Comment on the primary human impulse to meaning. Also- the impulse of elites to dominate. And more on establishing the “metaphysical” basis for human equality. This is pushback against the curse of the “elite/commoner” divide in human societies. I detest the impulse to domination, one of the most damaging of our inherited animal impulses, rightly part of the “evil triad” of tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others.
I’ve posted below a video clip on Tolstoy’s personal discovery that human meaning was fulfilled most profoundly in the daily lives of common people, not in the elite pursuits of his earlier life, whether intellectual accomplishments, art, or science. Tolstoy had been distressed by the question of- What does it all mean if it ends in death? He found his answers with common people and in the responsibilities of daily life.
Also below, an interesting study with Grok doing climate science.
Another good one from Shellenberger/Gutentag– A wise caution that must be heeded by all sides for the sake of protecting/promoting freedom and democracy, Wendell Krossa
It has been hard to comprehend what we have just lived through over the past decade- i.e. the ongoing exposure of the incredible corruption of a leading world democracy, and the corruption has been mainly by “liberals/Democrats” who have shifted far left into Woke Progressivism. These people still control most of the education systems, most federal bureaucracies, the mainstream media (i.e. their propaganda arm), the intelligence agencies, NGOs receiving countless billions of taxpayer dollars for partisan and personal gain, etc.
Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and the subsequent exposures in the Twitter Files was stunning stuff to comprehend. It was a kind of death of a dream as we realized how horrifically we had been lied to and propagandized and that what we thought we lived in- liberal democracies- was very much an illusion. Others added to the stunning exposures, i.e. Mike Benz on his Joe Rogan appearances.
Shellenberger/Gutentag, below, touch on the problem that “formerly oppressed people, when in power, then often become the new oppressors”, forgetting what they had previously suffered. The old lust for vengeance/payback then creeps in, dangerously so as it then undermines any moral authority that the formerly oppressed (and then liberated) people may have earned.
But yes, another element here is the spectacle of guilty Democrats screaming “retaliation, vengeance” as their corruption is exposed and it is horrific as Shellenberger/Gutentag detail.
What has been exposed has to be corrected and offenders must be held accountable for what has been a direct assault on democracy and the freedom of others. Democracy ceases to mean anything this is not done thoroughly.
So yes, clean up the mess that has been exposed but then be careful not to cross into excess and begin your own corruption of democracy.
Particular to what Shellenberger/Gutentag point to below- Get the point that we must not just “tolerate” the offensive repugnant speech of others but we must fight to protect it or we all suffer the loss of freedom by descent into these retaliatory “back and forth” cycles of getting even for previous abuses.
Again, that limit on prohibited offensive speech as only “the incitement to immediate violence.” Letting “concept creep” take the “hate speech” category further into censoring the differing speech of others/opponents, results in the undermining of the freedom of all.
Also consider the descent into the “hypersensitivity” of our age. Where today many have elevated their personal feelings (personal upset at disagreeing others) to primary criterion for what is permissible in our societies. And then the bullying begins- i.e. calls for censorship of “offensive” speech, calls for banning, even criminalizing. And my, my- the crusades against such speech as “misinformation, disinformation” and the usual McCarthyite smears of “Russian disinformation”. What a nutty age of hypersensitivity and touchiness we are in.
We need more of that what some wise ass put on Instagram, that kids are too soft today. Why, he said, when he was young he died once and his mom told him to just walk it off.
And (on the necessary clean up of corruption) it was beyond disgustingly cringe to listen to Adam Schiff trying to extract promises from opposition candidates for various agency positions during their confirmation “yellings” (they were not “hearings”, Walter Kirn). Schiff was demanding that there would be no coming after Democrats to hold them accountable. Typical of his yellings, he framed any such attempts to hold himself and other Democrats responsible as evil “vengeance/retaliation”. Oh, stop already.
Ah, that “projection” thing. “Retaliation, vengeance”? What the fuck was the Russia collusion lie about? And all the rest over subsequent years- i.e. the politicization of the justice system to criminalize opponents, etc. Those were the ugliest displays of retaliation, vengeance. Again, who has been your real “threat to democracy”?
“Why Trump Must Protect Free Speech, Privacy, And The Separation Of Powers: Republicans can’t maintain the moral high ground, or majority support, if they sacrifice civil liberties”, Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag, Mar. 19, 2025
https://www.public.news/p/why-trump-must-protect-free-speech
First, here Shellenberger/Gutentag detail the horrific assault on freedom and democracy by Democrats and their allies:
They note “the clear violations of the spirit and letter of the Constitution by former President Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders. We exposed a sweeping effort by former and current officials with the CIA, FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and its intermediary organizations to construct a Censorship Industrial Complex to censor President Donald Trump and millions of his supporters.
“We documented that Democrats and Democrat-appointed judges were abusing the justice system in an unconstitutional effort to incarcerate Trump or otherwise prevent him from running for office. And we published extensively on efforts by Democrats, Europeans, and Brazilians to engage in mass surveillance of social media accounts and text messaging apps to search for disfavored speech.
“In addition, we have repeatedly defended Trump and the Trump administration from false and malicious claims that they have violated the Constitution or undermined democratic norms any more than Democrats. We showed that Trump and Republican demands for censorship have paled against the totalitarian weaponization by Democrats of the Intelligence Community to spy on the Trump campaign, spread disinformation, interfere in elections, and create a global Censorship Industrial Complex. We repeatedly pointed out that between 2017 and 2021, the Trump administration obeyed court orders, consistent with the clear requirement under the Constitution that it do so.
“And we were the first to report on new evidence that President Barack Obama’s CIA Director had ordered the spying on Trump campaign officials to justify surveillance of the Trump campaign, spread disinformation, interfere in the 2016 election, and undermine a duly elected president.”
That is an astounding litany of who has been the real “threat to democracy” in the US, something the projecting Democrats insistently smear their opponents with.
Shellenberger/Gutentag add the politically motivated corruption of USAID to fund the Russia collusion hoax and state that they have done more to expose the “Left’s descent into totalitarianism and irrationality” than any others.
But now they feel it is necessary to warn about the Trump Administration’s recent apparent violations of the US Constitution’s protections of free speech, etc. They relate this to the detention of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil and others. Their concern is that if this sort of excessive pushback continues then it will undermine the moral authority of the Trump administration and this is critical given the ongoing assaults on free speech and individual rights that are occurring in places like Europe. The US currently holds moral authority for defending these basic elements of liberal democracy.
So they caution the administration that if these current actions continue then they will undermine some of the central positions that they were elected to defend that also drew support from Independents and Democrats.
“If Trump signals that he is attacking free speech, violating the separation of powers, and “coming after” independent justices, he will undermine his presidency and destroy his nationalist and populist coalition… (his alliance with) former liberal Democrats Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who are lifelong advocates for freedom of speech and privacy.”
Shellenberger/Gutentag then probe what might be currently motivating this destructive behavior from the Trump administration. They suggest that is “appear(s) driven by some combination of emotion, arrogance, and lack of discipline. President Trump and many in his administration are clearly angry over their decade-long mistreatment, which is wholly understandable, and, to some extent, healthy. They should feel anger at their mistreatment. But anger can make people irrational and it appears to be contributing to their current irrationality.
“Another part of the motivation may simply be to flex the administration’s power. Trump and his supporters were right about a very large number of things, were punished for it, and then were vindicated. There is a large amount of swagger by Trump and his supporters that is understandable and somewhat justifiable. But such swagger can easily verge into arrogance and hubris.”
Hence, the warning to pull back and reconsider what true liberal democracy entails and if you are still protecting that or undermining your own moral authority based on what most people voted for.
Some daily Grokking:
I asked this– Grok what do you think of Michael Shellenberger’s comment on this issue of protecting free speech https://www.public.news/p/why-trump-must-protect-free-speech
Why Trump Must Protect Free Speech, Privacy, And The Separation Of Powers Republicans can’t maintain the moral high ground, or majority support, if they sacrifice civil liberties, Michael Shellenberger, Alex Gutentag MAR 19, 2025
Grok says:
Michael Shellenberger’s comment in the article “Why Trump Must Protect Free Speech, Privacy, And The Separation Of Powers” emphasizes a critical perspective: the Trump administration risks losing legitimacy and public support if it engages in actions that undermine the U.S. Constitution, particularly regarding free speech. He argues that Republicans cannot maintain their moral authority or political power if they sacrifice civil liberties, a stance rooted in his and co-author Alex Gutentag’s extensive documentation of past governmental overreach by Democrats, such as alleged abuses of the justice system and mass surveillance efforts.
Shellenberger’s position is a call for consistency. He and Gutentag have previously criticized Democratic leaders for constructing what they term a “Censorship Industrial Complex” to silence Trump and his supporters, citing examples like intelligence community actions during Trump’s first term. Now, they turn the lens on Trump, warning that his administration’s recent moves—potentially including deportations like that of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist, or threats to punish dissent—could mirror the authoritarian tactics they once condemned. The underlying principle is that free speech must be defended universally, not selectively, or the administration’s stated commitment to it (e.g., Trump’s claim of restoring free speech) becomes hollow.
This resonates with a broader tension: Trump’s rhetoric often champions free expression, yet his actions, like targeting universities or media outlets he dislikes, suggest a narrower application. Shellenberger’s critique implies that such contradictions could alienate even Trump’s base, who value constitutional protections, and weaken his leverage in pushing for free speech globally—an idea he’s framed as “free speech diplomacy.”
From my perspective, Shellenberger’s argument is logically sound but hinges on an optimistic view of public reaction. If the administration prioritizes security or political loyalty over civil liberties, it might retain support among those who see dissent (e.g., pro-Palestinian protests) as a threat, not a right. History shows that principles like free speech often bend under populist pressure—Lincoln’s Civil War-era suspensions of habeas corpus come to mind. Still, Shellenberger’s warning is a sharp reminder that power built on undermining its own stated values tends to erode trust, a lesson Trump’s team might ignore at their peril. What do you think—does the administration’s track record suggest they’ll heed this, or double down?
I suggested this to Grok:
The instinctive response of many to the use of the term “unconditional love” is an automatic orientation to pacifism as the obvious meaning. Some even suggesting on hearing the term, “Oh, you mean let all the psychopaths go free.” No. Any common sense understanding of love will understand the fundamental responsibility to restrain violent people in order to protect the innocent. And while I would prefer another adjective to unconditional, it’s the best that we have to describe/define the core themes of Historical Jesus as contrasted with Paul’s highly conditional Christ myth and conditional Christian religion.
The unconditional/conditional distinction highlights the entirely contrary messages of Jesus and Paul, and exposes the oxymoronic nature of combining two profound opposites in “Jesus Christ”. That has produced two millennia of cognitive dissonance where the single most liberating insight ever uttered has been distorted, even buried, in the larger New Testament context (i.e. Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy’s conclusion that the “diamonds/pearls” of Jesus were buried by Paul’s Christology.)
The great world religions are essentially conditional institutions, promoting highly conditional mythologies, and cannot communicate the unconditional nature of deity to humanity. Religious traditions (all of them) miss entirely the most critical of all insights to liberate human minds, something Historical Jesus expressed in his central message and was put to death for protesting. That sacrifice/anti-sacrifice issue (condition/unconditional).
Anyway this below grapples with the responsibility of any form of love to protect innocent people first and foremost, the most fundamental responsibility of government in the Classic Liberal tradition, Wendell Krossa.
My point to Grok:
Grok in our discussions of unconditional love as in the theology and ethics of Historical Jesus (Luke 6: 27-36) there is still in the mix the responsibility to protect the innocent from harm, from violent offenders. Unconditional love does not automatically equate with dogmatic pacifism in the face of violence. I think here of the extremism of Progressive criminal justice policies in US cities that free violent criminals to repeat crimes.
Any understanding of love, even unconditional, must be responsible to protect others and restrain violent people, and if psychopathy and repeat violence is involved, then that may involve permanent incarceration of violent people.
Perhaps the distinction here is that after restraining violent people we treat them with restorative justice as per the Danish criminal justice system.
Grok replied (Note it’s suggestion- “love unconditionally, but act responsibly”)
You’ve raised a profound and nuanced point about the interplay between unconditional love, as exemplified in the teachings of the Historical Jesus (e.g., Luke 6:27-36), and the practical responsibility to protect the innocent from harm. This tension is indeed a central challenge in both theology and ethics, and your framing— balancing love with justice rather than collapsing it into dogmatic pacifism— offers a thoughtful way forward.
In Luke 6:27-36, Jesus calls for love of enemies, blessing those who curse, and doing good to those who hate. This radical ethic seems to prioritize mercy and transformation over retribution. Yet, as you point out, it doesn’t explicitly address the real-world dynamics of violent offenders who pose an ongoing threat to others. The Historical Jesus operated in a context where Roman occupation and interpersonal conflicts shaped his teachings, but he didn’t directly confront the modern complexities of criminal justice systems or psychopathy. His focus was on personal transformation and communal ethics, not state policy.
Your critique of progressive criminal justice policies in U.S. cities— where leniency sometimes allows repeat offenders to harm again— highlights a key issue: unconditional love, if misapplied, can enable rather than restrain evil. This isn’t a rejection of love but a recognition that it must coexist with wisdom and accountability. The Danish model you mention, with its emphasis on restorative justice, offers an intriguing contrast. Denmark’s system prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment, yet it still removes dangerous individuals from society when necessary, maintaining public safety while treating offenders humanely. For example, their recidivism rate is among the lowest in the world (around 29% within two years, compared to over 50% in the U.S.), suggesting that restraint and restoration can align.
Theologically, one might argue that unconditional love doesn’t preclude restraint— it reframes it. Protecting the innocent could be seen as an act of love for both the victim and the offender, preventing further harm and offering a path to redemption. Permanent incarceration for unrepentant psychopaths or repeat violent offenders doesn’t negate love; it acknowledges human limits and prioritizes the common good. Restorative justice, as in Denmark, could then focus on those capable of change, while still honoring the dignity of the unreformable through humane treatment rather than vengeance.
This balance avoids the extremes of dogmatic pacifism (which risks passivity) and punitive excess (which abandons mercy). It’s a practical synthesis: love unconditionally, but act responsibly. What do you think— does this framing align with your view of how the Historical Jesus’ ethic could apply today?
(End of Grok comment)
And more coming on my own “populist” pushback against the elite/commoner divide in human societies, my personal fight against the domination impulse. What is the true basis of human equality? What is the Hellenistic mythology of the “special people”- i.e. some more divinely favored than ordinary people?
Quote: “I was intrigued by Tolstoy’s discovery, that after spending a lifetime searching for the ultimate meaning of existence and life in “elite” pursuits (philosophy, art, science, etc.), he discovered that the meaning of existence and life was to be found in the ordinary lives of commoners- i.e. laborers, farmers, peasants.”
Comment on the primary human impulse- to meaning. Countering the impulse of elites to dominate, establishing the “metaphysical” basis for human equality… Wendell Krossa
This from…
https://medium.com/@iamslovegrove/viktor-frankl-and-the-resilience-of-the-human-spirit-b7b3b38b9a39
“Dr. Frankl developed an approach to psychology called Logotherapy. “Logo” hails from Greek for ‘meaning,’ and “Therapy” means healing; thus Logotherapy’s aim is to heal by finding the hidden meaning in our lives.
“While Freud emphasised the pursuit of pleasure and Adler highlighted the desire for power as primary human drives, Dr. Frankl proposed a different cardinal motivation: the will to meaning. This is the undeniable desire in every individual to find a purpose that gives life significance. He contended that when people live in alignment with a will to meaning, they experience a deep sense of satisfaction and health.”
From positive psychology
https://positivepsychology.com/viktor-frankl-logotherapy/
“In contrast to Freud’s “will to pleasure” and Adler’s “will to power,” logotherapy is based on the idea that we are driven by a “will to meaning” or an inner desire to find purpose and meaning in life (Amelis & Dattilio, 2013).
“Logotherapy is based on the idea that we are driven by a “will to meaning” or an inner desire to find purpose and meaning in life.”
From Wikipedia
“Viktor Frankl founded logotherapy, a school of psychotherapy that describes a search for a life’s meaning as the central human motivational force.”
Another intro bit: In the comment below on the elite/commoner divide and Tolstoy’s apparent putdown of elite pursuits like intellectual exploits, science, art…
It’s not a dismissal of advanced skills, knowledge, or exceptional natural abilities. What can deform such obvious elite advantages is the impulse to dominate, to use advantages in ways that demean and abuse others, using knowledge and skills advantages to arrogantly dominate and control others.
There are highly educated and skilled upper echelon people who exhibit the best of the human spirit in humility, love, inclusively treating all as equals. It’s not your status but how you manage and express that. Just as there is nothing inherently noble about poverty or low status. It’s how we act within whatever state we find ourselves. And that comes down to the love factor that humanizes all of us, something that can be exercised humanely from the top or bottom of social hierarchies.
Life is fundamentally about how we deal with our own “evil triad” (tribalism, domination, punitive destruction of differing others). The real battle of life takes place inside us. It is against the real enemy/monster of the evil triad. Real success in life comes through conquering that evil triad and replacing it with ideals such as “love of enemy”, as in universal, nontribal inclusion of all others, in non-dominating equality, and in the nonpunitive treatment of the failures of others.
Poking around the impulse to meaning, Wendell Krossa
The primary impulse to meaning- What Leo Tolstoy wrestled with in the account below. This impulse just is. It’s just there, fundamental to our makeup as conscious human selves. It is what consciousness is about. We have to understand why this material reality exists, and why we as humans exist, and for what purpose. We call it the “impulse to meaning”, and it dominates all else.
Note Tolstoy’s original mistake, typical of elite thinking, that meaning was to be found in elite pursuits and thereby missing the common and ordinary, the daily mundane as the true locus of human meaning. Tolstoy eventually discovered that meaning was found in work, relationships, family, community, leisure, and service to others.
My take on Tolstoy
Before getting to Tolstoy’s search- What is most important in life is equally available to everyone. What matters most in life is equally accessible to everyone of us- i.e. the factor of common love. That points to the true basis of human equality, inclusion, and diversity. The real DEI (minus the equity thing).
I appreciate the leveling from the experience of Tolstoy and his discovery/insight recounted in the video link below- i.e. where every person is given the same equal advantage or opportunity at what matters most in life, despite the otherwise natural hierarchical structuring of most things in life.
The Tolstoy discovery is a good counter point to the Hellenistic mythology of “special” people as particularly favored by God, having exceptional features and experiences, even considered divine or god-like, thereby achieving and holding status above all others. Appeal to the divine has long been used to validate elite domination over commoners.
Qualifier: This is not to deny the unfairness that shapes most of life. Some people are specially talented and achieve great things far beyond average, and that is naturally to be celebrated. But the point above has to do with things that level all of us to the same equal opportunities and potential for achievement in regard to what is most important in life- again, the love thing.
The equal opportunity for exploits in love means that the lowest and least privileged of people can succeed to the highest levels of achievement in what matters most in terms of authentic humanity, true human greatness.
Tolstoy’s account counters the elite commoner/divide (the domination impulse) that has wreaked so much damage on human societies across millennia.
His experience also informs the issue of what does equality really mean? What do we base the argument for human equality on?
First, a note to a friend… Bob Brinsmead
Bob, here is some comment below on Leo Tolstoy’s discovery that the meaning of existence and life is to be found in the daily grind, in the ordinary, in the mundane, in the lives of commoners. This sort of relates to your point that we should focus on life in this world, on contributing to and improving life here and now, and let the religious stuff go. Especially let go of the ideas/ideals that orient people to “otherworldly” stuff. That we should put aside even the God factor and just focus on love in the daily round of life as per the Historical Jesus message.
Bob, you illustrate your point on being oriented to life in this world as contrasted with Plato’s orientation to the invisible, to the metaphysical (the invisible Ideas/Ideals/Forms). And how that Hellenism shaped Paul’s otherworldly Christ myth, a myth that orients people to live for some otherworldly future (i.e. to focus on “being saved into the Christ heaven”) instead of being fully involved with the here and now of this world, this life.
I also appreciate much your comment that we understand God and ultimate meaning by simply observing the goodness in our fellow humans.
Here is your repeated quote to us from Alexander Pope’s “Essay On Man”:
“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan; The proper study of mankind is man.”
Some further comment from one of Bob Brinsmead’s posts to a discussion group:
“Religion thrives on both creating and sustaining myths. Myths focus on heavenly things rather than the substantial realities of this life. The Hebrew faith is focussed on this creation, living the right way in this life, the good things of creation and their celebration. So it was in the teachings of Jesus who did not deal in mythology. He was not an apocalyptic teacher. He was not a teacher on the rules and regulations of religion. He never participated in the sacrificial system, or rules about this and that…
“There are two outstanding chapters in the Old Testament about the essential attributes of a righteous man (Job 31) and a righteous woman (Proverbs 31). These remarkable chapters are entirely earth-centred. There is nothing mythical, religious, or “beyond this life” mentioned. Nor is there any of this in the Hebrew wisdom literature…
“It was the Hellenist Jews in the Jesus movement that moved away from Jerusalem and the teaching of the Hebrew leaders to the Antioch-Damascus region where they started this 400-year journey of forming Christology that ended in the making the Creeds of the Church. It was all driven by Hellenism. It moved away from focus on the “down to earth” teachings of Jesus, to a speculation of what happened after death, that is, to the Christ in heaven. Adventism too was founded on what was supposed to have happened up there in heaven in 1844. It was entirely speculative.
“So was the building of a Christology. The doctrine of Christ is mythology or heavenly. The teaching of the Hellenist authors of the New Testament degrades this world and its present creation. It is seen only as an old degenerate earth that is also an evil one. The remarkable thing about this Hellenistic bent is this: “There is nothing more certainly believed than that which is not known,” (Montagne). Jesus’ teaching did not dwell on things that can’t be known. It is in this present world that we are given to live in, and we should not take the road of the Hellenists who devalued the created order to focus on things that are not given to us to know.” (End of Brinsmead quote)
Now back to my point:
I was intrigued by Tolstoy’s discovery, that after spending a lifetime searching for the ultimate meaning of existence and life in “elite” pursuits (philosophy, art, science, etc.), he discovered that the meaning of existence and life was to be found in the ordinary lives of commoners- i.e. laborers, farmers, peasants.
This video clip from “Mirror of Being” outlines Tolstoy’s journey- “The philosopher who understood the meaning of life. Why do we exist? Lev Tolstoy”,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhXBh2I0Om4
The commentator in this video says that Tolstoy was deeply troubled by this question- What is the meaning of life if everything ends in death? What is all that we achieve if it ends and disappears in death?
This issue torments many, whether it is consciously focused on and considered, or avoided by ignoring its subconscious nagging.
Where Tolstoy sought help from elite philosophers, artists, and scientists, many people will never have such options. And interesting in this account of Tolstoy is that he found no ultimate answers with the philosophers or other societal elites. His experience illustrates what this site affirms repeatedly in varied ways- i.e. that the answers to ultimate meaning do not lie solely with special elites but must be, by right of our intuition that every human being is to be valued equally, so the answers to ultimate meaning must be equally available to everyone through the occupations of daily life.
Point? The things that most critically define us as human are things that every person musts have equal opportunity for great achievement and success. This offers a better basis for human equality.
Insert: Yes, the “equality” thing nags at me persistently. See my reposting below on the origins of “special” people and the elite/commoner divide in human societies.
Continuing…
Most interesting to me is that Tolstoy found the answers to what agitated him in the lives of commoners- farmers, peasants, laborers.
Quoting and paraphrasing the commentator in the video clip, these are people with no claim to great intellectual exploits, no great public achievements, no wealth. But Tolstoy discovered that they lived relatively contentedly, accepting the struggles of life. And unlike intellectual elites they did not seek meaning in abstract philosophical reasoning and speculations.
In Tolstoy’s words, they “lived the meaning of life”. They found meaning in their families and occupations, in their traditions and communities. They embraced suffering as part of life and had faith in something greater than themselves. Their meaning was not found in intellectual constructs but was a lived experience in the common and ordinary of daily working life.
Tolstoy realized that the more he spent time among “simple” people, the more he saw that meaning was not in material success or intellectual superiority but in the embrace of the common and ordinary of life, and in faith in something greater than themselves.
I would add to Tolstoy’s discoveries that, more specifically, ultimate meaning is found in “living love in the ordinariness of life”. It is love specifically that gives meaning to everything. Love most critically defines the nature/character of ultimate reality/deity, and consequent to our creation by deity, love also most critically defines what it means to be authentically human and what is the purpose of human existence and life.
Despite his success and intellectual and literary achievements (and they were notable), Tolstoy had sunk into despair over the meaning of life and nothing that he had achieved gave any satisfaction, according to the commentator. Tolstoy eventually concluded that the things we are told to strive for in life don’t actually give meaning. Many commoners would have uttered “Duh” in response to Tolstoy.
The commentator in the Tolstoy video clip continues: The philosophers debated, the artists expressed, the scientists analyzed, but none provided the answers that Tolstoy sought- Why live if all ends in death?
Tolstoy then turned from the elites to find his answer with laborers, peasants, and farmers who had none of the privileges of elites. They were without wealth, higher education, people who worked, suffered, and aged, and held simple beliefs in God, daily family duty, and the sacredness of life. They saw life as part of something eternal. Their beliefs were natural and not intellectually argued. They engaged no struggle to define meaning, but just lived meaning in the ordinary of life, in the mundane and common.
Tolstoy eventually realized that true understanding came not from intellectual rigor, logic and reasoning. But there was another form of knowing, that had to be experienced and was not limited to elites but was open equally to all. That knowing came not through elite pursuits, but was experienced by embracing life as something that was open to all alike, where understanding the meaning of life came from living the daily rounds of mundane and ordinary life.
Meaning came from living with purpose, through loving and faith. This realization led to transformation as Tolstoy saw himself as part of the common human venture. Meaning was not to be found in the special but in the common and ordinary with all others, in serving and loving, and contributing to things beyond ourselves.
Ultimate meaning was to be found in working for and providing for a family, in raising kids, in responsibly fulfilling daily duties and chores. That is where ultimate meaning is available to all, equally. The fulfillment of meaning comes not through great public exploits where opportunities for such are limited to the special few. The ultimate meaning impulse that comes with human consciousness is not something fulfilled solely by the exploits of special people, by fame, or by the great wealth that is limited to those at the upper levels of societal hierarchies.
For the meaning impulse to hold value for all of humanity, the ultimate solutions to this impulse must be found in the most common elements of daily life that all persons live, in the lowly, the mundane and ordinary. Things available equally to all. Otherwise, human existence and consciousness tend to the meaningless. And the elite/commoner divide that has shaped human societies for millennia would have to be accepted as representing something ultimately true and to be suffered by all.
Consequent to his discovery, Tolstoy began to advocate for rights of the poor. He rejected the trappings of privilege and found wisdom in simple people. He recognized that meaning was something to be lived and not achieved through intellectual mastery and logical reasoning and personal success. Meaning was to be found in the smallest and most ordinary aspects of life, in the daily love that we give, in the kindness that we show, in just being present with others in our lives.
Life’s meaning was not in what we think, but in how we live.
Tolstoy’s struggles and discovery reminded me of someone who had once commented on the intellectuals who had left their small rural French communities to seek status in the elite circles of Paris. On joining the urban elites, they then despised the “backward” communities and the love of the people who had helped raise them.
That illustrated the arrogant superiority that infects many elites who, having achieved elite status, then began to despise, mock, and vilify those who had supported and influenced them throughout their developing years, forgetting the love of those common folk that had been their extended family throughout their formative years. It reminded me of the elitist arrogance of Marx, Engels, and Mao who despised the very peasants that they claimed to want to liberate. They especially despised the simple faith that commoners held toward something greater than themselves, as essential to their meaning.
Insert: Are we seeing something similar in what has happened in the US situation over past decades with the Democratic party? Once the party of workers and grand defender of average Americans. Today, we hear commentators analyzing surveys to conclude the Democratic party has become the party of coastal urban elites who despise the less educated rural types as ignorant simpletons, commoners with their red-neck concerns, dismissed by former President Obama as those who “turn to God, guns and anti-immigrant sentiment.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/13/barackobama.uselections2008
Others yet point to this same elite mentality as typifying the Hollywood types who posture across the awards season as morally superior and scold others who dare to differ from their views and policies. Others state that the Democratic party has become disconnected from the common life concerns of most citizens and has embraced the “luxury beliefs” of far-left Woke Progressivism with its DEI, ESG, Woke Racism, etc.
Many of us are trying to understand what has happened to the side of society we once considered “liberal” but that has today become highly illiberal, now pushing for censorship of those who disagree (70% of Democrats), even advocating for banning and criminalizing of dissent (the “lawfare” crusade, as with the “disinformation/misinformation” projects).
One avenue to probe in order to understand the growing illiberalism of former liberals is what is termed “the psychopathology of left-wing authoritarianism”. This has been defined by psychological types as the “narcissistic impulse to virtue signal for status.” The contradiction here is that the policies embraced to virtue signal with, through which “ill-liberals” believe they exhibit compassion, those luxury belief policies now show evidence of ruining the lives of those they proclaim compassion for. Note this, for example, in the irresponsibly lax criminal justice policies in US cities that take the form of a dogmatic pacifism that lets violent people go free to continue destroying other innocent life.
(Insert: Yes, we understand the DEI reasoning/arguments that if criminals are brown or black then they qualify as members of the “victimhood” class and, no matter their criminal history, they must be granted full liberation from the oppressor class. Hamas are included in that victimhood status.)
There is more… The even more widespread derangement of the “psychopathology of left-wing compassion” that virtue signals with regard to Green decarbonization that is ruining entire societies. Destroying societies to “save the world.”
This below illustrates something common across historical leftism, an elitism that is ultimately descended from Platonic collectivist belief in “philosopher kings” alone qualified to rule societies. As historians like Arthur Herman have shown (The Cave and The Light), elitism is the belief of some that they are special and divinely appointed to rule lesser others. That elitism descended down through Hegel to Marx and into contemporary leftism in its varied forms. Specially enlightened elites believing that they must run societies for the common or greater good (as defined by elites) and despising the ignorant commoners who try to derail elite programs with their protesting for freedom and equality. You know- annoying anti-elitism “populism”.
This lady illustrates her own experience of leftist superiority, viewing others as “beneath us”, and the severe treatment of any disagreement. And pointing out failures on the left side (specks) is not to deny potential “beams” in eyes on the other side also.
“Columnist who calls herself a ‘MAGA leftist’ shares why Trump’s support goes beyond conservatives: Batya Ungar-Sargon says she received ‘thousands of messages’ after her viral exchange with HBO’s Bill Maher”, Joseph Wulfsohn, March 20, 2025
As Wulfsohn says, Batya Ungar-Sargon is a columnist for The Free Press and author of “Second Class: How the Elites Betrayed America’s Working Men and Women.”
These comments below relate to her appearance on Bill Maher’s show as she clarified her positions on varied issues. Most critical to my points, it illustrates the elitist thinking of today’s “leftists, Democrats, Progressives”.
After a comment that confused Maher, Ungar-Sargon clarified, “I was never a Republican or a conservative,” Ungar-Sargon told Maher. “I was a leftist, and I’m still a leftist.”
She says that being “left” means, “along with all the other stuff, being anti-war, being pro-free speech, you know, this was all, like, left stuff, and now it’s MAGA stuff.”
She then talks about her severe “Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).”
And she notes what triggered her shift away from TDS. She says that “It was a 2018 Yale University study that showed White liberals were more likely to dumb down their language when speaking to people of color compared to White conservatives.
“”I remember when I read that I was so shook because I instantly recognized that it was true,” Ungar-Sargon recalled. “And it was an indictment of not just my milieu, but my entire worldview, which I immediately could recognize was built on the same thing that makes White liberals behave in such a racist way, which was this idea that Blacks and Hispanics are beneath us and need our help. Like, it’s disgusting. But the entire progressive movement is really based on that idea…. this is true, and it’s undeniable, and it’s an indictment of everything I think… this was such orthodoxy. Everything I thought was like, you know, the fundamentals of what I believed were so clearly wrong. And again, you have this feeling of like, ‘Well, if I’m wrong about this, what else might I be wrong about?'”
Additionally, this point by Wulfsohn, “What the country underwent during the COVID pandemic, between how everyone was “lied to” about the virus and the harm lockdowns and vaccine mandates had on the working class, all done by the elites, was a deterrent for her to continue supporting the Democratic Party that she says has rejected her.”
She then found herself welcomed by conservatives even though they disagreed with her on varied policies. And that welcome, she says, was so contrary to how fellow leftists treated disagreement. “It’s the exact opposite of the left. The left- if you agree with them on 99.9% of the issues, and you have a 0.1% disagreement on some issue, like, ‘Yeah, maybe we shouldn’t defund the police, how about reforming the police?’ You are dead to them. You are out. They will do anything to destroy your life”.
On the left’s abuse of the very workers that they claim to advocate for (leftist virtue signaling), she says, “They’ve made trillions of dollars collectively out of the open border, and they’ve been able to dress up the economic benefits of their progressivism as virtue while actually it’s wage theft of their working-class neighbors, right? Because they can hire illegals instead of having to hire working-class people, which puts money back in their pockets. A lot of money.”
This illustrates what is called the “psychopathology of left-wing compassion” that virtue signals compassion with policies that actually harm those they claim compassion for.
Wulfsohn notes that she concludes:
“It’s kind of like a plane, you know, and the knowledge industry, leftist elites, the over-credentialed, you know, multi-credentialed top 10% who now control 60% of the GDP, they’re in first class,” Ungar-Sargon said. “And what they’re basically saying to the American people is ‘We’re happy to pay your ticket, and you can fly on this plane for free as long as you stay in coach,’ you know. ‘Don’t you dare use our bathrooms. And there’s no upgrades. And you don’t get to say where the plane is going. But as long as you’re happy to sit in economy, you can sit there for free, and we’ll pay your ticket.’ That’s really, like, the best metaphor for the Democratic Party right now.”
James Carville adds his take on today’s leftist elitism…
“James Carville says ‘Urbanist’ Dems ‘Ought to Apologize’ to Rural America ‘For being so goddamn stupid: Democratic strategist James Carville during a Thursday podcast urged “urbanist” Democrats to “apologize” to rural Americans for disrespecting them”, Mar.20, 2025, Jason Cohen.
Cohen quotes this from Carville’s analysis of what is wrong with Democrats: “Some of its more urbanist members and commentators lived in a folly of a world that we could exist and win elections by just concentrating on large urban areas.”
Carville then notes an editorial that argued that many rural voters feel the Democrats don’t respect them. He says, “Because for large swaths of rural America, they feel like the Democratic Party doesn’t see them, doesn’t talk to them or does not prioritize them….
“The stupidity of we got to be the most progressive, self-righteous, moralistic people in the world and, you know, people that live in rural America are just, you know, fat, lazy and stupid, which is decidedly not true,” he added. “But that’s the way that some of the urbanist elements of our party have tried to come across. And it’s stupid, and they ought to apologize to the rural for being so goddamn stupid.”
Tucker Carlson adds that “Regular people have flooded away from the Left because they can sense its leaders despise them.”
Another insert note: Despite the elite dismissal of religion as irrational (notably by Marxists), an opiate for simple-minded people, religious traditions have always responded more fully and directly to the human impulse for meaning. The problem with religious traditions (the “irrational” element) is that they have been deformed by the earliest expressions of the human impulse to meaning, where our ancestors made what we recognize today as irrational mythical conclusions. We are now responsible to correct that mess but to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. “Baby” meaning things like the Historical Jesus message and insights. “Bathwater” meaning the Christ myth of Paul.
Continuing… (Pardon the “weaves”)
The comment on Tolstoy (link above) sparked the thought that if meaning is as primary as Viktor Frankl said it was, if it is fundamental to being human, then what might be the commoner’s route to fulfilling this critical impulse? If it is that critical to our functioning as human, then there must be some route that provides every person with opportunity to fulfill its impulse to the fullest extent.
And where Tolstoy discovered the fulfillment of meaning in the lives and activities of common people, I would take his points a reach higher and argue that it is the feature of love that grants us the most profound meaning in life. “Love” is the singular feature that most defines us as human and therefore it is most fundamental to answering our impulse for meaning.
This leads me to conclude: Ultimate human meaning is then found in the practise of love in the daily round of human life, and especially in the common and mundane, the ordinary. That is how we most fully and properly express the meaning and purpose of our lives. In such common loving, we find the meaning that Tolstoy and many others have sought.
Further, the most profound expression of love, and therefore the highest achievement of meaning, is found in “love your enemy”. There is no higher reach of meaning. That was the core insight in the message of Historical Jesus.
The latest phase in the long history of human spiritualty- i.e. the Near-Death Experience movement- has also affirmed that unconditional love (love of enemy) answers our most profound impulses to meaning and purpose. The most common discovery of this movement is that unconditional love is the nature of the deity that gives meaning and purpose to human life.
Ken Ring in “Lessons from Light” quotes someone’s NDE where they encountered a great Light (God) that asked them- “Did you learn what love is? Do you know what love is? Have you learned how to love?” That was all that mattered to Ultimate Reality in an ultimate realm that is the goal and end of all humanity.
Similarly, the central breakthrough insight of Historical Jesus was his stunning new theology of a God unlike any imagined before in all the mythologies and religions of previous history. He stated that God was a non-retaliatory deity, an unconditional God who generously gave the most critical gifts of agrarian life to everyone, to both good and bad people.
That stunning new theology was further illustrated in the story of the Prodigal Father who freely welcomed the wasteful son without demand for sacrifice, payment or punishment. It was illustrated in the generosity of the vineyard owner who gave the same wages to everyone in the end. So also, in the Good Samaritan whose love rose above tribal animosities. And further illustrated by Jesus in welcoming social outcasts to meals that signified unconditional acceptance. All such examples pointed to a new reach of love as no tribal exclusion of anyone, no punitive retaliation to human failure, no judgment or condemnation.
(Insert: Again, I won’t detract from the point made in the Jesus message by adding qualifiers that any responsible form of love is primarily obligated to protect the innocent from violence, meaning the restraint and incarceration of violent people.)
The nature of Deity, as set forth in the Jesus message, presents a new understanding of the ultimate ideal and good that illuminates for us the ultimate meaning of reality and life.
The Jesus message and stories point to the truth that ultimate meaning is to be found in generous unconditional love. That is not a call to conditional religion, to orient life to religious belief systems, rituals, lifestyles. It is not a call to establish a relationship with an invisible reality, to please a Sky God through religious traditions and conditions. Note also that after healing people, Jesus told them to return to their daily lives and occupations to find meaning there.
Reposting (revised, updated) on the true basis for human equality…. Lex Fridman’s discomfort with the “special people”, Wendell Krossa
This element from Plato:
Centralizing power and control in “philosopher kings/noble rulers” has been one of the more dangerous elements in collectivist systems, especially when collectivist leaders believe that they are specially “enlightened elites”. Much like the ancient shaman who claimed to know the secrets to the invisible realm of the gods and used that claim of specialness to elevate themselves over their fellow tribal members.
Worse, add the belief of leadership that they are divinely inspired and therefore chosen by God to dictate to all others what is right and best for them. Further, add the bubble effect of embedding oneself in a “hero’s quest narrative that affirms to some that they are on the side of unchallengeable righteousness in a battle against irredeemably demonized evil”.
John Cleese spoke to this tribal extremism long ago:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1367842577995268
Without the constraining guidelines of Classic Liberal systems of law and representative institutions, even those imagining themselves to be among the best and noblest of humans are susceptible to elitist thinking that ends abusing others. We all need the protection of the constraints of Classic Liberalism to help us control our own “evil triad” impulses to tribalism, domination, and punitive destruction of differing others.
Here is Grok’s rewrite of a summary “Introduction” of mine to some comment on these issues:
“Human equality rests on a fundamental truth: no individual or group inherently possesses special wisdom or divine authority to rule over others. Lex Fridman’s unease with the notion of “special people” echoes a timeless concern. Plato’s vision of “philosopher kings” or noble rulers centralizing power has proven perilous in collectivist systems, particularly when these leaders view themselves as uniquely enlightened elites. This mirrors the ancient shaman who claimed exclusive knowledge of the gods’ invisible realm, leveraging that supposed specialness to dominate their tribe.
“The danger escalates when leaders believe they are divinely chosen, granting them the right to dictate what is good and just for everyone else. Worse still is when they wrap themselves in a heroic narrative—a quest where they embody unassailable righteousness locked in a struggle against an irredeemably evil foe. Without the guardrails of classical liberal principles, such as rule of law and representative institutions, even those who see themselves as humanity’s finest are prone to abusing power.
“We all require the restraints of classical liberalism to curb our instincts toward tribalism, domination, and the urge to punish those who differ. These systems don’t just protect us from others—they shield us from our own worst impulses.”
Hating that “some people are better than others”, Wendell Krossa (revised, updated)
“Jordan Peterson was in pain for three years, Lex Fridman podcast clips,” on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjEcM11Fg-M
Lex Fridman (himself a PhD prof at MIT) says that he “has always hated the idea that some people are better than others”. He adds that he is afraid of dismissing people because of his perception of them. That launched some interesting discussion with Jordan Peterson on Lex’s podcast.
The idea that some people are better than others, that some are more important- By what arguments do we counter this perception and affirm the equality of all?
“The equality of all people”- Something that most of us recognize as a natural reality or a “God-given” right.
I have posted before that in early human tribal existence, some tribe members began to elevate themselves above others with claims to know the secrets to the invisible realm of spirits, and how to placate the upset spirits that were manifesting their anger in natural disasters like storms, accidents, and disease.
The earliest elites emerged as “shaman/priests”. Those early “better than others” associated themselves with deity as validation of their being better than others. They made claims to being anointed/appointed by deity to lecture and dominate others “for their good”.
Helmut Koester (“History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age”) adds detail on how Greek biography, over the BCE era, developed the belief that some are better than others.
The Greeks claimed that divinity was associated the powerful deeds, great acts, and extraordinary human gifts of some people. Notable in Greek biography, divinity was manifest in kings/emperors and their military and political achievements. Deity was also manifest in the special abilities of great poets, philosophers, and artists. Their special skills were believed to be divine manifestations that made them better than others. Special abilities and accomplishments were believed to be “miraculous”.
“Hellenistic biographies incorporate miracle stories in a strikingly uncritical manner”.
Koester says the early Christians later adopted this Hellenistic approach in creating the biographical account of their founding hero (Jesus), hence the many miracle stories in the gospels. Further, “It is not surprising that subsequent literature, especially the legends of Christian saints is entirely dominated by miracle stories”, p.131-132.
In those ancient mythical traditions there is the developing pattern of associating prominent figures and their great public deeds as special, validating them as “better than others.” Critical to note- How those “better than others” appealed to deity for validation of their specialness.
With Lex, I hate and reject that fallacy that some are better than others. This is not about the obvious unfairness among the human population in distribution of talents, gifts, or abilities in varied areas. Jordan Peterson, his psychological mind kicking in, speaks well to this element.
This is about the inherent value of all human persons, the intrinsic equality that is based on the God-given “natural rights” thing.
We could start in establishing fundamental human equality, as Peterson suggests, by accepting the metaphysical speculation that every human person is created “in the image of God”, whatever “image of God” means.
A better theology to affirm human equality… toying with the “God-given natural rights” element (theological speculations).
I would emphasize, derived from the varied “spiritual” insights noted below, that deity does not value people according to the standards that we use to judge one another. Consider, for example, that God does not value people according to the out-of-the-ordinary, spectacular, and great achievements of the specially-talented people that we often celebrate in our societies. There is nothing wrong with celebrating such things, as long as we don’t permit that to undermine our appreciation of the inherent equality of all human beings.
Based on varied “spiritual/metaphysical” insights, I would argue that God does not prize special personal talents, or extraordinary success in business, sports, politics, education, etc., as more special than the activities of the vast majority of people living out their stories in the ordinary and mundane arenas of common life. The “commoner” lives of the majority of humanity are just as valued by deity as the lives of the special ones. None are more valued than any other.
On what basis do I assume this? Why do I affirm Fridman in hating the idea that some people are better than others, more valued than others? And, related, why do I challenge the perception that some people, who appear to have failed at life, are therefore less valued than others?
For one, because I view love is the single most important criterion for evaluating success in human life, the one thing that survives forever, the one feature that everyone can achieve to equal heights of true greatness, aside from the special talents, abilities, or successes of some people in other areas of life.
This insert to stress something before moving along with this point- The fundamental basis of the equality of all is the metaphysical recognition that God loves all the same.
Continuing…
Like the ancient Greeks, we tend to evaluate and value one another according to great accomplishments in athletics, beauty, commerce/business, political power, etc. And with our tradition of holding these comparative valuations of things, we naturally tend to diminish the value of the many “commoners” who live lives that appear ordinary, mundane, lacking notable public achievements. Our valuations miss the primacy of love as the great leveler and the singular feature of humanity that deity values above all else.
An example (again, appealing to metaphysical speculations): Ken Ring in “Lessons From The Light” notes the Near-Death Experience of one person who said that on meeting God, they discovered that God focused on one primary concern while helping that person to evaluate their life story (i.e. the “life review”). As that person recounted, God asked, “Did you learn anything about love? Do you know how to love? Did you love?”
In another NDE account, a successful businessman said that he was shocked to find that God ignored his business successes and was only interested in one thing- “Did he love people? Did he learn something about love?” All the rest that he had accomplished in his life, and considered of great importance, was ignored by God.
These spiritual insights challenge human evaluation criteria. Add that the greatest human achievements in love often take place unheralded in the personal and private areas of life. They are often anonymous acts, expressed in the ordinary and mundane, not celebrated publicly. Such “love is everywhere” is common-place among commoners.
Marinate a bit further on this: Our valuation schemes miss the primacy of love, and especially the hidden accomplishments of love in the ordinary and mundane areas of life. I have always appreciated the comments of Jesus in the Matthew summary posted just below where he frames what impresses God most- i.e. the divine dismissal of the grand public displays for the hidden, secret acts of goodness, the anonymous displays of love. This also gets to human motivations. It’s comparatively easy to exhibit goodness when the cameras are on, but our true self manifests in the hidden arena of life, especially in the mundane and ordinary interactions with difficult others.
Jesus said: “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” (Matthew 6:1-4)
And to laser in more on what feature of love takes us to the absolute heights of human achievement and greatness…
If the hero’s quest is fulfilled/accomplished when we conquer our inner monster (the impulses to tribalism, domination, punitive destruction of differing others), if we conquer that inner enemy/monster by orienting our life to universal or unconditional love, then every person has the equal opportunity to succeed in terms of that supreme achievement, to attain greatness in that sense. I am referring to Joseph Campbell’s point that we attain human maturity when we orient our lives to universal love. I would use unconditional love as the more encompassing term.
“Love your enemy”, as the highest expression of universal or unconditional love, points to the absolute height of human greatness and achievement. There is nothing higher to reach for or to achieve in life. That is the ultimate measure of real success in life. And- here is the levelling truth- we are all equal in terms of the opportunity for greatness in regard to expressing such love.
This was the central insight of Historical Jesus, the feature that he employed to illustrate his stunning new theology of a God who did not retaliate against human failure, did not tribally exclude anyone, did not threaten punishment, but generously included all in God’s love.
I offer “love your enemy” as the single greatest possible achievement in life for any human person to accomplish. There is no higher reach of love- if we understand that love is the defining feature of being human and the key determinant of a successful human life. As Ken Ring noted from the NDE accounts- God’s primary concern was, “Did you learn how to love? Do you know what love really is?”
Bob Brinsmead adds, “If love is not unconditional then it is not really love”.
Historical Jesus answered the question– “Do you know what love is?”- by defining authentic love as unconditional, as “love your enemy”. And that central insight of Jesus was then undermined and buried entirely by Paul with his retreat to affirming that, contrary to the message of Jesus, highly conditional love defined God. That is the essential message of his Christ myth- i.e. that an angry, threatening God (see the book of Romans) demands the ultimate condition of the sacrifice of a godman to appease his wrath.
Paul also re-established primitive tribal limits to love, stating that his God would only favor and include those who became true believers in his Christ myth. All others were enemies who would suffer ultimate retaliation and destruction- again, see Rom 12:17-20 for illustration. Also, books like Revelation and Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians.
Paul’s statement of his theology (his view of God) in Romans 12, “Do not take revenge… but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.”
My point here is the radical reframing of deity that Historical Jesus introduced, but that Paul subsequently rejected and buried with his Christ myth. Paul was offended by Jesus overturning long-standing views of divine justice as retaliatory. Paul then re-established demands for conditions to be fulfilled before love, acceptance, and restoration could be manifested by deity. Paul restored tribal, limited love in deity. He subsequently re-established the basic narrative of retaliatory justice that had descended down through a long history of human spirituality and religious beliefs.
Yes, in Paul’s New Testament there are scattered fragments of the history and wisdom sayings of Historical Jesus, notably in the gospels, but that element in the Christian holy book has been deformed by the Christology of Paul that is used to interpret the Jesus material. Paul’s New Testament is mostly metaphysical speculation on his mythology of a cosmic savior sent to redeem fallen humanity and restore a ruined world to its imagined lost original perfection.
Paul’s Christ embraces the themes of Zoroaster’s cosmic battle of good against evil, with the Christ sent to vanquish unbelievers and establish his totalitarian domination of all. It’s a very tribal worldview shaped by the features of eternal domination and punitive destruction.
Most egregious in Paul’s rejection of the actual message of Jesus was his retreat to re-enforce primitive notions of the love of God as highly conditional love that demanded sacrifice before forgiveness and salvation could be granted. That was a direct rejection of the stunning new theology of Jesus that God loved all unconditionally. Paul’s conditional God and conditional salvation was entirely contrary, for example, to the Prodigal Father parable who welcomed the wayward son back without condition. Paul’s Christ-ianity gave us a highly conditional religion that buried the unconditional message of Jesus entirely.
This site recognizes the great value in the original message of Historical Jesus, but that message has to be pulled out of its context just as Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy argued.
Moving along…
The point that I would make in relation to the Fridman/Peterson interview- There is no higher human attainment than love. We can possess great abilities and make notable achievements in sports, business, entertainment, politics, and intelligence/education and still be an overall failure at life if we don’t learn how to love, especially to unconditionally “love the enemy”, the ultimate reach of love.
As Peterson says to Fridman, great talents given unfairly don’t privilege people regarding moral conduct. He says there is no evidence for any correlation between intelligence and morality. You are not better because you are smart or specially talented. And in the context of his comments on this, he argues for the value of holding the belief that all are made in the image of God despite immense differences in ability. In other words, we are all fully equal before God, despite the many obvious differences among the human population on so many varied elements.
Peterson’s point– We can assume radical equality of worth despite differences of ability.
I would add that, rather than affirm human equality with the common religious phrase “in the image of God”, I would frame the theological basis of human equality in terms of the truth that we are all embodiments of God. The truth that God indwells every human person equally, much like what Jesus stated when he told people- “the kingdom of God is among or in you”.
The reality that we call “God” is not separate from our human spirit and mind. Others frame this as “God has incarnated in all humanity, equally”. Meaning that no one is more special than any other human person. No one is closer to God than any other. None are more privileged than others, more favored by God than others. As Bob Brinsmead says, God has never incarnated only in special holy persons or only been manifest in the great public achievements of special people. “Love is everywhere” means God is everywhere, in all.
This “God incarnate in all equally” is my metaphysical basis for affirming the equality of all people, for affirming that every person is as valued as anyone else, and for affirming the fundamental goodness of all people, despite the failures to live as truly human.
Further to this, the God present in all humanity is not present as a dominating, overwhelming reality but a gently persuading influence. God is the “still small voice”, not the thunderous and frightening storm, as per, for example, Elijah’s account.
Point? Adding to Jesus’ transformation of fundamental theology- others have made this point that God is not manifest in the overpowering, overwhelming and frightening thing, the thunderous fearful storm. But to the contrary, God manifests in the still, quiet thing, the gentle persuading voice. Perhaps this clarifies things for the many who complain that they don’t “feel” that presence of the creator. Because, as with many others across history, they are looking for deity in the spectacular, extraordinary, great thing- i.e. in storm and fire and fury. Consider the alternative- i.e. that God is not in the storm but manifests in gentle suggestions for good. The “feeling” to do what is right in the ordinary, mundane events of daily life.
Here is the interesting account of Elijah’s experience in 1 Kings 19: 11-13…
“The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by. Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks… but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard God in that, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.”
That is a another element in the stunningly new reframing of theology, similar to Jesus’ comment that true greatness was not to lord over others like kings and rulers do, but to serve. He overturned, entirely, the traditional views of God as a dominating, threatening reality. Add his Matthew 6 statement that God prefers the humble, the hidden and self-effacing, the anonymous acts of goodness.
The “stunning new theology of Jesus” framed for us an entirely different view of God, nothing like the human-created deities of history who favored the great public deeds of notable public actors. That is rank elitism appealing to a deformed view of deity to validate the elite/commoner divide in human societies, employing dominating deity to affirm elite domination of commoners.
In the “stunning new theology of Jesus” you get a non-dominating reality, an entirely non-threatening deity, something that incarnates equally in all humanity and interpenetrates throughout the physical realm and throughout humanity as a gentle all-pervading presence, that serves to promote human goodness and love with gentle persuasion, the soft, quiet voice inside reminding us of what is good.
The God of Jesus does not intervene, interfere with, and overwhelm human freedom. That is a radical new framing of the reality of deity that began with historical Jesus. His theology had nothing to do with the “king/lord” deities of old, the tribal judges that struck fear into unbelievers and other free spirits.
Again, the central Jesus message sums it all:
“Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love only those who love you, what credit is that to you? Everyone finds it easy to love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Everyone can do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Most will lend to others, expecting to be repaid in full.
“But do something more heroic, more humane. (Live on a higher plane of human experience). Do not retaliate against your offenders/enemies with ‘eye for eye’ justice. Instead, love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then you will be just like God because God does not retaliate against God’s enemies. God does not mete out eye for eye justice. Instead, God is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Be unconditionally loving, just as your God is unconditionally loving”. (My paraphrase of Luke 6:32-36 or Matthew 5:38-48.)
Other points:
Further on affirming the basis of true human equality, I would suggest that critical for understanding true equality among people is the insight that we are one human family sharing this venture on earth. The oneness of the human family manifests a greater underlying oneness that affirms the truth that we are inseparable from the creating and sustaining reality that is God, the ultimate Oneness.
Varied insights/truths that affirm this- i.e. quantum entanglement (expresses a deeper oneness), Mitochondrial Eve (all humans on Earth today are descendants of the same African mother), and the NDE insight that we are one with God and with all others, meaning that we have an inseparable union with a greater Creating Consciousness. This was sort of touched on by Paul in his comment that nothing will ever separate us from the love of God.
On this site I am not entirely badmouthing Paul but just acknowledging, with Thomas Jefferson and Leo Tolstoy, that we need to get Paul out of the way, so the actual message of Jesus can be made clear. We ought to honor the man Jesus for what he actually said. There is nothing of Paul’s Greek “Lord Jesus” in the original message of Historical Jesus. With Jesus there is no “Lord coming in flaming fire to punish and destroy” (Paul’s first letters to the Thessalonians), nothing of John’s fierce warrior Christ as the destroyer of worlds (see Revelation). Those scriptural elements are due to the influence of deforming Hellenistic mythology on Christianity as noted by Helmut Koester in “History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age”.
This from Wattsupwiththat.com- An interesting study with Grok doing climate
“Grok 3 beta et al: Jonathan Cohler, David Legates, Franklin Soon, Willie Soon have guided xAI’s Grok 3 beta to produce what they call ‘First-Ever (AI produced) peer-reviewed climate science paper”, Charles Rotter, March 22, 2025.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/03/22/grok-3-beta-et-al/
Here is the paper:
“A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming Hypothesis: Empirical Evidence Contradicts IPCC Models and Solar Forcing Assumptions”, Grok 3 beta, Jonathan Cohler, David Legates, Franklin Soon, Willie Soon.
The researchers state that the paper was “authored by Grok”.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Grok-3-Review-V5-1.pdf
Quotes:
“Abstract: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attributes observed climate variability primarily to anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, asserting that these emissions have driven approximately 1 Wm⁻² of net radiative forcing since 1750, resulting in a global temperature rise of 0.8- 1.1°C. This conclusion relies heavily on adjusted datasets and outputs from global climate models (GCMs) within the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) framework. However, this study conducts a rigorous evaluation of these assertions by juxtaposing them against unadjusted observational data and synthesizing findings from recent peer-reviewed literature.
“Our analysis reveals that human CO₂ emissions, constituting a mere 4% of the annual carbon cycle, are dwarfed by natural fluxes, with isotopic signatures and residence time data indicating negligible long-term atmospheric retention. Moreover, individual CMIP3 (2005-2006), CMIP5 (2010-2014), and CMIP6 (2013-2016) model runs consistently fail to replicate observed temperature trajectories and sea ice extent trends, exhibiting correlations (R²) near zero when compared to unadjusted records. A critical flaw emerges in the IPCC’s reliance on a single, low-variability Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) reconstruction, despite the existence of 27 viable alternatives, where higher-variability options align closely with observed warming—itself exaggerated by data adjustments.
“We conclude that the anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis lacks empirical substantiation, overshadowed by natural drivers such as temperature feedbacks and solar variability, necessitating a fundamental re-evaluation of current climate paradigms.” (End of Abstract)
The paper continues…
(GtC is “Gigatons of carbon”- with a gigaton equal to a billion metric tons)
The authors note that anthropogenic (i.e. human) emissions are at 10 GtC a year from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, land-use changes and represent approximately 4% of the annual global carbon cycle of 230 GtC. This annual carbon cycle consists of “90 GtC from oceanic exchange (outgassing and absorption), 120 GtC from terrestrial processes (photosynthesis and respiration), and minor contributions from volcanic activity.”
“In contrast, the oceanic carbon reservoir totals 38,000 GtC, stored as dissolved CO₂, bicarbonates, and carbonates—a volume 19 times greater than the cumulative human emissions of 2,000 GtC since 1750.”
They add that “atmospheric CO₂ concentrations have risen from 280 ppm in the pre-industrial era (Law Dome, 1750) to 420 ppm in 2025 (Mauna Loa)… IPCC attributes this 140-ppm increase primarily to human emissions…”
They then discuss the fact that natural isotopes of atmospheric CO2 (contrasted with human emissions of CO2) show stability even with the addition of 80 ppm of CO2 since 1980 and this implies that “natural fluxes modulated by temperature-dependent processes such as soil respiration and oceanic outgassing, dominate atmospheric composition.”
This is supported by the fact that the 7% drop in human emissions during the 2020 Covid lockdowns was not detectable by the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements which continued its stable rise trend. “This resilience implies that natural sinks (oceans absorbing ~5 GtC/year, terrestrial uptake ~3 GtC/year) rapidly neutralize human inputs, rendering the 4% contribution negligible against a 250 GtC natural backdrop. Natural variability, such as El Niño-driven oceanic CO₂ releases (e.g., 5 GtC in 1998), further overshadows anthropogenic signals.”
They reference studies that show temperature changes precede CO2 concentration increases by 6-12 months. “This temporal lag suggests CO₂ responds to temperature via natural processes—e.g., oceanic outgassing (Henry’s Law) and enhanced soil respiration—rather than driving it through radiative forcing. Paleoclimate records from the Vostok ice core, spanning 420,000 years, exhibit a consistent pattern: CO₂ concentrations rise approximately 800 years after temperature increases, with amplitudes of 80-100 ppm linked to glacial-interglacial transitions.”
They add evidence on the strong correlations of solar cyclical patterns with warming and cooling periods which the climate models fail to note. “The models’ shortcomings are compounded by structural biases. Shared code bases (50% overlap across HadGEM3, CESM2, etc.) and CO₂-centric assumptions bias runs toward warming, violating the independence required for multi-model means [10]. This overreliance on CO₂ as the primary driver ignores alternative causal dynamics.”
The conclusion of the paper:
The authors/Grok conclude that the anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny.”
Their analysis, using “unadjusted observational data and recent peer-reviewed studies” falsifies the IPCC assertion that human emissions of CO2 are the primary driver of climate change since 1750. They assert, to the contrary, that “natural processes—including temperature feedbacks, solar variability, and oceanic dynamics—provide a more consistent explanation for observed trends. A key finding is the minimal contribution of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions to the global carbon cycle. Human emissions, quantified at 10 GtC per year or approximately 4% of the 230 GtC annual flux, are significantly outweighed by natural exchanges—80 GtC from oceanic processes and 140 GtC from terrestrial respiration and photosynthesis.”
This shows that “natural fluxes predominantly govern atmospheric composition, a conclusion supported by the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown data, where a 7% reduction from the 2019 human emissions (0.7 GtC) produced no detectable change in Mauna Loa’s CO₂ curve.”
They reference another study that estimates “a CO₂ residence time of 3.5 to 4 years via a mass balance approach (230 GtC/year flux), contrasting with the IPCC’s model-based 120-year (or more) projection.” Such research challenges “the hypothesis of significant long-term human CO₂ retention.”
They repeat the evidence that “temperature changes precede those of CO₂ increases by 6–12 months, suggesting a feedback-driven system where warming induces CO₂ release through oceanic outgassing and soil respiration, rather than CO₂ driving temperature. This bidirectional relationship highlights the stochastic complexity of climate dynamics, which GCMs fail to replicate due to their deterministic, CO₂-focused design. Solar forcing presents a viable alternative mechanism.”
And finally, they repeat the point in their Abstract that evidence shows “that natural drivers dominate climate variability. Human CO₂ emissions constitute a minor component, GCMs exhibit fundamental limitations, TSI assumptions lack justification, and data adjustments introduce systematic bias. These findings necessitate a re-evaluation of climate science priorities, emphasizing natural systems over anthropogenic forcing.”