high school we talked about overpopulation, and potential climate change. Then it was particulate and dust that was the concern, nuclear winter scenario that was prevalent. We beat that but dust may be part of the solution for methane overload solution.

So here I sit, part of the problem, but unable and unwilling to go against the world, but need to. The first step is declaring the reality of one of the many problems, and start to develop a solution for myself. 

Separation

Separation of religion and state is next to impossible. Equal is the separation of religion and culture, or of culture and employment. Separation of state and religion requires a split personality or a compartmentalized life. Not an easy task, if it is really possible. So the US expects that it's citizens that are involved in the government are somehow superhuman. This is not reality. The best they can acheive is an effort to not let religion to dictate the outcomes.

Separation would require the ability to make decisions totally rationally, without any emotional feeling involved. Anyone with a triune brain should be capable of doing this, if they can totally detach from the primal, and emotional/automatic portions of our brains for a period of time. As soon as they develop this ability, they separate the cultural/religious portion from reason part, and realize there is a cognitive dissonance between the two, and would not be electable without the automatic portion of the brain. So to be what we need is to fail at elections. Not possible. Duh. 
  

Dualing Hypothesis

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation. —Herbert Spencer

Ah but this is not Herbert Spencers work (https://www.thefix.com/content/contempt-prior-to-investigation-AA-Herbert-Spencer8042)  but that does not matter. The point is that the statement presents a fact, that many things we learned are just wrong, regardless of the source that we learned them from. We are still responsible for having and using those bits of knowledge, even it they are wrong. Every thing is just hypothesis, as little can be proven to be true and right. It is our responsibility to make a few simple thought experiments to test our foundation concepts.

All this made sense to me when I wrote it. We are responsible for our own thoughts, and what we do as a result of those thoughts. Our culture has so many things wrong, and as a result, we were culturally indoctrinated wrongly, or with wrong concepts. We do not even realize we have collective or cultural neuroses. When we get down to a genetic or natural level, we start to see the errors. When we compare one culture to the next, we see the difference, and since the beliefs are mutually exclusive, logically, one or both must be wrong. Now it is my responsiblity to sort out which is wrong, or more likely, what is right as they are often both wrong.

What does it have to do with me is a good place to start. If it is none of my concern, well that leaves breathing space. Who has control, or does no one have control? We can project the illusion of control onto someone, where they do not have control, well there mind does not have control anyway. We can do likewise to ourselves, and wonder why we fail. Consider a weight loss diet, and the failure rate. The thin wonder at why we fail, and we are not in control if we have food available. If we do not have food available, and are able to keep ourselves busy where there is no food, then we can lose weight, short term. In reality our body is in change of appetite, our mind is not. Our appetite is beyond our control, and we can only influence it. Many control diet by rigid measurement or only providing that which we do not like. Oh well. So are we in control of our thoughts? Are we logical or controlled by our instincts or emotions/automatic brain?

The scientific method is a five step method, we have some observations and we produce a hypothesis or two to explain the observations. Those observations are then used to produce predictions of the outcomes of an experiment, and if those predictions are correct, the hypothesis moves one step closer to being assumed correct. If the prediction is wrong, the hypothesis needs to be modified, or is just wrong. Observation, hypothesis, prediction, Test, Conclusion, and around we go again.    

One of the most judgemental concepts is is there a god or not. Before we can take this on, we need to understand logic, evidence and truth. Evidence can be best understood as the result of logic and truth. When we start with truth, evidence, and logic, religions depend on traditions for there foundation, and ultimately on the existence of god or no god. Without a god, all religions fall apart, or down to we do this because it is tradition, not reason. Hearsay is not evidence, and as a result all religious books are not evidence, no mater how well they define the religion or the beliefs.

We can nest the scientific method; that is create a hypothesis of dueling hypothesis, that is to say test two hypothesis at the same time, no god vs there is a god. From the armchair it is obvious that there is no other case, for something cannot simultaneous exist and not exits. There is a special case of existence; ideas, concepts, theories, mathematics, logic, reason, that exist but have no physical existence. Yet there can be no doubt that these things exist. How about a god? Can we use a god to predict the future with a mathematical certainty, or a probability, even if we cannot apply exact dimensions to the probability? No, it just does not happen.

Consider the child cancer question. The ability to predict using the hypothesis is one portion of demonstration that the no god hypothesis is likely correct, but the god hypothesis requires modification such as a "greater good concepts" to be rational in any sense, so the hypothesis immediately needs to be modified to allow reality. This is the satin crack, or the introduction of a trichotomy from what was a dichotomy problem, which is not a scientific process, but makes the god hypothesis likely incorrect it that form. That all indicates the concept of there being a god does not stand up to scientific examination. Religion then turns to bulling, condemning logic and the philosopher who stands up for science, against religion. Religion has gotten us as far as it can, now we are on our own, and need to apply logic to get us further. We live in a time of overpopulation, and death is the great equalizer.

Examination and running of the dueling hypothesis will lead the logical, and changeable observant to the conclusion that there is no god. There are those also who do not have the capacity to do the thinking required, and those who will not change regardless of the result of the thought experiment. There are those also who's livelihood requires them to believe, and until retirement, are trapped into a  way of life. The end outcome is that there is very little to support a god exists hypothesis. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

Now knowing this, we have a responsibility to teach the next generation the truth, and why we believe all true concepts to be true. Vulcan Scientific Director Statement like of thing.

There ought to be a charter of responsibilities for humans written in English. There are numerous charter or rights and freedoms, but nothing saying how one is to obtain these in a over regulated and over taxed world.  Several have tried, Grayling, Levine, and likely others. Many philosophers deal with a few concepts, one at a time, as do many religions. Some are mutually exclusive. Some value tradition above reality or logic/reason. Some a just not real enough in the modern world. So far it is just every man for himself. 
         

     

       

How we Value...

Motivation is in some part of how we value the goods be it physical or moral. If we value eating, the pleasure of eating, the warn comfortable feeling that comes with eating, the satisfaction of high insulin/high blood glucose, the taste of good food, or the time with others at the table more than having a svelte body, then we could be a candidate for overeating. It is the personal value we place on an action or physical object that makes all the difference.

How we personally view and value and object or career that can have a big impact on life. Some of us feel that salesmen tend to be lairs, or stretchers of the truth to the point that we do not value anything that comes from their mouths, Trump comes to mind as an example. If we do not value the work of a profession, we should not be part of that profession. If we do not value the work product, we should not do it. What other people value a product at is a different problem. If we enjoy producing a product and can monetize that product, then we have a business, if not we could have a hobby.

Along the way we can remind ourselves that everything has a cost or two, food beyond the cost has a calorie cost and a calorie satiety number, that is some foods should not be eaten by any humans, or by any trying to maintain a weight loss. What value we place on specific foods can impact our decisions by the values we place on them.

But the value we place on anything is a personal value, not that dictated by others. Fresh potatoes this fall had no value. Even the food bank did not want them, nor beets either. Oh well, they make compost. I do not value ego cars, only reliable transportation. So fancy cars. or the desire for a fancy car is not a motivation. They are just a liability, a bait for vandals and thieves. Anyone who has one and it gets stole is partly to blame. Oh well.

Unpacking Motivation

Motivation is key to any diet control, and yet we, the people, seem to know so little about what makes us motivated to do something, and others not motivated. When we read about motivation, intrinsic vs extrinsic, and business discussions, the person is either motivated or not, there is very little about understanding what causes it or what removes it.

A bit more digging in we find interest has a lot or something to do with it. There are stimulus to motivation and blocks to motivation. For business inadequate or unfair wages, as seen by the employee, it is a deal breaker. If the employee, employer, or client does not value the product or service, motivation and integrity is hard to maintain. When the employee does not see the value of what they are doing, motivation becomes uncertain. So our own values and beliefs are a big part of motivation.

Meaning and purpose of our life, and how these beliefs and values align with work and endeavor we are undertaking, and how our commitment, attachment to the actions, our engagement with all this comes into play. Where are values and beliefs are stored in our mind is also important. Are these values and beliefs instincts (primitive), or early trained in beliefs (limbic) or in the conscious brain. In order to change our beliefs or values to modify our motivations, we must become aware of our beliefs and values and bring them into the conscious. We must then use the new conscious way of thinking or acting until these become automatic, that is upgrade into the limbic system. This is what physical trained in muscle memory is all about.

So what does all this have to do with overeating? Our old appetites were trained in and must be replaced with new reduced eating pattern. Our old values need to be excavated, and examined. Do we enjoy eating more than we enjoy a normal size body? Are we treating eating or food as a reward rather than as energy to often? Do we value a full feeling more that we do the thought of a normal sized body? |Do we find ourselves looking in the refrigerator and it is not meal time? Do we need to create a kitchen closed policy between meals? Do we understand the motivation for eating, overeating or is all of eating just automatic, and we are always in a "could eat" state.     

the reset button

Do humans have a "reset button" or equivalent?

Now it would appear the AA/OA think so, for those programs try to change the core beliefs of those who come around, and for it's members. The core value it tries to change is the meaning in life and purpose in life setting, and to encourage attachment and engagement to those new values.

When, in the case of drugs or excessive alcohol use, the setting have gone to blank, apathy, or boredom, this is appropriate. I, personally think that resetting to a god is bullshit, for the dueling hypothesis approach to this issue indicates there is no god, but back in the 1930, most believed in one. The better approach would to intentionally develop meaning, purpose in life, and attachment to those purpose, meaning and engagement with the same. Cleaning up the past and sorting out relationships, as well as growth of purpose and meaning are all needed anyway.

The positive cycle starts with positive emotion, clear meaning and purpose, attachment and engagement with developing those meanings and purpose, continual consistent action on the attachment and engagement, action being the operative word in all this.

This sounds like about what happens though the 12 step process, but without knowing what is actually happening, and bringing in a stone age, hand tool aged, or horse and oxen age belief system.

Note that the first step is to beat ourselves down to where we can accept the system, which can work if we can accept a false belief. It takes the believers through necessary processes without understanding why it works, and without developing a clear purpose and meaning in our lives. The program is a blind reset to a false meaning and purpose, god, but the reset includes improvements which are required. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

The End of Tradition

Tradition is dyeing slowly and in many different ways. In the day of Confucius, tradition was a virtue, in fact the highest virtue. It was the way of life. One son took over the rice paddy. The other sons helped or left home to wander, be merchants, some to the military, government service. Later the military became a separate class, as did the merchants. Their sons became the next generation of their class. Tradition was supreme.  Not any more. Many recent authors have pointed this out: Diamond, Dennett, Frankl, Graying, Tennesen, Dawkins. I am going to take that hypothesis as true.

The trades were inherited, for the most part, from the father to the sons. The son likely started after school at about age seven, and by the time there were young adults, were competent at the routine work.  It was common for a middle aged man to find himself in the trade of his father, teaching his sons, as his farther had him, perhaps even living in the house he grew up in, married to a second cousin, or a neighbor, having hardly made a decision for himself.  It was all tradition.

In my maternal family history, there is a story of the third and fourth son of a blacksmith/iron worker to being trade to the neighbor for two daughters, to become wives of the Two older boys. That third and fourth son took up the neighbors trade, and became a harness maker/shoe maker, and the fourth later immigrated to the new world, and begat a huge family, none of which were iron workers or shoe/harness makers but farmers, many of which blacksmithed or worked leather to some extent, supplementing farming. But one turned the farm over to a son when the son married, and set up a saddle shop (or went full time), which made saddles for years. A new tradition of nearly self-sufficient farmers was established... until the tractor removed horses as the source of power. That family gave up the traditions, unlike the Amish and Mennonites, which thrive today. 

I have very little in common with my parents life style, except a big garden, a tendency toward self-sufficiency, packratism, frugal or cheap, and all those other learned characteristics like people avoidance. Our method of earning a living were far different, but on the otherhand, much of what I learned about working, not being afraid of dirt, allowed me to make a living. When I look at the fear of my replacements of getting their hands dirty, I wonder where the industry will end up at. It is impossible to classify soil without getting your hands dirty, and through plastic gloves just does not work. Oh well, it is not my problem.

Yesterday the US elected a total radical as a president elect. Oh well, the GOP through the houses will soften the effect, until he gets a political schooling, but also he is impulsive. It will be a shakeup of the political system for sure. Oh well. The Canadian government has announced a plan to allow in some 400,000 immigrants next year. Was Trump anticipated, or was this all by chance? Cape Breton, the little island that thinks of it's self as a province, has offered properties  cheap, ( patent filings on crown land ( patches of barren rock), no services, ) if anyone wants them but they must build a house to prove up the land. There are some properties that have been previously developed, but the whole towns were abandoned. Oh well. Over population comes in many forms. 

     

twin pillers, freedom and responsibility

With freedom come responsibility. These are linked. We may be free, but we have the responsibility to make good rational decisions, and allow others to be free, also. That is also known of not forcing our opinions onto others. Churches are control freaks, that try to control adults. Controlling children is one thing, but when we try to control adults and those approaching adulthood, we become control freaks. I am talking normal adults, not those who are not gifted with say more than 1.5 standard deviation below average intelligence; that is to say the people with obvious mental issues. Even those must be allowed to fail, or flounder. Striking back against the oppressors should be expected, and freeing ourselves from the oppressors should be expected.

Are we a potential danger to ourselves or others? That is the test of the government being able to hold people on mental health holds. That must then apply to healthy people as well.

So do religions have the rights to hold adult children to church standards. The legal answer is no, but they do have the right to place conditions on continued support. That is the problem, if you want me to support you through school, university, into a trade, you must comply with my demands. People with nothing are therefor more free that the wealthy, where money is the carrot dangled in front of adherence to a belief system, be in religion or greed, faith or capitalism, farming or business, or junior partners following senior partners in questionable businesses "for a share of the profits" even if that is only wages.  

So what are the wages of sin, or of questionable practices really better than clean wages. In slack times, extreme measures may be required for survival. Think Volkswagen Diesel. vs government standards. Can any diesel actually meet those standards, and be efficient? The ones that meet the standard blow air into the exhaust, to complete the burning and reduce nitrogen compounds. They are less efficient than slightly dirtier stripped engine's. So is what VW did really wrong or just against the regulations? It is against the government control freaks requirements, but is it worse for the environment? The short answer is no, but nitrogen oxide is nasty smelling stuff, and is hard on people. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway   

is it the triune brain's fault?

We may need to understand the triune brain to understand why programs like OA and TOPS sort of work, some of the time.

Triune brain primer:   http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_05/d_05_cr/d_05_cr_her/d_05_cr_her.html

Working the reptilian part:   http://www.eruptingmind.com/beating-the-reptilian-brain/

So the level of the urge to eat, especially when we see, smell food, or even graphical images of food, may be at the same depth as our belief system. I expect that the urge to eat is reptilian or deep limbic. Could our belief system be this deep? How deep can learned response or learned automatic behaviors be stored?

I was a engineer before retiring and live on a acreage with an oversized garden. I grew up on a farm, and worked an 1948 Case SC RC tractor. I learned that if it rears grab the clutch. It never happened other than for demonstration but I learned that as an automatic reaction. I was plowing the garden with my little Ford and it reared a bit, and I grabbed for where the hand clutch would have been. How deep would that memory be, after probably 50 years of not thinking about that? Are beliefs that deep?

Is that why OA and TOPS work a little bit. Then work on the same level as our belief system, even if the beliefs OA tries to train in are wrong?

failing to produce a descendant tree

In every generation there are some who do not reproduce, some by choice, others by chance, some are willing, other object to nature's choice. This produce terminal branches in our ancestral tree/ descendant tree. All the many fossil species have gone that way, actually more than exist now. So what is there to be concerned about; we sapiens are just one more animal species. So far somewhere between 100 to 120 x 10^9 have gone by, compared to our 7 x 10^9 alive today.
 
In the current times, those who object to natures choice can make some efforts to "correct" natures ways. It does not matter, for we are too good at reproduction, and have overpopulated. Some people have a tremendous cultural based need to reproduce. That is a cultural problem which can be addressed by cultural engineering or social engineering. Others have no need to reproduce, and must retain that right.

Those something like 80% of the population who do reproduce are saddled with the added responsibility of raising children, even though a big portion of those fail in that responsibility, intentionally or by accident. Some people just do not have the temperament or the skills to raise children. It is a sad fact. Those may destroy the child's desire to reproduce, or to work, or to value life, there's or others. Some of those do overcome, but most just propagate the misfortune.

The ones who do not reproduce... or do so without conviction, may be some of those who's nature does not aline with there natural sex. Oh well. It happens in all generations. The culture may not permit nature's true expression, but that is cultural issue. Oh, well, you can change your culture if you wish. That is a open choice. Culture, tradition, are not fixed, and bad culture behavior should not be honored nor continued. Bad culture should be just abandoned, just like bad behaviors. One is singular behavior, the other is collective behavior. All cultures are the result of collective traditions propagated over time. As time goes on, the value of a tradition reduces from a need of survival to an artifact of history, to an artifact of culture, and may become just a note in the history books.

The biggest single missing element from our modern life is community based on our living location. We may have other forms of community, work based, or activity based. Many of us do not know our neighbors to any extent, some of them we may not even recognize. Oh well, such is my personality and modern times.

I guess, what I am saying is it does not mater if we reproduce or not, the species will survive until it does not. No one has the right to enforce their values on others, even family, not community, nor nation. Am I right in this or out to lunch?

is the question real or imaginary?

warning - mental wandering, without purpose.

Is the question real or imaginary? That might be more exactingly way to put the question than physical or has to do with the physical world, real processes vs does the question have to do with the conceptual world where real and imaginary merge into one continuum?

What am I on about? Well, this come back to our purpose in life, philosophy, theology, meaning of life and the like. Does the issue deal with the real world or what drives humans? There is no real instinctual purpose of human life beyond reproduction and support of our genes. We can apply on the real background any number of beliefs, that if locked in our mind, can drive we humans to do all sorts of wonderful things. What human, since there is nothing else, came up with the idea that humans should use there highest skill, reason, to extend our influence over everything anyway? It may be a concept that I have subscribed to, and I have come from a long line of such driven people, but does that drive to do things make any sense? We humans are driven by our individual ideology. We can choose that ideology. We are therefore self directed if we can install that suitable ideology into ourselves.

It makes no sense until we realize that the selfish gene wants to prosper it's line first, associated lines second, and the human line third because this line will needed for mates. It is not concerned with far distant humans, other than to be able to beat then back if they should prosper more and decide to invade. Is that the answer to what would the gene want it the gene could want. So man created concepts, took ideas of others, and ran with that, until we find ourselves at this state. Some of the ideas prosper a few at the top, only. Others have benefits and drawbacks which must be balanced. The only constant is change, but soon it will be the next generations issue. So what is the proper criteria for selection of our ideology?

We older people have the time to sit back and reflect, and project forward in time. We fight over which concept is better, which direction to go, and in the end who knows. Any direction will get us to some future point in time. Who is to judge what is best. When we venture into the non-warring regions of the third world, the people are generally happy, and I would guess from facial expression, more happy than the industrial world. More of their days are spent in a happy state of mind... I would guess. In the end, we live our life and expire. What we believed has no physical impact, but may have influenced what we do. So our thinking influences our behaviors, not the conditions. Our ideology governs our choices, our attitudes, our opinions, our behaviors.

So there are many people who would like to tell us how to think or provide us with there ideology. We can explore, and lay out methods, concepts, and decide for ourselves which to pick up and which to leave. We can compare and upgrade, degrade or just lateral at any time. We can implement,  stop, change at any time we choose. It is our choice. But then we need to build it into the mind and body to react to all the crap and ignorance. We need to deal with the young and unlearned, of even the most basics of issues of life, to the young which have mastered one skill, but sadly lack in others, like the talker who has nothing well thought out to say on many subject anyway. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

Humans are ultimately driven by any idea that happens to stick in there head. It is that simple. The ideas of some are fixed over a lifetime, and other less so. Some of us struggle with skill deficits, and other with other personality issues, memory, or other mental issues. Some of us are just not driven, and would like to be. Oh well. Some of us are troubled with the why, what next, and how of things like relationships, dealing with other people, and similar abstract issues. Others are just so busy doing. So there is no purpose or meaning until we paint one on and apply it.

The religious like to talk to there imaginary friend(s) for advise, and think about eternal life, while some of us are content with the here and now, and life the way it is. If we want life or something strongly enough we may get it, and we may get it if we do not really even want it much. It is just a serious of random like events, not all random but we are unable to see the cause often. When we are dealing with other people, there may be no cause, but just whatever thoughts come into the minds of other, past or present. We live it a strange over populated world for sures, just for the grammar police.

Is Family still important?

Over the years we all have heard how important family is, how family should come first, etc.

Is that still true, or was it ever true?

Confucianism proclaims that family is one of the five founding virtues, although that are not the words they use. When the primary occupations were farming or agriculture, warring and collecting taxes, with a few civil works like canals, bridges, dikes, roads, and land passed from father to eldest son, perhaps family was more important. Land was the primary resource, and it need to protected, cared for, worked, and look after. The youth were the parents retirement plan so to speak.

Now it is often each man for himself. Half the North American population grow up in blended families, single parent, or in conflicted homes. One hundred and fifty years ago, a youth would at birth know to about 80% certainty, his occupation, and where he would die. About 20% would not follow tradition. He would likely marry a neighbor or his second cousin, within his religion. He would arrive at middle age having never made a major decision, but rather just doing the next right thing. He would not question his beliefs, for everyone he knew would believe about the same thing.

Many of us grew up in a traditional situation, but could see no future in those occupations for the numbers required were in decline. We grew up in a changing world. I say both sides of farming, the hangers on to the traditional, working horses and oxen, and the younger industrialized farming starting. We were in between. I also say the money from other occupations, and they were doing far better. I chose to seek my fortunes off the farm in the industrial world. Family was a drawback as moving was required, far and often. I was raised in a home where my father felt he was screwed by his family, one brother for sure, and he had a lot of resentment to them. My mother, was the other extreme, enmeshed would be the modern term. We grew up physically close to mothers extended family; we never shared a fence line, but when mother looked out the bedroom window, she could see here uncles house and her fathers barn. There was a patch of bush between her and the house location where she had been born in. Progress occurred. My family moved a mile closer, but below a ridge of hills, where the sight line was blocked.

Now with modern transportation and good roads, to get anywhere, all is required is time. Work, career development, and the like also require time; so we make choices, family connections suffer. And then there are personality conflicts; it is not necessary to visit people who are negative, abusive, degenerates, heavy drinkers, or live in other undesirable environments, like being married to a vicious shrew. (aka "a personality like a rusty chainsaw") Oh well.

So how important is family? Well it was important, but now we can chose to leave and forget the bad ones. Family is of equal values to friends, in my priority list. Phones work both ways. We know they are out there, but contact... not so much. The idea of building something (farms) to pass on to the next generation is gone.

The idea of building a business to pass on seldom works. Junior is just not interested, does not have the temperament, or is to lazy, into drugs, or just does not have the maturity at the time. Junior usually does not do well after the take over, but there are cases where it does work. I do know of a few cases were senior help junior start and build business. In all these cases, junior and senior were compatible. My father was so negative, few could get along with him and I could not. I became that way also with age and arthritis pain, and with people who know so little that I am at a loss for words to describe. I do not like to teach basic stuff repeatedly because they are unable to retain the knowledge.

So is it family or relationships in general that give us problems? I think in my case it is relationships. Oh well, itewajda.

   

Silly Church

The catholic church just got even more silly.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/10/26/catholic-church-has-new-guidelines-on-cremation-because-controlling-you-during-life-isnt-enough/

Once we realize that religion in general is just a outdated hypothesis group in the form of a story, all of the churches rules just start to look silly.

That is not to say that the church does not do some good. It provides meaning to many people, avoiding the empty existence of existential vacuum, to use the descriptive words of Frankl. As an organization, the churches do(did) some good in running hospitals and other massive organizations like schools, but they limit there services to what they believe in, and as a result fall short in science. The Catholic church and hospitals are not providing birth control services, and this is a violation of Canadian Health rules. Oh well, I guess what they do provide is better than nothing.    

Logotherpy; a reboot back to our purpose

Logotherpy is Frankl's brain child; yet the more I read about it, it appears to be Stoicism rebranded to modern terms, well 1945 terms. In severe cases we have only control of our thoughts, choices, attitudes, beliefs, values, ideals, principals, etc. In Epictetus terms, our ability to assent, desires, aversions, motives... so what is the difference? One was a slave, the other a POW. At that point, what is the difference? "Desire", as translated from old Greek vs "attitudes" of today. Motives of translations to "why's" of our lives. Man is still willing to live or die for there ideals, and values, or to abandon them if necessary to live.

Once we know our purpose in life, or purpose of life, we can go forward. It that propose is frustrated, removed, destroyed, we had better reestablish a new purpose quickly, before we find ourselves in the same situation that teen native girls in Northern Saskatchewan face: a culture that is holding them in a desperate situation. In the last four days, there have been four suicides. It is understandable. No future at that location, and parents that are holding them there, in a desperate conditions. Hope is not sufficient for long term, there must be action. Education is the route out of there, but they must choose education and lots of it and not let there culture hold them back. In fact, they will need to go against their culture to achieve what we consider success.

There are things that we can aim for, and if we desire them enough, we can achieve. Work, people, love, or purpose, meaning can drive us. All we need is a purpose to start with, and then we can develop a logical plan to make that possible. Education is one such ideal that can provide drive. To be able to understand the human motivational system at a fundamental level is crucial for recovery. To be able to see collective neurosis of some cultures; of our own culture: or things that have become collective neuroses of the culture lost in traditions of time gone by. Some of us must separate ourselves from our culture to get ahead, be it North American native or European native which was brought from the father lands. They are not so different.

We need to do what is right for us, as people of this time and place. Culture, tradition must change in a rapid changing world. I grew up learning to work horses, grow spuds, pigs and vegetables, along with tractors, grain, chemical fertilizers, and chemicals. I saw declining prices, growing farm sizes, hours of work with few returns, and the money of some jobs. The rural vs city, poor vs wealthy, and saw the opportunities. A plan was necessary. I made choices, some of them hard to make. It sort of worked out, but the economy had hiccups, and some promises were just promises. In the end of all the work, it was ok, but not great. Some was just luck, decisions with wrong criteria weighting, and some failure due to adherence to collective neurosis, aka tradition and traditional culture, genes, characteristics and the like.

Mental reboots are possible with things like logotherpy. Learn the logos and away we go, with as much energy as we can muster.

Man is meant to live hungry. That is a fact of modern life, as is surplus of food. In the culture that I was raised in, being satisfied was the desired state; today I know that that is false; that is an unmotivated state; and is a tradition that is just wrong; just as wrong as a belief in the existence of a god. One more collective neurosis down.  Oh well, itewajda. 

  

Frankl in time of excess

Frankl wrote in search of meaning in 9 days after he achieving freedom. He wrote from a state of nothing, had nothing left, and was only days from expiring. We search for meaning from the other end; we have excess of most everything, including food. Does this background change the situation?

We can still use people, places, things, or philosophies as a source of motivation. We can use pleasure, the good life virtues, purpose, meaning, people, career, family, experience, or some hypothesis as motivation. But how, when we have many choices, do we narrow down to just one primary? Perhaps we have a issue of not lack of possible purposes, but rather to many good choices with all this freedom and opportunity. We eliminate one at a time until we are left with... well that is the problem. 

When we have all we need, we may find ourselves satisfied. Replete. All our needs satisfied. Now what is there to motivate us at a personnel level? Now we need to find another need to motivate ourselves. Such is the issue when retirement and the loss of need to work arrives. I expect that one on welfare, with a meager income might experience the same loss of motivation, not enough to do much, too much free time and nothing that they can do... or want to do. This would take meaning from me. Oh well. So were am I going with this...Well it is just a thought, that needs to be noted and understood. That may explain the difficulty in getting off welfare. Just enough to keep one from getting hungry, but not enough to live on.

You can live with any "how" if you have a "why." or so repeats Frankl. That why is important to keep in front of our minds to keep us motivated. Growing up and being motivated away, avoidance, and the like were suitable then, but avoidance of people is not good. I was harassed so much as a child that I would not go back without reason, and certainly not to my high-school 50th reunion. I did not want to see any of those assholes that drove me out. That happened this last summer. Oh well.       

Now motivation and purpose or meaning become important to keep at the forefront of the mind. Seniors die off frequently. Senior suicide is alarmingly high, but I do not have an issue with that. That door is always open, unless we become incapacitated. Keeping a active reason to live is important, but other people is not a good reason for some of us who are oversensitive to harassment or aggravation. Some of us consider other people to be hell. Oh well, itewajda. 

Atheism+

Where do we go after we adopt Atheism? It is just one more invisible characteristic.  Some suggest Atheism Plus.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2016/10/replacing-religion-with-something-else.html

So what comes after we have inwardly digested that there is no god to believe in? Atheism has degrees, when we stop believing in a god is the first step, when we stop believing there is a god is a more true statement. Along with that is the removal of any afterlife, and that death is final. This creates urgency in life, if we want to leave anything behind, or is this just one more religions concept that we adopted from our collective neurosis?

Do we have a true desire to leave something behind, or is this just a societal/religion of our youth concept that we/I have not let go of?

Throughout life we collect concepts from our community and adopt some of those concepts as our own, without much serious thought. This is part of growing up in a society, we adopt some of that society's values. But is this part of our assumed religion of our society/culture? That is the central issue of what comes after atheism, what do we adopt as our values?

When we look around, much of the difficulty is caused be identify with a definable group that have one or two specific characteristics. Sex, sex preference, nationality, religion, language, skin color, philosophy, where we live, what we do are all things that can serve as a purpose to group together. This sets up a us-vs-them thinking and provides the basis of prejudice, separation, segregation. We are humans, and that must become the grouping for serious issues.

So as I see atheism, it is just one more way of creating divisions for sorting of people into groups. Now what else are we going to attach to atheism? Rational though? logical behavior? Emotional based behavior? Social Justice? Individualism? Franklian philosophy? Stoic philosophy? Confucian values? Social Engineering? Development of a god free society? A tax revolt? A political movement toward a "taxing the religious property's"?  Atheism is essentially a hypothesis that god's cannot exist in a natural world, and little more. How can something so simplistic be the foundation for movement? It could be necessary for a bigger cause, a new belief in something system like social science or social engineering.

But what do I know. Oh well, itewajda.   

The replacement for a god hypothesis

After abandoning a god hypothesis, is there a need for a new improved hypothesis to answer the questions? I personally thing there are some need that must be filled. Which are the most pressing at this time? We certainly do not abandon everything associated with religion when we abandon religion. Most (all?) religions describe a method of life, rules of life that they consider acceptable. When we filter for the common values, they are surprisingly similar. But most "holy books" are compilations, and have conflicting statements, and are more about building the religion then how to live a good life. When we abandon the religion, and all that is use for building the religion, and keeping it pure, there is little left. Perhaps six out of ten commandments. One could go either way. Of Islam's five pillars, perhaps two pertain to life, or to test loyalty to the belief system, I am just not sure.

The Stoics, Confucianism and Buddhists tell us far more about how to live a good life, but even those need to be thinned by there obviously false hypothesis, and replaced with the current hypothesis. That is relatively easy to do, and soon we have a personal belief system built up that has been vetted by our own life. Adler, Maslow, fix up the past deficiencies, Frankl points the way forward, PP define the process, and we are off to the races in this rat driven world. There is much to be learned, and what is up to us. There is much that should be done, people to be convinced of what is right and what is wrong, but also some will never accept what is right and true for they depend on it not being true to make a living or to fulfill there greed.  Oh well.

CFC are destroying the environment, and all the governments have banned there production, yet these are still available. Governments do not have control in the poorer countries; wrong--- all countries. People are governed... manipulated... influenced by taxes and regulation, but follow laws out of respect for the purpose of the law and possibly the government.

No respect for the law or the government, no motivation to follow the laws. Fear only as a motivation is not good. Most people who follow laws do so out of respect for the laws, and reasonable laws. Slow speed limits just create resentments, not increased safety. They satisfy the control freak, not the safety concerns. Having said that, there are areas that need tight control, schools, and perhaps safety arms, similar to rail crossings or stock control gates. We follow laws out of respect for a reasonable law, not the government. That must be understood by the law makers. So we need respect for the correct solutions.

We need police that are not placed in conflict with the ordinary citizens. Traffic should be a totally separate group of revenuers from the criminal enforcement group, separate enough that there is no confusion.

Respect must be earned, and is not given. We each are free humans, we start out wild and must be trained to society. There will always be those who will not voluntarily follow the good life, and as the economic spread widens, there will be more that take the easy way for money. Oh well. We, in a society need to be seen as all near equal is essential to prevent jealousy and/or resentment. When the rich flaunt there wealth, it will be taken. There is no point robbing a empty bank. Reality takes over from what rich people would like to see.      

Frankl

Currently, I am reading Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning

 While he does not answer the question, he does point out the importance of painting on a meaning onto life. We just need anything we like, and away we go. Transcendence is just one of many possible choices. 

“Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible.”  

“The pessimist resembles a man who observes with fear and sadness that his wall calendar, from which he daily tears a sheet, grows thinner with each passing day. On the other hand, the person who attacks the problems of life actively is like a man who removes each successive leaf from his calendar and files it neatly and carefully away with its predecessors, after first having jotted down a few diary notes on the back. He can reflect with pride and joy on all the richness set down in these notes, on all the life he has already lived to the fullest. What will it matter to him if he notices that he is growing old? Has he any reason to envy the young people whom he sees, or wax nostalgic over his own lost youth? What reasons has he to envy a young person? For the possibilities that a young person has, the future which is in store for him?

No, thank you,' he will think. 'Instead of possibilities, I have realities in my past, not only the reality of work done and of love loved, but of sufferings bravely suffered. These sufferings are even the things of which I am most proud, although these are things which cannot inspire envy.” 


“By declaring that man is responsible and must actualize the potential meaning of his life, I wish to stress that the true meaning of life is to be discovered in the world rather than within man or his own psyche, as though it were a closed system. I have termed this constitutive characteristic "the self-transcendence of human existence." It denotes the fact that being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone, other than oneself--be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself--by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love--the more human he is and the more he actualizes himself. What is called self-actualization is not an attainable aim at all, for the simple reason that the more one would strive for it, the more he would miss it. In other words, self-actualization is possible only as a side-effect of self-transcendence.”

“A man who becomes conscious of the responsibility he bears toward a human being who affectionately waits for him, or to an unfinished work, will never be able to throw away his life. He knows the "why" for his existence, and will be able to bear almost any "how".” 

Makes one think for sure.


 

Finding our own "Tribe"

By "tribe" I mean a group of people who have similar views, beliefs, values.

In AA it is a group who do not drink, even though some were once heavy drinkers. It is often used a surrogate family, a social group, a sober environment, a safe environment where alcohol will not be pushed. It has a down side, the dark underbelly of the beast... a belief in a god hypothesis that, if you believe, you can use to level more pressure on ourselves to not drink.

Where do those who do not believe in a god hypothesis go for a tribe? We could start one more, or try to change one of the existing "alternatives". Those are all fixed in time. Alcoholism is not much like overeating. Even Sharma has come around http://www.drsharma.ca/in-analyzing-a-case-we-should-worry-more-about-the-why-than-the-what. Now where do we go from here, in addressing the many causes of overeating?

Many of us realize that overeating is partly a social issue. Some of us have no social skills, and as a result are not likable people. Oh well. Yet we have some social needs, but will not put up with sarcasm, or continual debasing of my beliefs by society. There is no god is the hypothesis that I subscribe to; ongoing religion has a more bullshit hypothesis. If there was a god, we would not have choices of evil, bad, therefore there is no god with power. I have the same power as god, none.

I tried the humanist group for a while. While there were some interesting people in the group, there were two who wanted to hi-jack the group for there own purposes, and get off topic to far to be of interest. I am not concerned with gays, US politics, or possible future genetic research. Police have a job to do, and to do and be successful, they must receive cooperation. They must think they are in-control of the situation. Government goons with guns will destroy life with immunity. Oh well, itewajda. 

 

The unknown vs a story

Why do we humans prefer a story which is likely false to an unknown? Religion is full of "stories" that are false, and the true answer is unknown. Creation of earth, and man for example. We now "know" bits and pieces of the process that occurred over the last 14 billion years of earth, and the last 2 million of sapiens existence. There are many theories, and bits of evidence. Somehow all the evidence must fit into our history. There is linguistic evidence and DMA, mitochondrial DNA, and geological evidence, all of which may require a bit of interpretation. So now we know that all creation stories have a bit of fiction and trace of truth in them. We all evolved in Africa, and have come out in waves. Evolution has continued, and mixing of the various waves have occurred. Evolution continues today.

So back to the dealing with unknown vs story. How is evolution, natural weather and geological events, cosmological events, and bits of history all strung together to create stories much different beyond the length of the story and what parts we know to be facts. Time is one thing that is lost in story. When the earth was young has little meaning until we put years or some measure of time on it. Until religion started to measure time, 2000 years ago in the middle east, 5400 year ago in the MetsoAmerica region, life went on, year after year, with no record, no consideration that we should count the years. Which year was not important until writing, record keeping, and history became valued. It just was not important enough to do in a big way. That is not to say that it was not done, as years of reign of each dynasty in China, but this was not universal. The week is older than the year, four cycles of 7, and then some correction days at the dark of the moon until it all started over at the new moon. Then came the study of the year, marking the equinox, longest and shortest days, which do not match with weeks, they are different processes, as are the days. Each system is learned, and replaces a story with a more real story, yet the human mind needs a story of some kind.

We humans are born with fear and anxiety. We need chemical stimulus to overcome these in the form of opioids, dopamine, serotonin, and other feel good chemicals. We have difficulty with unknown; they just raise fear and anxiety, until we get trained to unknowns. This all fits with the triune brain, genetic reptile, emotional instinctive, and rational developed brain parts. So story vs unknown, story is the first reaction, with story correction until something representing reality emerges. But there is still no god to be found with all we know. That hypothesis just finds less and less to be applied to.

That is likely the best way to describe a god anyway, as a hypothesis of the unknown. As information and understanding or nature occurs, that which depends on god reduces, and we now see that contributed to god as the natural progression toward the limit of no god, period. As a wild human with no knowledge, the hypothesis of a god is rational, and as we learn and carry that knowledge to the next generation, we approach the realization that a god hypothesis is just not necessary or possible any more. Oh well, itewajda.

So what does this indicate? Story was the hypothesis of the time. We state it, and look for evidence to support it or refute it. As it is impossible to disprove something supernatural, yet we know there is only natural, we need to accept the something that approach value asymptotically has a limit in that value. in other words, single absence of proof of existence is not proof of non existence, but many are like a value of a diminishing sequence, and the limit of zero can be safely assumed.

This is one logos statement, that the supernatural cannot exist in a natural world. I do not require the god hypothesis; aka there is no god, and no supernatural after death events.    
   

          

Overkill vs Underkill

Too sensitive vs not sensitive enough?  Does it bother an addict to be called an addict? Once they realize we are addicts, we can start to recover. Without this recognition, we have a problem with no name.

There we have an academic trying to undermine an essential part of my recovery. Well meaning but ignorant of reality of recovery academic. The problem must be defined and a specific solution provided. http://blog.smartrecovery.org/2016/09/29/destigmatizing-addiction-2/

Overeating has many groups of causes and addiction to specific foods or specific digestion produces is just one cause. This same process is how we decide how much we like specific foods. Addiction is process of liking something more than we can control the intake, it comes to own us. It is likely only a small portion of the obese who have this issue. How much? I do not know, 5 to 10 percent, but then are some that lump addition with insulin overshot and say 75%.  

So does the food addict have a problem with the food? Well, there are various problem with overeating and some are addicted to the food, actually. This is two small groups; one hypersensitive to serotonin, and carbohydrates push a serotonin wave from the gut, and we become addicted to the serotonin rush. The second to chemicals in the food, traces of opioid peptides in gliadin containing grains and dairy products. These are true food addictions; the only solution is to accept these facts and quit using, aka eating these foods. Any food that contains opioids or digests to opioid peptides are a problem for some. Some are either hypersensitive or have more enzymes to break certain proteins into opioid peptides. Either way, acceptance of this is required before lasting recovery can occur.  

Does calling yourself an addict make a difference? Acceptance of the fact that we are addicted to these foods, and the only solution is to stop eating these foods, aka stop using, is the only solution. It is acceptance of this fact that makes the difference. We need to understand that we are addicted, that use keeps the desire strong, and weakens our resolve; we can never again eat these products makes the difference. Without acceptance that we are addicts, this would be difficult.

Some may not want to be addicted, and object to being called an addict, and they also face an added problem, a sociopathic personality issue of not being to accept reality. Oh well, I wish them luck with recovery. They will not develop the strength of character, willful stubbornism required to never again eat wheat products, even when wheat and dairy is in most processed foods.

There are many who deny that food addiction occurs. These are not helping the problem, and many of them are funded by the food industry. Oh well, we need to overcome a few obstacles and negative toward us people in our lives. This will require a certain stubborn characteristic to develop.  It come down to what do we need to believe to recover.

We need to be honest with ourselves, enough to be able to admit were are addicted to specific petites, add to make the decision to never intentionally consume these again. It is likely we will be misled into consuming these by food pushers, but we must learn to recognize these and recoil from them, as part of recovery. Oh well, itewajda. 


      

Blog Blog Blog

To blog or not to blog is not the question, rather to care or not to care about the audience, content, and correctness of my thoughts. Does any of this really matter, in the short term; nothing matters in the long term.

I read a bit of philosophy, because some of it explains what was/is missing from my life, or at least what was important to various philosophers. Some is just not compatible with other philosophers. So does this make one wrong or just stubborn? Consider the question of free will, aka, do we have any? Epictetus states that we have control over our ability to make choices, our opinions, our likes and dislikes or desires and aversions, and the motivation to act, but not the actions. This give us control over our beliefs, and a few mental process outcomes and little else. So if we accept this as being approximately correct, then free will is limited to these small area of concern.

Yet we see that a philosopher has gone out and done a bunch of elaborate testing looking for free will outside of the area where, by inspection, free will can only exist in. Finding none, he has declared that here is no free will. Follow the money. He was paid well for the research and testing, and for the report, which tuned into a book. Now does that sound like atheists? First we must define god before we can say that god does not exist. We can find a god, and lots of evidence if we define go correctly, or no evidence, even evidence of non-existence if we provide a supernatural definition. So until you define it, the population can go either way.

The stoics defined god as nature and used the word god to define nature, and the logos, and could then talk openly about god, all the time knowing that there definition of god exists as nature, but to others the word means something entirely different. This kept them from getting hassled by the government thugs.Speaking of government thugs...

Today the government thugs carry guns, and while the proclaim to serve and protect, it is themselves that they serve and protect, but they too are part of society, so with clear conscious, they proclaim themselves as the serve and protect bunch of society. Oh well, shit happens. Anyone who makes them nervous gets shot, it is that simple. Avoid is the best solution. If that fails, strict adherence to there direction is the next item, but even then dealing with them is risky. Good luck with that if you are a bit colored or bearded. Oh well, itewajda.

All this and the real problem of the world is human overpopulation. Humans and US rats both have this problem.     

Maslow

In addition to Maslow's hierarchy of needs there is Maslow's expanded hierarchy of needs. It is not clear to me that Maslow had any thing beyond inspiration with these, but never the less, they are an improvement... well sort of. The bottom 3 and a 1/2 are human needs, the remainder are dependent on which culture you live in, what your lived philosophy is, and other factors. There is tremendous cultural input in these upper levels. These are not universal.

http://the-mouse-trap.com/2007/12/14/maslows-eight-basic-needs-and-the-eight-stage-devlopmental-model/

At some point, perhaps after belonging and before self-esteem three needs to be a duty or utility function need, for making a living in our modern society, need for money to pay the rent, medical care, taxes, insurance, duty bound expenses as children braces, rent a wife, whatever. This is beyond physiological, safety, and belonging, yet not self esteem. This allows us to jobs that we hate for the money, all the time not building self-esteem. In working societies, where survival is a big win, anything more is just dreaming. Self-esteem, knowing that I am doing a good job is necessary for most trades, specialized knowledge, or similar, but where survival is more dependent on luck, as in a collapsing society such as Syria, doing may be more important than what ever we think of ourselves. Oh well, itewajda.

Religion is often used as a motivator, to create those upper needs, any yet we know that all religion is just delusion/illusion, belief of story as real, but that is not much different than a philosophy; adopting a "seams reasonable" philosophy. Science with demonstrable rational explanations must be believed, but not all science is correct. Much of science is done for the money; research can be biased. Look at the tobacco, sugar, drug, medical, chemical, GMO industries, even fertilizer industry.  There is much fertilizer there. So what I am saying is the Religion Industry, along with the charity industry, is also in the fertilizer industry. It should be lumped with advertising industry. But could a society survive without all those near useless industries, considering the unemployment and  underemployment there would be with a utility only type philosophy. That is essentially Buddhist/minimalist economic theory. To produce a sustainable world order, we have a lot to do.

As long as population growth continues, the Co2 will continue to rise. That is the most measurable thing that indicates the demand on the earth environment. It has been rising since the 1960's at a rate that is not sustainable. Fish will die from the acid level being to high to fix calcium, and that is happening now. It is too late to save many of the fish species. The decline of fish worldwide will be one of the early steps in the decline of society as we know it. Collapse or the human environment is going to happen; we cannot get governments to act until it is too late. This all will require a top down solution. Bottom up is also happening, but there are too many deniers out there to convince. Religions are still not promoting birth control, and that must happen to manage population. Religions are part of the problem. Oh well, itewajda.    

We humans have made extinct unintentional many species already. I am proposing to keep the earth livable we need to cap the population at something about 3.5 billion; that is what it was when the Co2 started it's clime. If we develop enough technology to get the Co2 to head down, than that could be the new population cap. It will not be easy, but the young are living through a exciting time. Many of us expect to die off before the problem is solved. Oh well, itewajda.  


     

Going Forward From Here

To go forward from here is the only choice, for backward or laterally does not exist, stopping is hardly practical. So what does forward look like... Sustainable life style... sounds good but what is that.

Our own integrity and virtue is all we can really own, that cannot be taken from us easily, according to the stoics, the planners for a good life.  More than a pleasant life, but without the attachment of a meaningful life or purposeful life. I once knew a young girl, many years ago, who stated here purpose in life was to raise children and sheep. We can choose, we can attache our self to something bigger than ourselves, and thereby create meaning. But what if we realize what we attached our self to is a false profit?  like this poor girl http://www.grettavosper.ca/ . Oh well, itewjda (in the end we just die anyway).

Once we recognize that much of what we learned was just wrong, including religion, our belief systems, even about the financial system, politics, government, is just wrong; nobody cares much, they are just out for their finical gain mainly with a little residual benefit coming to us... and where does that leave we individuals.  We learn, that is the cost of doing those things... what ever they are.

We are all free to do what ever we like or not. That is the sad state of affairs in this world. We can try to sell whatever we like to anyone, and if they buy, it is cash for us, if they do not, to bad, so what. Delivery of the promised article is optional. It is just our integrity, or the lack of it that produces the requirement for any promised article actual delivery. Insurance is the prime example, where it is often necessary to sue the insurance company. And everybody loses.

So we have to chose only one at a time, but we may be able to switch:

• a pleasant life 
• a good life
• a purposeful life
• a meaningful life
• other just for completeness

Now I need to make a move, and picking integrity/ virtue, leads to the stoic based life, and going forward means more of the same.

I have been attending humanist meet up group, and have concluded that most of those people are stuck beating on the religions, not on moving forward with their lives, and those who are, are not moving in the same direction as I am. So what is the purpose of attending? What is the benefit? little/none. Oh well, itewajda.

Reflections on 9/11

This post started as a potential comment on http://freethoughtblogs.com/kriswager/2016/09/11/15-years-ago/, but I decided that It need a real post.

What has been the effect of 9/11 on civilian life in Canada? ... beyond the GW Bush war...

Well I think it has caused questioning of religion in general, and that has resulted in a greater christian pressure, or atheism... of some form.

It has caused a mistrust of Muslims. Well, mistrust is the mildest term.. distrust, dislike, all the way to hatred.., with a corresponding I should not feel that reaction, resulting is over correction tolerance by some and government.

Those of us who have taken the time to study this have realized that there is no god, no life after death, no rebirth, no human purpose or meaning in life until we paint one on. This life is all we get; it is too short to waste with any religion or tolerance for such supernatural thinking. Sorry, it is all bullshit. I now feel pity for Muslims and Christians alike, they have been deceived into believing a illusion and live a delusion.  We still need to live right, with some form of do not do that which we would not tolerate being done to us, and moral guidance of we all need to live together, which is not what governments preach with wars and stupid regulations, guidelines and attitudes. Oh well, itewajda (in the end we all just die anyway).

I think 9/11 started the process of closer examination of the subject for me and for many around me. It is the boring down to truth, the letting go of supernatural thinking, aka a belief in a god or any help of any kind.

You can do what ever you want also means that nobody cares much about fellow man nor knows what should be done. Well no longer. I know that we should all give up religion and learn to live on a moral basis, by not doing what we find objectionable, and at the same time make only a small environmental footprint, as small as possible. How we do that is another question.

I am not saying that all that religions teach is wrong; just it has a wrong premise, and some religions excuse wrong behavior where a government dedicates are concerned.  

It is a human characteristic to be born with fear, anxiety, and depression. Once we recognize this, we see that those who do not have these are sociopaths, and psychopaths. We need to live withing a positive group to overcome these inborn characteristics; those of us who grew up in negative environments have that much more to overcome. We also need to overcome bullshit ideas, religions, promoted by government and society. Oh well, itewajda.     

Realism

I am declaring myself to be a realist, rather than the negative connotation atheist. I am not against anything, but am for realism, the separation of real from unreal, whether that is a belief in a god, life after death, rebirth, and anything supernatural. 

http://www.atheistrev.com/2016/08/coming-out-as-atheist-in-mississippi.html 
displays the problem of the connotation of a negative sounding word.

There are a number of ways of going forward from here, and adopting a sound philosophy, even cherry pick the sound beliefs from a number of different concepts and build on them. Positive Psychology outlines a number of styles of development; pleasant life, a good life, a meaningful life, a life of purpose. Pick any one, and run with it. The good life is essentially stoic concepts, while humanism is an outward looking bias of a life with purpose or meaning. Realism specifically picks on a purpose of that which is real, not anything unreal or supernatural, which all religions have in spades. If I cannot demonstrate it to be real, I am going to assume that it is unreal.  Oh well, itewajda.

I can call bullshit on anything this way, and not being militant, I can walk away, knowing that it and they are just wrong, but have no need to express that to them. It is none of my concern that they see a virgin Mary in a burnt toast... It is all in there head. I know that with enough mushrooms, we all can see anything in anything.

There is what something is and what we perceive in something, each may be wrong or right, producing four possible conditions of any something. Epicetetus ii, 18 or 28. It does not matter, for I can evaluate any something, and carry on. Oh well, itewajda. 

  

How big is the cultural overlay?

We sapiens are animals who evolved on this big rock whirling through space. We evolved to take advantage of this environment and available food sources. Genes evolve slowly, yet epigenetics switch on or off parts of the individual genes. We evolve and learn. Some individuals and groups learned to write and read. They wanted to record all of what they knew and believed, possible to help the next generation learn all that we were unable to teach them, for life was short, brutal and ugly for many. For some it remains so. So learned behavior become culture, and it is just the "learnings" of the past in carried forward to the present time. Oh well.

So on this natural, genetic base, there is a cultural overlay. All our ethics, morality, behaviors and the like are founded in culture. Laws of the land are current agreements and dictates of the governments defining acceptable behavior... well sort of. It defines what some will put money into enforcing, when it is convenient.  Perhaps it is intended to show how people should live, if we want to should ourselves. Now we can further slice this cultural overlay into religion, family, political, personality, etc. And where does all this leave us? Genetic predisposition plus culture, environment, and the like leaves us with a random distribution of a large number of variables, some desirable some less so, and even that varies over time and situation. We have so many choices, and we make them, one at a time. Some we keep, some not. Some become part of us, some not. Oh well, itewajda. (in the end we all just die anyway.)

Morals and ethics vary widely, and as long as we can justify our behavior to ourselves, we will be ok with anything. As long as our behavior has no or very little impact on others, nobody cares anyway. If it has no impact on others does it matter? Other people insist that some things should not be done, but is it of there concern? The local busy body has views on everything, but if it none of here concern, what does she matter? "What would the neighbors think?" was one of my grandmothers expressions for most anything. Currently, I would need to ask myself also, do I care what the neighbors would think? For the most part, the answer would be no, most of the time.

So the old bitty neighbor complained about the weeds along the day lilies, so I told her that if they bothered her, she could pull them. She has not spoken to me since. Oh well. itewajda. It looks to me like cultural overlay is most everything beyond our genetic predisposition.  

decisions

In the examination of life style, competing philosophies are just incompatible. Minimalism and self-sufficiency. Accumulation of wealth and frugal lifestyle work well together, but minimalism is all about getting rid of things, not about accumulation of things for later use. As a home owner / landlord of other properties that I have lived in, I have bits and pieces of things, light fixtures, plumbing, door parts, kitchen parts, house parts, which are my first place to look if I need a piece to fix something, but the other approach is to through out everything leftover, and when something is needed, go buy it. Two separate approaches to life; One based on accumulation, the other on not storing anything, one minimalist, one on self-sufficiency.

Going out and buying everything is cleaner, and keeps houses more current, if that is a priority. Rentals, tenants steal, lose, take things. Ice cube trays, broiler pans, door openers, door knobs, light switch covers, light fixtures, light bulbs, blinds, curtains. They do not like what is there, so they remove and garbage that which is not theirs, oh well. It is the cost of trying to accumulate enough to retire. And then they wonder why tenants have such a bad name and everything is going condo. It is the only choice.

After two houses I saw that I was not suited to being a landlord. But the accumulation characteristic is strong. Historically, even with the grief, the real-estate has produced better than bank interest. Now what?

Socialist and Capitalism are incompatible for the most part. Canada is trying to do both and that has issues. The welfare bottom of society is demanding a better lifestyle, and is above the working poor. This is not good. The working poor have only pride to work for. If they quit working and jumped onto the welfare program, they would be better off finical. However, they would lose the chance of improvement of there situation by work and effort. It is a decision that each needs to make separately. Now our native welfare societies are demanding more, and a path out of poverty. That path is education and leaving the area they were raised in and competing in the white capitalism world. It is open to them and has always been open to them, if they want it. I requires that they follow the rules, which that culture does not like. Oh well, it is a cultural jump and will not be smooth.

Now hanging onto your Indian card and working in society is just not compatible. Pow Wows and gatherings are just not important enough to take time off work for. And then want holidays also. Just not compatible with scheduling, and doing the work when the weather permits. For most of my working life, my schedule has been dictated by weather, or heavily influenced by weather. When the weather was good, all the field work needed to be completed. End of story. Culture is what it is, and old native cultural traditions do not fit into modern industrial culture, when the culture is christian based still.

For a culture who gathered at the first summer new moon to trade daughters to become other fathers sons wives, we now have internet dating sites, but without the parental inputs. That is not good for long term culture continuity, when hormones make the decisions for the next generation and for community growth. That is truly gambling with our destiny. Only a few generations ago, vetted marriages or even arranged marriages were still common. They still occur today, but more subtle of methods. Family taught prejudice is alive in our great nation. It is part of our culture, regardless of what the government says we should think and or say. It will not be stamped out, only driven below the surface as we try to overcome prejudice.

The government is keeping prejudices alive by providing preferential treatment to natives at the same time saying prejudice is wrong. They cannot have it both ways logically.

Canada, unlike America is already great, and have been for a long time.      

Pleasant, Good or Meaningful

Pleasant, Good or Meaningful ...   In the positive psychology (PP) philosophy, much is similar to the classic period. The Stoic Philosophy and similar, including Epicurus, Cynics, and Christians that existed at that time are all examples of PP philosophy.

In life there are three general groups of life philosophies. The Pleasant life is a pleasure, sensory based life where the ultimate aim is enjoyment, which is all fine when conditions are good. Epicurus defined this lifestyle, and some of it's issues. He suggested that we avoid areas that would upset us, like politics, perhaps marriage, sexual encounters with others, employment... and to live frugal and near self-sufficient lives, to develop frugal tastes, and take the time to enjoy and savor everything, especially companionship. The pleasant life is the result.

The Stoics had the approach that virtue was the only good, and that is in our control. If we always do the right thing, then we are right, and can take solace in the fact that we did right, regardless of the outcome. If there was wrong done, it was not by us. This inward looking approach to life produces satisfaction regardless of the conditions and outcome. We are in control always.

The Meaningful life is achieved by adopting a philosophy, purpose, or objective and working toward it. That purpose could be family, altruism, business, politics, nation, religion, anything. It requires that one never questions the value of your chosen purpose or philosophy. Add a bit of supernatural thinking and this becomes religion. Christians are a prime example.

Any of the above three are suitable methods of developing a satisfying life; but only one is within our control. The Meaningful life may feel good while you are doing it, but on later examination, may be all based on a false premise, and can you deal with that? Or even accept that? Oh well, such is the premise of religion.

Some of the PP folks seem to think that these three are a progression, but I think that there is no progression, only choice and that the good life, once recognized, is the hands down winner. So looking inward, I support Stoic philosophy and looking outward Humanism. We have both ways of looking, and we must observe both directions for peace.            

Truth

How important is it to know the truth? If we believe it to be true when it is not, does it really make any difference. Consider the myth/story of Adam and Eve verse evolution and human anthropology as what we know today, even though the details are weak.

The Adam, last man where we can all claim common ancestry, live about 180,000 years ago while the Eve was 190,000 years ago or am I backwards. DNA distributions tell us that. Not at the same time by 10,000 years. The population bottlenecks occurred later,  about 70,000 or 80,000 years ago. The consciousness revolution occurred during this similar period or before. Homosapien populations recovery rapidly. Humans soon outgrew our food sources, we had to go further to find food, we expanded throughout the world, interbreeding or displacing with at least six other group of hominids that existed at that time.

Christians have the concept that everything was put here for the human species. This is just wrong. There is no purpose until we paint one on. There are no rules until society and politics gets involved. This arrogance of self importance comes through. We survived because of our intelligence, it was not a choice, not suitability. We reproduce at alarming rates, and soon overtake our food supply. Food is the first limit on our growth. Water is likely the second, air the third, or energy, but these are related. Overpopulation drove us to agriculture, and industry. Now what will be next? Communications, education, or population control?  No, well how about high death rate because we do not have economic access to medical treatment? How about the medical cost of the population becoming so high through passing on of medical defects that only the rich will have economic access? It will be the next generations that will need to deal with that. I will be dead by then, although I may get a taste.

So the Adam and Eve myth has a kernel of truth, but the kernel is overpopulation, and our reproduction rate. Copulation is driven by physical, emotional, chemical, and mental drives. Nothing other than the drive for food is stronger, and then only when we are hungry. As sapiens went about in there randy ways, it is likely that sapiens copulated at ever opportunity, regardless of sub-species... well with humanoids anyway, and thus went from six sub-species to approaching one in a braided fashion. The mixing is not yet complete and will not be until the next population bottleneck. Survival has been more luck than natural selection... it is the cause of the bottlenecks that makes the choice.

A supervolcano in Indonesia was the likely the last big bottleneck/die off. Oh well, in the end we all die anyway. So to get back to the kernel of truth, verses the myth, it is in the attitude that the real damage of religion is to be found. Once we start to see the error or religions, we cannot tolerate the myths. Some of us are truth seeking, knowledge seeking. It is our nature, and perhaps human nature. There are some who seek only for themselves, those sociopaths among us who will just use every opportunity to steel and not take responsibility for there own stuff, and are unable to live within there means.

Can you handle the truth? Tell me what you think.    

Yah .... Humanism

Humanism make religion, well just irrelevant. It covers all the thing religions provided, with the exception of ritual, and it can provide that as well through organizations like Humanist Canada, although I have no idea why anyone would want rituals. Through a party, invite all interested parties and you have it.

When we are personally responsible for ourselves, our ethics rise above those of any church, similar to the Buddhist ideal. Sociopaths and Psychopaths cannot be humanism, it is against there philosophy. In fact, many sociopaths are trained to be that way; humanism is the route back to being good members of society. Sociopaths are the dregs of society, not the poor and mentally infirm. They do it willingly. Yes, I have a dislike of sociopaths, I just had one of them as a tenant, and she cost me a bit of money. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.

No body has the right to rule over other people; we all have the right to do as we want, as long as those action do not affect other people in a big way. We have the right to withdraw our services, as long as we were not hired to provide those services. If the services we provide are not what we are comfortable with, we have the right to decline, and find other ways of making a living. This makes some of the governments laws questionable, and "beyond what we signed up for in the social contract." Civil disobedience may be required. Going beyond civil law is not immoral if the civil law is oppressive and beyond what we think is proper. There is a fine line to walk here. The City of Edmonton is trying to control preservation of old trees on private property. Many of these trees have done damage to adjacent houses due to soil desiccation. So will the City take on the liability for these trees? Not likely. Oh well, in the end the city administration will also die. They are also egos that have grown beyond what they should be. 

We each are responsible to try to control our overeating, even if it is epigenetically controlled, and those epigenetics are beyond our control. I am currently failing badly, but not looking at reality is not the way to control epigenetically driven desires. Obsessing, or ignoring, distracting the self, are also possible. Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.



   

More on Humanism

 A bit more reading about humanism and I have concluded that we have specific characteristics:

Individuals: We are a group of individuals who do not follow others, but think independently, and all have coalesced around some central themes. We are not blind followers.  

Independent: (free?) We are all equal, no one has the right to dictate to others. Yes, no, well what about social contract and criminal activity. The rights of the many should be considered as law; that is society protection from the criminals, we gave up the right of self defense to live together in groups, and have protection. Well we have really no protection - only a mild deterrent to criminals - and occasionally prosecution.  If you do not want us to take back our self protection and ignore the law, then the government had better start providing better protection. But we are free living people, dependent on civilization, but independent thinking.

Reason: We use reason and logic, not superstition or supernatural causes. There are no authorities except in science, and they have the collections of facts. We require questioning, unlike religions. We have no holy books to give direction.

• Buddhism uses mediation and self searching as founding criteria, it encourages questioning.
• Christianity, Islam use authority and holy books as founding criteria, and oppose questioning.
• Science and Humanism use evidence, logic, truth as founding criteria. and require questioning. 

Truth: We try to get to the truth, often placing statements on the nine point truth scale: Absolutely true, probably true, likely true, unable to demonstrate false, neutral or unknown, unable to demonstrate true, likely false, probably false, absolutely false. This combines our confidence and the truth of a statement.

Evidence: If it is not suitable for court, then it is not evidence. Holy books are stories, not evidence. These are tests of how to explain something to a child, not true but not false either, although the underlying thoughts may be false or just wrong. Physical evidence often has more than one explanation; but somehow it must be explained.

Virtue: It seems that Humanism drags in beliefs from all over: the Stoic believed that living a virtues life was the only good, virtue is always right so a virtues life was always right. There cardinal virtues were wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance. Compassion and duty were just expected as part of life. Some add mental pleasure or joy. This also mates with positive psychology behavior; positive emotions, meaning, engagement, effort, accomplishment, satisfaction, joy, and that feeds back into positive emotions.

Knowledge: Wisdom is knowledge applied rightly. Humanism requires questioning of many things. Self seeking through meditation is just a place to start when there is no science, but also much mesh with science. We need to adjust ourselves to what is, not what we would like to happen. It is our expectations, delusions, aversions, desires, that cause us grief. Letting go of the unreasonable and unattainable is the first step to freedom. Also sorting knowledge by truth in detail verses general truths or simplifications.

And yet life and humanism is so much more.