In this episode, I am going to discuss an aspect of knowledge that many people these days are not aware of, yet it has immense importance for our political freedom, and our ability to argue for freedom. It can also leave us vulnerable to a serious logical fallacy, and affects our ability to truly understand the ideas we claim to hold as true. I am talking about the hierarchical structure of knowledge.

When this natural hierarchy is ignored, people believe in ideas that contradict the logical base of all human thinking and knowledge without seeing the logical fallacy they have fallen for. This can leave minds in a mess of unidentified contradictions. If we are truth seekers concerned for our political freedom, this is not good enough. We must be able to argue effectively for rights — which is the only means to freedom. If you wish to a spokesperson for freedom, and to think efficiently and logically, you need to be familiar with the hierarchical structure of knowledge.

Western culture is in deep trouble. Most people don’t know what’s going on, and those who begin to inquire, have lost the thinking skills to evaluate ideas effectively. In disregard to the hierarchy of knowledge people get suckered into believing great sounding ideas, such as “You can do anything, your thoughts create your reality” but people don’t see that this philosophical primacy of consciousness implicitly contradicts the concept of truth, and destroys any chance of freedom. I covered this and other ideas in Episode 160 of the podcast, Dangerous False Ideas.

It’s also common to find that people cannot justify their conclusions; they cannot fully explain why they hold an idea to be true. Although this sounds like a different problem, it’s rooted in the same failure to appreciate the hierarchical structure of knowledge, and thus the same failure to trace the ideas they hold back to their roots at the perceptual level.

This problem in our thinking is hardly surprising. For many decades now, since Emmanuel Kant in the late 18th century, our leading intellectuals and philosophers have been declaring that reality is an unknowable illusion, and that the mind is impotent. Yes, our leading intellectuals have for a long time, been practicing serious intellectual dishonesty by disseminating these ideas that deliberately violate the hierarchy of knowledge.

Most people do not genuinely understand the big issues of today that affect our political freedom, such as the alleged climate emergency and the alleged pandemic. They simply hold a set of inconsistent and contradictory beliefs. For example, being an advocate of freedom, yet thinking capitalism is evil. To genuinely understand the conceptual ideas you consider to be true, you must be able to connect them back to reality, to make them fully real and give them their meaning. This is what it means to understand an idea. It must be integrated without contradiction into the sum of one’s existing knowledge and connected to the facts of reality, in order to give it meaning. When this has happened, only then can the idea be explained to others.

The Foundations

All knowledge fits into a contextual structure that starts with the observation of reality, observing the world around us, and forming concepts of all the things we perceive. This ultimately includes concepts of existent things as well as attributes, actions and spatial as well as temporal relationships. Only when we have grasped the most basic concepts of individuals concretes, can further concepts be formed by observing the similarities and differences between those already formed.

All of our knowledge follows the same pattern as the formation of individual concepts. It builds upon itself, one step at a time. We learn the foundational things first, and we build on these foundations.  We can’t begin by studying for a degree,

The technology of today can track our every movement, monitor all our communications and transactions, and gather data on every aspect of our lives. Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), that threaten to remove the last vestiges of our economic freedom, are on the agenda of those steering western culture towards collectivism. In this context, it is hard to imagine that technology could come to the rescue of the ordinary man on the street, by increasing the level of human intelligence to a level that could avert what looks politically inevitable.

However, that is the possibility proposed by JJ Kelly, ex-CEO from the telecommunications Industry, Ex-Navy Pilot and now Author of “Intellopy – Survival and happiness in a collapsing society with advancing technology”. In this episode of “Living outside the Matrix” we discuss the context of today’s technological capabilities and how technology may enslave us, or help to set us free.

JJ presents a thorough and clear analysis of how the human consciousness works, incorporating the perceptual and conceptual level, and he presents a fascinating view on what is possible given the right political context. The question is, can a computer be build to be equal to, or superior to, the human mind, given that we don’t yet fully understand how the mind works?

It is true that Ayn Rand’s revolutionary theory of concept formation gives a very credible account of how some aspects of the mind works. But more importantly, it is inconceivable that those programming the AI would give credibility to and therefore incorporate Rand’s theory — the only one that solves the so-called “problem of universals” — and therefore would stand a chance of success as the basis for a computer based ‘intelligence’.

Personally, I have doubts about the possibility of AI and transhumanism — the merging of humans with technology — and I remain unconvinced of the desirability of such a thing. In Episode 144 of the Podcast, I spoke with Patrick Wood, and he warned of the dangers of Technocracy. JJ not only thinks it’s possible, but that it could be beneficial. In my opinion, the current political control and manipulation of society, in the direction of greater centralised control, is the dominant factor, due to the philosophical reasons that we discuss. And thus, that slavery under technocracy is the more likely outcome, unless there is a radical u-turn in the dominant fundamental beliefs of western culture.

 

I have doubts about JJ’s assumption of the exponential curve in the advancement of technology. Again, because of the widespread rejection of reason in western culture. Although I agree that the ‘sciences’ are somewhat insulated from this by necessity, there is considerable evidence to suggest that what passes for modern science is in fact impressive sounding wishful thinking. Theoretical physics left the rails of reality many decades ago, and has been followed by mainstream medicine, alleged space technology, and alleged nuclear technology. All of these are riddled with contradictions and false claims.

Crucially, as JJ concedes, an advanced AI would only be possible if modeled on the correctly functioning human mind, one that has ALL of its premises based in reality, NOT fantasy. There could be no false premises programmed in, carried over human error. This would act like a ‘virus’ and scupper any ‘thoughts’, rendering them not accurate enough to base action on – thus negating the whole purpose of AI.

We all need a means to validate what we claim as our knowledge. We need to know how to know things, how to achieve certainty that the ideas we hold and act on, are valid and true. We don’t have automatic knowledge, but we require knowledge in order to act successfully. Hence our need for a means of validating any and all information we hear, and the ideas we generate ourselves, so we can proceed to do things with confidence of success.

An epistemology is a fundamental set of ideas that form the basis of your thinking, your method of knowledge validation. The method you use to discern what is real and what is not, must be grounded in the correct epistemology. Otherwise, in the long run, only failure and suffering can result.

Explicit versus implicit

The first point to note is that we all use an epistemology, even if we haven’t heard of the word. But our epistemology remains implicit, unless it is specifically stated in terms of the fundamentals of one’s thinking — which of course, it isn’t.

Implicit, in this context, means that it is necessarily a part of the mental process, even if it is not consciously recognised, or verbalised.

Two Epistemologies

In the broadest sense, and for all practical purposes in validating information, there are only two epistemologies: one that is correct, based on reason and logic, and another that is incorrect and based on faith and emotions. I use the term ‘correct’ here, assuming that successful action, staying in touch with reality, and the achievement of one’s goals is always the desired outcome. The correct epistemology is rooted in the acceptance of an objective reality that is knowable, the incorrect one is not.

[I must add here, that Epistemology is a very wide and comprehensive subject. In this context I am not talking about concept formation, the structure of reasoning, or other sub topics within epistemology. I am referring only to the essential principles (or lack of them) at the base of the concept of knowledge that distinguishes the essence of the only two basic approaches.]

For the purpose of illustration here, I shall refer to the correct one as the epistemology of reason, and the incorrect one as, the epistemology of faith, and I will show you why one is correct, and the other is not.

Philosophical Bedrock

To begin with, these two opposing epistemologies come directly from two corresponding opposing views of the nature of reality. Now we’re getting into metaphysics – the most fundamental branch of philosophy. And the basic issue is this: Either reality is real and exists independently of any consciousness, or it isn’t, and it doesn’t.

The important point to note is that if one adopts, and holds as true, certain ideas, such as consciousness creates reality; the hermetic principle that “all is mind”, one is, to that extent, implicitly using the wrong epistemology. (as I shall demonstrate)

Lets look at these two views of the nature of reality, and see how they lead to opposing views of the nature of knowledge and the ability of the human mind to know reality.

The first, I shall refer to as the primacy of existence. According to this view:

That which exists, the world, reality, existence, is what it is independent of the content of any consciousness. Facts, existence, have metaphysical primacy, they come first, they set the terms, they are there, they are real, they are independent of any mind or consciousness. Reality is an objective absolute, and consciousness (according to this view) is merely the faculty of grasping what is out there, what antecedently and independently exists. Consciousness is simply the faculty of perceiving, grasping, identifying, coming to discover what is out there.

The alternative view, I shall refer to as the primacy of consciousness. According to this:

Existence is a by-product, a creation, a derivative of consciousness.

Taking supplements is something many health conscious people do. It is often thought that essential vitamins supplements are worth adding to our diets because our food is depleted of nutrients after decades of modern farming methods. On the face of it, this seems a reasonable assumption – until you scratch beneath the surface and ask some questions. How are these vitamin supplements made? Are they really the same stuff as the vitamins found in our food? These are the kind of questions Daniel began asking as he investigated the subject after lecturing for many years as a nutritionist.

Daniel has his own podcast called, Humanley where he interviews health experts and asks the fundamental questions. He is a thinker and researcher who dares to challenge the dogma he has been taught. In Episode 164 of Living outside the Matrix he shares what he has discovered during this process of questioning the assumptions of his profession. The results will surprise you.

resources:

The Humanley Podcast can be found at www.humanley.com/podcast or at https://humanley.podbean.com/

Daniel’s Telegram account can be found at t.me/humanley

If you are interested, here is what Wikipedia has to say about vitamins – what are vitamins?

Life within the Matrix is full of myths that are simply misinformation and un-truth masquerading as legitimate different perspectives. It is the challenge of modern living to sift the truth from the un-truth. Thinking is the way out of the Matrix since it is the only way to decypher the many modern myths and discern what is real from what is not. It is no surprise to find that the concept of thinking itself has been heavily polluted with untruth.

There are so many common myths about thinking that it has become difficult to discuss the practice from a common understanding. We have already discussed why thinking is so important, and also 10 tips for clearer thinking. Here, in building up to a useful definition of thinking, let us first take a look at what it isn’t by exploring some of these myths.

1. That what we personally do is necessarily thinking

The first common myth about thinking is that everyone assumes that their own mental habits and practices are what constitute thinking. In the absence of education about thinking in schools, and with much of the present (bankrupt) culture actively discouraging it, this is not surprising. The truth is that many people get stuck in mental circles listening to relentless self-denigrating mind chatter, or endlessly worrying. These may be mental activities, but they are not thinking.

Additionally, some mental activity considered as thoughts are actually emotions. There is often confusion between these two, with little attempt made to distinguish them. In my post ‘Emotions – what are they and what do they mean’ I explore emotions in more detail. The point here Is that it is crucial to know what we think and to know what we feel, and to know the difference.

2. That thinking means ‘any mental activity’

Myth number two follows straight on from the first. Never asking what thinking is, leaves us ignorant of the answer. There is a vast array of mental activities but they are not all thinking. Worrying, remembering, visualising, and brooding are not thinking in its strict sense. [See definition below]

3. That thinking is automatic

Mental activity of various kinds can become automatised. In the normal process of learning thought is required to consider and modify actions, but these actions and thought processes become automated in the subconscious to free up the conscious mind for new thought. By definition automatic mental activity is not conscious. Thinking, however, is a volitional activity that requires effort and must be initiated by each individual. Mental activities that keep you awake at night such as aimless mind chatter and worry are not thinking. Thinking is a consciously initiated deliberate activity with its purpose being the acquisition of knowledge.

4. That we are what we think

It is more accurate to say that we are what we do. No one remembers what Winston Churchill thought, but we remember what he did, and therefore associate him with his choice of actions. Thought precedes action but does not necessarily lead to it. We are not necessarily our thoughts, but we are necessarily our actions. Thoughts, like words, are cheap. Our actions are what define us because they exist on the record – they are what actually happened. It is only if we act in accordance with our thoughts, and to the extent that we practice integrity, that our thoughts correlate with who we are – or who we choose to be.

Thinking is a process, its something we do. It’s not what we are but it affects who we become. Thinking is a function of consciousness. Consciousness is the primary, and thinking is the activity of consciousness.

Imminent climate disaster is what we are told lies ahead! But not much reasoning is offered. We simply hear the same old worn out assertions repeated again and again, a simple form of communication for a dumbed down population. Phrases like “the science is settled” are rolled out to convince those who have no understanding of what science really is. “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real” they tell those who think that truth is determined by numbers with no reference to any objective facts of reality.

And note this; the definition of climate change usually means the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, this defines climate change as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”. This is the definition widely used by is widely used by climate alarmists. The point is that you always have to check to see what definition is being used.

It is true that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it is true that human activity releases it. However, it is very far from true to conclude that the climate of planet earth is in danger of a runaway overheating situation in which a positive feedback loop causes a dynamically unstable situation to cause the end of life on earth. This idea is simply baseless nonsense designed to scare people into changing their behaviour.

The take-home point to note is this: The climate emergency narrative is a political tool. It is peddled in order to have allegedly “justifiable” grounds on which to limit and control your behaviour by political means and for political goals.

In Episode 163 of “Living outside the Matrix” I am joined by David (Diamond) Mauriello, from the Oppenheimer Ranch Project in Colorado, USA, for a conversation on the climate change narrative. David is a geologist and one of his other hats is that he publishes the “Magnetic Reversal News” channel on Youtube. This is where he discusses issues such as magnetic excursions, solar flares and pole shifts.

I was keen to ask him about the likelihood of pole shifts occurring where the earths crust actually slips, and to inquire about the possible effects of Coronal Mass Ejections (CME”s) on the worlds grid system. We do wander a little off topic, and into some other interesting territory, but its a great conversation.

Whatever the truth about solar flares and magnetic field collapse, the main point here is that CO2 is not our enemy. The climate is doing just fine, and we would all be much better off if the atmosphere contained much much more CO2! The climate emergency narrative is false. It is a political ruse, a scam, a con, a lie!

We are living in the post-truth era. The propagandists are taking out all the stops and going full blast. Because so few people are thinking critically for themselves these days, the political landscape can now be adjusted without any reference to truth. The only hope is if more people think critically and shout out about the lies. Become a new intellectual. Join the ranks of thinking men and women who are willing to do the mental work and discern the truth.

Resources

If you would like to hear more from Diamond here are some of his links to social media, websites and various content channels. Enjoy.

Support David’s work – Become A Patron

It has always been important to be able to accurately discern which claims are true and which are false. We humans need knowledge of reality in order to know how to act, so we can lead successful lives. This means we need to have a means of validating the ideas we hold to be true. We need to be able to check the information we hear and verify that it is true before we act on it – otherwise we inevitably suffer. Epistemology is the science of ‘knowledge’ and how we know things. With a correct epistemology you can reach for the stars. With a faulty one, all that results is confusion, anxiety and suffering.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge. Epistemology asks the questions; What is knowledge? How does man validate his conclusions? What are the proper methods of thinking? The correct answers to these questions inform the method that the truth seeker must adopt if he is to achieve certainty as a result of his investigations.

The base of philosophy can be summed up by three questions; What exists? How do I know? and, So what? Metaphysics is the study of reality and asks, ‘What exists?’ Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and asks the question ‘How do I know?’. And Ethics is the study of how should man act, and address the question, So What?

Metaphysics is the first question in philosophy because it affects all the other areas including politics and aesthetics. You cannot ask how you know something until you have addressed the question of the nature of reality. The answer to this question determines the epistemology that logically follows. The conclusions formed after asking this most fundamental question determine even if knowledge can be acquired at all!

In Podcast 162, Dr Andrew Kaufman joins me to discuss epistemology. Specifically, the consequences of the basic metaphysical question – is reality an objective absolute, independent of any consciousness, or is it a projection or creation of consciousness? These two positions on the issue exhaust the logical possibilities. The first may be called the Primacy of Existence, the second, the Primacy of Consciousness.

This first question of metaphysics is of paramount importance, because one answer (the Primacy of Existence) leads to truth, knowledge, successful action, life. The other one (the Primacy of Consciousness) leads to confusion, conflict, destruction and suffering! Of course, a suitable time lag disguises the issue sufficiently for most men not to be able to see the problem.

Unfortunately Dr Kaufman fails to recognise this crucial distinction. In stead of engaging in a crucial intellectual issue, he remained defensive and concerned that I was trying to get him to be an atheist. And the whole point is that one cannot be a truth seeker and believe in a supernatural deity at the same time. It is a contradiction. How can you demand proof of the existence of a virus and not for the existence of God?

Dr Kaufman declined to post this interview on his own social media channels. I am left wondering why anyone would find it offensive to be concerned that truth seekers be consistent. But perhaps more importantly, the concept of rights is central to the goal of freedom, but must be argued for on a rational basis, and they can be. Anyone setting themselves up as a leader of a freedom movement, which Dr Kaufman very obviously is, will not succeed if they argue that rights are a gift from God. In other words, if they use the wrong epistemology, one of faith and feelings, they have no rational argument for freedom.

resources:

Dr Andrew Kaufman’s website is www.andrewkaufmanmd.com

Dr Kaufman’s True Medicine Library can be found here www.truemedicinelibrary.com

In this episode of Living outside the Matrix, we bring you a panel of UK-based thinkers that are challenging the official dogma on viruses. In spite of widespread belief to the contrary, viruses have never been proven to exist, as such. No controlled experiments have properly isolated them, and they have never been proven to cause any disease. Unless this truth becomes general knowledge two results are inevitable. Firstly, humanity will remain locked in a false paradigm that prevents genuine understanding of the nature and causes of disease. Secondly, the door will be left open for the useful justification of political control under the guise of protecting public health.

The Panel

Joan Shenton – Writer, producer and director. Joan wrote the book “Positively False” in 1998, and then produced the film “Positively false – birth of  heresy” along with “Positive Hell”, a 30-minute documentary about being diagnosed with AIDS. She also produced the film “Sacrificial Virgins” about the dangers of taking a vaccine against the HPV virus that allegedly causes cervical cancer. She runs the “Immunity Resource Foundation” on the website https://www.immunity.org.uk/

Dr Kevin Corbett PhD – Retired Nurse and health scientist https://kevinpcorbett.com/

Dawn Lester and David Parker – Authors of “What Really Makes You ill” – why everything you thought you knew about disease is wrong” https://whatreallymakesyouill.com/

Andrew Johnson of https://www.checktheevidence.com/

Do Viruses exists

Contagion, and the issue of whether or not viruses exist as disease causing (pathogenic) organisms, is one of the most important questions of our time, because it impacts both human health and freedom. We must determine the truth so we can properly pursue and achieve health, and we must determine the truth because otherwise we can potentially be quarantined and detained on false premises.

It is crucial to understand that the mainstream belief in viruses and contagion leads to disease, suffering and enslavement. But the truth, that there are no viruses and that you do not ‘catch’ any disease from a pathogenic particle, leads to the possibility of individuals achieving health independently, and removes any justification to take away people’s freedom on trumped up public health grounds.

Let’s consider these separately.

Health:

The truth about this issue liberates thinking people everywhere from dependency on the ‘disease management’ model of health care, and opens the door for them to gain the necessary knowledge required to take full personal responsibility for their health. When we consider the evidence in support of disease being caused by other things such as toxic exposure and poor nutrition, health becomes easily achievable through well-considered lifestyle choices well within everyone’s grasp. Your health outcomes become clear consequences of choices well within your control. This is the ‘terrain’ model of health and disease. It’s very empowering, and it is true – if one considers the evidence.

Furthermore, the truth of this issue removes the fear of living in a dangerous world where there are microscopic life-threatening enemies everywhere. The truth transforms that fear into the confident and secure pleasure of mastering one’s own lifestyle choices in the knowledge that it is these that cause either your disease or your health. Proper nutrition and the avoidance of toxicity are two of the basic guiding principles.

Freedom 

This is the second and arguably even more important concept affected by this question – do viruses exist as disease causing agents. The truth that there are no pathogenic viruses...

In part one I talked about the proliferation of bad (false) that dominate western culture. These false ideas (any false idea) cannot possibly lead to success, only to failure and suffering.

My focus here today is to identify more of the fundamental ideas that shape our thinking, our values, our choices and the way we live, that are false, and to explain why they are false. It is these false ideas that are most dangerous because they have the widest impact across all of our thinking. Ayn Rand taught me the importance of getting to the fundamentals in one’s thinking. And this is how I know these ideas are false. Addressing fundamentals is the only way to get to the root cause of truth or falsity, or of any problem.

The science of fundamental ideas is called philosophy. Since this topic is totally out of fashion it is not surprising that awareness of these dangerous false fundamental ideas is extremely low! And the reason it’s out of fashion is because it has long been corrupted with false ideas, so much so that mainstream philosophical ‘truths’ are just like the claims of false flag terrorism or the false claims of the medical cartel – all nonsense.

In the current context of 2022 human political freedom is fast being lost. For those of us conscious enough to be aware of this much, it is crucial to grasp that the battle for human freedom must be played out in the realm of ideas, and fundamental ideas at that!

It is only in the intellectual realm, the world of ideas that we can rationally argue for truth and argue for what is right. It is only through persuasion and by offering reasons that minds can be changed, if they can be changed at all. If the battle for human freedom is ever to be won, it will be achieved by the use of reasoned argument, with facts, evidence proof and logic.

It is in the realm of the intellect, that we must offer reasons and facts that expose the deliberate deception. This cannot be done by protests, or marches, or shouting, or fighting – only by presenting ideas logically, rationally, and offering proof of their truth and validity. And by exposing false ideas and the contradictions that demonstrate their falsity.

Today, people are not controlled directly by others; they are controlled by the ideas they are fooled into believing are true! It is the ideas people hold as true that determine their values and their behaviour.

Identifying the false first

In part one I mentioned that it is easier to identify a false idea than to prove an idea is true. All it takes is for one contradiction to be identified and the idea is falsified. An idea is false if it is contradicted by already known facts. This necessarily includes the self-evident right down at the everyday level. So using the example of germ theory, if you spend intimate time with someone who is sick and you don’t get sick, then this contradicts germ theory. It shows that there must be other factors involved. If 100 volunteers are deliberately exposed to ‘germs’ from sick people and none of them get sick, this is strong evidence that germ theory is wrong. Experiments such as these were done 100 years ago.

I have also observed that most truth seekers will eagerly identify a false idea ‘out there’ in the Matrix, but they might be extremely unlikely (and perhaps reluctant) to notice one already embedded in their thinking. Once they own it to a significant degree, it seems, they begin to identify with it, and may become very reluctant to question it. If an idea has been cherished for a long time, challenging it is more likely to be met with inner resistance. However, this is precisely where the root cause false ideas lurk, and remain hidden – in our deepest premises, fundamental assumptions, in one’s mental operating system. And it is because they remain unquestioned by the masses that these are the most powerful and dangerous ideas.

In the world today we see the proliferation of bad ideas! Ideas that are false because they contain some aspect that is not true, that does not correspond to reality.

I have been researching across a broad range of topics for the past 10 years, and I have found bad ideas in almost every subject I look into: In science, in medicine, in politics, in climatology, in philosophy, and in the thinking of ordinary people.

Bad ideas, or ideas that are false, cannot lead to anything but failure and suffering. So it’s imperative that we identify any false ideas that we believe to be true. We must consider them, evaluate them, judge them, and reject them.

Ideas affecting values and choices

The most dangerous false ideas are not ones that point to events and things, out there in the world, but those that affect our thinking, our values, and our choices. Meaning, the ideas that affect the way we live. These are the fundamental ideas that, if false, lead to many other downstream or subsequent ideas that are also false.

For example, in medicine, the evidence that contradicts the cherished theory of the cause of disease (germ theory) is ignored. Such evidence reveals that the idea is false. Consequently, no one is looking for a theory of disease causation that is not contradicted by the facts of reality – i.e., the one that is true, because the question has already been answered – if falsely. Remember, all consequent actions based on a falsely identified cause, will, a) not work, and b) cause suffering. (And this is what we see in medicine and health care systems across the world.) The same principle holds for all the bad ideas out there in every field of study. In other words, this is a widespread cultural problem extending across the board. When you uncover something false in the mainstream narrative, it is not an unfortunate isolated incidence. The root problem is systemic!

My purpose in this podcast is to share with you some of the most fundamental false ideas I have identified, so that you too may consider them, and if you hold them to be true, that you may perhaps reconsider them.

There is one specific category of ideas that should be at the top of your list for questioning. These are all the ideas that pertain to, and reflect, the thinking of men. These are usually of a philosophical nature, because philosophy IS the study of fundamental ideas that effect the way we live. These ideas are not at all obviously false, because they are quite abstract, and removed from the observable facts of daily life.

It is the results of such false and fundamental ideas that manifest in the institutions of men, such as in the realms of politics, economics, science and technology, health care, etc.

Some ideas are very powerful because they motivate us and effect our values. The most obvious example is the recent idea of a pandemic, with a scary disease-causing pathogen sweeping the planet changed the behaviour of billions of people! As opposed to an idea of where to have lunch.

It’s worth noting that We very rarely deal with ideas one at a time. They come packaged together in bundles with some component ideas appearing more obviously than others. These complex ideas must be unpacked. For example, the alleged climate emergency issue implicitly makes human beings the problem. Since human actions, from breathing to all forms of energy use, release CO2. If we accept that human caused carbon dioxide is a problem for the environment, we implicitly accept that human activity is the problem.

Let’s look at a couple of examples, that a lot of people hold to be true.

Number 1 – Unconditional Love

This is held up as some kind of wonderful ideal to be aspired to. But what does it mean? It means to love someone for no reasons whatsoever. This means, you should be just as willing to love an evil child molester, as a caring and benevolent parent; You should be just as willing wi...