They don't understand, that book was a warning not a blueprint!

@BikerPetehall70 they understood it VERY well.

What I find fascinating is that most on the left believe that they are Winston.

@Supra_Librix

They are so worried about Nazis they forgot that "liberals" we're the first people Stalin and Mao disappeared. The true believers are strangely as much a danger to themselves as others. Could just be a personality defect associated with being gregarious and lacking self control.

@wolfhnd I see this as a turning point in psychological understanding.

At the root of every philosophical discussion lies this:

We are either one with the universe, or the universe was created by one.

That's the spin put on every opinion about what is true.

If you look at it that way, you can understand why Trump is such a disruptor and why there is no fundamental agreement about what is true.

That explains every push for a one-world order versus America first.

Every person's philosophy tilts one way or the other, it's only culture that defines which is prevalent.

@Supra_Librix

I'm going with a third option. America first is in the best interest of the globe. Thoughtful people may object on some rational basis to nationalism but the U.S. is in the unfortunate position of being a mostly benign hegemon.

@wolfhnd That's exactly how I feel, but the argument against it is that we are only where we are by oppressing other countries.

It doesn't matter how much you argue about it, if you come from a fundamentally different philosophy, any evidence you give as evidence that you are right will be interpreted in a different way.

At the bottom of any rabbit hole you choose to dive down is the same philosophical difference.

@Supra_Librix

Can you elaborate a bit, I'm struggling to get your point?

@wolfhnd If you ever get someone to answer you honestly, at the end of every question is this:

Are we one with the universe (big bang)

Was the universe made by One (God)

If you believe we are one with the universe, then the present is most important.
If you believe we the universe was made by One, then the future is most important.

It's genetic but apparently random. The tendency is slight, and easily overwritten by existing culture, but is there. It's part of being human.

It's what drives us to communism.

After much thought over the years, I have come to the conclusion the following are operative in the thinking of humans: The ends justify the means or the means justify the the ends. Western philosophy, logic and reason, are the cornerstones.

@Supra_Librix

Jordon Peterson does a fairly good job of explaining what we know about the genetic influences on political and moral inclinations but psychology is always suspect. Being largely dependent on statistics that involve some level of self assessment. The big five personality traits fall into a category of research that is particularly dependent on self assessment. For the moment and as far as I know despite the obvious uncertainties it may be the best we have to test your theory.

Ten years ago or so I looked into the genetic influences on religiosity. I was not very impressed with the proponents of what came to be called the God gene. I'm going to see if any better research has been done and get back to you.

@wolfhnd Psychology is always suspect. Perfect summation of it, right?

The universe is contemplating itself, and discovers that it can't be trusted.

@wolfhnd I have no deep medical or genetic understanding, but it seems obvious that lots of psychological traits are determined at the quantum level, everyone knows the black sheep, the genius born of idiots and vice versa.

When you get right down to it, all it takes is one molecule to malfunction in the genetic code and you are born a vegetable.

@Cuzilla47 Are we One with the Universe or did One create the universe?

If we are One with the Universe, the means ARE the end.

If One created the Universe, the end dictates the means.

@Supra_Librix

A "scientific" analysis of the question of how the religious and non-religious relate to the world should start with comparative intelligence. It is a popular belief among our intellectual elites that atheists are more intelligent. In exploring this phenomenon I choose the following article.

"The Myth of the Stupid Believer: The Negative Religiousness–IQ Nexus is Not on General Intelligence and is Likely a Product of the Relations Between IQ and Autism Spectrum Traits"

[link.springer.com]

The article proposes to statistically demonstrate that the correlation between religiosity and intelligence is real but not significant in the general population. The difference however is striking between the exceptionally intelligent and average. I find it to be consistent with a common sense expectation.

@wolfhnd If you are smart, you are better equipped to handle the tools of a given age.

If those tools generate value, you are rewarded.

today, the reward is money and power.

The more money and power you have, the less you are likely to believe a higher power is responsible for your well being.

It's an inevitable cycle of history.

@Supra_Librix

That is the "common sense" explanation but I have found that it is best to be as empirical as possible when dealing with just about anything that doesn't have immediate consequences that outweigh the benefits of caution.

@wolfhnd Fair criticism, but we are dealing with intent. Impossible to know or quantify.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

@Supra_Librix

Well we have already agreed that anything from the social sciences is suspect. Maybe we have a social scientist that can address that better than I can.

The common sense answer is statistics don't lie but liars use statistics. If we don't try to be empirical then it substantially weakens the philosophical arguments.

@wolfhnd the power of empirical evidence has diminishing returns.

Once a fact has been established, perception is most important.

Science is so good it doesn't even understand the atom.

At the quantum level, reality is what you choose it to be.

@Supra_Librix

Quantum physics has caused a lot of confusion. At tiny scales determinism appears to break down but a better way of looking at it is that the observer becomes a factor in determining the outcome of probably states. There are not an infinite number of possible states so at the very least one of two outcomes are one hundred percent probable. You can predict with almost complete certainty that a novel state will not arise. Arguing otherwise is like the creationists arguing that stochastic mutations are proof that the theory of evolution is flawed. That we describe something as random doesn't mean that it is it only means it is unpredictable.

@wolfhnd I think we agree perfectly.

Two states, particle or a wave, self/other, body/soul.

Symmetry from the macro to the nano.

Free will.