Now I think I found a revealing formulation for different approaches towards a happy life and happy world.

What the different approaches have in common is the persuasion that the right human mindset is the key ingredient for both a happy life and a happy world. The right mindset for this would be (roughly), more optimism, hope that transcends death, and interpretations that can attribute deeper meaning to daily activities and to extraordinary events like affliction and disease. Such a mindset makes people happy, and also enables them and motivates them to go and fix the world.

Now the difference between the approaches is how to shape the mind. Let’s enumerate a little:

  • Psychotherapy.
  • Social therapy.
  • Meditation techniques.
  • Religious beliefs.

All these above approach have in common that they seek to shape the mind “directly”, by exchanging mind content, which could be considered as “software”.  While we don’t know exactly which or which combination of these approaches is the most effective one, it seems clear that they all are too weak, as no approach was able to permanently and effectively change the mindset of any large group of people to anything “near perfect”. From time to time, there are great individuals with an absolutely astonishing character, but all approaches failed on society scale.

Now why is this? Here is my opinion. What seems to be stronger than all these approaches seems to be the power of the “mind-eroding” objective circumstances. Which includes many things from bad example, to bad societal values, to natural catastropies, crime, physical frailty and much more. Shielding people might be done to a degree while changing their mindset, but after they are released to fix the world, they are again prone to erosion, and erosion will win over time. And I think the key reason for this is because the mind is hard-wired to try to find a representation of reality and to adapt to it. With a logic like: I see that objective reality does not justify that hope, so having hope in spite of this would make happier for a time but badly hurt when being disappointed in the end, which means we should better avoid it.

If this is correct, reality itself is the most powerful programmer of the mind. But this also gives a glimpse of hope: If objective reality is good at the bottom, and if we can find out that and experience it long and powerfully enough, then this will shape our mind more than the bad aspects of reality around us.

If you know what I’m up to, you know what this argument will lead to. Namely: If we could only experience that God is there, loves us, wants to saves us and even proves that by doing miracles in this world – then this could change our minds permanently because it both justifies and inspires hope. I hope to find these experiences in expeditions of the coming years.

There’s a lot of bad jokes about blondes being stupid. And sometimes I wonder if there could be some substance to it. But in a more general sense: is there any reverse correlation between intelligence and outward attractiveness? Or more precisely, between intelligence and ones subjective impression about ones own outward attractiveness? (Also note that correlation means just, some statistically significant interdependence, while there can be lots of exceptions, like pretty and  intelligent folks.)

There are some reasons that stand aside to explain such a correlation, should it exist:

  • The non-attractive people are those who have other interests than being attractive. Yes, I do think that everybody is “potentially attractive”, just some people do not take the time to reveal it by developing and maintaining a personal style. That is totally ok, people have different interests after all. Those folks might instead deal with a topic in depth, and thus reveal their potential technological / emotional / social or whatever intelligence to a fuller extend. They might also deal with other stuff, like success in entrepeneurship, but we’re after a correlation with intelligence only here. Note that intelligence is commonly thought to depend both on genetic disposition and education, which means much can be done by education independently of ones genetic disposition.
  • Likewise, those interested in making themselves attractive by styling might find that they lack the time to really pursue interests in other topics  like science, technology, society, arts, medicine or whatever.
  • People who are naturally attractive because of their genes (meaning, also if they don’t care about styling) will often find that they do not need to be anything else except attractive. Especially women can get all the advantages in life by being attractive – ok and sociable, but they need not be intelligent and learned in math, science, technology, music, art or whatever demanding discipline there might be. So why should they bother mastering these difficult matters?
  • Likewise, the not naturally attractive people might feel that they need some other content in life to feel worthy and some content to get accepted and maybe praised by others. So they might develop interests in other special areas, like science and technology.

As always, this is experimental thinking. And where I did include observations, I do not endorse them as to be right, legitimate or morally good.

If it would have been God’s foremost intention to just save the world, while minimizing human suffering, he would have done it right away after the fall. Instead of waiting 4000 years until sending Jesus down to us. Or, if there is some reason for these 4000 years that is unknown to us, God could have made this time easier for humanity. For example, by introducing some kind of sedative drug and supplying food by miracles, so that people would have been spared from all this self-inflicted suffering.

And likewise, if God’s foremost intention today would be to bring this world to an end after having saved it through Jesus, the Last Day would long have come and / or God would help with all available miraculous power in missionizing the world. Or if there is some reason unknown to us why it did not come so far, the proposal with the sedative drugs applies again.

And likewise, if God would desire to make the life of his children as bearable and simple as possible, he would: (1) talk to us more directly and more often, (2) completely change our character in supernatural ways, (3) tell us what situation we are in at every point of time, and why.

Yet, all the above is not the case. Means God seems to have also some other intention with this world than just “closing it down with the lowest possible damage”, to then proceed in heaven where everything is great. But what could be that intention?

That intention can not be to let people earn rewards. Because according to the doctrine of grace, every reward for human behavior is neglible compared to the undeserved donation of grace.

Might it be that God “is so deistic” because his intention is still what he had in mind when creating this world? Which would be, as far as we understand it, to have human beings as “his image”. As something that is pleasing to look at. So maybe he enjoys just looking at this world (or currently rather, tries to). Which would be indeed an activity that would make God appear to us as largely “deistic”, compared to how he could potentially  behave to us, in all his power.

So perhaps this world is something like a table decoration in God’s living room, so to speak? Note that this comparison is meant to illustrate how unfathomable huge God is, not to call Jesus’ work for us something small. It is huge thing because Jesus did it in the shell and with the limitations of a human being – doing it as an all-powerful God would be no big thing indeed.

First, head over here and have a look at the picture. Now: can you tell – Hipster or Hobo?

Last Wednesday, I have been to Klassikstadt Frankfurt, in a car seller seminar. Well, kind of. It turned out to be more of a sales promotion event for a new type of seller account. But I have been to this Klassikstadt thing anyway – which is a highly stylish blend of an old, red brick manufacturing building, oldtimer cars, oldtimer workshops and companies, catering and event and conference room options for diverse customers.For example, Deutsche Telekom had a little conference or meeting in one of these rooms.

Snacks were served in small white porcelain and glas dishes. Inner walls were unplastered red bricks. Most things looked trendy. Some people looked like nerds in a suit, wearing a stylish edition of hornrims. They had also hired pretty girls to wear the microphones and hand out the name tag. An in-crowd gathering: the whole setting, and many of the people there, contributed to a yuppie atmosphere.

So what is a yuppi, anyway? That’s what I’m talking about, as this event inspired a simple definition in me. A yuppi is a geek with money. Or a nerd with money, does not matter here. These people make their work fun, ideally by choosing what they want to work for (entrepeneurship), and / or by enjoying their work by spending money for a luxury and trendy setting. And, more importantly: while a geek or nerd is laughed at because of his or her strange passions and ideas, yuppies are admired for that. The difference between awkward and trendy is often just the resources available for investing into it. Without money, your individualistic or creative project makes you a nerd, geek, freak or (at best) a poor artist. With money, spent for polishing the project’s outward appearance and outsourcing the actual work, it makes you a trendy person. For example, oldtimers: the poor hobby mechanic who loves his oldtimer but lacks the money to get it into shape is a freak; but the suit-clothed entrepeneur who just buys a car that others worked for, and spends ~180 EUR a month just to store and showcase his car in one of the Klassikstadt glas garages, he is considered trendy. Why?

Now I don’t have something against the yuppies: I like that there are truly individualistic people and passionate people among them. But I dislike our (the society’s) short-sighted judgment over people. Having or not having money is mostly a matter of luck and chance, so should not be allowed to transform a  freak into a yuppie, or vice versa.

I arrived at a provocative thesis: those who emphasize “the serious / judging side of God” by actively preaching and promoting it do so because it allows them to live out an innate desire for high-energy social interaction, or for taking strong and even agressive positions. This type of beliefs grant a channel for “energetic behavior” that is legal in their own mindset and the official legal framework of their society. They embrace this opportunity because intensive, highly energetic (at times even aggressive) social interaction is banned by taboo and convention from most other areas in civilized Western societies. There are other people who succeed in completely sublimating this “energy” and directing it towards inner processes, resulting in high motivation to reach objective goals and if necessary forcing themselves forward. But not all people can be that introverted …

A confirmation for this thesis is that “only” people who have strong opinions about things (in other words, who are aggressive and determined in other areas) tend to stress the “serious” side of God. In contrast to people who are careful to take strong positions, fearing they might not be true. However, this is supported only by anecdotal reports, and has to be investigated more thoroughly. There just seems to be such an astonshing correlation between personality style and faith style …

Understanding this, there is not much of a problem: listening to a sermon, I have to just filter the message through a personality filter, to arrive at teh true ojective message, independent of the speaker’s personality traits. There is however an extreme and dangerous variant of this, where people think themselves justified (in their religious framework) to insult other people, to call them names, to judge them, to question the  salvation of nearly all others etc..

First, start with watching the video “2011 حماده هلال أنا مصرى ” below or on YouTube. It is about the 2011 Egyption uprising and is underlaid with a song repeating “Allah Akhbar” (Allah Almighty) over and over.

If you are from a non-Islamic culture, read on. What was your impression from watching this with an analytic mind from a non-Islamic culture (the latter is just to avoid prejudice)? To me, it was astonishingly self-evident that the authors’ faith in Allah is motivated by wishful thinking: they use a notion (idea) of God to promote unity, a hope for protection and victory, motivation etc. among people who have nothing to do with each other in the first case. (Note that this sharp judgement does not relate to the Egyptian revolution itself … I wish freedom to all people in all the world, in every sense of the word … .)

Using this “idea called God” serves as a surrogate for other non-existing bonds (cultural or family), and can be used to create a nation or nation state. And all that without there being any real background behind this particular idea: God as an idea works even if there is no God, simply by people believing there is, and having unity and bonds because of that. This is not the only thing for which “God as an idea” can be used: in other cases, like in Hinduism (read the Vedas!), God is a philosophic idea: thoughts that came out of human philosophical thinking and likewise can exist without being grounded in external reality.

So what. As somebody who immersed myself in natural science for a prolonged time, I am not willing to believe in a God that is an idea only. If there is no substance to my God (Yahweh), I would stop believing. And further, I have the hypothesis that the faith in the one true, existing God (if there is one) can clearly distinguish itself from believing in idea-only Gods, and can justify itself when being compared to them. Ok and that’s the reason I search for what God does today.

So what did God mean when he said: Let us make man, in our image?

Then they made one man (Adam), in their image. So is that all? God compares himself to a single person? Mmmh. Maybe there is more to it. God intended that people multiply, and it would be absurd to assume that society, as a whole, is greater / better / stronger than God is (and God has shown throughout history that this is not the case). So, and here is the new thought, might it be that family (the unit of multiplication) is meant, by God, as just another level of resemblance?

Answer: yes, that is highly probable. In the Bible, the relationship between God the Father and God the Son is often compared to the human father-son relationship, so family is probably meant to resemble God.
And, we can now reiterate that new thought level by level: a human society (like a state) is made of families, and is probably meant to be another level of resemblance. The same for the global society of all the people and other creatures, made up of smaler societies. The same for the universal society, made up of all the interstellar global societies that could potentially emerge from our earth. The same for the multiversal society that could emerge from our universe … .

Could emerge. Could. God probably wanted to see His world growing that way, form bottom up, every level of resemblance filled with love through and through. (We can even find levels of resemblance lower than the individual: how a body is made up of cells that help each other “in love”, and how a cell is made of molecules that help each other “in love”, and molecules made from atoms, each fulfilling its task in the Whole, and atoms from subatomar particles, each one fulfilling its place in the beautiful Whole.)

You can get a glimpse of the power and beauty that this whole system could grow into if you know about some complex system (say, the Linux kernel) managed by humanity. It came into existence because many humans fulfilled their task of contribution, and in essence, the result is something “transhuman”, as it can do things that individual humans cannot do. Or even, we can view it that way: all the current buzz about “transhumanism” is in vain, as it deals only with the potential that God gave us, which also means, that he wants us to utilize.

The fucking problem is that since the Fall, the Whole stopped working. The human mind, which was meant as the source of love (getting that from the relationship to God, probably), had no more love and stopped loving. As a result, all higher levels are no longer filled with (enough) love and stopped working. And the lower levels suffer, too, as people often even do not care for their own bodies, out of a lack of love. On all levels, we now have tyranny instead of love. For example on the state level, there are many dictators.

What is depressing beyond measure about this problem is that you (as an individual) cannot fix it. If you would be perfect, you would fulfill your role and place in humanity, but all your contributions might become useless and get destroyed by the acts of others, and by them NOT taking their place and fulfilling their role. As an example, take a contribution to an existing complex system like the Linux kernel: say you would contribute Ubuntu 10.10 packages for an RTAI patched kernel (which are currently missed desperately!!), but people behind other projects do not accept or forget your bugfixes etc., and finally nobody wants to take over that maintenance task from you. All contributions are virtually lost, then, even though you worked a lot.

Hopefully, the next world is better than this, again filled with love through and through. I start believing that we will be totally free from sin in that world. It will be like waking up from a bad bad dream; we have the memories of the old world, but they fade away quickly, like something totally unreal that never could have happened because it is “so bad”. It is indeed necessary that we lose all sinful qualities in the next world, as these qualities are (mainly) what we have learned in this world, and it is impossible except by supernatural means to unlearn all this (except maybe by 1000 years of training, which is a pain unworthy of the next world as it would rather be found in purgatorial fire).

The best partial solution that we can arrive at while in this world is probably only: being oneself “love filled” at 85%, and having a “85% love filled” family and “85% love filled” small society, like a church or power community. In larger scale, we will never be able to reach (or if we reach, to maintain) a “love level” of 20% or more. Also, do not be hasty: if you cannot manage yourself in love, why would you try to found a family, as that would never ne able to be love-filled either.

But what I wanted to express in the first instance: imagine that a love-filled multiverse of billions of interrelated love-filled societies on love-filled (and highly technicized) planets is just an image of God. God is even more than that all, and more beautiful than it.