There’s a fundamental clash between maintaining group cohesion and our scientific reality which, once there’s sub groups within the larger umbrella group, means our scientific reality threatens each of them in different ways.

In other words; the group beliefs and values are inherently subjective - different groups have different beliefs and values and us humans lack the ability to know the truth anyway - yet for those beliefs and values to have enough cohesive oomph the group needs to deem their set as the only right and good set. Accepting the subjective nature of our beliefs and values undermines group cohesion, blurs the line between the goodies ( us ) and the baddies ( others ) which reduces group loyalty and leads to internal bickering and eventually civil conflict.

Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book and for good reason.

Basically, what's important is not so much what the group beliefs and values are, so long as they’re functional, but that the group remains a large cohesive coordinated group able to satisfy their needs and wants and defend themselves from other groups.

We’re wired up to have our in group - the goodies as defined by our values - and all the others who are not so worthy -baddies - as also defined by our values. This is functional; them attacking us is a massive crime but us attacking them is just what we have to do. Sometimes the best defence is offensive… and they’re the baddies anyway right?

When we judge others by our own beliefs and values they fall short which isn’t surprising given they’re not us and their beliefs and values are their own. This tendency is not a bug, it’s a feature. It puts a strut in our step - we’re automatically superior - and we’re easily offended which closes ranks and amplifies the others badness/ unworthiness which then allows us to readily contradict our own values because, well, they don’t deserve such consideration.

This is functional; our values only apply where it matters - to others in our own group - allowing us to do what needs to be done to win against other groups. Losing is very unpleasant and often means the end of our group so, again, this is functional.

At base, survival is the priority and we’ve evolved accordingly.

Our ego is the strong motivation enabling us to establish, and maintain, large enough groups to be viable even when times are good. By being motivated to acquire status/approval from others in our group we then do so via those beliefs and values. I can only get your respect via your values which is the groups values.

It is what it is and obviously, given we’re here, this set up can be deemed to be successful and functional.

In practice, and to return to the point, scientific reality necessarily, in some cases, conflicts with the groups, or sub groups, interests. Cultural bubbles have their mainstream path which can easily be deemed the path given that cultural reality is deemed the reality. Happiness can then be understood in those narrow terms; Happiness is acquired by successfully navigating the mainstream path via which we satisfy our motivations including accumulating status. If the mainstream path is in good shape then this tends to work out fine for most people. But what if the mainstream path is itself substandard? What if the once low hanging fruit has already being harvested, consumed and stashed away, by previous generations leaving us just the IOUs?

The lion in the zoo is less than happy and while we can blame the lion, isn’t the problem the zoo itself? The lion can only contort itself so much without contradicting itself, can only adapt to that alien environment to a limited degree. Is there something wrong with the lion that lacks enthusiasm for what’s on offer or is that numbness to be expected?

The underlying issue with midstream therapy, and why it has such a poor success rate, is it’s limited to renovating our cage when it’s often the cage itself that’s the problem. However, naturally enough, we’re loath to admit this because of the can of worms doing so will open. It is what it is, our environment is as it is so it can reasonably argued we have to do as best we can with what we’ve got. Our societies need individuals to enthusiastically sprint along the mainstream path - to spend their lives working - and, given their need food, shelter etc, isn’t doing so in the individuals interests?

That depends on ones’ perspective and how the mainstream path is experienced. Many are happy enough on it and if not learn to be. A renovated rut can become a cosy niche and if so all is good. In practice, the mainstream path is quite wide with many paths within it so juggling those available components can provide a satisfactory experience.

The main point here is that, either way, flexibility is required. Whether we’re making small changes to our recipe or throwing it out and starting again, we need the flexibility in our operating system to enable us to make those changes. We have to escape that inherited straight jacket of beliefs and values others superimposed over us yet we’re invested in that set - we’ve already accumulated some status via it - and nearly everyone else, including most therapists, are also invested in it. An extra layer of welds is that it’s highly likely we’re economically dependent on that mainstream path. Awkward.

Acknowledging that it’s only awkward if it is experienced as awkward, we can hopefully see the significant difference between midstream therapy and upstream therapy such as emotional detoxes. Midstream is firmly within the mainstream path and deeming that cultural reality to be the reality. This can lead to therapists validating their clients ego to milk some extra pleasure via status and calling it good. Obviously, while this might make them feel better for a time it’s not going to make them happy as that which is competing against emotional satisfaction - ego - is actually being reinforced.

Via upstream therapy we’re able to zoom out. Able to see what we deemed to be the reality is just another bubble within it. Once we put the set menu down we’re able to see, access, and experience, the buffet that was always there beyond it.

Once our installed secondary motivations are pruned back light gets into our emotional centres and we realise, given the experience, that the motivational overgrowth was itself the main problem. When the lion leaves the zoo it understands it was in a zoo and the zoo itself was the problem.

The bear dancing for applause and food might be happy enough, might know nothing different but the higher levels of happiness can only be accessed by leaving that circus. Not necessarily physically leaving, we don’t have to go to the other side of the monestary walls, but we do need flexibility, do need to get over, or melt, the walls in our brains.

Again though, unless we zoom out there are no walls, that’s just the reality.

I want to run

Explained differently;

It can reasonably be accepted that groups need ideals which solidify into ideologies. That which is obviously subjective has morphed into something solid and ‘objectively’ true and/or right and good. ‘Pete’ wants to make the world a better place but overlooks that his ‘better’ is not the better and who made him God? It feels good to believe we know best but it gets awkward explaining why, or how, we know best so we tend to avoid that conversation. Do we have extra senses to perceive more of reality than others do? Is our IQ so magnificent that we’re able to process the slice of reality we’re perceiving more accurately and objectively than everyone else? Have we lived for so long, and in such varied environments, experience has sorted our beliefs into ‘true’ and ‘not true’. If we lived to 500 would our beliefs and values be the same as the ones our fresh faced selves exited our cookie cutter schooling system with? Of course not, so why be welded to beliefs and values that are only subjective anyway? The why is because it allows us a sense of superiority - feels good - but ego satsifaction is inherently insipid, has a low ceiling and blocks emotional satisfaction. We’re chasing the consolation prizes.

We’re all different. The lovely future nirvana Pete is enthusiastic about appeals to him, but that doesn’t mean it appeals to everyone. Why does what he wants trump what they want? Isn’t that, like, being selfish? Given others will advance their interests just as he’s trying to advance his do we not now have a conflict which will be resolved violently? In the movies the goodies always win but everyone thinks they’re the goodies and the winners write the history books. If Pete, furiously advancing his interests, conflicts with other peoples interests he is, from their perspective, the baddie and nasty stuff will come his way.

His sense of superiority - he, magically, knows what’s best for everyone - brings a lot of grief and pain into his life yet, rationally, he’s just another relatively intelligent Ape with some time to experience this life thing. Why is he polluting his time trying to change reality instead of just surfing it and enjoying it? Boiled down, the issue is with his expectations, not reality itself. ‘A’ is bad. If we believe A is bad then it is bad to us, but the labels we attach to something in our heads only exist in our heads. What is just is and we’re not even perceiving the reality in the first place, we’re just perceiving that slice of it our mediocre array of senses give us access to. Even then, given our limited primate , albeit turbo charged, brain we’re reformatting what’s out there into a format our brains can process and we’re pre filtering according to relevance.

The more you know, the more you know you don’t know. Only the ignorant ‘know’, others decide via probabilities factoring in their inherent limitations. Automatically, the later type are much more flexible than the former given they understand it’s all subjective. As it’s all just recipes they can then readily change their recipe as required.

My ideology poem