Nutshelled - leave on top. We seek happiness and happiness is a feeling. More accurately, it’s a combination of feelings/flavours the sum of which - the mixture- feels/tastes good. We’re not just experiencing our present, we’re also projecting forward via imagination and beliefs regarding cause and effect into our future, and also exerperirining that and our past via memory to one extent or another. We may not be feeling so happy today but if we suddenly believe we’re going to collect 1 million $$ tomorrow it’s highly likely we’ll feel very good now. We’re imagining the pleasant expereincines that money can buy us along with imagining the unpleasant ones we believe it will allow us to avoid. We creating, then consuming, a reality/movie via our relatively powerful brains and those bio chemicals enter our cup changing the existing cocktail.

Of course, there’s also physiological pleasure and pain; we put our hand on a hot stove and we recoil from the pain which may remain for a time and our brains are able to remember this cause and effect guiding us to be more careful in the future. As they say’ those that are ill have but one wish’. They cannot satisfy their shopping list if they’re ill and if they’re in pain it’s hard to be happy even if they were able to satisfy that list.

Largely, aside from pyshiological pain, the flavours in our cup, be they pleasant flavours or unpleasant flavours, come via our motivations. Satisfied motivations purr whilst unsatisfied ones claws - motivations motivate via the flavours of pleasure and pain - how else? Frustration is an ugly flavour that is similar to anger but not exactly the same and we tend to try and keep them out of our cup. Of course, the more motivations we’re trying to satsify the easier it is to feel anger and frustration given it’s harder to keep that overgrown cluster, and likely contrdictiory, happy all the time. As one motivations treasure can be another motivations pain that which is frustrating to one may be pleasant to another; we’re seeking that which is also ugly. For example; when we're offended we’re claiming superiority/ status; ‘OMG, I wouldn’t do that’ thus the tradeoff for us is a splash of ugly gives us a bigger splash of what we, or our ego in this example, finds pleasant.

As joy needs space to flow into, as flexibility needs space for motivations to reorganise themselves/ form new alliances, and the fewer motivations we're juggling the easier that is plus less there’s contradictions, less is more.

While we have our innate set of motivations, our instincts, or what I’m calling primary motivations we also need secondary motivations given we’ve got to navigate the cultural bubble/s. To put food on the table we have to want gainful employment, for example. That we, underneath, want ‘A’ often requires us to firstly tick D, K and M given the sophisticated, complicated world we live in. That we may want to head north doesn’t necessarily mean we’re not heading east, or even south, for a time. Completely normal unless we want to live on the other side of the monastery walls. The issue is the accumulation of these secondary motivations, many of which no longer serve the primary motivation they were once installed to aid yet they’re still there whirring away, still influencing us and dripping bio chemicals into our cup. Additionally, beyond a certain threshold, clusters of secondary motivations can form their own self supporting eco system, like a swamp alongside the river.

By going upstream we’re closing off tributaries/ secondary motivations that are diverting our innate river of energy away for their purposes. The sudden increase in volume - the flood - down our natural riverbed bursts blockages and washes swamps away. When the sluggish is now vigorous swamps no longer exist. We can spend our time responding to mosquitos/ symptions or we can delete the swamp.

Superimposed over our primate instincts is our social instincts making us the social primates we are. This dependance on our group forces compromises; sometimes the direct path to satisfaction - see what I want, grab what I want - undermines group cohesion limiting our ability to exist within a large enough group to be viable. ‘Large enough’ translates to powerful enough to ward off other groups that might like to avail themselves to the resources we’re currently consuming and/or just remove a potential threat because they can. Additionally, for some, the whole war path experience is enjoyable so any excuse will do. Because that type of thing may not ignite enthusiasm in us doesn’t mean it doesn't in others and a group without enough males that enjoy those flavours will, sooner or later, meet a very unpleasant fate.

The aggressive strong males we might disparage in peace time suddenly become our heroes when the enemy appears on the horizon. Our lives may not be all peaches and cream but we’re alive and, almost certainly, our lives are a lot better than what awaits us should our group be defeated. A cursory glance at some history books will colour this in if it’s not already obvious.

Relevant here is our survival depends on the well being of our group therefore that we judge others by our values, as if our values are the values, is not a bug, it’s a feature. It gives us the good guys - us - and the baddies - them - and that demarcation is needed for our group to be cohesive and functional. Survival is the priority and if that means we run a fine toothed comb through others actions whilst a very wide toothed one, or none at all, through our owns groups actions so be it. Them bombing our cities is a travesty, and an obvious war crime, but us bombing their’s is deserved -they’re the baddies after-all right? - and something to celebrate. Of course, from their perspective, they’re the goodies and we’re the baddies but being rational is not useful in some situations and certainly naturally takes a distant back seat when our survival is on the line.

Our brain serves our motivations. It’s our interface between our motivations and the environment as perceived via our mediocre array of senses. The reality we perceive is not the reality, it’s just the slice of reality our senses allow us to perceive and our brain mixes in expectations, imagination, meanings etc along with that incoming data.

There’s the story/parable of Freud, Darwin and Einstein walking across a bridge together; Darwin notices a flock of geese flying above and ponders how they evolved their abilities. Einstein is engrossed in the bridges engineering and the physics involved. Who knows what Freud is noticing, and mulling, but maybe he’s dissecting the behaviour of the other two. Add Picasso to the group and the aspects of that environment he’s bringing to the fore and consuming is different again.

Our reality -what we’re perceiving and consuming - is our reality, not the reality though it seems to be. Clearly, flexibility is an asset given we can then change our reality whilst within the same general reality. A rut can also be a cozy niche, it just depends on how we’re experiencing it.

Simultaneously, we’re social primates within a cultural, or sub cultural, reality which we need to navigate effectively to survive and thrive. Given we’ve been in that cultural reality so long, and might not know anything different, that can seem to be the reality which limits us to trying to improve our level of happiness via that template. Again, this disposition is typically not a bug, it’s a feature given our well being did/does depend so much on our group.

It’s only a bug if we have to change our recipe to improve the taste and we can’t as, to us, there is only the one recipe. Our ego glues us to the cultural template which is only a problem if the mainstream path it propels us down is now sub standard and/or is experienced as sub standard.

An emotional detox enables us to reconnect with our emotional motivations by removing/minimising competing motivations that have accumulated over time. We still have to survive but at least we’re in touch with what is emotionally nourishing and at least we’re not longer juggling an assortment of irrelevant secondary motivations. At least we’ve got the cuckoos out from our nest, we’ve cleared the decks, we’ve lightened up and got some control over our own controls. From there? That depends on the person, their situation etc. We’re just reverse engineering happiness by going directly to it and then ourselves adding in the boxes we need to tick given few of us can afford to, or want to, spend all our time dancing through daisies. We now know those fields of daisies exist, we know how to take ourselves there, but it’s just another option, just another cocktail we can pour for ourselves. There’s no better, or worse, cocktail, they’re all just experiences though, for binary brains, this may not make sense. When we’re motivated to be better/superior- when we want something - our brain is taking the swirling shades of grey that make up reality and dividing them into black and white. We’re seeing black and white so, naturally enough, that’s how reality is to us. However, go far enough along the spectrum and that which seemed solid and divided isn’t and it isn’t because our brain has no need to do that degree of processing because there’s no lack, we want nothing. If we want cigarettes we need to categorise reality, need to prioritise what our senses are perceiving to access that data which is relevant - cigerretes in this example. If we want nothing thus have everything we want what difference does it make? -it’s all good, no discrimination between this and that is required. It’s not that a tree is now blurry and no longer a tree, it’s that it’s just a tree doing its tree thing and we’re just whatever we are doing our thing. The meanings, and perhaps even labels, fade away. What is just is.

Of course, even Buddha needed food and shelter from the hot sun but, so long as his survival needs were met he was feeling fantastic given there were no dissatisfied motivations within him. When we factor in that joy comes from beyond the cultural bubbles and that joy needs space to flow into we realise being empty is not empty.

From here we probably need to do a deep dive into ego and what is meant by flavours. Egos do not like the spot light on them and nor does the notion we’re motivated purely by pleasure and pain amuse them. It can be reasonably argued that, given our group needs - cohesion etc - we can’t afford to lift the veil, that collectives need ideals to be functional. Then, as the individual needs their group to be functional, it’s therefore in the individuals interest to believe that which is scientifically dubious but functional. Sure, and if the mainstream path is in good shape, or is repairable, that argument makes sense but it isn’t and isn’t.

Regardless, the focus here is the individuals quest for happiness and this, at least at the higher levels, requires a live and let live mentality. Requires our time, focus and energy going towards what we can control instead of being frittered away on that which we can’t control. If someone considers themselves able to change the world into a ‘better’ place and that their ‘better’ is objectively ( how is that defined ?) Better and not just their version of better, then that’s great. Go ahead, spend your time and energy engaging in that struggle but, as regards happiness, struggling is not desired. If we’re struggling we're, by definition, not too happy. Yes our ego might be delighted - we’re saving the world right? - but our emotions will be paying a high price.

At the core of Buddhism is humility and focusing on that which actually matters - what we’re experiencing. In practice, the happy bestow many more worthwhile gifts upon those around them than do the unhappy, egotistical and cynical. We splash onto others that which is in our cup.

The argument against this direct approach to happiness is; Ah, but you’re being selfish not living your life as I want you to. Um, ok.

I like to quote Springsteen lyrics not because he's unique - he's not - but because with his 300 plus songs we have a clear window into his unusual mentality. He's an extreme example of this 'Sigma'/Taoism mindset/orientation which is useful because it's via the extremes, when we see it in it's purer forms, we can more clearly discern the fundamentals. Famous, a billionaire, happy family life, yet painfully humble, he's a success in almost anyones book. His nickname is 'the Boss' because he's in control of himself and orientated towards what really matters - emotional satisfaction. All the rest - the fame and money - is just a by product.

He said to his audience a few years ago; 'I haven't worked a day in my life - thanks' and 'If you got to have a problem then too much money is a good problem to have, I guess'. That's very high level stuff, he obviously figured out this life thingy a long time ago. O.K, of course he worked/works as regards being productive - putting food on the table - but if we're doing what we love, doing what we'd be doing anyway, it's not experienced as work. There's no struggle, no pushing against ourselves. Counterintuitively to many, it's actually the humility that is key as humility translates to flexibility and when we're flexible we can pour our own cocktails to match our tastes. When we're flexible we can readily change our recipe and when we can change our recipe how can we not concoct a delicious taste? His overall objective aligns with what Dr Huberman believes is the meaning of life, to the degree there is any meaning at all. After -it's just an experience.

Now some may wanna die young, young and gloriously
Get it straight now mister, that ain't me
I got something on my mind yeah, that sets me straight and walking proud
I want all the time and all that heaven will allow
Cause I want all the time and all that heaven will allow

If we don't want Heaven on earth, what do we want and why wouldn't we want this life thingy to be very pleasant? Discerning brains might think there's a contradiction in those lyrics. Proud does not equal humble right? It only doesn't if what our ego defines as success contradicts our emotional motivations. When success/status for us equals happiness our ego and our emotions are now aligned. We can be proud we've taken ourselves to a high level of happiness. If our ego is in control demanding it's type of satisfaction - status/approval - we're then compelled to tick this box and that box first. We're then on the long, dubious path to happiness. Then, in practice, our ego is determining the path we select as our need for status/approval is more powerful than our emotional motivations currently are.

We're the ones with the notion
The notion deep inside
That it ain't no sin to be glad we're alive

No contradictions. Complete autonomy. If he's not defining his own values, who is and why did we sign them over? But again, this theme - sort out our motivations first - is nothing unique and repeated often.

Springsteen is an extreme example, but he's extreme given his motivations. Clearly, he has/had a strong aversion to the standard working life he saw his father struggle through and that aversion is a motivation - he's fleeing something/pain as it's experienced in him. It's not the thing that matters, it's how we're experiencing that thing. At the same time he had a strong attraction - his idea of an oasis - and the distance between A - the painful experience/option - and B - the delightful experience/life/option equals the force a given motivation has. A motivation doesn't exist in a vacuum, rather it's piled in with many, many other motivations all competing for our time and energy. As, within him, this motivation was so powerful it was also relatively powerful and thus dominated sweeping all competing motivations aside meaning 'all' of his focus and energy went into getting to that oasis. We're not him; 'A' might be a pleasant enough experience and alternatives only believed to be marginally better thus the motivation to leave 'A' and get to 'B' isn't very powerful thus relatively weaker than other motivations, or combinations of motivations, within us. We're not 'The Boss', we lack the will/motivational power to just bulldozer through the walls of the cultural template we were born into. In other words, our accumulated secondary motivations are adequate in that the path they usher us down is adequate or that path is not fruitful enough but the installed motivations ushering us down it are strong enough to overcome our actual motivations. It's a bit more complicated given the unique, and pivotal, role our innate ego plays - explained on another page. But, however one 'slices it', happiness equals motivational satisfaction but not all motivations are equal, not all motivations are relevant and not all motivations within us belong to us.

Our motivations -what we’re seeking/fleeing - determine our objectives. We’re not out in the environment doing as we’re doing for no reason. Of course, our species has a powerful enough brain to understand we’ve got a future - many more moments to experience - so we’re not just in the moment seeking instant gratification. We have beliefs regarding causes and effects and we have values defining for us what is good/noble and bad/ignoble. In practice, with some exceptions, our beliefs and values are also motivations. If we believe by doing action ‘A’ we’ll experience, be it now or in our future, ‘B’ which we believe will be pleasant or unpleasant we have a motivation to do, or not do, ‘A’. If some actions, or even beliefs, equals good and we want to be good/ have status those values are motivations. If being good, as defined by our values, feels pleasant whilst being bad feels unpleasant the distance between the two equals the force of that motivation. That motivation is competing against other motivations and may be strong enough to determine, or at least moderate, our actions in some contexts, but perhaps not in other contexts.

‘Pete’ doesn’t like to think of himself as a thief so he doesn’t steal the $10 he believes he could with no other consequences aside from feeling guilty/pain. However, make that $10 a million $ and he’s got hungry kids at home and that value - honesty - is now likely to be under significant pressure from other motivations that weren’t ‘in play’ when the prize was just $10.

He will decide according to the balance of power between his ‘take the $$’ motivations and the ‘be good’ motivations which incorporates, of course, his beliefs as to the likely downstream/future consequences from either choice.

What we call ‘rationalisations’ is our brain juggling beliefs and values so we can get the prize and feel good, or at least ok, about it. This ability to rationalise is, from an evolutionary survival perspective, not a bug but a feature as we’d simply lack flexibility, lack the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, if we were too rigid and robotic. The value/s restraining Pete from taking the million $$ were installed by others anyway which might be part of his rationalisation process.

Societies/ groups are themselves flexible with their values as they’d simply be uncompetitive if they weren’t and thus consigned to the history books long ago. Thou shall not kill gets forgotten very quickly when war is on the horizon, for example, as, for most anyway, that’s much better than being killed/enslaved. Values are context dependant and what it ‘right’ depends on who is asked. Accepting this though runs contrary to the groups interests - they need a common set of beliefs and values to be cohesive and functional and those values/ motivations must have enough oomph to be effective which precludes us accepting them as being subjective. Saying to young ‘Pete’; ‘ don’t do that, that’s bad, but only subjectively bad, of course’ lacks the motivational power required. Indeed, it is bad as defined by that family, sub culture and likely culture but they are all bubbles within other bubbles. Pete exists within a multi layered ‘Russian doll’ beyond which is reality/the universe itself where what is, just is. As those layers are porous, or hopefully still porous, that which comes from beyond our manmade realities is also within, to one extent or another.

Relevant here is that our emotions are also nourished on joy - what I’m vaguely labelling that something from beyond - not just love. Indeed, what is love without joy in the mix? Clearly, to connect to it those cultural bubbles we’re within must remain porous, must have at least some windows/gaps in them. We can’t take our cultural reality too seriously or we're putting ourselves in a cave. We become cynical, not because love and joy don’t exist but because they no longer exist for us thus seem to not exist and we focus on harvesting more consolation prizes. We’re welded to the bracken well, we’re disoriented, facing the wrong way, divorced from our actual interests.

In practice, our ego motivations are dominating our emotional motivations which, given the balance of power between them, has us force feeding our ego in the hope we get more of that which currently feels pleasant.

Unfortunately, a bracken well is a bracken well. Bio chemicals available via our ego are something, but they’re relatively insipid and limited compared to what’s available from our emotional well.

Hence the classic ego resistance to change/flexibility which haunts therapy rooms all day, everyday. Our motivations, including beliefs and values, are our recipe. Our recipe is our objectives, that which, from the massive number available we’ve selected, or had selected for us, we try and be happy via. Some of this, a splash of that but none of those - yummy. Happy days. If it is yummy, if the taste is delightful enough then that recipe is good enough and there's no significant changes to it needed. If it's not adequate then, obviously, we need to change our recipe to improve the taste but we’ve got a big problem; Our ego is perfectly fine with our status quo as the bracken well is not bracken to it. It loves that well, and we’re getting at least something which, given we have little emotional buffer, we’re now dependant on for the modicum of happiness we do enjoy.

We must turn our back on the bracken well yet we’re dependent on that well. We must exit our cave/rut yet it the walls of which our certificates and trophies are hanging from. To change our decisions, thus actions and reality, we must trample over the very beliefs and values determining those decisions yet our status comes via those same beliefs and values. Awkward. Accept our values are just subjective and our status is just subjective - just pretend. Ouch, the plunge down is too far, the pain too much thus we quickly remove our finger from the ‘refresh’ button and settle for a pill instead. We inject - plop - some artificial flavours into our cup to hopefully mask the existing substandard cocktail instead of going upstream and pruning back the motivational overgrowth and allowing some light in.

I have a long winded way of explaining things, but Dr Shedler recently explained it much more concisely;

Beyond a certain threshold, too many accumulated motivations makes it literally impossible to realise a high level of happiness. No matter what path we choose to wander down, thus experience, we've got dissatisfied, clawing, motivations. Choose path A and we've got those motivations that want path B, or C, dissatisfied. Choose path B and now those wanting path A, or C, are dissatisfied and polluting our cocktail. We have our primary motivations/ instincts that we're born with - they're us - and piled on top of them clusters of accumulated secondary motivations from our culture, family, schooling etc. Some of these secondary motivations are still useful for us today but many of them are useless, or even negative, junk motivations that are completely irrelevant yet we're still compelled to try and satisfy them. We didn't even choose them yet they're still influencing us, still sucking our energy, still taking up precious space and contradicting each other. By pruning back the motivational overgrowth we've discarded all that useless baggage. We get that the bulk of what we call happiness stems from emotional satisfaction and we get that less is more because the less competition our emotional motivations are struggling against the easier it is to nourish them. In the absence of competing motivations our time, focus and energy goes to nourishing our emotions which is largely what happiness is. Indeed, it's effortless. Prune back the branches of the tree and the light automatically gets in. Delete most of the channels draining our river and the volume and flow is restored which naturally unblocks it. Without those blockages the swamps are swept away along with all the algae, mosquitos and trash, yet all we did was make changes upstream. We can chase mosquitos -incremental therapy - or we can make the required changes upstream.

We can understand this via the analogoies of trees and rivers; We can see our motivations expanding out, over time, like a branch from a tree. With a tree that’s got the nutrients, and the space, to grow big and broad the outer leaves catch the sun feeding the whole tree, but with us it’s a bit different. With us, if that branch gets too big and overgrown it's actually blocking the light our core needs. With us seperate eco systems, completely independent of the tree, can form on those outer, overgrown, tangled branches and they block the light.

A culture has its ways of doing things, it's means of achieving objectives/ satisfying motivations and many of our secondary motivations were installed with good intentions. For example, we need money to survive which means a job - secondary motivation - and to get a good job requires education - another secondary motivation. They serve the primary motivation and if we suddenly received 10 million dollars we'd likely prune back those secondary motivations as they're no longer needed given the primary motivation is already satisfied. The issue is when our accumulated secondary motivations don’t actually serve our primary motivations, or at least don’t anymore, yet they’re still there. The issue is we can accumulate so many secondary motivations that those clusters now form their own eco system, much like a swamp in a river.

Not only is the swamp useless, it’s actively acting against the natural flow of the river. The swamp may be downstream of some kind of blockage so, in practice, it’s actually that blockage that’s the root cause. Ever noticed how clean a river is, and how well it’s flowing, after a flood? Those blockages, and the resulting swamps with all their algae, mosquitos etc, have been swept away and it’s the same principle within us.

We can chase mosquitos - midstream incremental therapy - or we can go upstream and flood the whole system. With us this means closing off - deleting - all the channels that have been dug into our river over time and syphoning off our energy as it's them making our natural flow sluggish enabling those blockages to exist. Secondary motivations - secondary channels - are syphoning off water/energy reducing the amount flowing down the natural waterway. Close those channels off, the volume increases, the force increases and those blockages are swept away. No blockages along with good flow equals no swamps. No swamps equals no algae and no mosquitos bothering us. We often don't realise it but the real cause of our problems are upstream. From our motivations we obtain our objectives and it's our objectives - our shopping list - that determine our decisions - how we go about satisfying what's on our shopping list. Our decisions determine our actions and those steps, in one direction or another, add up and deliver us to one reality or another. Many want to be happier but remain trapped struggling midstream - motivations vs motivations - instead of simply going upstream of it all and prune the overgrowth back.

The rat traps are filled with soul crusaders

their circuits jammed and lined with chromed invaders

" we carry within us the seeds of our own destruction. We've got a hand that builds, that's brings all the good things into our life and a hand that burns. It's just part of the human package, there's always a big tug of war going on within. This song is about someone who has figured out how to come down on the side that builds. This song is called 'Leah'.

A river that doesn’t flood now and again struggles to remain clean and vigourise. Numerous eco systems that shouldn’t be there are.

When we do an emotional detox we’re no longer allowing water/energy to flow to our accumulation of motivations. The secondary channels fill in, they’re deleted. The river within is our energy that should be feeding our primary motivations and while we need secondary motivations - unless we want to sit under a tree like Buddha did - we only want relevant, useful ones. Less is more.

We cannot map out our channels/ motivations and decide to close this one but not that one as all we’re feeling is pleasure and pain from what exists. We can hire someone to ponder the situation but they’re just guessing. They’re imagining the situation not perceiving it. Also, make change according what set of objectives? An individual’s objectives are themselves downstream of motivations. At best we’re then just looking to renovate our rut.

All we can do, at least the first point of call, is to prune it all right back. Flood the system and then see how we feel. ‘Magically’ we tend to find most of our problems are gone. ‘Magically’ there’s no mosquitos anymore, but it’s not magic.

As adults, we all manage our motivations to some degree. We all understand a given habit syphons off time and energy and as they’re limited resources we need to prioritise our objectives. We fill in channels, and add new ones constantly to try and arrive at our happy equilibrium. However, many channels have been there so long we no longer see them as channels, we see them as a natural part of our landscape. We feed them, we prioritise them, and don’t question their existence. It’s only when, or if, we detox, or our environment radically changes, that we understand they weren’t actually hardwired in and this can be something of a surreal, and transformational, experience. Return to core and we get this, we get that less is more and then recalibrate to our actual selves.

The shorter our shopping list of wants and needs is, the less motivations we're trying to simultaneously juggle, the more we're juggling the ones that actually matter and the easier the juggling is. Beyond a certain point it's effectively effortless. Of course Buddha, and all of us, need to survive. He also needed food, shelter etc so he had some motivations. But it's not about trying to be like Buddha, he just symbolises that, almost impossible, pole of the spectrum to illustrate the spectrum exists. When we detox our motivations - get rid of the infections - we leap frog along the spectrum proving its existence to us. It's now obvious we're not who we thought we were thus we're fluid not rigid. It's equally obvious less is more because our sense of well being has skyrocketed. Additionally, the subjective nature of reality itself is apparent as the exact same place is now experienced very differently. Our objectives flow from our motivations, and the current balance of power between them, and our objectives determine what our senses are scanning the environment for. We're bringing some aspects of the environment to the fore - they're deemed relevant - which is pushing all the rest into the background therefore those background aspects are effectively non existent for us. Changing our motivations changes our objectives which changes what we're scanning for thus bringing to the fore. The exact same location is now not only experienced differently but perceived differently. Our motivations not only determine the path we're on, but also what that path actually is.

Nut shelled.

‘We have our current objectives which puts us on our current path. Ok, but those objectives have come via our collection of motivations, and the balance of power between them. The drug addict has only one objective. The person who is very ill, only one objective, for example. We have our motley collection of motivations determining our objectives - both immediate and long term - but where have those motivations come from? Most are simply reflecting the culture, and random events, that we were born into/experienced. We didn’t choose those them yet they’re within us controlling our lives. If that motley collection is working fine, if they’re more or less well aligned with each other, and there’s indeed a fruitful path - as defined by those motivations/objectives - we can amble down, then all is good. Happy days. It makes no difference why we’re happy, if we’re happy. If I seek a, and k and want to avoid m and p then, if my path indeed has ample A b and c on it and tends to lack m and p then happy days for me. My existing motivations are all purring, more or less, and that’s what happiness is.

If my path is lacking enough a b c, and has more m and p for my liking, I’m not going to be at all happy. What to do? I can change paths to select one to better fit my objectives, can seek to improve my existing path -renovate my rut - and/or I can change my motivations, thus my objectives, to better fit the path I’m on. A 'rut' that is cosy and satisfying is completely fine, of course. Unless we're footloose and fancy free, we're all in a rut/niche. We're all looking to satisfy our motivations and we all, to one degree or another, seek to improve, or maintain, our level of happiness by some of the above means. However, and the main point of all this, is our objectives are downstream of motivations. If our motivations are overgrown and all tangled up our objectives are highly unlikely to be our real objectives. We're mama birds stressing ourselves feeding cuckoos that have pushed our actual chicks out of our nest. Sure, they 'push our buttons', they seem to be ours, thus we feed and protect them. Our objectives are their objectives, not ours at all. What to do? we clear our nest. We detox away the infections and thereby return to our actual innate selves. We experience the massive difference. We get that less is more and now our objectives are actually our real objectives. Additionally, we're now much more flexible given it's now obvious the solid 'us' we thought we were wasn't us.

It's tempting to leave it at 'we return to our real self', and for most this is probably the most useful way of understanding it. My fingers hesitate here because we are perhaps complicating what doesn't need to be complicated. But, in practice, there is no real self. We adapt, we adapt to the environment, to the context. Twenty year old 'Jane' in not the same person out with her friends on Friday night as she is visiting Granny on Sunday afternoon. Then at work on Monday morning she's different again. Same form, same face, but different clusters of motivations/objectives are to the fore in different contexts. She's fluid, not something solid and rigid and if she stops being fluid she's going to struggle to be happy. The walls around us grow and while we may decorate them, hang certificates on them they are themselves the problem.

Our ego solidifies us as it needs a solid 'real' structure to perch upon which is why the very happy are humble and therefore flexible. However, the point here is; when we leap from who we 'were' to the new us our fluidness is apparent. After all, we were that person a week ago and now we're this person. It's also apparent that we're not this person either but there's no desire to catagorise ourselves. Why limit ourselves when that box we'd put ourselves in is just an illusion anyway? Ask a very happy person who they are and they can't answer as they just don't think like that. Sometimes they do this, sometimes they do that. It depends. Ho hum.

I want to run, I want to hide

Returning to my attempt to nut shell all of this;

It gets a bit more complicated given some of our motivations are actually our real, innate ones - they can’t be deleted even if contradictory but they can be managed. Beyond survival motivations/instincts our Ego and emotions are rarely inherently aligned. The complexity of it increases when we realise dopamine fuelled motivations reward us for the chase, not the acquisition of that we’re chasing. Meaning the dopamine reward component is in the process and will no longer be there when, or if, we actually acquire what we’re chasing.

This is why those that are very wealthy and very happy actually live quite austere lives. Otherwise it’s impossible to be very happy. This is why most big lotto winners are less happy a few years later as they rush off and dig their existing channels deeper. They can suddenly feed their clusters of secondary motivations very well which, very soon, makes their core malnourished and sick. The swamps grow bigger as their river flows ever more sluggishly until it’s largely all a swamp fill of algae, mosquitos and garbage.

If you think a lot of money is going to make you happy, you've never had a lot of money. Mike Tyson

Indeed. Most of us don't have the talent, nor win lotto, allowing us to find this out the hard way. The very nature of dopamine rewards us for the chase but then what if we get everything we're chasing and now that dopamine is gone? Oops. Well we can switch over to the serotonin system and kick back and enjoy right? Perhaps, but then why do you need all that $$, and success, in the first place? The other potential issue is that the life you've built was designed by those other motivations and now there's a mismatch if you do switch over. Awkward.

"my oh my you sure know how to arrange things

Unless we return to our actual innate motivations for a brief time, how can we distinguish between self and non self? We can’t. Unless we flood our river at least once how can we know how its natural clean vigorous state is? We can’t.

Taoism vs Buddhism

There's a clear distinction between Taoism - Chinese Buddhism - and most of the other types of Buddhism. It's not a case of better, or worse, it's that Taoism is just focused on individual happiness during this life thing we're currently experiencing and that's what is relevant here. Taoism is typically next to impossible for western binary brains to get as it lacks the structure, or the presuppositions, we have installed. Allan Watts got it but otherwise most of what gets labelled 'Taoism' isn't Taoism at all.

The Tao that can be explained is not the Tao. Which makes explaining it somewhat awkward, but I'll try anyway.

Buddhism was born in the very rigid caste structured India. The caste we were born into determined almost all aspects of our lives even down to who we married. Even today 80% of marriages in India are arranged which, depending on which set of beliefs and values you have installed, could be considered good, bad, a bit of both, or completely irrelevant. The point here is; there existed little possibility to significantly change ones external reality. Unsatisfied motivations were, effectively, not able to be satisfied out in the environment which left only one other option and that was to learn to manage the motivations themselves. If we no longer want what we wanted then not having that something is no longer an issue. Taken further, if we feel we lack nothing then we feel we have everything we want which equals being very happy. Given the, perhaps unique, social reality it's not particularly surprising that Buddhism developed in India.

It's also not surprising that Buddhism quickly evolved down different paths once out of that severely restrictive environment. Naturally, the Indian Buddhism blended with the different cultures, and in some cases, their existing religions giving us multiple sects, each with their different priorities and interpretations. Additionally, Buddhism in some areas became so popular that it became the mainstream religion which, necessarily, also influenced it's priorities. When we're just an alternative out on the fringes, we're not responsible for the larger population. Infrastructure, security etc, all that is just there and someone else's responsibility. Teaching the young to wander off into a forest and chill under a tree, as Buddha did, doesn't make for a prosperous, secure society.

These competing objectives were managed in different ways; For example, in some societies one son would enter a monastery, the other be a businessman and the third enter the military. This in itself accepts it wasn’t practically possible to be both a devote Buddhist and a businessman or military officer. It also accepts that theres various paths to a happy life. The motivations within the businessman, and the resulting cocktail he’s consuming is going to be very different, to what’s inside his brother on the other side of the monastery walls. Different, but both tasty enough, and if they’re both tasty enough they’re both fine.

The young man entering the military goes though a harsh 3 month basic training which prunes back his accumulated motivations. This both changes him and allows the fresh growth to be aligned with the path he’s going to be on. His brother entering the monastery goes through the same transformational process. The businessman doesn’t, but then his existing batch of motivations are already adapted to the civilian mainstream path.

None of them deem themselves superior to their brothers, they’re just on different paths and have adapted accordingly. If one of them, likely the Buddhist, experiences, on average, a higher level of happiness during his life does this matter? Not to them, no. They live, experience this life thing, then they die soon enough. Ho hum, it is what it is and they only need to be semi competent on their particular path to be happy enough.

This, be happy enough, is often more difficult these days because the mainstream path/s are themselves in bad shape. Societies/civilisations have a life cycle. Once they’re gone past their zenith the once fruitful mainstream path becomes potholed with the, once low hanging fruit, long gone. The shiny ‘brochure’ advertising what lies down that path is fraudulent. It was like that, but it’s not anymore, yet individuals are still programmed to sprint down that path. Awkward. Some navigate their way through the confused maze well enough, some make their way through the desert to an oasis, but most struggle. They can't, or never try to, escape the installed motivations pulling them down that path.

You make up your mind, you choose the chance you take
You ride to where the highway ends and the desert breaks
Out on to an open road you ride until the day
You learn to sleep at night with the price you pay

Now with their hands held high, they reached out for the open skies
But in one last breath they choose the roads they'd ride to their death
Driving on through the night, unable to break away
From the restless pull, ah the price you pay

Oh, the price you pay, oh, the price you pay
Now you can't walk away from the price you pay

Now they'd come so far and they'd waited so long
Just to end up caught in a dream where everything goes wrong
Where the dark of night holds back the light of the day
You've gotta stand and fight for the price you pay

Little girl down on the strand
With that pretty little baby in your hands
Do you remember the story of the promised land?
How we crossed the desert sands
But could not enter the chosen land
On the banks of that river we stand
To face the price we pay

So let the games start, you better run you little wild heart
You can run through all the nights and all the days
But just across the county line, a stranger passing through put up a sign
That counts those fallen away to the price they pay
Girl, before the end of the day
You gotta tear it down and throw it away.

Taoism, for whatever reason, remained focused on individual happiness in China. Perhaps, with it's polar opposite Confucism already existing on the other pole of this particular spectrum it had no need to move towards the middle. Who knows? But China has always had any number of religions co-existing and Taoism was, and is, just one amongst many. A Taoist parable to give an example of the above is; A Taoist was living in his little cabin in the mountains and one day a group of Government officials rode up. They asked him to join the Government as they'd heard he was very wise. The Taoist laughed and declined.

He laughed because did they seriously think he'd give up his little heaven in exchange for an office and overflowing in-trays? rediculous.

Another one is the Farmer.

Apart from extremes, it's not the event/s that determine our level of happiness, it's how we're processing that event. It's what our brain is translating it into that we're actually experiencing. Additionally, we don't know, can't know the downstream consequences of something. The consequences our brain is conjuring up is limited to those it's conjuring up but there's actually possiblities we've never considered and have no way of knowing about. It's not 'just let things happen' it's try and make what we want to happen but there's variables we can't control so what's the point in getting upset about them? If ones level of happiness is high, and robust, then, extremes aside, it's all good. effectively, control what we're translating it into and we're controlling what we're feeling. Those on a very high level of happiness are not skipping down the street, their level is their normal and their cheerful state is robust. Someone on 8/10 is only rarely going to bounce to 9/10 but that's fine as 8/10 is completly fine. Similarly, they'll rarely go below 7/10 and this because they've got control of what's dripping into their cup.

But what began as a alternative path for the individual to access happiness almost regardless of social context changed as it different social contexts. Critically, once the alternative becomes the mainstream it’s responsibilities are not the same. The welfare of the collective must also be considered. The Buddhism solely concerned with individual happiness is fine for individuals as what those individuals do, or don’t do, makes no difference to the wellbeing of the collective

The them and us mentality - the cultural norms are a hurdle to be overcome - is no longer sustainable when that alternative group is now the mainstream. The range of options and actions Pete may do when he’s a bacalor are not the same when he’s now got a family to look after. The needs of the family necessarily force compromises. The Buddhism that has become the religion of the collective has responsibilities to juggle that previously didn’t exist and must adapt accordingly. Individual happiness, especially via non materialistic paths, simply cannot be the sole objective. Just as Pete needs to put food on the table and must do so via the economic pathways that exist - get a job - so do the citizens need to work hard to provide for themselves. Infrastructure, security etc costs money. Whilebackstreets

Most struggle as they can’t distnius between their own actual interests, cultural programming and other assorted motivations they’re accumulated over time. They’re all jumbled up in one confused heap and they’re orientated by whatever flavours/feelings happen to be seeping through from that tangled contradictory mess.

We can knock on the door of a therapist down on main street and see if they can help. We hand them our shopping list of wants and needs ( motivations ) that we’re struggling to satisfy. Already, we’ve got a problem as those objectives haven’t magically materialised, they’ve come from our overgrown basket of motivations. It’s from our motivations, and the balance of power between them, that we obtain our specific objectives - how to satisfy them in the reality we believe exists.

That basket is infected, there’s cuckoos in our nest so, effectively, we’re asking how to better feed the cuckoo chicks that have grown suspiciously bigger than ourselves. Effectively, we’re asking how to renovate our rut when the rut itself is the problem.

We’re putting our laptop, that’s stuffed full of old programs and files, on the desk of the technician and asking him, or her, to sort it all out. His finger makes his way to the ‘return to factory settings’ button but we desperately stop him as we like all that stuff. It may not be emotionally relevant but our ego loves it. Somewhere in there is a lovely pic of me in front of the Eiffel Tower. I look great in that pic and being in Paris shows I’m successful/ have status - OMG, don’t delete that!!

We may not be happy, but at least we’re good, noble and successful as defined by the person in our mirror. It may be the consolation prize but at least it’s something, at least some delicious flavours are dripping into our cup via our satisfied ego and you’re wanting me to close that trickle off? Yikes, the plunge down is too much, the pain too much and we slap that finger away. Our ego resists any significant change as it’s built its status on what is.

Thus the catch 22 nature of incremental therapy. If we had the necessary emotional buffer to withstand our ego being slapped around we wouldn’t be in the therapists office in the first place.

If our default level of happiness is a relatively high 8/10 then status doesn’t matter too much to us in the first place given our ego competes against our emotions. One motivations treasure is another motivations trash. But if - magically - it did we wouldn’t be going near a therapy room as we’re just fine as is. If, even more magically, we did then we’ve enough of a buffer to withstand our ego being pruned. Pete feeling 8/10 feels a bit uncomfortable if he’s disrespected but it’s just knocking him momentarily down to 7/10. Ho hum, no big deal, he shrugs it off and quickly returns to his default 8/10. However, if his level of happiness has degraded to a mere 5/10 then there is no buffer and he’s already in pain. Now, the same insult puts him on a very painful 4/10 and his claws come out to defend himself.

One very significant advantage emotional detoxing offers is that it’s functioning upstream of objectives, ego and all of that drama. The changes just ‘magically’ occur and flow down through the system. They change our objectives, thus decisions, thus actions, thus reality. Critically, the leap in our sense of well being provides the buffer we previously lacked. Not only is our ego confused - the person in the mirror is different requiring it to recalibrate - but the need for status/approval doesn’t really exist, or at least it lacks the same force. Additionally, we’ve got the buffer to withstand affronts to our ego.

Humility is the gateway to happiness

While our ego locks that gate.

The humble are flexible and pragmatic. Not because they’re trying to be humble but because the subjective nature of it all is obvious to them. It’s just morbidly ridiculous to pretend the set of beliefs and values we happen to subscribe to are the right set. If we’re some type of God, or have a vastly superior array of senses than other humans do along with an IQ of 500 plus then ok, maybe we are indeed superior. However, we tend to be limited to the same mediocre array of senses other humans have along with the same grapefruit sized subjective primate brain. Just because something feels pleasant, in this case status, doesn’t mean we have to chase it. Not all that glitters is gold. Our turbo charged primate brain is capable of understanding why we have an ego, what its purpose is in the bigger picture, and manage it. Again though, the catch 22 situation; overgrown egos are not amused with the notion they’re Apes - that kind of kills the strut in their step - so they’re not interested in learning their own operating system. They then understand their phones operating better than their own. Their phone functions fine but they’re not.

Ego, the gremlin within.

I think we've hammered the 'overgrown secondary motivations' enough. The other significant hurdle to realising a high level of happiness is our ego. while ego deserves a few pages devoted to it given how destructive it can be I'll briefly explain it here,

Our ego is something of a gremlin within when it comes to happiness given it competes against our emotional motivations. However, it is, or at least was, absolutely critical for our species survival as its power to motivationally align individuals allowed us to form the effective groups we did, and do. If I want your respect/approval I can only satisfy that motivation via your values. You’re not going to join me high-fiving my reflection unless what you’re seeing matches your particular beliefs and values. If we’re in an isolated group, which we were for 99.9% of our time as primates, my need for respect/approval along with everyone else’s similar need generates the ‘glue’, the cohesiveness the group needs. The set our group has got is hopefully pragmatic enough for us to survive, facilities our emotional needs and gives us all enough respect/approval to keep our ego also purring. It's worth keeping in mind motivations do not exist in a vacuum -they're competing against other motivations- and that survival is obviously our individual priority and our groups priority.

Us Homo Sapiens - wise apes - are not particularly fast, not particularly big, not particularly strong and we're seriously underpowered in the fangs and claws department. Yet there we were needing to get lunch whilst trying to avoid becoming lunch in a world of sabre toothed tigers and the like. Awkward. However, as the label our scientists have bestowed upon our species indicates, we're significantly more intelligent than the average animal and we're social primates - we live in groups. Our intelligence, plus teamwork allowed us to carve out a niche that our distant ancestors were able to survive and reproduce within. It wasn't pretty, there wasn't much navel gazing about levels of happiness going on, but here we are. Given intelligence and social abilities/ motivations were so critical they were selected for, and rapidly improved, once groups broke through the 'glass ceiling' that had held them all to maximum 20 members - really just extended families. Once that happened it wasn't so much preditors that were our biggest threat but other groups of humans. Specifically, bigger groups of humans. That's another tangent but 5 warriors beat 3 and 10 beat 5 meaning waves of ever larger groups, along with the required improved social capacity, swept the landscape. Today still, our biggest threat is other humans and the big groups - the super powers - dominate. But the silver lining in this arms race -a bi product - was smarter apes developed ever more cunning ways to satisfy objectives and bigger groups allowed for ever more specialisation. The genie was out of the bottle and often prefers to overlook it was ever in there. With no past there's no context and with no context even a compass is useless.

Without the aligning ego motivation there is no effective group in the first place and without a functioning group we simply wouldn’t survive in the brutal, precarious world we once lived in.

As you've probably noticed we live in groups, very big groups these days, because we’re social primates. Our social inclinations/abilities didn’t magically manifest, they were selected for over a long period because those characteristics allowed our ancestors to survive and reproduce and here we are today.

To do so we have to be motivationally inclined to be social which we obviously are. Again, no accident we live in groups, it was the only way we could survive. We’re not particularly fast

All social animals, including ourselves provide the needed structure via hierarchies. Note, how dominant egos do not like accepting we’re animals as it’s not noble enough for their acquired tastes. I'm not sure what we are if the scientists are all wrong; we’re don’t seem to be birds, nor fish nor trees or rocks. Reptiles? That even worse for our ego - yuk. It’s not just that individual recoil it’s also that - understandably- our groups depend on their existing set of beliefs, values and ideals to function effectively. In practice, given our dependence on our groups well being, it can be said to be rationally in our individual interests to resist lifting the colourful veil. Groups need that veil so our slapping the hands that would lift it is not necessarily just a blind knee jerk from ego pain.

Sure, which is why if our current recipe of beliefs and values is serving us well enough, if the taste is pleasant enough, there’s no point in changing it. Why? We wouldn’t be inclined to anyway but, point is, it’s all just recipes and if our recipe is fine it’s fine. If we want to nail that template home, plus obtain some status satisfaction from our recipe being the right one then why not? If we want to believe our wife, partner, or husband is the bestest person in the whole wide world that belief can’t be said to be a negative. Rationally, if we define ‘bestest’ we’re going to find that isn’t actually the case and to protect our delicious belief we won’t ever get around to defining bestest. Of course it’s all subjective, most others do not crave our partner, their tastes are not the same as ours but, all things considered, that belief adds an extra dollop of satisfaction/ appreciation and does no harm. If our relationship turns sour they’ll tend to ‘magically’ go from hero to zero very quickly as that which once gave pleasure now gives pain.

However, whilst this nailed in template is fine when the path we’re on is indeed fruitful those same nails are suddenly a big problem if our path becomes barren. We need to press ‘refresh’ but we can’t, or we do but nothing significant changes. Our system is frozen. What was a cosy niche is now experienced as a rut the walls of which we both loath and love.

Our ego is content enough. Look at those certificates, the thropies on those walls - high five. But this is all emotionally irrelevant. It’s like feeding our cow meat and then wondering why it’s malnourished and not providing much milk. Our ego dog loves the meat and we can milk our dog, many do, but milk from that source is insipid and relatively limited.

This generates the classic ego resistance to significant change. Firstly, our ego motivation doesn’t care about our emotion well being unless the symptoms are embarrassing. It’s a completely seperate motivation with its own job. Its post brain world of labels and meanings it thrives on is not even the same world our blind emotions reside in. The cultural bubble we’re in is not the reality but it is all our ego knows and seeks satisfaction from. We, over time, have accumulated status via the structure of beliefs and values we’re subscribed to, or got subscribed to. Our status is now dependant on that solid structure of beliefs and values and those beliefs and values heavily influence our objectives, decisions and actions. Effectively, changing our recipe means running a bulldozer through the structure our ego is smugly sitting atop of looking down on most others. If we accept recipes are subjective then our status is also subjective, just pretend. Ouch, our ego naturally strongly resists this. We may not be happy but we’re good, noble and successful. They may be the consolation prizes but at least it’s something. At least we’re getting some milk and now I’m being asked to pour that out? That’s too painful and we came to feel better, not worse so we’ll just take a pill instead.

They lack the required buffer to be able to handle the ego pain. This is the tragic catch 22 situation; if they had the emotional buffer they wouldn't be knocking on the therapists door in the first place.

The humble - by definition - do not care too much about status - they’re not seeking pats on the head - which means their emotions are winning the inner tug of war against their ego. Thus, they’re orientated towards emotional relevant fields and by stepping in that direction they live in those fields. Their emotions are well nourished thus they’re very happy and here’s what most don’t understand. Their ego is also happy enough. Define success as being very happy and our ego can happily high five our reflection. Ok, we’re not taking those high fives seriously but our ego is happy enough, it’s not trying to pull us elsewhere, so let ego be ego. Ho hum.

Our ego is like our pet dog. It can be happy untrained, dragging us here and there according to what it wants but it can also be happy well trained and following along. If it’s out in front, if it’s in control it’ll go to where it wants, naturally enough. Have it in behind following us and we’re now free to go where we want and it’s still happy enough. We’ve still got a sense of status, still got a strut to our step but we’re very happy because we’ve made our way to emotionally nourishing fields.

Strength is fantasy, time is illusion

As regards happiness, our ego tends to be destructive directly in that it seeks status and approval which orientates us away from emotional satisfaction and competes with our emotional motivations for our time and energy. A dominate ego seriously compromises our ability, or even desire, to be emotionally satisfied.

Indirectly it makes us rigid, we struggle to change/adapt as status requires solidity, it requires a solid structure of belief and values to perch upon. This how we are. This is right and good and that template gets superimposed over others and ourselves. What is inherently subjective solidifies into something ‘objectively’ right and good and what is inherently fluid - ourselves - likewise solidifies. We can’t be fluid and have a sense of superiority/status, that’s impossible. The very happy, by definition, are not desperately milking the skinny ego cow for pleasure/ delicious status bio chemicals, they’re milking the fat emotional cow. In practice, we can milk both but we’re not taking the delicious sense of status seriously as we understand it’s subjective. We can still high five our own mirror, can still get that nice dollop of delicious bio chemicals - why not? - but we’re giggling at ourselves for doing so. We have that strut to our step but it’s not destructive, we’re not superimposing the beliefs and values the person in our mirror happens to have over other adults. We respect their right to have their own and we defend our right to have our own. They’re not me, I’m not them, we’re different. If, in my head, I’m indeed ‘objectively’ superior, as defined by my own values then my status ‘is’ objectively real. Yummy, that is a much stronger flavour. If we’re -magically - some type of God, then it does indeed make sense that others must dance to our beat. We’re above them which , naturally, means we’re looking down on them. But if we accept the obvious, that what is right and good depends on who is asked, then our definition is not the definition, it’s just our definition and they, naturally, have their definition. If they align, more or less, then that’s nice, but if not they’re different, not inferior.

This why humility is the gateway to happiness. The humble are experiencing much more organically - directly. They’re not translating that experience into something else. They’re not processing it into what is relevant to their ego but then emotionally irrelevant. Our emotions reside in the meaningless pre brain world they always have while our ego feeds off the post brain meanings our turbo charged primate brains are capable of generating. One motivations treasure is another trash. Our ego served us well during our precarious evolution - we’re social primates - as it aligns everyone in the group allowing that group to be functional.

Our societies are manmade cultural bubbles within the greater reality, they’re not the reality. The ways, beliefs and values a group has is just their particular culture, not the culture. Those within one bubble looking across at those in another bubble will tend to recoil somewhat given what they’re perceiving doesn’t match the template they’ve had installed. Both groups will look down their noses at the other. Who is right? Which ones really are the goodies and which ones the baddies? Rationally, that’s silly as it’s obviously subjective but that’s not how we or they experience it. Some things that generate pleasure or pain in us don’t in them, and vice versa, and we then consider that which causes us pain to be bad and that which makes us purr good. Because that dollop is available if we can pretend the subjective is actually objective we tend to do so. Now our culture is better than there which, not incoincedently, means we’re better than them. That we’re taking those definitions from the person in our own mirror and superimposing them over others is overlooked. The humble can do this no problem, those with dominant, hungry egos can’t. The humble can accept we’re relatively intelligent primates if that’s what the evidence shows as there’s no ego to protect. Ho hum; ‘well I guess we’re not birds, fish or trees and we do look suspiciously like Apes’ .there's no resistance to reality, no need to constantly fight it and translate what is into what isn’t. They surf what’s there. It’s not reality that’s the problem, it tends to be our expectations that cause us problems.

Telling stories

We’re all telling stories given there’s no way we can know the truth. The critical difference is whether our story is a happy one or not. They’re all false, all wrong, to some degree or another but some are more useful than others as regards happiness. They’re all just recipes and when we accept this we’re able to change our recipe if required.

As mentioned, all our motivations obviously motivate via pleasure and pain -how else? - which comes in a range of pleasant flavours and painful flavours. Anger, for example, is an ugly, painful flavour and so is frustration but, whilst similar flavours, they're not the same as the specific motivations they trace back to are not the same. Why have those ugly flavours in our cup polluting the pleasant ones and disorientating us away from our actual innate motivations? If we want to be good, as defined by the culture we happened to be born into, that want is a motivation. It's high up on our shopping list. We feel pleasant by being good and feel pain if we're bad. Obviously this is subjective, what is 'right' and 'good' clearly depends on who is asked but, given how we're motivationally wired up, accepting this is unsatisfying as it dilutes our goodness. If other adults good is as valid as your good then, effectively, there is no good. Dominant egos cannot accept this as it's painful given it's undermining the status/ superiority egos crave and have cultivated. Our ego seeks status and if there is no objective right, good, wrong, bad then our sense of status/superiority is also not real.

We're not a particully rational species. With a serious face we'll proclaim our beliefs and values as being superior to other adults beliefs and values but exactly why we believe we have the right to decide for them is never thought through as doing so is painful. Just because, and if we do try and explain why we're God, and they're not, we do so by referring to yet more beliefs and values that we're assuming are objective but are obviously also subjective.

I think this is fine. good mix.