There is lots of misplaced tribalism in the world.
Sometimes a real tribe of 100 people needs to work together on a big animal hunt, or to fight off another tribe, trying to steal farms and livestock, or to go steal somebody's farms and livestock.
Power elites have learned and passed down the secrets of manipulating human tribalism for longer than recorded words can tell. They are adept at turning "tribes" of humans against each other, so that the rulers can keep ruling, and can reduce the population when supplies are short and harvests bad.
Calling "OTHER" in various forms helps "define" "tribe" and "enemy".
Don't fall for it. Be carefully analytical.
IQ falls 30 points when a person is mad.
IQ does not exist in an angry mob, only Purpose exists.
So is all evil committed by plotting chessmasters?
Ordinary people have no morality?
Just along for the ride?
Western civilization was built on rejecting anti-rationalist arguments.
You studied medicine in school. I studied logic.
You took an oath to heal people, no matter what.
I took an oath to tell the truth, no matter how personally dangerous.
Christians believe in free will.
Marxists believe in material determinism.
These people don't just want to kill. They want to destroy your life's work. Islam doesn't even accept the Hippocratic Oath. You're going to be morally agnostic now?
Oct 11, 2023·edited Oct 11, 2023Liked by Aaron Lee
I laid out how individuals who are not angry can be rational, which you and I both endorse, and how anger dramatically reduces rationality, which is a common human experience. It has overtaken all of us.
I then point out the further development of that in the tribal-killing mode, which is a real and well documented human social mode of behavior.
I endorse ordinary people preserving their individual morality through certain protective mechanisms, like avoiding anger, and not joining angry crowds.
I am moral, and it is unfair to ascribe to me positions which I do not endorse.
Spirituality can grow within many religions, and it can grow without formal religion.
Spirituality is human.
"Atheism" is also not a unitary position. Is a compassionate human who feels the suffering of others a full-atheist or a partial atheist?
Some Islamic factions have killed Buddhists as "Atheists", because they do not follow a personified deity, but something which may be called "universal consciousness".
We are all responsible for our own intentions, even if they may not be visible to others. We are responsible for our actions, though they may sometimes be misguided, and work against our intentions. I think that is "free will".
If you were trading the NASDAQ this summer, and went against the crowd, you were destroyed.
The presence or absence of a crowd does not mean the issue is hyped or irrelevant.
We know beliefs impact our decisions. We know that beliefs are not forces of nature, but the very free will that we are born with.
Political Islam chooses to believe what it believes. Am I to infantilize them for not taking them at their word? Am I to interpret their words and actions to be different from what every statistical chart contradicts?
Without deep study, but with years of paying attention, I would say that political Islam and Political Zionism are very similar, except for which "tribes" they manipulate.
I avoid risk-assets. I have never engaged in stock-trading.
I am interested, but I do not want to participate, and never have.
How do we come to have "beliefs"? This is not a unity of meaning.
We may "believe" the tenents of a religion in which we were raised without much deep consideration or review.
We may believe in gravity, to the degree that we are absolutely certain about how to land when we jump to skip the bottom 3 steps.
There are shallower beliefs and deeper knowledge and certainty, but the deeper certainty is only gained through years of work and experimentation, including falling down and getting hurt.
So when you take anybody at their word, you have to consider that most people are not really sure of what they are saying or why, and many are even lying.
What, historically, was "the land of Zion", and how did the Israelites come to it?
This is a story of one very large tribe slaughtering another large tribe, "man, woman and child", and killing their king, whose name was "Zion", because "God" said to go and do that.
This same Abrahamic "God" is shared with Islam and Christianity, though Jesus of Nazarth/Galilee really sought to portray the God-as-Loving-Father archetype.
Jesus was killed by TPTB of the day, apparently for overthrowing the money-changing tables in the temple and whipping the money changers.
Crucifixion, under Roman law, was reserved only for threats to the system, "troublemakers".
There is lots of misplaced tribalism in the world.
Sometimes a real tribe of 100 people needs to work together on a big animal hunt, or to fight off another tribe, trying to steal farms and livestock, or to go steal somebody's farms and livestock.
Power elites have learned and passed down the secrets of manipulating human tribalism for longer than recorded words can tell. They are adept at turning "tribes" of humans against each other, so that the rulers can keep ruling, and can reduce the population when supplies are short and harvests bad.
Calling "OTHER" in various forms helps "define" "tribe" and "enemy".
Don't fall for it. Be carefully analytical.
IQ falls 30 points when a person is mad.
IQ does not exist in an angry mob, only Purpose exists.
So is all evil committed by plotting chessmasters?
Ordinary people have no morality?
Just along for the ride?
Western civilization was built on rejecting anti-rationalist arguments.
You studied medicine in school. I studied logic.
You took an oath to heal people, no matter what.
I took an oath to tell the truth, no matter how personally dangerous.
Christians believe in free will.
Marxists believe in material determinism.
These people don't just want to kill. They want to destroy your life's work. Islam doesn't even accept the Hippocratic Oath. You're going to be morally agnostic now?
I laid out how individuals who are not angry can be rational, which you and I both endorse, and how anger dramatically reduces rationality, which is a common human experience. It has overtaken all of us.
I then point out the further development of that in the tribal-killing mode, which is a real and well documented human social mode of behavior.
I endorse ordinary people preserving their individual morality through certain protective mechanisms, like avoiding anger, and not joining angry crowds.
I am moral, and it is unfair to ascribe to me positions which I do not endorse.
Spirituality can grow within many religions, and it can grow without formal religion.
Spirituality is human.
"Atheism" is also not a unitary position. Is a compassionate human who feels the suffering of others a full-atheist or a partial atheist?
Some Islamic factions have killed Buddhists as "Atheists", because they do not follow a personified deity, but something which may be called "universal consciousness".
We are all responsible for our own intentions, even if they may not be visible to others. We are responsible for our actions, though they may sometimes be misguided, and work against our intentions. I think that is "free will".
I seek Divine Guidance frequently.
I do think it's a moral failure to not denounce wickedness.
I think moral equivalency is a moral failure.
You are sensible for not joining crowds.
But sometimes the crowd is correct.
If you were trading the NASDAQ this summer, and went against the crowd, you were destroyed.
The presence or absence of a crowd does not mean the issue is hyped or irrelevant.
We know beliefs impact our decisions. We know that beliefs are not forces of nature, but the very free will that we are born with.
Political Islam chooses to believe what it believes. Am I to infantilize them for not taking them at their word? Am I to interpret their words and actions to be different from what every statistical chart contradicts?
Without deep study, but with years of paying attention, I would say that political Islam and Political Zionism are very similar, except for which "tribes" they manipulate.
I avoid risk-assets. I have never engaged in stock-trading.
I am interested, but I do not want to participate, and never have.
How do we come to have "beliefs"? This is not a unity of meaning.
We may "believe" the tenents of a religion in which we were raised without much deep consideration or review.
We may believe in gravity, to the degree that we are absolutely certain about how to land when we jump to skip the bottom 3 steps.
There are shallower beliefs and deeper knowledge and certainty, but the deeper certainty is only gained through years of work and experimentation, including falling down and getting hurt.
So when you take anybody at their word, you have to consider that most people are not really sure of what they are saying or why, and many are even lying.
Sad, but true.
Zionism literally means nationalism for Jews.
It's ok for Muslims to have dozens of Muslim countries, but not ok for Jews to even have 1?
This is a Sharia talking point.
What, historically, was "the land of Zion", and how did the Israelites come to it?
This is a story of one very large tribe slaughtering another large tribe, "man, woman and child", and killing their king, whose name was "Zion", because "God" said to go and do that.
This same Abrahamic "God" is shared with Islam and Christianity, though Jesus of Nazarth/Galilee really sought to portray the God-as-Loving-Father archetype.
Jesus was killed by TPTB of the day, apparently for overthrowing the money-changing tables in the temple and whipping the money changers.
Crucifixion, under Roman law, was reserved only for threats to the system, "troublemakers".