Nature of reality; Our capacity for understanding reality; Mechanics of reality; Ethics; Rights; Trust in politics

Section 1.
Reality is a fundamentally mysterious duality between the realm of [subjective] experience (also called consciousness) and the realm of physics (time, space, matter, and energy). It seems that we will never learn which is ‘the most real’ because the realm of experience appears to be generated by the realm of physics while the realm of physics is dependent on and can be reduced to the realm of experience. The two are inextricably interdependent on one another, like two sides of the same coin.

Section 2.
The concept of God as a person and creator of the universe is the product of the not fully understood potential of language to create misleading concepts (especially incognizant self-deception) and the desire to be favored by a reality that is dedicated to making one happy. Instead, God is most sensibly interpreted simply as existence as a whole, one that is indifferent to one’s subjective enjoyment or discomfort. Subsequently, the question “does God exist?” is pointless and does not deserve to be considered – especially not answered. All we can say meaningfully is “God is existence” and “God is”.
     Furthermore, any inquiry into the nature of existence should be aimed at how one’s subjective existence is a part of the grand scheme of existence, and it should be performed through self-reflection and self-exploration, such as meditation. Therefore, by definition, it is one’s own existence that is less certain than the existence of God.

Section 3.
The idea of freewill is nonsense. All animals––including all people––are subjectively experiencing biological machines. Each person is controlled by their desires and discomforts––which can be grouped into various drives––and their drives are controlled by their circumstances and their other drives. The complexity of the interactions among one’s drives and circumstances––obfuscated by imprecise and inconsistent use of language––is what creates the illusion that the person is somehow in control. However, this illusion is very easily dispelled if one commits themself to understanding the causes of their behaviors and uses language properly to do so.

Section 4.
The idea of morality—the idea of ethically right or wrong actions—is nonsense. Ethics is a matter of conflicts of interests, and the question of what actions are ethically acceptable or unacceptable is decided by the interests of the members of a particular group. This, in turn, is a product of the psychological sophistication of the members of the group and the environmental and economic circumstances in which they find themselves.
     As such, there are five motives for the creation of ethical standards of acceptable conduct. The most primitive of these motives is the practical dynamics of reciprocity. Basically, a person avoids harming others to avoid provoking retaliation. The second motive is emotional, specifically the drive of love, which is a collection of desires to be intimately connected to other specific persons (the desires vary depending on the preferred type of relationship regarding each person). The third motive is emotional, specifically the drive of community, which is a collection of desires to share a purpose with other persons as a group. The fourth motive is emotional, specifically the drive of commiseration, which is the experience of commiserating with others through one’s sense of empathy. The fifth and last motive is intellectual, specifically the drive of understanding, which is a collection of desires to make sense of reality, including the desire to maintain integrity with one’s conclusions.
     Besides the self-evident ways in which the first four motives function to establish a system of ethics, there is the less obvious motive of the drive of understanding. Essentially, in order to appease this motive, people create various arguments to explain their relation to other persons within their group and within all of reality. The claim of morality—ultimately supported by nothing but belief (wishful thinking)—is one example of such argument. However, the most compelling argument is this:
     “No conscious life is more or less ‘objectively significant’ than another because no conscious life has any ‘objective significance’. This is because all significance is subjective, and the idea of ‘objective significance’ is nonsense. Anyone who acts with the idea that one conscious life is more or less ‘objectively significant’ than another is acting irrationally. However, it is not unreasonable and perfectly normal for persons to have subjective biases regarding certain persons that are rooted in desires other than rationality.”

Section 5.
The idea of inherent rights is nonsense; rights can only be granted by one entity—person or institution—to another. Specifically, a right is granted when one entity guarantees to not take action against another entity when the other entity performs some specific action.
     People might have differing opinions about which specific rights they are willing to grant to others, but we tend to have a general agreement for most practical purposes. Based on this general agreement, which is consolidated and expressed through various governance structures, we are able to build a stable society.

Section 6.          
When electing officials to public positions entrusted with administrative power in a society, the society is best served by electing people whose drive of understanding is greater than their selfish interests of personal gain.