Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Eric the Green]

What Bob leaves out of course is the mystical world view. It is not based on holy texts, but on observation. But it includes observation of the observer, rather than leaving him/her out. The mystical world view joins with aspects of the scientific worldview and the religious worldview, but is free from their limitations and old fashioned dogmas.

Deliberately leaving out the mystical world view is the big taboo in traditional Western culture. But it can scarcely be ignored anymore, and it is now available to all rather than to a few initiates.

Politics is not a world view. It is an application of worldviews, ethics, needs, ambitions, various ideologies, etc.; a necessary application in any civilization. But economics contains a number of ideologies, as do other social "sciences." They are not worldviews per se, but can be based on them. Science and religion too of course have many variations, ideologies and paradigms. A scientific revolution can introduce a new paradigm, and an awakening can introduce a new religion.

[pbrower2a]

(08-23-2016, 03:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-23-2016, 02:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-23-2016, 01:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Are you not a partisan? At what point did you stop being viewed as a partisan and stop associating with the same group of partisans? I've seen you try it and then I've seen you resort back to partisanship. What is partisan doing educating me and trying to advise on the negatives/dangers and general foolishness and unproductive results associated with partisanship?

I see my values as being primarily scientific (with a strong dash of Newton), secondarily political (with a strong dash of Jefferson), with religion third (with a strong dash of Jesus).  While ideally someone claiming strong scientific values might strive to answer all questions with scientific methods and certitude, in practice some problems aren't suitable for the scientific method.  Thus, I'll reluctantly fall back on more subjective and emotionally laden systems of thought.

Most importantly, my personal value systems suggest that political systems of thought don't appear out of nowhere.  They have an historical base.  They came into existence for a reason, to solve certain problems.  If one takes the effort to use the methods of the soft sciences, one can to some degree come to understand how conflicting partisan world views came to exist and why those with conflicting world views continue cling to them.

But even if one is honestly striving to understand how two conflicting world views came into being and how different folks will intensely cling to different systems, one still ends up forming opinions on which of the systems would produce better results in this particular time and place.  Yes, most often I end up leaning blue.  This particular moment in the cycles seems to call for leaning blue.  Now is not always.  Even as I call to lean blue on some issues, I'll warn of a need to swing back red at another time.  Note that even now I'm not classically blue in all respects.  See the gun policy thread.

But I'll still get as frustrated by Eric's inability to comprehend and lack of interest in comprehending any point of view other than his own as I get with your similar talents.  To say that two competing systems of thought had valid reasons for coming into existence, and that many of these reasons can still seem valid today, is not the same as saying "My system is absolutely right, any system that conflicts with it is absolutely wrong, and any individual who believes in a system that conflicts with mine is stupid, evil, insane, bribed by the Koch brothers, and / or otherwise not a member in good standing in the Community of Man.  So mote it be, now and forever, in Saint Reagan's Name, amen." 

I will not say, as you recently suggested, that it is pointless to listen to the other guys because you have an idea in your head of what they really think.  What you think they think is more important to you than what they think?  And from what you do say about what you think they think, your twisted ideas of the other guys are selected with malice and ill intent.

We do look at things differently.  I'm not sure you can understand or are interested in understanding the difference.  This isn't the first time I've tried to explain it.  As you say, it is not your way to listen.

In the meanwhile, if you state political opinion on a political form, if you want to wear big boy pants, you've got to deal with what comes back.  

From my perspective, if someone has announced an unwillingness to listen, the situation would seem to call for a larger megaphone.  To some degree I may give in to the temptation.  I'd prefer clarity, however, to volume.

How am I supposed to have a conversation with a man who represents scientific values? Do human values jive with scientific values? Are scientific values human in nature and similar to human values or are they more robotic in nature and machine oriented as far as values go? I need some clarity. Also, why do you think this a time when we should be leaning blue economically?

Science does not have values. It has rules of procedure. Those rules reduce the frequency and severity of errors. Science implies lucid hypotheses, clear criteria for establishing experimental evidence, double-blind testing, and peer review. Few activities can quite follow those rules... but science can and must. One violates those rules and has something outside science. Such gives science its credibility.

Simply attaching the word science to an intellectual effort (as in "Christian Science", "creation science", or "scientific socialism") does not make something science. The use of impressive gadgetry (as with the infamous auditing devices of $cientology)  does not create science.

Because science has no values it can be done credibly anywhere in which science have few political or religious strictures. Of course I would have little trust of 'science' that proves ISIS or the North Korean government right. There is some likely bias. A scientist in Montreal can have a peer testing his results in Moscow or Montevideo; science will be the same whatever the culture.

So here is the distinction between science and morals. Science can tell us how to create a nuclear device that will turn Paris into rubble. It takes some basic humanity to decide that turning Paris into rubble is a horrific crime. When the late great Andrei Sakharov  turned against the Frankenstein monster of the Soviet H-Bomb he acted as a responsible citizen. It's telling that governments in opposing blocs started getting their scientists to meet in cities most likely to be targeted by nukes -- places like New York, London, Paris, Prague, Leningrad (as it was then known), and Moscow... and as the scientists of the US and the USSR were being wined and dined and given trips through art galleries and getting to hear concerts and see operas or ballets, those scientists might get cold feet about the idea of Amsterdam being turned into a fine mist of what had been paintings in the Rijksmuseum, the Rijksmuseum itself, the people visiting it, and lots of other stuff.

We need science. We also need morals. The most reliable morals depend upon empathy -- and not upon some revelations of some people barely out of the hunter-gatherer stage of economic and social development. We need return to education that inculcates some ethical values in the people most likely to become powerful -- our political, economic, administrative, military, cultural, and educational leadership. We need people who will contemplate the harm that despotic choices in the name of economic gain for an elite can do.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-24-2016, 08:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What Bob leaves out of course is the mystical world view. It is not based on holy texts, but on observation. But it includes observation of the observer, rather than leaving him/her out. The mystical world view joins with aspects of the scientific worldview and the religious worldview, but is free from their limitations and old fashioned dogmas.

Deliberately leaving out the mystical world view is the big taboo in traditional Western culture. But it can scarcely be ignored anymore, and it is now available to all rather than to a few initiates.

Politics is not a world view. It is an application of worldviews, ethics, needs, ambitions, various ideologies, etc.; a necessary application in any civilization. But economics contains a number of ideologies, as do other social "sciences." They are not worldviews per se, but can be based on them. Science and religion too of course have many variations, ideologies and paradigms. A scientific revolution can introduce a new paradigm, and an awakening can introduce a new religion.

In my experience, and I've walked the mystical path a little ways, meditation is akin to self hypnosis.  It is a good way to convince one's self of things one wants to believe.  "Every day, in every way, you are getting better and better."  Knowledge gained by immersing one's self in such programs isn't objective or repeatable, but depending on the system one embraces can lead to real self improvement.  The self conditioning done by mystics isn't altogether unrelated with what some more traditional religions do through prayer.  While meditation can be a fine tool for embracing beneficial beliefs, it can also become a way of making one feel good about dogmas, of making one's self fixed and inflexible while maintaining delusions of freedom and openness.  

I consider most such systems of self improvement to be more akin to religion than science.  However, they are distinct enough from religions that I don't object to their being categorized differently.  I threw up three of the more common ways of looking at the world -- science, politics and religion -- and suggest that there are many many variations on the three.  I don't claim that there are only three, that it can't ever be meaningful to break off some group of world views and talk about them as distinct from other groups.

Certainly, I don't think to change Eric's mind on such things.

I'll mention philosophy as another possible broad category of world views. Again, there are often morale premises and guidance involved. Supernatural inspiration and heavy involvement in government are generally less prominent. There is an emphasis on observable premises (though these premises are often not provable to the standards expected by science) manipulated through logic to derive hopefully meaningful Truths. I'd also suggest that the borders between the various broad categories of world views shouldn't be seen as hard and clear. One can talk of theocracies, political science or political philosophy.

Politics is a field of human endeavor.  People who intensely focus their view of the world through the red, blue, green, marxist, libertarian or similar patterns have political world views.  There is, of course, a difference.  Eric is neither Noah Webster or Humpty Dumpty.  He can proclaim that there is a mystical world view but no political world views all he likes.  This does not make things so save in his closed world.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-24-2016, 09:16 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Science does not have values. It has rules of procedure.

I would quibble with this.  I'll throw up the value 'integrity'.  This is hardly unique to science.  It should and can be part of many diverse systems of values.  A good scientists ought to have integrity.  Of course maintaining intense integrity so that one's observations of the world remain true and objective does rather quash most other values.

(08-24-2016, 09:16 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Simply attaching the word science to an intellectual effort (as in "Christian Science", "creation science", or "scientific socialism") does not make something science. The use of impressive gadgetry (as with the infamous auditing devices of $cientology)  does not create science.

I've absolutely no quibble with that paragraph.

(08-24-2016, 09:16 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: We need science. We also need morals. The most reliable morals depend upon empathy -- and not upon some revelations of some people barely out of the hunter-gatherer stage of economic and social development. We need return to education that inculcates some ethical values in the people most likely to become powerful -- our political, economic, administrative, military, cultural, and educational leadership. We need people who will contemplate the harm that despotic choices in the name of economic gain for an elite can do.

A very mild quibble.  There is a not so subtle differences between educating folk about morality and indoctrinating them.  Ao long as this distinction is kept in mind, sure.

[Eric the Green]

(08-24-2016, 11:17 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-24-2016, 08:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What Bob leaves out of course is the mystical world view. It is not based on holy texts, but on observation. But it includes observation of the observer, rather than leaving him/her out. The mystical world view joins with aspects of the scientific worldview and the religious worldview, but is free from their limitations and old fashioned dogmas.

Deliberately leaving out the mystical world view is the big taboo in traditional Western culture. But it can scarcely be ignored anymore, and it is now available to all rather than to a few initiates.

Politics is not a world view. It is an application of worldviews, ethics, needs, ambitions, various ideologies, etc.; a necessary application in any civilization. But economics contains a number of ideologies, as do other social "sciences." They are not worldviews per se, but can be based on them. Science and religion too of course have many variations, ideologies and paradigms. A scientific revolution can introduce a new paradigm, and an awakening can introduce a new religion.

In my experience, and I've walked the mystical path a little ways, meditation is akin to self hypnosis.  It is a good way to convince one's self of things one wants to believe.  "Every day, in every way, you are getting better and better."  Knowledge gained by immersing one's self in such programs isn't objective or repeatable, but depending on the system one embraces can lead to real self improvement.  The self conditioning done by mystics isn't altogether unrelated with what some more traditional religions do through prayer.  While meditation can be a fine tool for embracing beneficial beliefs, it can also become a way of making one feel good about dogmas, of making one's self fixed and inflexible while maintaining delusions of freedom and openness.  

I consider most such systems of self improvement to be more akin to religion than science.  However, they are distinct enough from religions that I don't object to their being categorized differently.  I threw up three of the more common ways of looking at the world -- science, politics and religion -- and suggest that there are many many variations on the three.  I don't claim that there are only three, that it can't ever be meaningful to break off some group of world views and talk about them as distinct from other groups.

Certainly, I don't think to change Eric's mind on such things.

I'll mention philosophy as another possible broad category of world views. Again, there are often morale premises and guidance involved. Supernatural inspiration and heavy involvement in government are generally less prominent. There is an emphasis on observable premises (though these premises are often not provable to the standards expected by science) manipulated through logic to derive hopefully meaningful Truths. I'd also suggest that the borders between the various broad categories of world views shouldn't be seen as hard and clear. One can talk of theocracies, political science or political philosophy.

Politics is a field of human endeavor.  People who intensely focus their view of the world through the red, blue, green, marxist, libertarian or similar patterns have political world views.  There is, of course, a difference.  Eric is neither Noah Webster or Humpty Dumpty.  He can proclaim that there is a mystical world view but no political world views all he likes.  This does not make things so save in his closed world.

Usually those who have not had a certain basic mystical insight, or have only walked the path "a little ways," can't understand or agree with that worldview. However, that's no excuse today for not even mentioning it. It is well-known to exist, and to be highly respected and venerated by substantial folks. To ignore it, is just to be subject to the Western taboo. You certainly can't lump it with religion, since most religious folks have no clue about it, and are often quite eager to denounce it.

Politics is a mode of action, but it does employ ideologies, which I suppose one could call worldviews, even though they are shallow ones, not having a metaphysical component, one might say. I suppose if one says that politics is the only thing or the primary thing that humans need to do or think about, that would be a "worldview." Philosophy is not necessarily a world view; it is a study of worldviews. Science is not necessarily a worldview either; it is a method of study, but has certain assumptions that tend toward a physicalist worldview. But not necessarily. Only if someone has the view that science is the best or only way to truth, does it become a world view. Philosophy or religion could become worldviews on that basis as well.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-25-2016, 01:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Usually those who have not had a certain basic mystical insight, or have only walked the path "a little ways," can't understand or agree with that worldview. However, that's no excuse today for not even mentioning it. It is well-known to exist, and to be highly respected and venerated by substantial folks. To ignore it, is just to be subject to the Western taboo. You certainly can't lump it with religion, since most religious folks have no clue about it, and are often quite eager to denounce it.

Politics is a mode of action, but it does employ ideologies, which I suppose one could call worldviews, even though they are shallow ones, not having a metaphysical component, one might say. I suppose if one says that politics is the only thing or the primary thing that humans need to do or think about, that would be a "worldview." Philosophy is not necessarily a world view; it is a study of worldviews. Science is not necessarily a worldview either; it is a method of study, but has certain assumptions that tend toward a physicalist worldview. But not necessarily. Only if someone has the view that science is the best or only way to truth, does it become a world view. Philosophy or religion could become worldviews on that basis as well.

Usually those who have not completed a certain degree of conditioning are not completely conditioned.  If one has not accepted Dearest Leader's program for restoring Agricultural Age autocratic values, one of course must be returned to the secret police for further advanced mind altering sessions.  (Some discomfort required.)  Until then, Dearest Leader's vision for world conquest will not be fully embraced and accepted.

I'd suggest that the notion that one's own world view is special, and that all other world views are shallow to the degree that they differ from one's own, would be universal and relativistic.  The more different someone else's way of looking at the world is, the less valid it seems.  'Shallow' isn't the only possible word to describe 'different'.  Often, if someone has a strongly different political world view, it is easy to see him as evil, stupid, insane, deluded, etc...  Scan these forums for exchanges of insults for examples of this.

I'm not immune.  I'm heavily into the scientific approach, and won't latch firmly onto a perspective or paradigm unless I can confirm it by observing it working in the world.  I occasionally find myself attempting to communicate with someone wholly immersed and committed to some millennia old text steeped in Agricultural Age autocratic thinking.  The words I'd use to describe such would make 'shallow' seem a faint gentle rebuke.  It is easy to understand why so many will reach for words like evil, stupid or insane.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-24-2016, 05:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm…  Do I really need to explain my concept of a scientific world view?  Really?  Well, maybe I do.  I’ve lived with it for so long as part of my way of looking at things that I find it hard to think others might not see things that way.

I try to put science ahead of politics ahead of religion.  If a political system says supply side stimulus is good, that one should always take from the poor to give to the rich, and I see economic failures when the theory is put into practice, I would learn from observing the world rather than cling to political speeches and theories claiming how wonderful supply side is.  On the other hand, some buy very much into politicians and politics, will follow sets of political principles rigidly, and avoid looking at how poorly the political promises and predictions match what occurs on the streets.

This is just one more convoluted way of categorizing how different people look at the world differently.

Hmm...Do I really need to explain why a boiler isn't operating properly or not working at all? Really? Well, maybe I do considering there's a human involved who owns the property who will be paying for the bill or suffering from the effects of living living in a cold home. OK. You place science above everything else and your life revolves around science. You don't go to bathroom or leave home without science or science's permission. Question. I place God's opinion of me above all. Has very much changed in your community or your life since 1980? If nothing much has changed in ones community or in ones life since 1980 and one hasn't seen much as far as signs of progress, I can see/understand why ones view of supply side economics isn't similar to mine. We live and we function in different worlds. I associate just about everything that I've seen as far as community growth, modernization and technological advancement within my community, my state, my nation and my life with supply side economics.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-25-2016, 07:23 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Hmm...Do I really need to explain why your boiler isn't operating properly or not working at all? Really? Well, maybe I do considering there's a human involved with decisions who owns the property who will be paying the bill. OK. You place science above everything and your life revolves around science. You don't go to bathroom without science or science's permission. Question. If you fall in a hole and can't get out are you going to wait for science or pray for science or call out science to either help or assist you with getting out of the hole. I place God's opinion of me above all. Has very much changed in your community or your life since 1980? If nothing much has changed in your community or in your life since 1980 and you haven't seen much as far as signs of progress, I can see why your view of supply side economics isn't similar to mine. We live and we function in different worlds. I associate just about everything that I've seen as far as community growth, modernization and technological advancement within my community, my state, my nation and my life with supply side economics.

I do a lot of Dungeons and Dragons style role playing games.  I create a heroic character that moves with other player created heroes through an imaginary world run by the game master.  It’s similar to other forms of fiction using the action-adventure style of plot and story.  Bad guy threatens decent people.  Heroes rise to stop bad guy.  The difference is that players are running the various heroes.  They get to make decisions.  One is a participant in the fiction rather than just an observer.  That makes a difference for a lot of folk.

In one particular high epic game, my very influential superhero-air elemental-sorceress was angry at God and his angels.  They weren’t pulling their weight.  Everyone from the US fleet to the armies of the high elves was struggling to suppress  the vile monstrous Great Cthulhu and his minions of ugliness, perversion and insanity.  Where was God?  The game master decided that Talora had enough pull, had sacrificed enough in the cause, was sincere enough in asking the question, that a couple of angels would manifest and answer her question.  She brought with her a few dedicated Christian clerics, as powerful and courageous in their use of magics as she.

As soon as the angels manifest, the clerics went down on their knees, touched foreheads to the ground, and submitted themselves totally in worship.

Talora’s immediate comment to the angels?   “I see your problem.”

In Glenn’s game reality, God couldn’t overtly aid humans.  They must be left alone to develop their strength and learn to solve things themselves.  God couldn’t overtly advise or direct humans.  The must learn to look at the world and make their own choices.  Oh, subtle signs of guidance and covert aid might sometimes be needed and provided, but humans must never, ever come to depend on it.  Thus, while God and his angels were active in fighting Cthulhu, they were nigh on an invisible presence, their aid subtle, hidden, out of sight, but if one knew how to look for it they were doing very much indeed.

This revelation of the Angels according to Glenn echoes my own pursuit of God.  I found God doesn’t communicate clearly.  You seem to believe you hear him, the Pope seems to believe he hears him, and the leaders of ISIS seem to believe they hear him.  Lots of folks believe they hear him.  Clearly they hear different messages.  An awful lot of death and ugliness is done by people listening to God.  A good part of the reason religion is at the bottom of my world view tree is that it is a piss poor way of learning about the world and how to act in the world.

A few messages up, I gave Eric my view on mystic meditation.  It is a good way to reinforce beliefs one wants to become sure of.  I see those who think they are listening to God’s voice as being in much the same place.  They will hear what they want to hear.  You will hear God praising supply side economics.  The pope will hear God calling for charity and love.  ISIS will hear demands for a return to Allah’s most strict Agricultural Age law and tyranny.  Of the three, I’m inclined to believe the Pope is on the right track, but I had in my youth and have no reason to believe now that if God is speaking I will be able to hear him any better than anyone else.

Thus, I turned to observing His creation.  One learns of the world by observing the world.  God speaks through all that exists.  One has to pay attention to His reality, respect it, nurture it, and stop pretending that He will whisper short cuts in the back of one’s head.  Those voices are more apt to be what one wants to hear than what God might be saying.  God isn’t in one’s head.  He is in the World.

You missed one point, or perhaps I wasn’t clear on it.  Science is dominant for me for problems that can be solved cleanly by observing the world, through scientific methods.  Not all problems can be so solved.  Pbrower quite reasonably suggested that science has no values.  I quibbled that science has integrity.  One must look at the world honestly and intensely.  Integrity is important, but Man cannot live by integrity alone.  Love, affection, community, security and so much more are part of Man’s existence.  Valuing science does not make one a Vulcan, devoid of all emotion.  There is more to being human than that.  Thus, when a problem cannot be directly resolved by observation and experiment, one has to solve problems using political, philosophical and religious principles.  Surely you don’t think I disassociate myself from political world views and methods?  I know you aren’t particularly good at listening, but surely you have noticed that I dabble in politics?

So, looking at the world…  At the end of Bush 41’s time in office, the economy was a mess.  I considered this a sign of supply side economic’s failure.  At the end of Bush 43’s time in office, the economy was a huge ugly mess.  I considered this a clear and undoubtable sign of supply side economic’s failure.  As I outlined a few days back, I had a fairly clean economic life.  I had a healthy career and have a comfortable retirement.  My niece and nephew didn’t do so well during their life times thus far dominated by supply side.  My nephew couldn’t afford his own house, and found himself forced into a four generation household.  It has recently become a three generation household, but only through the death of the eldest.  My niece got through college with considerable debt and was unable to find work in her chosen field.  For years she bounced desperately from job to job.  She has only recently got her toe back in the door of her chosen profession.  From all I have heard their experiences are hardly unique.  Such problems are chronic for their generation.

Then there is the analytic side.  Working from a scientific perspective, one should strive to understand the forces working to cause the observed effects.  There are times when entrepreneurs cannot find the capitol to invest in new factories, new jobs, new products.  This can be a genuine crimp on the economy.  In such a case, if the supply of goods is the limit on the economy, supply side stimulus can be useful.  Take money from the poor.  Give it to the rich.  They will invest it in such a way that the entrepreneurs will create products, jobs and cash flow.

At the moment, interest rates are very very low.  The investing class as achieved a very very high division of wealth, holding a huge percentage of the money supply.  It is not particularly difficult to go to Wall Street and raise money by floating new stocks.  Entrepreneurs are having no difficulty funding new projects.  In short, at this particular time, there is absolutely no need at all to take from the poor to give to the rich.  Some supply side stimulus might have been helpful in Reagan’s time, but supply side is not a doctrine that should be applied always and heavily.  It is a doctrine that requires choosing the right time and the right amount.  One can definitely over do it.  The Bushes did overdo it, driving the economy down twice.

There are other doctrines that also require timing and nuance.  If employment and wages are low and the common people don’t have the money to buy goods, demand side stimulus injecting money into main street can be at least as helpful as supply side.  Main Street simply need help getting moving again more than Wall Street does.  Given the current extreme division of wealth, now is far more a time for demand side than supply side.  

Keynes also suggested that stimulus is appropriate during economic hard times, but one should buy down the debt in good times.  While there is clearly a greater need for demand side stimulus than supply side stimulus right now, one could also look at the extremely high debt and perhaps try to avoid either form of stimulus for a time.

That’s my triangle, my simple understanding of the economy, or at least this is as involved as I’d want to try to get on an internet forum.  This post is too long as it is.  One has to be aware of both types of stimulus and Keynes.  It is not a question of selecting which of the three tools for handling the economy is the best and going balls to the wall all out all the time with one of the three.  One has to look at the world.  One has to be aware of what is going on rather than focusing on the voices in the back of one’s head.  One has to be very aware of things like the division of wealth and size of the debt.

[pbrower2a]

(08-25-2016, 07:23 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-24-2016, 05:11 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Hmm…  Do I really need to explain my concept of a scientific world view?  Really?  Well, maybe I do.  I’ve lived with it for so long as part of my way of looking at things that I find it hard to think others might not see things that way.

I try to put science ahead of politics ahead of religion.  If a political system says supply side stimulus is good, that one should always take from the poor to give to the rich, and I see economic failures when the theory is put into practice, I would learn from observing the world rather than cling to political speeches and theories claiming how wonderful supply side is.  On the other hand, some buy very much into politicians and politics, will follow sets of political principles rigidly, and avoid looking at how poorly the political promises and predictions match what occurs on the streets.

This is just one more convoluted way of categorizing how different people look at the world differently.

Hmm...Do I really need to explain why your boiler isn't operating properly or not working at all? Really? Well, maybe I do considering there's a human involved with decisions who owns the property who will be paying the bill. OK. You place science above everything and your life revolves around science. You don't go to bathroom without science or science's permission. Question. If you fall in a hole and can't get out are you going to wait for science or pray for science or call out science to either help or assist you with getting out of the hole. I place God's opinion of me above all. Question. If you fall in a hole and can't get out are you going to wait for science or pray for science or call out science to either help or assist you with getting out of the hole. I place God's opinion of me above all. Has very much changed in your community or your life since 1980?, I can see why your view of supply side economics isn't similar to mine. We live and we function in different worlds. I associate just about everything that I've seen as far as community growth, modernization and technological advancement within my community, my state, my nation and my life with supply side economics.

You use rational processes to determine what is wrong with a boiler so that you can repair or replace the boiler at minimal cost to the owner of the property. The property will make the most rational choice possible  based upon economic reality. Reality does not include that you be stiffed. But this said, boilers do not go out routinely; their failures. whatever their cause, require some thought for repair or replacement.  I would guess that I could think of a mathematical model that determines whether to repair or replace a failed boiler. If repair is more costly than replacement then one gets the boiler replaced. If simply repairing the boiler implies the certainty of another failure that will require another repair  and stop the use of the boiler with expensive down time, then then one may choose to replace the boiler. But that is a complex choice, one suitable for adult discretion. It cannot be learned behavior to be done automatically.

In contrast one finds complex behaviors that one must learn as a child (like the upright gait, human language. toilet use, and some minimal ethics) so that we can fit into a human world. We learn this as children or we never learn such at all. If some calamity such as a stroke or senile dementia causes us to lose those abilities, then we are in big trouble. Those are difficult to relearn as adults. I'm not going to speculate on why we are unable to relearn such behavior easily as adults, as after a stroke.  One does such things with little thought, or one is in big trouble. Science might have explanations, but this Forum is not technical enough for this. Besides, if I were an expert at humkan development at the level of a PhD, I would not be on this Forum explaining the intricacies of human development. A layman, I can at best regurgitate what I may have learned at the level of an undergraduate college course. Such is not my intention here.

Quote:Question. If you fall in a hole and can't get out are you going to wait for science or pray for science or call out science to either help or assist you with getting out of the hole. I place God's opinion of me above all.

If you believe in either science, God, or both, then you will not let either be your sole means of attempting to escape a dangerous circumstance. You will call for help. You will try to extricate yourself from the dangerous situation. Need I say more/ If God cannot be relied upon for miracles, then science does not lend itself to offering miracles.

Quote:Question. If you fall in a hole and can't get out are you going to wait for science or pray for science or call out science to either help or assist you with getting out of the hole. I place God's opinion of me above all. Has very much changed in your community or your life since 1980?

I see little progress since 1980 in American life except for technology, something generally independent of Divine Intervention and often contradicting the will of economic elites. I see mostly the intensification of economic disparities, with mass poverty offered as an engine of progress. The only unqualified good is recognition of handicap rights (too late for the one that I have) or the legalization of same-sex marriage.

How long will most Americans accept the Moloch that is economic inequality characteristic of a fascist military junta? When Americans quit acquiescing in their own suffering on behalf of economic elites, then we have probably gone into the Regeneracy. Most of what gets rejected in a 4T is the junky ideas and practices of a 3T -- bad politics, bad mass culture, and bad business practices. Such of the junk to be cast off will likely include supply-side economics, especially when more production can do little to create more happiness.

Maybe should we end up in need of Divine Aid -- Abraham Lincoln once said that we cannot trust that we have God on our side unless we are on His Side. But being on God's Side does not guarantee good results. Just think of the desperate uprising of the Warsaw Ghetto. I  am satisfied that Judaism was far closer to being on God's Side than was the ethical void of Nazism. But that is theology, something on which I am no expert.

Heck, were I God I would have brought plagues upon Germany even more devastating than those of ancient Egypt. Maybe I would have even converted the Germans, the gentiles most similar by culture to the Jewish victims of Nazism, to Judaism. There was nothing wrong with the German people between 1933 and 1945 that Judaism would not have solved. I say this as someone roughly half German and Swiss origin with no Jewish ancestry.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-25-2016, 11:24 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-25-2016, 07:23 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Question. If you fall in a hole and can't get out are you going to wait for science or pray for science or call out science to either help or assist you with getting out of the hole. I place God's opinion of me above all.

If you believe in either science, God, or both, then you will not let either be your sole means of attempting to escape a dangerous circumstance. You will call for help. You will try to extricate yourself from the dangerous situation. Need I say more/ If God cannot be relied upon for miracles, then science does not lend itself to offering miracles.

Personally, if I were concerned about falling into holes, and if I were given a choice between a cell phone and a crucifix as a precaution against the threat, I'd go with the cell phone.

[Eric the Green]

(08-25-2016, 04:01 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-25-2016, 01:01 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Usually those who have not had a certain basic mystical insight, or have only walked the path "a little ways," can't understand or agree with that worldview. However, that's no excuse today for not even mentioning it. It is well-known to exist, and to be highly respected and venerated by substantial folks. To ignore it, is just to be subject to the Western taboo. You certainly can't lump it with religion, since most religious folks have no clue about it, and are often quite eager to denounce it.

Politics is a mode of action, but it does employ ideologies, which I suppose one could call worldviews, even though they are shallow ones, not having a metaphysical component, one might say. I suppose if one says that politics is the only thing or the primary thing that humans need to do or think about, that would be a "worldview." Philosophy is not necessarily a world view; it is a study of worldviews. Science is not necessarily a worldview either; it is a method of study, but has certain assumptions that tend toward a physicalist worldview. But not necessarily. Only if someone has the view that science is the best or only way to truth, does it become a world view. Philosophy or religion could become worldviews on that basis as well.

Usually those who have not completed a certain degree of conditioning are not completely conditioned.  If one has not accepted Dearest Leader's program for restoring Agricultural Age autocratic values, one of course must be returned to the secret police for further advanced mind altering sessions.  (Some discomfort required.)  Until then, Dearest Leader's vision for world conquest will not be fully embraced and accepted.

I'd suggest that the notion that one's own world view is special, and that all other world views are shallow to the degree that they differ from one's own, would be universal and relativistic.  The more different someone else's way of looking at the world is, the less valid it seems.  'Shallow' isn't the only possible word to describe 'different'.  Often, if someone has a strongly different political world view, it is easy to see him as evil, stupid, insane, deluded, etc...  Scan these forums for exchanges of insults for examples of this.

I'm not immune.  I'm heavily into the scientific approach, and won't latch firmly onto a perspective or paradigm unless I can confirm it by observing it working in the world.  I occasionally find myself attempting to communicate with someone wholly immersed and committed to some millennia old text steeped in Agricultural Age autocratic thinking.  The words I'd use to describe such would make 'shallow' seem a faint gentle rebuke.  It is easy to understand why so many will reach for words like evil, stupid or insane.

What is "working in the world," though? What works is not just what puts out a working car or toaster, or even the best economic numbers. Working is what creates fulfillment and satisfaction. A good ethical or metaphysical worldview works better in those respects than a poor one.

Shallow as I used it just refers to whether the metaphysics on which the worldview is based has been examined. All worldviews are metaphysical, which means based on some basic axioms or truths. A "political" world view is unlikely to be one in which its metaphysics has been examined. Supply side or trickle-down, free-market economics is based on a metaphysics that says humans are competing individuals. But the examination of those concepts doesn't go much further than that. So that means it's "shallow." So is a "worldview" that says humans are members of struggling classes or races. Etc. I feel that you already know this obvious fact, but would rather have the argument. Well, I'll go along, for the moment....

[playwrite]

This is the funniest thing on the Internet today!

[img][/img]


Ann Coulter's Fabulous Twitter Meltdown: My Book! My Book!


Who's left to vote for this guy?  Cynic Hero and Classic Xer???

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-25-2016, 11:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: What is "working in the world," though? What works is not just what puts out a working car or toaster, or even the best economic numbers. Working is what creates fulfillment and satisfaction. A good ethical or metaphysical worldview works better in those respects than a poor one.

Shallow as I used it just refers to whether the metaphysics on which the worldview is based has been examined. All worldviews are metaphysical, which means based on some basic axioms or truths. A "political" world view is unlikely to be one in which its metaphysics has been examined. Supply side or trickle-down, free-market economics is based on a metaphysics that says humans are competing individuals. But the examination of those concepts doesn't go much further than that. So that means it's "shallow." So is a "worldview" that says humans are members of struggling classes or races. Etc. I feel that you already know this obvious fact, but would rather have the argument. Well, I'll go along, for the moment....

I fear 'what is working in the world' depends on one's world view. For you, a metaphysical world view with a life examined using certain tools and methods is necessary. For someone else, economic security can be a dominant concern. Production of cars or toasters would seem far more important than meditating upon one's navel. You might come across as an aging California hippie who has used too many mind altering substances, totally out of it and irrelevant. A pay check. Getting the kids through college. That's what life is about.

When you say 'all worldviews are metaphysical' you are speaking from the perspective of a metaphysical world view. You can sincerely believe it. I doubt you can conceive it as being any other way, you are so absolutely rigidly stuck in your own perspective. I suppose you could make it so by definition if you claim world views are metaphysical constructs. Still, in the sense where I'm describing world views as being dominated by science, religion, politics, philosophy, or some other way of understanding the world, there are large bunches of people whose dominant ways of looking at the world are not broad category philosophy, narrower category metaphysical. There are lots of people whose sense of satisfaction and place in the world is far more defined by whether their football team is winning than by reading Aristotle or meditating on navels.

I hate to tell you, Eric, but you aren't particularly normal. Classic is also intensely dedicated to an extreme partisan position, but I'm feeling he's part of or on the edges of a very large number of people coming from more or less the same place. Your perspective, if not unique, would be very rare. I do get frustrated by extreme conservatives telling me how all liberals think, and by implication telling me how I think. I would not assume that other people think like you and are trying to satisfy the same goals you are pursuing and won't be satisfied if they don't achieve the same goals you seek.

I mean, it isn't important whether one has meditated today or not today. I haven't meditated for a long time. Haven't missed it. The important question is whether Tom Brady will be ready to go come Week 5. Go Patriots! Well, not really, but one's values define the goals one seeks, what gives one satisfaction. Values are diverse. One absolutely cannot assume that everyone pursues the same goals, that what makes one individual satisfied will please everyone else.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-25-2016, 01:06 PM)playwrite Wrote: Who's left to vote for this guy?  Cynic Hero and Classic Xer???

I understand his wife, his daughters and Kinser are still hanging in. Just family.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-25-2016, 01:06 PM)playwrite Wrote: This is the funniest thing on the Internet today!

[img][/img]


Ann Coulter's Fabulous Twitter Meltdown: My Book! My Book!


Who's left to vote for this guy?  Cynic Hero and Classic Xer???

41-42% of the electorate. Are you ready to embrace the Republicans and their followers who you blamed for the 2008 crash? Good luck with the banana republic during the crisis. Which revolution scares you more as far as finding your yourself directly caught up in, the French Revolution or the American Revolution? The common belief that Bob and I share is harsh lessons must learned in order to bring change. BTW, Anne Coulter ain't my type.

[pbrower2a]

(08-25-2016, 03:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-25-2016, 01:06 PM)playwrite Wrote: This is the funniest thing on the Internet today!

[img][/img]


Ann Coulter's Fabulous Twitter Meltdown: My Book! My Book!


Who's left to vote for this guy?  Cynic Hero and Classic Xer???

41-42% of the electorate. Are you ready to embrace the Republicans and their followers who you blamed for the 2008 crash? Good luck with the banana republic during the crisis. Which revolution scares you more as far as finding your yourself directly caught up in, the French Revolution or the American Revolution? The common belief that Bob and I share is harsh lessons must learned in order to bring change. BTW, Anne Coulter ain't my type.

Unless one has roughly a 40-40-20 split of the electorate, 41% of the electorate will not be enough to get your man elected. In a binary election? 41% of the electorate is about what Mondale got in 1984. Unless Gary Johnson gets 10% or more of the vote this November, Donald Trump is going to get more than 41% of the vote.

By the way -- most Republicans had no culpability in the sesquiannum of 1929-style meltdown (it really was that bad and dangerous). The voters had no culpability. Elected officials did for sponsoring an economic bubble that burst. The generational cycle suggests that we aren't in for another bubble like those of the 1920s or the Double-Zero Decade for a very long time -- maybe the 2080s. We will have other problems.

I can't speak for playwrite; I can speak only for myself. The early part of this decade should have been a wonderful time for major reforms of the system. The Crisis will not be over until we make great institutional reforms of business, academia, and politics. The difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution was to no small part that concentration of wealth and economic power was not so severe outside of slave-holding areas in America as they were throughout France before 1789 -- and that in France before the Revolution the ruling elites acted with callow selfishness and no conscience. Make bureaucratic power practically heritable and the relevant analogue to the US this time will be the French Revolution.

[Classic-Xer]

(08-25-2016, 02:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-25-2016, 11:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: What is "working in the world," though? What works is not just what puts out a working car or toaster, or even the best economic numbers. Working is what creates fulfillment and satisfaction. A good ethical or metaphysical worldview works better in those respects than a poor one.

Shallow as I used it just refers to whether the metaphysics on which the worldview is based has been examined. All worldviews are metaphysical, which means based on some basic axioms or truths. A "political" world view is unlikely to be one in which its metaphysics has been examined. Supply side or trickle-down, free-market economics is based on a metaphysics that says humans are competing individuals. But the examination of those concepts doesn't go much further than that. So that means it's "shallow." So is a "worldview" that says humans are members of struggling classes or races. Etc. I feel that you already know this obvious fact, but would rather have the argument. Well, I'll go along, for the moment....

I fear 'what is working in the world' depends on one's world view.  For you, a metaphysical world view with a life examined using certain tools and methods is necessary.  For someone else, economic security can be a dominant concern.  Production of cars or toasters would seem far more important than meditating upon one's navel.  You might come across as an aging California hippie who has used too many mind altering substances, totally out of it and irrelevant.  A pay check.  Getting the kids through college.  That's what life is about.

When you say 'all worldviews are metaphysical' you are speaking from the perspective of a metaphysical world view.  You can sincerely believe it.  I doubt you can conceive it as being any other way, you are so absolutely rigidly stuck in your own perspective.  I suppose you could make it so by definition if you claim world views are metaphysical constructs.  Still, in the sense where I'm describing world views as being dominated by science, religion, politics, philosophy, or some other way of understanding the world, there are large bunches of people whose dominant ways of looking at the world are not broad category philosophy, narrower category metaphysical.  There are lots of people whose sense of satisfaction and place in the world is far more defined by whether their football team is winning than by reading Aristotle or meditating on navels.

I hate to tell you, Eric, but you aren't particularly normal.  Classic is also intensely dedicated to an extreme partisan position, but I'm feeling he's part of or on the edges of a very large number of people coming from more or less the same place.  Your perspective, if not unique, would be very rare.  I do get frustrated by extreme conservatives telling me how all liberals think, and by implication telling me how I think.  I would not assume that other people think like you and are trying to satisfy the same goals you are pursuing and won't be satisfied if they don't achieve the same goals you seek.

I mean, it isn't important whether one has meditated today or not today.  I haven't meditated for a long time.  Haven't missed it.  The important question is whether Tom Brady will be ready to go come Week 5.  Go Patriots!   Well, not really, but one's values define the goals one seeks, what gives one satisfaction.  Values are diverse.  One absolutely cannot assume that everyone pursues the same goals, that what makes one individual satisfied will please everyone else.

Neither of you are particularly normal people. How many people do you know can identify with scientific or mystic values? Americans generally come from more or less the same place. A place we call America. You are correct. America has millions who are still tied to American values and the American beliefs that are directly associated with it. Are you familiar with American values? You should be since you been running into them and being pounded by them by a dedicated American that you claim to view as being extreme. I can be an extremely partisan American. Ask yourself a question, is it wise to be be politically associated with people who carry Mexican flags while they're burning an American flag? Is it wise to be associated with racists of other colors? Do Democrats deserve what's eventually coming them? You bet. Do I like Trump or the way he acts? Nope. Do I like Trump vs Hillary? You bet. I can think of no better candidate to unleash against Hillary Clinton.

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-25-2016, 06:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Neither of you are particularly normal people.

I can agree with this with considerable enthusiasm.  Eric and I agree with quite a few blue positions, but Eric's mystical slant an my own odd way of looking at things aren't typical.  If I were asked to nominate someone to go on a talk show representing a typical representative of blue values, I'd nominate neither Eric nor myself.

(08-25-2016, 06:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: How many people do you know can identify with scientific or mystic values?

Quite a few, actually.  I worked at a high tech firm on the Route 128 corridor.  I knew a lot of engineers with strong scientific learn-from-the-world ways of looking at things.  That's part of why I was puzzled when you needed to be explained what a scientific world view is.  Around here, I'm not used to having to explain that.  

For a time in my 20s I was actively pursuing the mystical path.  In my experience there are far more scientific and technical people out there than mystical people, but if you look for mystical people one can find them... at least in heavily populated well educated areas like Greater Boston.  I suspect urban California would be similar.  The middle of the country?  I haven't spent significant time there, and when I was there I wasn't in my mystical phase, but I suspect mystics would be rare indeed.

(08-25-2016, 06:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Americans generally come from more or less the same place. A place we call America. You are correct. America has millions who are still tied to American values and the American beliefs that are directly associated with it. Are you familiar with American values? You should be since you been running into them and being pounded by them by a dedicated American that you claim to view as being extreme. I can be an extremely partisan American. Ask yourself a question, is it wise to be be politically associated with people who carry Mexican flags while they're burning an American flag? Is it wise to be associated with racists of other colors? Do Democrats deserve what's eventually coming them? You bet. Do I like Trump or the way he acts? Nope. Do I like Trump vs Hillary? You bet. I can think of no better candidate to unleash against Hillary Clinton.

You are definitely confusing rural red America with America.  You are more or less representative of a whole bunch of folk who share red values.  Ignore the science.  Believe the politician's promises.  Assume one has an ability to read God's mind.  There are similar numbers of people who share blue values.  Depending on where you look, you will find more of one or more of the other.  Depending on when you look, you will find more of one or the other.  The blue New Deal values were born in crisis and dominated through high and awakening.  The red have dominated the unravelling.  I don't see this as accident.  The blue New Deal values of coming together to work for the common good in desperate times reflect what needs to be done in a crisis.  The red take from the poor to give to the rich selfish indulgence is an unraveling thing.

But both the red and the blue are American.  FDR is at least as American as Reagan.  While you seem optimistic that your part of America can continue to dominate, looking at the polls for the upcoming election and looking at demographic data showing younger voters are coming in more secular and Democratic, I can't agree with you.

[Eric the Green]

(08-25-2016, 02:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-25-2016, 11:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: What is "working in the world," though? What works is not just what puts out a working car or toaster, or even the best economic numbers. Working is what creates fulfillment and satisfaction. A good ethical or metaphysical worldview works better in those respects than a poor one.

Shallow as I used it just refers to whether the metaphysics on which the worldview is based has been examined. All worldviews are metaphysical, which means based on some basic axioms or truths. A "political" world view is unlikely to be one in which its metaphysics has been examined. Supply side or trickle-down, free-market economics is based on a metaphysics that says humans are competing individuals. But the examination of those concepts doesn't go much further than that. So that means it's "shallow." So is a "worldview" that says humans are members of struggling classes or races. Etc. I feel that you already know this obvious fact, but would rather have the argument. Well, I'll go along, for the moment....

I fear 'what is working in the world' depends on one's world view. For you, a metaphysical world view with a life examined using certain tools and methods is necessary. For someone else, economic security can be a dominant concern. Production of cars or toasters would seem far more important than meditating upon one's navel. You might come across as an aging California hippie who has used too many mind altering substances, totally out of it and irrelevant. A pay check. Getting the kids through college. That's what life is about.

I have to say again, although I think you know; ALL world views are "metaphysical," meaning the first concepts or axioms you hold. People who hold a pragmatic world view, may not have examined it much, but it is a metaphysics none the less.

Quote:When you say 'all worldviews are metaphysical' you are speaking from the perspective of a metaphysical world view. .

Same reply. It is indisputable fact, not a rigid worldview, to say so. Everybody knows this fact, whether admitted or not. Everyone has a metaphysics. That's like saying that everyone has a worldview; probably the same meaning, except that the worldview is a more "filled-out" point of view based on the metaphysics, which may or may not be self-examined.

Quote:I hate to tell you, Eric, but you aren't particularly normal. Classic is also intensely dedicated to an extreme partisan position, but I'm feeling he's part of or on the edges of a very large number of people coming from more or less the same place. Your perspective, if not unique, would be very rare. I do get frustrated by extreme conservatives telling me how all liberals think, and by implication telling me how I think. I would not assume that other people think like you and are trying to satisfy the same goals you are pursuing and won't be satisfied if they don't achieve the same goals you seek.

Gee, I thought I was perfectly and particularly normal. If you believe that, I've got some California real estate for sale at Mississippi prices.

Quote:I mean, it isn't important whether one has meditated today or not today. I haven't meditated for a long time. Haven't missed it. The important question is whether Tom Brady will be ready to go come Week 5. Go Patriots! Well, not really, but one's values define the goals one seeks, what gives one satisfaction. Values are diverse. One absolutely cannot assume that everyone pursues the same goals, that what makes one individual satisfied will please everyone else.

Yes, it's important to meditate. No, not everyone realizes it. Meditation is just something useful, just like eating right. Or speaking and writing well. etc. One realizes it, or not. Some people are more skilled, and value skills, in some things rather than others. And I root for the Giants.

[Eric the Green]

(08-25-2016, 06:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-25-2016, 02:33 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-25-2016, 11:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: What is "working in the world," though? What works is not just what puts out a working car or toaster, or even the best economic numbers. Working is what creates fulfillment and satisfaction. A good ethical or metaphysical worldview works better in those respects than a poor one.

Shallow as I used it just refers to whether the metaphysics on which the worldview is based has been examined. All worldviews are metaphysical, which means based on some basic axioms or truths. A "political" world view is unlikely to be one in which its metaphysics has been examined. Supply side or trickle-down, free-market economics is based on a metaphysics that says humans are competing individuals. But the examination of those concepts doesn't go much further than that. So that means it's "shallow." So is a "worldview" that says humans are members of struggling classes or races. Etc. I feel that you already know this obvious fact, but would rather have the argument. Well, I'll go along, for the moment....

I fear 'what is working in the world' depends on one's world view.  For you, a metaphysical world view with a life examined using certain tools and methods is necessary.  For someone else, economic security can be a dominant concern.  Production of cars or toasters would seem far more important than meditating upon one's navel.  You might come across as an aging California hippie who has used too many mind altering substances, totally out of it and irrelevant.  A pay check.  Getting the kids through college.  That's what life is about.

When you say 'all worldviews are metaphysical' you are speaking from the perspective of a metaphysical world view.  You can sincerely believe it.  I doubt you can conceive it as being any other way, you are so absolutely rigidly stuck in your own perspective.  I suppose you could make it so by definition if you claim world views are metaphysical constructs.  Still, in the sense where I'm describing world views as being dominated by science, religion, politics, philosophy, or some other way of understanding the world, there are large bunches of people whose dominant ways of looking at the world are not broad category philosophy, narrower category metaphysical.  There are lots of people whose sense of satisfaction and place in the world is far more defined by whether their football team is winning than by reading Aristotle or meditating on navels.

I hate to tell you, Eric, but you aren't particularly normal.  Classic is also intensely dedicated to an extreme partisan position, but I'm feeling he's part of or on the edges of a very large number of people coming from more or less the same place.  Your perspective, if not unique, would be very rare.  I do get frustrated by extreme conservatives telling me how all liberals think, and by implication telling me how I think.  I would not assume that other people think like you and are trying to satisfy the same goals you are pursuing and won't be satisfied if they don't achieve the same goals you seek.

I mean, it isn't important whether one has meditated today or not today.  I haven't meditated for a long time.  Haven't missed it.  The important question is whether Tom Brady will be ready to go come Week 5.  Go Patriots!   Well, not really, but one's values define the goals one seeks, what gives one satisfaction.  Values are diverse.  One absolutely cannot assume that everyone pursues the same goals, that what makes one individual satisfied will please everyone else.

Neither of you are particularly normal people. How many people do you know can identify with scientific or mystic values? Americans generally come from more or less the same place. A place we call America. You are correct. America has millions who are still tied to American values and the American beliefs that are directly associated with it. Are you familiar with American values? You should be since you been running into them and being pounded by them by a dedicated American that you claim to view as being extreme. I can be an extremely partisan American. Ask yourself a question, is it wise to be be politically associated with people who carry Mexican flags while they're burning an American flag? Is it wise to be associated with racists of other colors? Do Democrats deserve what's eventually coming them? You bet. Do I like Trump or the way he acts? Nope. Do I like Trump vs Hillary? You bet. I can think of no better candidate to unleash against Hillary Clinton.

You forgot Obama's speech. https://youtu.be/OFPwDe22CoY

"A belief in things not seen. A belief that there's better days ahead" Kinda familiar..... ya think....../////