Dangerous Brain States
The most dangerous political animal (indeed, the most dangerous kind of human) are those who are either mistaking their self interests for others’ self interest or are not aware of their own non-rational reasoning for their political, religious or ideological bases. I would argue that they can be as dangerous as malevolent people, because of how insidious their reasoning is and how difficult it is to convince them of their own faults and failures.
Most humans are non-rational, emotionally based feelers, based on the current findings from psychological and sociological research. Those who are for one political way or another are not necessarily following it based on their own rational self-interests. If this were the case, than there would be no real controversy throughout most of the species when it comes to political, social, theological and/or economic and environmental questions, and no room to make controversy by malevolent or non-reality based members of our society. All societies would tend in the same basic ways with the same fundamental principles, with the deviations and unhelpful mutations being repressed or ignored actively by the vast majority of the human species.
This is clearly not the case, as any casual observer and examiner of politics within the various human societies of Earth could tell you, if they’re worth their salt.
The danger comes into play when people don’t recognize, accept and/or work with the fact that their politics and their political choices are not stemming from a kind of enlightened state of mind. They fail to keep circumspect about their own positions’ failings, and then, fail to adapt when and if their positions either prove to be untrue or prove to be basically invalid in light of common reality. They’ll more than likely contort their thinking and select the facts that are presented to them carefully, such that their original line of thinking becomes validated by themselves. Why or how this is the case, I honestly don’t know. But, based on my own experiences with talking to people, and based on my examinations of people and people in political situations, this seems to more than likely be the case for a vast majority of the species, regardless of their political affiliations. Through these contortionist reasoning, mental bending and inaccurate/biased selection of facts, the get an inaccurate picture of the world and then either make unhelpful choices in policy or else, come to irrational, unhelpful and/or dangerous conclusions for themselves and others. Hence how those who don’t acknowledge the facts or their own non-rational bases for policies become so dangerous, not only to themselves, but to all others who are around them.
We only have a brain and sense organs to examine the world with. We receive a highly selected vision of how the world is, both in terms of our physical and psychological senses, and then analyze it according to our individual neural pathways, which then can produce completely different chosen courses of action in government with the same information presented. That is, I think, more likely the reason why members of our own Congress can receive the same reports and come up with different policy choices, as it is the case that the same policy analysts can look at the same occurance and come up with vastly different analyses.
The question then becomes which analyses of events are the most helpful to understanding and working with the event(s) that occur, and which chosen courses of action provide the best possible results for the politicians, the people that they govern and the politicians through the effects that the people have on the politicians.
There is no disconnection between people and politicians, politicians and people. History has shown that, through creating physically and psychologically negative conditions for people in society, members of government become more likely to be voted out or physically removed from office. The reverse is also true; creating physically and psychologically positive conditions for people in society tends to improve the abilities for the governing members of society to stay in office and to receive greater accalades from the other members of society.
Therefore, there are attitudes, actions, policies and psychological profiles which can be considered more positive for society as a whole than others, in terms of the physical, pscyhological, environmental, social conditios that people in society live in, both on the grand, macro interstellar/planetary levels, as well as on the micro/individual levels.
No politican, indeed, very very very few individuals can be the perfect political leader, due to the complexity of the requirements of the positions of power. However, it is theoretically possible to either make near perfect teams or learn to be near perfect leaders of our social world, such that the greatest amount of good can be realized through any and all conditions that may happen throughout time and space on this planet and, indeed, in the rest of the universe as a whole. Functionally, I think that this means doing the least amount of actual harm. But, then again, that is only an imperfect position, produced by an imperfect brain that will have mixed effects in the world, based upon my own internal and externally motivated actions, as well as on the interal and externally motivated actions of others, plus the odd random event that happens in this universe external to all of humanity (ie, a gamma ray blast or alien life encounter).
In my view, I think this is an incredibly dynamic and flowing universe that we’re in and apart of, and that it’s time that we passionately begin to embrace the actualities of the world, rather than passionately embrace our pet preferences and hopes for this world. This too is only a non-rationally based position. Yet, I think that it is the position that will indeed, yield the most amount of physical, psychological, social, environmental and cosmological good for the whole of the human species, in spite of the naysayers who will attempt to confound this philosophy for one non-rationally based reason or another.
And it’s all thanks to history that I am able to come to this conclusion, at this time, at this place and in this condition.
Think about it.