This blog attempts to challenge your core beliefs. I like to think that I am cleverly pointing out some of the assumptions your core beliefs are based on are no longer valid.
In the twenties, everyone wore a hat. Everyone had a core belief that everyone wore a hat. At some point, that core belief changed.
Currently, the core belief is that government, although not perfect, is the best way of managing / controlling people.
My core belief is fundamentally different.
The two contrasting core beliefs can be summed up as:-
Government is an appealing / appalling way of managing civilisation.
The problem with not critically thinking about core beliefs is that facts that do not reinforce our core beliefs are simply rejected. Facts that do are kept to hand to be used as necessary.
Thus the famous quote, 'facts, facts, don't talk to me about facts. You can use facts to prove anything.'
Therefore, we really do need to understand what our core beliefs are and check that they are still appropriate. I suggest critical thought is the way forward, I am astonished that critical thought isn't taught in schools as a core subject.
Which circuitous logic brings me to my main point. We have got where we are today with very few of us bothering with critical thought. What would today be like if most of us critically thought?
Better or worse?
Now, many people tell me that they, as individuals, do critically think. They realise that government and banking do have some issues but you just have to get on with life and not worry about it. Their motto is, 'the rules are the same for everybody'.
Assuming that motto is essentially correct, wouldn't it be wise to ensure that these rules are the very best rules that the very best minds can imagine?
Perhaps, but these rules are never challenged. Which indicates to me that critical thought even of the very basic rules of government and finance are not given sufficient critical thought by the masses.
When I was six the rather stern headmistress at my school was enraged when another six year old wrote a short story about how sweets should be free. Apparently free sweets would mean the end of civilisation. I must agree, any fundamental rule change ends that civilisation and begins a new one. The key point of Mrs Farnsworth speech was that who would pay the people who made the sweets? What she didn't mention was that school was free but somehow she managed to get paid. Even as a six year old, I was amazed at how this contradiction caused her no concern whatsoever. Her core beliefs were flexible enough that free sweets would destroy a society but free school would not. This is called cognitive dissonance. The headmistress benefited immensely from free schools and could probably argue for hours as to why free schools benefited everyone else too. If schools were not free and the local children's parents had to pay her salary directly, her salary would have been far smaller.
As a six year old I didn't have the vocabulary to discuss my concerns over her logical inconsistencies. However, even if I could I would have been wasting my time. Unless she decided to spend some time in critical thought regarding her own core beliefs.
Getting people to examine their own core beliefs is challenging. Particularly people who gain great benefits from not examining their core beliefs. Which would be the people in power, with authority and with wealth.
All of this feeds into my core belief that we need more critical thought and hence this blog aimed at the every day folks. The people who ACTUALLY bear the massive costs of this civilisation.