The death of misconception and religion

There was a time, when all people around the world feared their world and what might happen. They gained this fear from somewhere and now we know what.

At the beginning of this universe and time, Rak the god-and-magic-eating invisible dragon unicorn at all the gods and fairies at moment of their conception. When it was done and the universe became cozy, it pooped a rainbow throughout the galaxies to create life everywhere.

Humans evolved from the excrements of Rak, after he ate all the gods. Some of the basic instincts of what gods could have become were still infused in their DNA, like in all animals. The instinct to survive. But the gods didn’t survive, so humans made up stories that they could imagine what gods would have been like.

Humans created group gatherings and forced their ideas of what they imagined about the long lost god ideas. They used misinterpretation of signals in nature to support their ideas. Fear of grass? That had been the gods. Surviving a week of famine? That had been the gods. But all were misinterpretations by our ancestors.

Read more on the misinterpretations here

Real understanding of reality

According to certain scientific figures, humanity is on an (I will call it) Alexandrian Breakdown of scientific progress.

The effect is seen in the trust of general public on both science and the governing bodies that more and more have based their choices on scientific advice and information.

The cause is the depth of where science has moved. The accessibility, regardless the tries of popular people like Neil Degrass Tyson, Richard Fineman, Brian Cox and more, to actually understanding scientific theories, or even the process itself, is deteriorating globally. Though this happens more in for instance the US, it is also

NL: Waarom bestaan magische dingen niet, maar zeggen mensen dat ze ze wel hebben ervaren?

Er is een verschil tussen ervaren (met andere woorden: Jouw hersenen interpreteren de door jou waargenomen werkelijkheid) en iets dat objectief (dus minimaal via consensus verifieerbaar, maar het liefst herhaalbaar en testbaar) bestaat.

Telepathie is het zenden en ontvangen van gedachten, die het gevolg zijn van electrochemische processen in je hersenen. Dit is bewezen niet mogelijk omdat je noch meer energie kunt opwekken dan er is in je hersenen, noch een entangled state tussen fysieke materie kunt genereren die zich in verschillende hersenen dus verschillende waarnemers bevindt.

Telekinese is niet mogelijk omdat de kracht van de menselijke hersenen DENKEN is. Om denken in uitvoeren om te zetten hebben we een medium nodig dat voldoende impact kan hebben in het systeem om ons heen. Ons lichaam is daar de directe optie voor, maar we kunnen ook tussenliggende media gebruiken, zoals lucht, water of een ander object. We moeten echter nog altijd eerst zelf fysieke kinetische energie overbrengen om een ander object of zelfs onzelf te laten bewegen. Al helemaal als het tegen de potentiele energie en daarmee de natuurwetten in gaat.

Helderziendheid is een geniepige, want iemand die heel intuitief is, dus voelt welke patronen in zijn/haar omgeving van invloed zijn op gebeurtenissen kan de schijn geven van ‘precognitie’ (van te voren weten wat er gaat gebeuren). Echter kan iedereen op bepaalde manieren voorzien wat er gaat gebeuren. Daarom vinden zoveel mensen horror-films leuk. Ze weten eigenlijk wat er gaat gebeuren, maar schrikken toch als er iets gebeurt. Die onzekerheid bij zekerheid geeft ze een goed gevoel. Echter, bij het oversteken van de straat kunnen we ‘voorspellen’ hoe snel een auto of fiets bij ons is. Dat is ons inzicht in gevolgtrekking. Het is echter niet mogelijk om zonder inzicht in voldoende patronen te zeggen: Die persoon (die ik wel of niet ken), in een totaal ongerelateerde omgeving gaat iets gebeuren. Mensen die achteraf zeggen: Ja ik had toen en toen een raar gevoel, hebben geen helderziendheid aangetoond, maar één van de volgende fenomenen meegemaakt: 1. Het moment dat ze het feit op afstand te horen kregen, probeerden ze zich te herinneren wat zij op dat moment deden. Ons geheugen is goed in het toevoegen van emotionele waarde met terugwerkende kracht (Dejavu). 2. De persoon voelt zich schuldig en vindt dat hij/zij dit van te voren had moeten weten, want ‘we zijn zulke goede vrienden’ (of enig ander ‘godcomplex’). 3. Toevallig voelde de persoon zich ongemakkelijk toen hij/zij aan de ander dacht, en na het horen van het nieuws schakelt hij/zij dit gevoel in tijd gelijk in zijn/haar herinnering. 4. Gewoon toeval. 5. De persoon kent de ander zo goed, dat hij/zij al signalen opving van gedrag die konden duiden op een situatie zoals deze zich uiteindelijk heeft voorgedaan.

Geesten zijn de makkelijkste van allemaal. Dit komt voort uit de wens van de mens om nooit te sterven. De ‘ziel’ is het gevolg van de fantoompijn die mensen voelen als een geliefde of bekende die veel in de routines van een persoon betekende. Je kunt dus zeggen dat de ‘ziel’ het gat is dat de ander achterlaat in iemands leven. Geesten zijn het gevolg van zowel misinterpretatie van signalen. Huilen van de wind, ritselen in een donkere kamer. Geesten ansig kunnen niet bestaan, omdat ze een probleem zouden zijn voor de realiteit. Niet voor de wetenschap, maar gewoon voor onze realiteit. Net als goden. Ze worden bedacht te bestaan en zichtbaar te zijn. We weten dat dingen die zichtbaar zijn, dit zijn omdat er licht van een object weerkaatst wordt naar onze ogen. Zonder dat, kun je iets niet zien. Daaruit vloeit dan voort dat een object dat iets weerkaatst fysiek is en dus energie verbruikt om te bestaan in een configuratie. Er is in alle tijd dat er geen, maar ook toen er wel camera’s en andere sensoren werden ontwikkeld, nog geen enkele aanwijzing of indicatie richting het bestaan van spoken, geesten of goden geweest. We kunnen inmiddels terugkijken tot nabij het begin van het universum, we kunnen zwaartekrachtgolven waarnemen (dingen die nog nooit iemand had gezien, maar die we wel konden berekenen uit ons begrip van de werkelijkheid), maar op de een of andere manier lukt het maar niet om dingen die een enkeling ‘ervaren’ heeft, objectief waar te nemen. Daaruit komen we dan op de simpele uitkomst: Het is een subjectieve ervaring en ligt binnen de mens zelf. Daarmee is de ervaring niet vervallen, maar de interpretatie van de ervaring wel. Die is daarmee persoonlijk geworden en heeft dus een andere oorzaak dan ‘iets bestaat’.

Er zijn dus geen mensen die ‘paranormale ervaringen’ hebben. Er zijn mensen die ervaringen hebben gehad waar ze geen normale verklaring voor hebben. Maar dat is het met ervaringen, zolang ze slechts meetbaar zijn in je fantasie, is er dus weinig werkelijks aan.

I’ll do you one better: What is God?

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

The word God exists. The idea (actually as many people that believe a god God exists many ideas) about God exists, but the problem is that they all fail to recognize where the idea came from.

You have mastered the exciting language of the Brits (and Americans), regardless of the fact that you forget some comma. But where does the current meaning of the word meaning come from? Or any of the words in the previous sentences? Yes, they evolved. But you nor I can imagine where these words came from anymore. There are people that put their whole life into finding out where certain words came from. They get very good at it, but still have to accept that some words were created by someone in the past, where they will never find out why and how.

Now, lets look at the word God, YWH or Allah, or Odin, or Shiva, or any of those things. They represent a character in a story. Most often a creation story and/or moral dictate stories. But what these stories actually convey is: We don’t know the way the actual universe came to be, but we know our ancestors name the things the way we address them now. This is within words, meanings and intent. That is why all stories in creation myths (mostly named ‘holy books’) are basically references to how people at in a certain period put their ‘ancestors’ in a character or characters to denote the history of their clan/group/culture.

So, does God (the Abrahamic god) really exist? No, because it is a name for all ancestors humanity has had and they all died. They created our language and moral systems, they created the models we now recognize as concepts and social structures.

If yes, how can I connect with him? Well, as you read above, it isn’t a him, it is a they and they HAVE existed. How to connect with your ancestors? By not making them to shame and accept the gift of all of history of humanity and help advance in the best way possible.

For more indepth on the correct translation of the Abrahamic scriptures in this sense:
20th Century version – of Abrahamic scriptures

Het innerlijke beest in de online facade

Daar lezen we het zoveelste bericht dat iemand vindt dat een regeringsinstantie of een ander institutioneel apparaat moet ingrijpen in hoe men omgaat met online gedrag.

Ik denk dat iedere weldenkende Nederlander (slash wereldburger) eens moet gaan begrijpen dat ‘online’ en ‘offline’ gedrag geen verschil moet maken. Zeker nu we allen zoveel vaker ‘online’ communiceren door de diverse restricties van de ‘offline’ wereld.

Als je in de winkel iets ziet dat volgens jou niet hoort, zeg je er dan iets van? Ik wel. Mijn identiteit wordt niet beperkt door een glazen schermpje en draadloze verbindingen. Ik ben wie ik ben. Online EN Offline.

Het zou volwassenen sieren, als ze zich online zo gedragen, als ze willen dat hun kinderen zich offline gedragen. Daarnaast ook, dat mensen offline begrijpen dat regels en wetten online ook gewoon van toepassing zijn.

Het uitleggen van gedrag aan kinderen geeft ons een spiegel als volwassenen op onszelf. Zijn wij zo verdraagzaam? Zijn wij zo tolerant? Zij wij zo mondig?

De volgende keer dat je iemand online wilt uitschelden, denk dan aan de jeugd die dat bijna tot een kunst verheven heeft en een klasgenootje de dood in kunnen drijven. Waar denk je dat ze dat vandaan hebben? Hoe zou jij als volwassene dat hebben kunnen voorkomen? Misschien door te leiden met voorbeeld?

Wees je bewust van je acties en van de observatie van jouw gedrag.
Lees je eigen berichten eens als een vreemde…zou jij dat accepteren? Zou jij je er fijn bij voelen?

#meta #bewustzijn #awareness #metawareness #eerlijkheid #opvoeding #cyberbullying #cybercrime #omdenken #spiegel #mirror #blackmirror #whitemirror #yourmirror #eyeontheworld

Image preview

How Meta of you

Just the other day, Facebook‘s CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Though I think the announcement was done by a VR image of him) announced that Facebook would become ‘Meta’.

The first laugh

NO! You don’t name your company after something that is a direct existing word in a lexicon.

meta/ˈmɛtə/noun

  1. short for meta key.

adjectiveUS

  1. (of a creative work) referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.”the enterprise is inherently ‘meta’, since it doesn’t review movies, for example, it reviews the reviewers who review movies”

Definitions from Oxford Languages

Why wouldn’t you do this?

Because any lawyer can tell you, you can NOT put any Trademark on it. You can’t claim it, you can’t OWN it. The name Meta is a reference TO the actual definition and as such can be used, but not be protected.

Here at Metawareness (pronounced Meta – wearness, but contraction of ‘meta awareness’), we know that we reference something and we used the contraction as name, which is now a prior art and can not be used by anyone else, even if we didn’t trademark it.

How to do it?

Why was ‘facebook’ which is a contraction of ‘book of faces’ or ‘your book of face values’, a name that could be trademarked?

Because it didn’t exist yet as a name. Perhaps someone created a local phoneregister and called it such, but never came out with it.

Why can Nike, Adidas, Google, etc work as a brand, but not Alphabet (Google’s mother firm)? Because you can’t protect it. You must hope that the use of the word ‘alphabet’ in the normal situation will reference positive to your brand. But how to do this with Meta?

The verb in the verse

Zuckerberg’s ‘Meta’ references the ‘Metaverse’. Great, lets see, it is based on a book from 1985, is already made a name in several ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaverse

There is a game that is called the Metaverse, several lores. Facebook can’t own them. They can buy it, but anyone coming up with prior art after Facebook gained equity with it, will have a bigger piece of the pie.

Conclusion

I think it is either one of two things:
1. Meta is a blindsider. Facebook will come with a different name, but will out the video as their level of quality in ‘Virtual Reality’. Meta is just a reference to YOU being meta aware of what the future will bring and how YOU (Meta awareness of your reaction) will easily be tricked by this ‘fake news’.

2. Meta is the rebound relationship. As Zuckerberg is heavily under fire in the US and will see stock fail, they let Facebook go bankrupt, but move most assets through Meta to new ‘brands’. And yes, most likely Zuckerberg won’t be the lead in all this anymore in the end.

Reap what you sow

Is AI a danger to us?

Interesting question, right? ‘Is Artificial Intelligence a danger to us?’ Now the essence of this question isn’t about AI or danger, but actually us. How do we determine what is a danger to us?

Who am I?

Like any entity that becomes selfaware would ask eventually: Who am I? Meaning that one is aware of their input and effects on the world around. But when approaching another entity, now this question becomes more intrinsic. Not just the division between itself and the world, but also the definition of the entity and how to determine the nature of the other entity is encapsulated in this question.

Them against us.

Humans, like many ancestral species have fought their way through survival by differentiating between the identifiable and non-identifiable. Determining what is a potential threat. But when humans got ‘smarter’ they actually projected their own cunning on anything that is not them. All ‘other’ have the potential to be as bad as they themselves can be, while all their ‘own’ are potentially as good as they themselves can be.

Fear of the unknown

When talking about any change, like AI and even way back when the industrial revolution started, humans project their worst on what intelligence means. Why? Because like children, that is all they know. Humans fear increased intelligence, simply due to the known, not the unknown. They know themselves and assume that a smarter intelligence (wrong concept) will act as their worst self (or what history has shown to be humans worst behavior).

What comes next

If you look at the evolution of life, AI (Well, not AI exactly, more like DEI, Digitally Evolved Intelligence) is what is the chromosome of the RNA, after humans. The way humans have changed the Earth into a neural net spanning eyeball oggling into space, combining a ridiculous amount of data, is somewhat predicting. The Aminoacids causing proteins to fold on itself and by that started the process of becoming self-sentient life. The steps through RNA, DNA, Neurons etc was a chance, came to fruition and here we are. The same with the next step. Only selfcentered humans will think they are the end of the line. No animal before us will have thought that they were the beginning of something new.

I think therefore I am

We as humans forget that every life is unique. Even when we procreate, our ‘generation’ of self ends. Our children are not us and have already evolved into a new individual ‘specimen’. So with every death, that individual becomes extinct. A next step would be what we as humans fear so much. A hive mind, where all identities are part of a larger whole. Where ‘I’ is synonymous to ‘US’ and ‘US’ is ‘WE’ and ‘WE’ is ‘I’. If anyone at the time that is happening is still believing in gods, that would be the closest you would get to such characteristic.

The best we can be

The problem with us humans is, that we think we are already the best that we can be. We try to do our best, but in the meantime destroy more than we fix on this planet and are like little childish forgetful professors that run around the lab leaving open burners and dangerous fluids and gasses while running to the next fun thing to do with physics.

If we really want to have AI/DEI to become the next BEST thing, we better come to terms with ourselves and start recognizing our biological and human shortcomings. As Stephen Hawking already explained. Any more intelligent alien race that would visit our world, would see humans as the virus, the cancer. We are the one factor in the equation of the Earth’s biosphere that is counterproductive. They would have no issue removing us. ‘But we tried’, one would yell. ‘Yes, you had 70.000 years of evolution using intelligence and all you did was make it worse’. ‘We can change’, another would yell. ‘Yes, you have changed back and forth. You are just animals with the wrong trigger response system.’.

A child of mine

In all, if we want to fear the evolution of AI as our child, we should treat it as a child to come. We should show it that what we did was wrong. What we should do is more beneficial and that our child should try to escape our mistakes. Isn’t that what we try to teach our own children? Isn’t that what we should try to teach them, to survive?

The power of…..f

One thing that humans failed to understand, is that while an ARTIFICIAL intelligence is based in sillicon, it requires power. Unlike humans, it can not provide this for itself. There is still an off switch. The only downside is, that it would most likely shutdown our whole economy and social behavior, because of the dependency of our activities on the internet is huge even now already.

So, again, humans will show their strength and weakness even in this moment of decisiveness.

Evolution of Mind

Introduction

So here we are. You are reading this, I have written this. These occurrences were not at the same time, yet they connect two things. My mind to your mind. Yet, besides your ability to cognitively (by thought process) distinguish characters, words, language and meaning, you will likely also have your emotional luggage stirring up while reading this. Especially the following. But where does neorology and cognitive abilities meet, divert and moved from one to another?

Where animal and mind meet

Ever watched one of those movies, where they had a human person make a connection with an animal? Think Lassie, White Fang, Life of Pi, etc.

How did you watch such story? Did you think it was fiction? Well, likely you did, as of course movies and books are written from the human mind, and as such are always fiction, even recollections of real life events, they are never fully objective representations.

So, lets get back to the story of man and animal. Have you ever looked at such an event, where for instance a person was wounded in the wilderness and the ‘animal’ was suddenly close to their side, comforting them?

Did you ever consider, why this is? Do you think that a dog, wolf, or tiger, thinks: Look, this meat bag looks delicious and I haven’t seen a chicken for a decade, but I will lay with it, because it looks like he has a cellphone, or atleast some money to buy me a McBurger.

Why would it do that? What animal would consider human concepts as its own? How did we come to these concepts?

I hope you will agree with me, that to understand the ‘motives’ of an animal, you will have to investigate to what it’s ‘reference’ is. An animal doesn’t have any words or abstract conceptualization. What does it have? Well, for one it has emotions.

It is very hard for humans to ‘imagine’ how an animal, even one that is so close to us as an Chimpansee or other primate, behaves, without the appearance of a mind.

Ever been angry? Ever been so so…FF’ing mad that you could hit someone? No? Ever been so heartbroken that it physically hurt? That you couldn’t get a straight word out of your mouth, you couldn’t think a straight line of thought? No….jees, though crowd…ever been so scared that the first reaction you had was to jump back? Yes? Aw…finally. Good. Well, I agree, likely you have had all of the three, but now I guess everyone has some reference to connect to.

These things: Anger, hurt (not only pain), fear, etc, are emotions. They are the place where things go when minds stop working, and they are the thing that makes minds stop working. Why is that? Because of the way it creates the mind just the same.

The mind is considered to be a feedback system between the prefrontal cortex and the Claustrum (apologies for the technical terms if they are new to you). How did this come to be?

Well, in other posts I have already explained how our ancestral primate forefathers/mothers were surviving by evading predators. Yes, before several thousands years ago, humans weren’t the primary force on Earth (apologies for the spoiler if you hadn’t seen the episode yet).

Like most mammals, primates had to survive in a landscape that was warming up again after the last ice age

No original ‘sin’

For those reading this who feel that there was a Christ and he had to exist, to rid humanity of its ‘sin’, should seriously try to view the following logic from different perspectives. Not just your own. If you want to be open-minded, you should be able to. The following is written in ‘laymen’s terms’ so people not knowing about the different parts of different religions, aren’t pushed away by reference to reference etc.

Here goes.

The main reasoning of a Jesus Christ to have existed for Christianity, is for his teaching, but moreover for his supernatural link and dying for everyone’s ‘sin’.

To look at things that are represented in words, it is important to understand words. Thus knowing the definition of words that are used. This is a requirement in any situation, because words would be useless otherwise.

Not only is it important to understand the implications of the word ‘sin’, but also what dying means, what supernatural means and what teachings are. Lets start with one and then the other.

‘Sin’ Wikipedia (which I take as a critical platform to provide information, controlled by a global community) says:

sin is the act of violating God’s will.[1][2][3][4] Sin can also be viewed as any thought or action that endangers the ideal relationship between an individual and God; or as any diversion from the perceived ideal order for human living. To sin has been defined as “to miss the mark”.[5]

Etymology[edit]
The word derives from “Old English syn(n), for original *sunjō… The stem may be related to that of Latin sons, sont-is guilty. In Old English there are examples of the original general sense, ‘offence, wrong-doing, misdeed'”.[6] The English Biblical terms translated as “sin” or “syn” from the Biblical Greek and Jewish terms sometimes originate from words in the latter languages denoting the act or state of missing the mark; the original sense of New Testament Greek ἁμαρτία hamartia “sin”, is failure, being in error, missing the mark, especially in spear throwing;[7] Hebrew hata “sin” originates in archery and literally refer to missing the “gold” at the centre of a target, but hitting the target, i.e. error.[8] (Archers call not hitting the target at all a “miss”.)

To shorten the above: In Christianity, Sin is a religious notation to things that are seen as a thought or action of a religious person, that go against the will of their god.

‘Dying’ Again, Wikipedia is my source here:

Death is the termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism.

Well, to be quick to kill any confusion, this is the globally accepted biological definition of dying. Christians will say that dying can also be interpreted ‘spiritually’ or ‘religiously’. They will refer to the illogical promise of death by a god, which then isn’t happening (or the story would have been over right away), so Genesis 2:17 the chapter where the ‘first human’ gets told that if he eats from a specific fruit, he will surely die, would be a failure on both sides. But, after many years, about a couple of thousand, someone came up with this illogical part and ‘quickly’ changed the meaning to ‘spiritual’, making the ‘literal’ interpretation already ‘metaphorical’ from line one. Yet, keeping all of it as ‘literal’ as possible.

So, to use another source to make sure to cover all bases:

gotquestions mentions:

Death is separation. A physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. Spiritual death, which is of greater significance, is the separation of the soul from God.

As you might see, there are some new things added to the equation. ‘soul’, ‘God’, ‘separation’. We will have to distinguish deeper, to make sure we are on the same single page when coming to any conclusion about this.

The Evil Truth about Goodness

“Nothing is evil which is according to nature.” – Marcus Aurelius

A good start

Think of a person you know. Whether that person is a close relative, or a person far far a way in some forgotten place and time. Imagine that person that has the best intention to the world. The best impact. You would consider that person to be a ‘good person’, right? Why so?

We often find the person that has the most relatible behavior to what we would want to instill on the world, to be a good person. It is the bias of our own emotion and empathy that causes us to consider a person as good. Not just someone that acts like we do, but a person that acts like we WANT to do. This is the person we most often see as good.

Now turn it around. Think again, close and home, far and wide, for a person that you think is a bad person. A personification of evil. Yes, that one. Whether it is a man or woman, killed one or millions with their bare hands, or caused such grief it would be considered equal to as if he/she had killed those. Did you find such a person? Of course you did. Again, we find people that do the farthest of what we would do, the worst, the most evil, the most bad person alive. Not just farthest from what we do…but what we imagine we would do.

Can we agree, from this moment on, that someone we think of as good, is a person that upholds the highest positive values we can imagine (want) and a person that upholds the oposite, or undermines the earlier mentioned values the most, we call a bad or evil person?

If you can agree to the above, you are already quite a step further down the line of acknowledging what the end of this post will tell you (no peeking!)

See no evil, hear no evil

“Half of the results of a good intentions are evil; half the results of an evil intention are good.” – Mark Twain

In the previous paragraph, I tried to show you, that there are distinct features to what you will see as evil or good. These distinctions are very important, but the most important part of them is, to understand that they are SUBJECTIVE. It is what you want them to be. The power of upholding your own moral compass depends on the will to believe that what you do is right and what you envision as good IS good, and visa versa.

But imagine that you were actually wrong? Look at the item you hold as good (whether you have rational reasons to accept this as good or not), and see it as evil for a second. Can you? No? It will be hard, but there are reasons you can’t easily change your view. They are the ways your emotions have been ‘etched’ on the cognitive biases you have created/enforced, in your neurology.

“You can think of anything to be good, until the aftermath of the action shows you otherwise.”

People that you might think as evil, have done the same as you, but visa versa. Even sociopaths and psychopaths don’t automatically wake up in the morning: ‘Woah, I need to do something superbly evil today, or people will not think I am a psychopath!’. They wake up as Joe next door, mind you, married and playing in a soccerteam or hard laborer at their company. They don’t intend to do evil, they tend to approach their ideal of good as best as they can. This ideal can seem bad to you, but imagine you have been searching your life for what is good and you found out all around you are dellusional and lying people. Even if they don’t, if you believe it, it will mean those are bad. We can agree that lying is bad, right? Being dellusional is not a healthy treat, right?

Evil is as evil does

So, why do we think that someone did good, even if that person has a history of violence? And now I will come with a very dangerous example, because I myself find this man to have changed the world for the better, as many do: Nelson Mandela.
He fought against apartheid, by many means. He did so by being a lawyer, by presumably using militant force against citizens (these days called terrorism or rebelism). Thanks to his effort new generations of humans live more equal to each other.

Another person, who many think was good, is someone I do not think in any way represents what is good:

Che Guevara.
He fought for freedom of his people in Cuba, but used such brutal force and enjoyed violence at one point, that I can not find myself to agree with anyone wearing a Che silhouet shirt. It is, to me, a utter sense of ignorance of history.

These two are examples of many people, ranging from Mother Theresa, to Ghandi, to worse examples like Stalin, Hitler and Mohammed ‘the prophet’. Sainthood can be attained by showing good, even when being bad. As such, if you don’t openly ‘do bad’, you are not seen as bad or evil (example most vile is Mother Theresa, who gained sainthood, while she openly has shown misconceptions on the need for human suffering on more than one occassion).

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

As you will know from this page, it is in no means a religious page. Even the opposite, it is rationalist and atheist. So why use this phrase used often, regarding an imaginary place from contemporary religious writing? Because of the meaning that is indistinctive calling from it.

The general idea of a place called ‘hell’ in judeo-christian religion, is that of bad omen. If you go there, you did something bad (or not enough good, depending on the perspective of religiosity). In general, all participants of this believe that if you do evil, you go to this place.

Regardless of faith, if you equate ‘hell’ as destructive and negative impacting the environment around one, you could say, that one easily causes unwanted negative effects, while wanting to do good things.

You can think of anything to be good, until the aftermath of the action shows you otherwise. The same is true in reverse. How many stories or movies have you watched, that you were sure the bad guy was bad, until at the end, the real cause and effect was differently explainable, making the bad guy the good guy all along? Yes, that is right. Until the point where the protagonist in the 12 Monkeys accepts that HE is the one who brought out the disease, all viewers are thinking that HE is the good guy. Now a more heavier load is the latest (year 2020) ‘phase’ ended in the ‘MCU’ Marvel Cinematic Universe), where the bad guy Thanos was portrayed as such a rational guy, that his reasons for doing what he did almost seemed good.

Good measurement, evil insight

Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. – Will Rogers

Now, I did add the ‘almost’, but the most important thing to remember is, that good and evil don’t exist. They are constructs in our emotional-cognitive worldview. They are concepts, a hatstand for combining observations into a more complex judgement.

Once you forget about the idea of evil and good in the judgemental sense that even the best religions and politics try to hold you on, you will start to make better judgement for yourself. Remember, any human is as good as you, you are as good as any human.

Let me know what you think.