I say it is all connected, religion and culture for at least up to 100,000 years ago, maybe up to 300,000 years ago, and everyone said,
“Damien you are crazy to think that.” Oh really???
We are just not that special…

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

People don’t commonly teach religious history, even that of their own claimed religion. No, rather they teach a limited “pro their religion” history of their religion from a religious perspective favorable to the religion of choice. 

We are like believing machines we vacuum up ideas, like Velcro sticks to almost everything. We accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives, often without realizing it. Our willingness must be to alter skewed beliefs that impend our balance or reason, which allows us to achieve new positive thinking and accurate outcomes.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

To me, Animism starts in Southern Africa, then to West Europe, and becomes Totemism. Another split goes near the Russia and Siberia border becoming Shamanism, which heads into Central Europe meeting up with Totemism, which also had moved there, mixing the two which then heads to Lake Baikal in Siberia. From there this Shamanism-Totemism heads to Turkey where it becomes Paganism.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Do you truly think “Religious Belief” is only a matter of some personal choice?

Do you not see how coercive one’s world of choice is limited to the obvious hereditary belief, in most religious choices available to the child of religious parents or caregivers? Religion is more commonly like a family, culture, society, etc. available belief that limits the belief choices of the child and that is when “Religious Belief” is not only a matter of some personal choice and when it becomes hereditary faith, not because of the quality of its alleged facts or proposed truths but because everyone else important to the child believes similarly so they do as well simply mimicking authority beliefs handed to them. Because children are raised in religion rather than being presented all possible choices but rather one limited dogmatic brand of “Religious Belief” where children only have a choice of following the belief as instructed, and then personally claim the faith hereditary belief seen in the confirming to the belief they have held themselves all their lives. This is obvious in statements asked and answered by children claiming a faith they barely understand but they do understand that their family believes “this or that” faith, so they feel obligated to believe it too. While I do agree that “Religious Belief” should only be a matter of some personal choice, it rarely is… End Hereditary Religion!

Opposition to Imposed Hereditary Religion

Value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic evil.

I am a caring firebrand atheist, wishing to be hard on ideas but kind to people. As an axiological atheist, I understand and utilize value or actually “Value Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify my humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care. Value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic evil.

No God: No evidence, No intelligence, and No goodness = Valid Atheism Conclusion

  1. No evidence, to move past the Atheistic Null Hypothesis: There is no God/Gods (in inferential statistics, a Null Hypothesis generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. Thus, a Null Hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis that there is no significant difference reached between the claim and the non-claim, as it is relatively provable/demonstratable in reality some way. “The god question” Null Hypothesis is set at as always at the negative standard: Thus, holding that there is no God/Gods, and as god faith is an assumption of the non-evidentiary wishful thinking non-reality of “mystery thing” found in all god talk, until it is demonstratable otherwise to change. Alternative hypothesis: There is a God (offered with no proof: what is a god and how can anyone say they know), therefore, results: Insufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis of no God/Gods.
  2. No intelligence, taking into account the reality of the world we do know with 99 Percent Of The Earth’s Species Are Extinct an intelligent design is ridiculous. Five Mass Extinctions Wiped out 99 Percent of Species that have ever existed on earth. Therefore like a child’s report card having an f they need to retake the class thus, profoundly unintelligent design.
  3. No goodness, assessed through ethically challenging the good god assumptions as seen in the reality of pain and other harm of which there are many to demonstrates either a god is not sufficiently good, not real or as I would assert, god if responsible for this world, would make it a moral monster ripe for the problem of evil and suffering (Argument from Evil). God would be responsible for all pain as life could easily be less painful and yet there is mass suffering. In fact, to me, every child born with diseases from birth scream out against a caring or loving god with the power to do otherwise. It could be different as there is Congenital insensitivity to pain (CIP), also known as congenital analgesia, in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain.[1]

Personality as intact functional integrity, a set of individual conditions of practical relationships generated by natural and social development, implies a system of information items and their mental traces specific for man which in its controlled function is termed value consciousness. Its identification substance is primarily conceptual and its reality is mass-individual, of different levels, yet with an overall orientation on the development of its biological species, society, and itself, on the process whose dynamics and specific orientation has determined its development and maintenance. As the principle of a person, consciousness is a substantial manifestation of the endowment of active sociability and intelligence. Therefore its highest quality of cognizance and conscientiousness requires effective operation with key concepts of rational, internal, sufficiently reflected aspects of practice. Following the primordial basic trend of the development of human life to full selfrealization of mankind, i. e. unity of the species, society, and the principle of the individual, it eventually overcomes the emotional consumer attitude to the sense of life and makes a correct handling of life, relations, functions, and values possible. Its developed form has a decisive, quality providing value for interpersonal, social and historical relationships, cultural and control functions, with a marked everyday impact, particularly on human medicine. Ref

Leon Pomeroy Ph.D.Beyond Good and Evil

New Psychology Revisited

All You Need to Know
Nature and nurture organized our values around three dimensions (cognitive “mechanisms”) dedicated to values and valuations that give rise to behavioral “content” such as emotions, motivations, aesthetic values, political values, ethical values, moral values, etc. The distinction is one of the deep axiological mechanisms vs. superficial axiological content. The underlying dimensions or mechanisms have technical names, but we’ll stick with intuitive, but slightly deceptive, descriptors like Feeler (F), Doer (D) and Thinker (T). With the brain’s help, they become the “building blocks” of behavior. Tapping into them allows the measurement of one’s General Capacity to Value, and one’s capacity to value in each of three core dimensions of value. All you need to know about psychology begins and ends with values. Yet, there are no universities offering courses dealing with the science of values and its clinical relevance. Your introduction to value science begins here…as a remake! You learned your ABCs and 123s in elementary school. It’s time to learn your FDTs…standing for Empathic Feeler (F) Self, Action-Oriented Doer (D) Self, and Analytical-Thinker (T) Self. Are you a Feeler, Doer or Thinker? What is your weakest dimension? How do you compensate? What is your strongest dimension? How do you use it? Are your FDTs a “match-up” or a “mix-up” when relating to others? Do you pay attention to your FDT biases / mind-sets and those of others? Do you know what to look for? Can you recognize the behavioral proxies of FDTs in yourself and others…and then act on this information? Is FDT consciousness important to you when you ask yourself “what do I want and how can I get it?” Do you ever ask this question? Why not? Can you juggle-on-demand Feeler, Doer and Thinker selves when making-work or making-love? Let’s review five basic principles of axiological science:

Five Principles:

1. Nature and nurture organized our values around three dimensions (cognitive“mechanisms”) dedicated to values and valuations that give rise to behavioral “content” such as emotions, motivations, aesthetic values, political values, ethical values, moral values, etc. The distinction is one of the deep axiological mechanisms vs. superficial axiological content. The underlying dimensions or mechanisms have technical names, but we’ll stick with intuitive, but slightly deceptive, descriptors like Feeler (F), Doer (D) and Thinker (T). With the brain’s help, they become the “building blocks” of behavior. Tapping into them allows the measurement of one’s General Capacity to Value, and one’s capacity to value in each of three core dimensions of value.

2. Each dimension possesses sensitivity. It varies across dimensions and among individuals. Mental health depends on an optimum level of FDT sensitivities along a continuum from value-acuity,” to “value-astigmatism,” to “value-blindness.” Value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic evil. It is measurable.

3. Mental health also depends on balance; meaning sensitivity that doesn’t spike too high or too low in any dimension. Balance favors flexibility in the mobilization of FDT profiles in response to persons and situations. It promotes desirable pro-self, pro-social behavior as opposed to anti-self, anti-social behavior. This is measurable.

4. Axiological plasticity vs. axiological rigidity. Mental health builds on plasticity and shuns rigidity. Certain situations are processed by dedicated FDT profiles Keep in mind that bad things don’t upset us, it is how we interpret with FDTs, or think about them, that upsets us. This is the power of cognitive processing with FDT profiles. The profile associated with empathic behavior is very different from that associated with analytical behavior. FDT profiles can be fluid and fleeting or they can be crystallized when associated with more enduring personality states and traits.

FDT rigidity is very self-defeating as seen in the perseverative, formulaic, and binary thinking of borderline patients, and some PTSD patients. Given today’s fanaticism associated with ideological terrorism, issues concerning ideology and rigidity loom larger than ever. Evidence suggests an active involvement of both the molecular brain and the axiological mind in cases of rigidity involving preemptory ideation or the firmly held preoccupations of minds called idée fixe. These are descriptive, not diagnostic terms. I use them for impact. They emphasize the point I want to make concerning rigid, obsessive ideologies in today’s world. It’s not new. We’ve always had ideological anarchism and solipsism in the extreme, and the political ideologies of war, but it’s all amplified these days by social networks in the global village.

5. This principle refers to dimensional priorities, or what amounts to the order of influence of FDT dimensions and profiles. Mental health builds on the priority and supremacy of the Feeler dimension. This is given by the selective pressures of biosocial and psychosocial evolution. Its influence can be proximal (near and immediate) or distal (far and remote), but it’s a constant presence. It is normative for Doer and Thinker selves to function within the more global Feeler self. Feeler bias is the command and control center that mediates pro-self, pro-social behavior. This dimension of valuation is connected to the brain’s mirror neurons and it is a good example of how neuroscience and axiological science can work together. We cannot always live as Feelers. Sometimes wearing our heart on our sleeves may not be best for us. The influence of the Feeler self on the Doer and Thinker selves ebbs and flows in response to situational demands. There are individuals in whom the Feeler self is blunted (2o damage), or even fails to develop (1o damage). Both impact mental status. How it’s handled can become the genesis of psychopathology or evil. This can be measured.

Measuring Values: HVP

Our theme “it can be measured” is important. This is what separates axiological psychology from old clinical and behavioral psychology. The instrument in question is The Hartman Value Profile (HVP). Historically, the HVP is a merciful “handle” on philosopher Hartman’s Theory of Value. It cleared a path for my research testing the validity of Hartman’s operational definition of good, his mathematical modeling of values and valuations, his hypothesis of three axes of valuation, and his test of one’s general capacity to value. These data have since transformed value theory into a science of values.

Business Applications: HVP

Entrepreneurs have long marketed the HVP to clients in their business-to-business relations around the world. This is accompanied by the success you might expect of those focused on the bottom line. (In some cases they develop proprietary “derivatives” and “parallel forms” of the HVP to meet client needs). The proprietary nature of their work limited data sharing. My presentations of research findings before annual conferences on the campus of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and publication of The New Science of Axiological Psychology came under no such limitations. In the end, the friendly competition among members of the Hartman Circle has served to advanced axiological science and a new climate of cooperation promises further advances in the future.

Psychology and Testing:

Psychologists study behavior and behavior is a manifestation of values and valuations. Values are universal and so values research has broad implications for the social sciences and all human activity. For one hundred years psychology has studied behavior using the tools of natural or material science. This has yielded insights into the brain but not the mind. Axiological science is mind science. Natural science is brain science. Neuroscience is to brain and molecules, as axiological science is to the mind and values. The three dimensions of value function like three letters of an alphabet writing the “language” of behavior, including emotions and motivations. Psychology gave us psychological testing. Axiological science has given us value testing and amounts to “psychological testing” without psychological tests. The power of values to reveal human psychology exists because of the universality of values that lurk beneath behavior. We now have a science to go after those values and take us “beyond psychology,” so as to enrich psychology.

Caveat Emptor: Like all behavioral tests and measures, the HVP is a “rubber ruler.” However, the explanatory, descriptive, and predictive powers of the HVP are well documented in published research and are continually demonstrated by practitioners meeting the needs of their business clients with the HVP on a daily basis.

Beyond Good and Evil:

Having looked “beyond psychology,” I suggest we look beyond good and evil by simply asking “what’s beyond good and evil?” Philosopher Nietzsche found Social Darwinism. This appealed to a borderline personality named Adolf Hitler and the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparteior; or Nazi Party (1920-1945). It helped them organize evil in a world that knew nothing about organizing good with any scientific precision. It appears axiological science exists beyond good and evil and this gives us the opportunity to organize good on a scientific basis so as to combat perpetual efforts by some to organize evil. This adds a new dimension of humanism for the humanities. It gives us hope for the future.

© Dr. Leon Pomeroy, Ph.D.

Teaching Humanities in College: David Brooks’ recent article on the Op-Ed page of the June 21, 2013 New York Times is entitled “The Humanist Vocation.” He reports that fifty years ago 14% of college degrees were given to majors in the humanities. Today the figure is 7%. He acknowledges the job market is a factor, but argues that teaching the humanities in college is “committing suicide because many humanists have lost faith in their own enterprise.” It is an enterprise devoted to the cultivation of the “human core, spirit, soul, wisdom, truthfulness, and courage.” Brooks believes that “somewhere along the way, many people in the humanities lost faith in their uplifting mission.” Instead of focusing on higher values like truth, spiritual depth, personal integrity, beauty, critical thinking and goodness, the humanities drifted to a focus on sociopolitical categories like race, class, and gender while liberal arts professors became “moralistic about politics but more tentative concerning private morality less they offend somebody.” He argues this made the humanities less relevant to college students searching to know thyself, “self-understanding and moral goodness” which leaves the humanities in crisis. One can ask, where is the passion that Brooks and I felt when we were college undergraduates? My involvement with the development of axiological science keeps the passion alive in me. I’d like to believe the issues addressed in this Blog will contribute to the revival of interest in the humanities. In the meantime, The American Academy of Arts and Sciences appears to be listening and is responding to this crisis involving the decline and fall of humanities on college campuses.

Comment Concerning FTD Profiles: A pragmatic FDT profile is behind behavior that is necessary and sufficient for a purpose. An empathic FDT profile challenges the notion that the ends justify the means. It also enables us to make-love and make-work. If the Feeler self is undeveloped sociopathic evil emerges. An analytic FDT profile helps with problem solving. At the center of normative valuations is the Feeler self. Its influence on Doer and Thinker behavior may be immediate or remote. FDT profiles are sensitivity profiles, balance profiles, priority profiles, and plasticity-rigidity profiles. They may be fluid or crystalized. Fluid profiles have their “moment in the sun” when evoked to deal with special situations falling within some range of convenience. Otherwise, they fade into a “cache” until needed again. Storing a FDT profile in a “cache” is a way of retaining it for quick retrieval and activation. This is called a “cache hit.” Otherwise, the profile must be recalculated or pulled from more remote storage, which invites inefficiencies and errors. This is called a “cache miss.” Axiological science and psychology are ripe for computer simulation, systems theory, information theory, and improved mathematical modeling. Because axiological science is focused on values and valuations its findings have implications for all the social sciences, including economics, and the pressing need to balance capitalism with socialism and socialism with capitalism to curb greed, extreme business cycles, financial and asset bubbles, booms and busts, and income inequality in an age of globalization and electronic social networks that can easily trigger social unrest on a massive scale. We can no longer safely toy with or game monetary and fiscal policies. Ref

Blog Index: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-good-and-evil


Leon Pomeroy Ph.D.

Beyond Good and Evil, More than moral reasoning

Why is it Easier to Organize Evil than Good?

Surviving the nature of human nature
Transpositional and Compositional Values:

Inclined to think in terms of values, my thoughts turn to the axiological concepts of “Transposition” and “Composition” which have to do with how we combine values. I offer the following to explain what I mean:

In my youth I read stories by James Fenimore Cooper which dealt with the American frontier and Indian life. At times they “transported my imagination” into the darkness of woods at night where the sound of a broken twig or branch under foot can be the harbinger of danger. I knew the sound because in “real life” I would go Coon Hunting with dogs at night with my father, his pals, and my brother in rural Western Massachusetts. This sound at night suggests the presence of someone and all this might imply! This is the context and meaning of “Transposition.” On the other hand, the noise of a stream of running water or wind in the trees is the meaning of a “Composition of values.” Put simply, a “Transposition” is analogous to sawdust on ice cream, while a “Composition” is analogous to chocolate on ice cream (1).

Such terminology concerns value-vision based on how we habitually combine Feeler (Intrinsic), Doer (Extrinsic), and Thinker (Systemic) values forming the three dimensions of value within our “inner world of values.” An internal world that is parallel and somewhat analogous to our external world of three dimensions involving length (L), height (H), and width (W). “Navigational” strategies apply to both, and so it’s not surprising we talk about a “moral compass.”

My friend and colleague in Germany, Uli Vogel, refers to these dimensions of value within us as the active “Human,” “Factual,” and “Principal” dimensions of value which “interpret and process” the more passive sensations of five sensory modalities which include vision, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. The point is, our ever expanding values and valuations become organized around three cognitive dimensions dedicated to forming structural values and exercising valuations. The structure and functional dynamism of these dimensions have emotional and behavioral consequences which can be identified and measured employing axiological science and psychology!

Values Gone Mad: 

Let’s consider an example of transposition of values “gone mad” (i.e., the existence and use of a negative value combination “gone mad“). I have in mind the pathology (i.e., very bad habit ) of “treating persons as things all the time while insensitive to doing so!” This amounts to an extreme devaluation of the uniqueness, individuality, and infinite value of a person. This “Transposition” is encountered in some forms of mental illness. It is a definition of Evil. It is behavior associated with some schizophrenics, psychopaths, and borderline personalities like Adolf Hitler (Why so many Germans followed him to war is another story involving many “nodes” and “moving parts” discussed in previous blogs).

Consistently treating a person as a “thing” is a hallmark of Evil as opposed to Good. In this context, Good involves the recognition of the singularity, individuality and uniqueness of persons. The sensitivity and insensitivity to “Transpositions” of “Self” and “Others” is rooted in human nature; meaning the “gun is loaded.” In response, we must educate and build a society that avoids pulling triggers indiscriminately and recklessly. This begs questions concerning critical thinking, scientific method, values, moral reasoning, moral science, and moral education aimed at building tomorrow’s preventive psychology today in support of preventive medicine; recalling that health care is the fastest growing failing business in the world today!

The General Capacity to Value and Beyond: 

Discriminating “Combinatorial Transpositions and Compositions” is specifically related to our individual and collective General Capacity to Value (GCV). This in turn is based on how we organize and exercise Feeler, Doer, and Thinker values behind degrees of value-vision, value-astigmatism, and value-blindness or degrees of “seeing with values” beyond the five modalities of pure sensations. The cognitive processing dedicated to values and valuations (i.e., value-vision) allows us to go from the “is” of sensation to the “ought” of valuation, and hopefully without greatly impaired value-vision.

I’m suggesting Evil (Represented by the Black Face) involves seriously disturbed value-vision made up of pathological value-combinations called “Transpositions” which result in anti-self, anti-social behavior; while Good (Represented by the White Face) involves more pro-self, pro-social value “Compositions.” These outcomes are in turn related to changing levels of sensitivity, balance, priority, and plasticity of Feeler, Doer, Thinker dimensions of value-vision “driving” emotions and behavior. People differ in their overall General Capacity to Value as well as function in each of the three dimensions of value!

This isn’t “blue sky,” “theoretical talk.” We can test and measure these axiological variables (Transpositions, Compositions, General Capacity to Value, Feeler value-vision, Doer Value-Vision, Thinker Value-Vision, and their interactions), and come up with hypotheses concerning personality profiles and useful clinical, and vocational information. Like the quantum mechanics of physics, psychology deals in hypotheses and statistical probabilities because of the large number of interacting variables involved, and Axiological Science and Axiological Psychology are no exceptions.

But, in the final analysis, must we assume Good and Evil, as well as Heaven and Hell, are“other people;” or is there more to it than this? The Hitlers of the world turn values upside down and inside out in the service of existential egos producing lethal “Transpositions of Madness!” It’s important that we are able to spot such behavior and react appropriately. Our new science helps us do just that! The behavior in question is grounded in evolutionary biology and developmental psychology where the impact of mass psychology (i.e., the zeitgeist, climate-of-opinion, mass-mind, weltanschauung or spirit-of-the-times) is often ignored! Axiological Psychology is needed to more properly understand the interesting co-play and counter-play (i.e., dynamism) between the psychology of individuals, the psychology of collectives, and their interactions! The loss of interpersonal face-time with the explosion of more impersonal social media is speeding up this dynamism involving individuals and collectives and psychology needs to catch up!

Because “Transpositions” grab attention and evoke fear we think more about them and dwell on them more than “Compositions;” recalling that “fear attracts.” “Compositions” favor habituation rather than arousal and selective attention. This makes it easier to organize the “Transpositions of Evil” than the “Compositions of Good.” There is also the biological advantage of “Transpositions” favoring basic adaptation and survival, but it is the value “Compositions” that allow us to flourish!

There is something very biological about “Transpositions” and very psychological about “Compositions.” We’re dealing with discrimination at the level of values and valuations which is reflected in seeing the metaphorical “trees from the forest” and vice versa.

We are dealing with valuations which is cognitive processing dedicated to the formation of values and valuations. We are also dealing with the “conservation of energy” where Thinking (i.e., Systemic ideation or valuation) and Doing (i.e., Extrinsic ideation or valuation) are less of a burden on “cognitive machinery,” and less complex than that related to the cognitive processing of Feeling or intrinsic ideation. This has consequences! In the words of my friend and colleague Steve Byrum, “the Systemic (Thinking) and Extrinsic (Doing) are less complex than the Intrinsic (Feeling), and so once again the paths of least resistance triumph” … making it easier to organize Evil than Good.

Avignon and History:

As I walk around the preserved Roman Coliseum before me and head to the Palace of the Popes, in a region of Provence often painted by artists, I note the extreme lengths to which the Romans went to organize Good around the “Compositional values” of their “bread and circus” for the masses. History tells us how they also entertained the masses with Lions eating slaves in the Coliseum. This savage act exploited the power of “Transpositional” values to capture attention, thrill, and entertain. I see before me how the Popes had taken elaborate measures to protect themselves against real-world “Transpositions” (Forgive the persistent abstraction of “Transpositions” and “Compositions,” but I’m trying to breath life into these concepts) by living securely within an elaborately walled city, inside a massively fortified Palace, while promoting the “Compositional” or humanistic values of Good for the faithful.

In the spirit of breaking an egg to make an omelet, the Roman organization of values (i.e., which included balancing “Transpositions” and “Compositions) managed to build, but not sustain, an empire. This was a consequence of their superior organization of civic life around the bread and circus, and military life around aggressive and well organized military policies. The “barbarians” they faced existed in greater numbers but were less organized. The Romans proved better at organizing Evil than the “barbarians,” but fell short when it came to organizing Good over the long term, and in the end Rome collapsed from within; apart from being poisoned by lead in their food and water. Romans fell victim to the nature of human nature involving the superior management of facts, but mismanagement of values; referring to the unfinished business of managing “Transpositions” without the guidance of a science of values and morals beyond the mere adoption of Christianity. Does this sound familiar? Should we draw lessons from this? I’m thinking that as important as religion is it isn’t enough!

The Popes to their credit, were more involved than Rome with the balancing of “Transpositions” and “Compositions” aimed at maximizing Good for the faithful. Their relative skill with “Compositional Values” allowed the adopted Religion of Rome to outlast the Rome. These days, the legacy of half-smart humanism, without moral education, is beginning to wear thin in today’s world in need of an education that goes beyond merely learning one’s ABCs and 123s. I’m thinking as important as today’s education is it isn’t enough!

The Two Palaces:

The city before me, Avignon, got me thinking about all this as I recovered from climbing the many steps of the Papal Palace.

The Problem Revisited:

From my perch at Avignon, atop a “mountain of history,” enjoying the wines of Provence, I continue to think about the problem of organizing Good and how it must be rooted in the nature of human nature fostering the conclusion that “we’ve met the enemy and it is us.” Wandering about the ruins and restorations of this ancient city, I thought of Nietzsche who had written that Beyond Good and Evil is “survival of the fittest.” He had also written that Beyond Good and Evil there is love.” How he resolved the apparent contradiction escapes me. Perhaps it is my reading of him that confuses me in this regard.

Not to worry, I reach for another glass of wine recalling my participation in the discovery of Axiological Science (i.e., Value Science) beyond good and evil; a science that rejects “Social Darwinism” in favor of “Love;” a new science promoting culture-free, religiously-neutral moral education and moral reasoning capable of enriching all humanistic traditions including philosophy and the religions of the world in need of support from an Axiological Science perspective!

At Avignon I looked back on having rejected Hartman’s theory of value in 1973 as an intern at the Ellis Institute, but with satisfaction for having rediscovered and taken him seriously in 1979 when few in my profession did so. Indeed, none had stepped forward to plan, execute, and publish the peer review research needed to prove or disprove this philosopher’s contributions to the study of values. Knowing there was no way I”d be scooped, I proceeded at my own pace to go where no one had gone before, never looked back, and succeeded in establishing the validity of Hartman’s contributions which had inspired my search for an approach to values having clinical relevance beyond academic relevance!

Wine, Remembering, and Celebrating: 

With a camera in hand and the comfort of a glass of wine, I took satisfaction in having personally published research spanning some twenty-five years as summarized in the pages of The New Science of Axiological Psychology. Research which supports philosopher Hartman’s theoretical achievementmathematical modeling, and value profiling methodology. I want to believe that Hartman and my achievements resemble in many ways the relationship that existed between Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley; for in some respects, it can be said I have become Hartman’s “Bulldog” much as Huxley became Darwin’s “Bulldog.”

Yes! I mean to compare Robert S. Hartman with Charles Darwin given the scope and importance of Hartman’s theoretical achievement. Let’s not forget he received a nomination for the Nobel Prize in recognition of what he had done. On the other hand, I don’t want to sell myself short!  “Bulldog?” Doesn’t my publish research supporting Hartman’s Theory of Value effectively transform it into a Science of Value in keeping with the role and importance of reason plus empiricism in the history of science and the scientific method?

Towards a Better World: 

This new science promises to save natural science from itself and humankind from itself at a time of growing cynicism concerning both! I also took satisfaction in having posted Psychology Today blogs aimed at introducing this new science to the wider world beyond the “Hartman Circle” of pioneers engaged in developing and applying this new science. If this sounds slightly grandiose, blame the wine and my surroundings! Better yet, acknowledge how we have worked hard developing this new approach to values and the normative values we call morals! https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-good-and-evil

I also thought about blogs covering other topics such as my interest in biological medicine long before it became fashionable with advances in molecular biology and genetics. I hoped to have shed some axiological light on psychology and biological light on medicine; the two fields which have held my professional interest for many years as one trained in psychology at Austin and biology at Amherst. As I move about Avignon with my Leica M9 and Digital Canon engaged in street photography and in search of photo-ops, I recalled the blog I wrote entitled Discover Your Self Through Photography.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-good-and-evil/201407/discove…

Photography teaches me to see with sensations. Axiological science teaches me to see with values. Of course they overlap! Neither sensations nor values (i.e., empiricism and reason) are enough to “find” ourselves or “save” us from ourselves. In a formal sense, sensations and values come together with the help of yesterday’s “scientific method”  and today’s “axiological science.” We need the reason of minds and the empiricism of sensations. This is consistent with the philosophy of Aristotle and Kant which oppose to the half-smart philosophies of Hume’s empiricism and Decartes’ reason! It’s common sense these days, but this was not always the case. Let this be known to all promoting the new discipline of “Philosophical Counseling” in this century!

In pauses between photo-ops, I also recalled the three dimensions of the physical space I was moving in and how ironic it is that our puppeteer mind, pulling the strings of our puppet brain, is organized around three dimensions of value producing Triaxiomatic Value-Vision. Equally interesting is the fact that my perception of color, captured by cameras, is also organized around three primary dimensions of color called Trichromatic Color-Vision. Finally, I recall the quote from Ecclesiastes 4:12 that reminds us how “a cord of three strands is not quickly broken.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beyond-good-and-evil/201508/are-you…


As you might expect Triaxiomatic Value-Vision is very different from Trichromatic Color-Vision. It is based on the organization of values and valuations around three dimensions of value referred to as the Feeler (Human-Intrinsic); Doer  (Practical-Extrinsic), and Thinker (Principal-Systemic) dimensions of value (During our long march developing the science of values, I have my friends and colleagues Wayne Carpenter (i.e., “Feeler, Doer, Thinker”) and Uli Vogel  (i.e., “Human, Practical, Principal“) to thank for their more intuitive relabeling of Hartman’s philosophical terminology (i.e., “Intrinsic, Extrinsic, Systemic“).

The descriptive, explanatory, and predictive powers of these dimensions is thoroughly supported and validated by my transparent, peer-reviewed, published research beyond proprietary considerations. The merciful organization of values around three dimensions keeps us from “choking” on values as they grow in number from their “humble” origin in the biology of “protoplasmic irritability.” This enables their more effective use meeting the demands of adaptation, survival, and flourishing.

Sitting at a Café, observing people and the mix of Medieval and contemporary surroundings, I recalled how Hartman did not use the mathematics of Factor Analysis I had studied in college to “break out” these core dimensions of value. Instead, he used the mathematics of “set theory” which I never studied in college.

Colonel Frank Forrest, Ph.D. (West Point Graduate) and I often discussed “set theory” at annual meetings of the Hartman Institute. I remember listening to his careful explanation of how it worked and his thoughts concerning the scoring of Hartman’s test of values, and how Hartman’s theoretical achievements, including the definition of Good, and my empirical research converged to give us the science of values the ancients dreamed about, and the best minds of history had failed to discover.

Frank and I, in agreement with others on our long march, believe axiological science has come along just in time, and that it promises to enrich lives in years to come while improving our ability to organize Good in a world where the organization of evil has stolen the show since the beginning of time.

With all this behind me, and having had enough red wine for the day, I move on! Let it also be known that I am not “crying” because my vacation in France is coming to an end….I’m smiling because it all happened!

© Dr. Leon Pomeroy, Ph.D.

Avignon, France, October 31, 2015 

(1)  Technical Note: “Transposition” and “Composition” are important because our science of structural values and dynamic valuations can measure them. They are correlated with problems in living just as the sensitivity, balance, order of influence, and plasticity of the three core dimensions of value relate to problems in living. The degree of confusion (i.e., value–vision vs. value-astigmatism vs. value-blindness…to employ the “optical metaphor”) concerning them varies among individuals.

Consider the following:   In the axiological range of “Compositions” would you value “a good meal” more or less than “a baby?” In the axiological range of “Transpositions” would you value “nonsense” more or less than “a rubbish heap?” How about your ranking of the relative importance of “My working conditions are poor and ruin my work” (i.e., a “Transposition”) vs. “I feel at home in the world” (i.e., a “Composition”)? Some comparisons are “no brainers,” others we struggle with, and still others at the frontier of change in today’s society and world pose a real challenge to moral reasoning (e.g., medical ethics), legal reasoning (e.g., supreme court decisions), and so forth.

There are many other examples of “Transpositions” and “Compositions” to plug into our test asking patients or clients to rank a total of nine “Compositions” and nine “Transpositions. This eighteen item test has a pleomorphic “face validity” in response to the linguistic proxies (e.g., “a good meal,” etc.) chosen to represent each of the eighteen mathematical formulae forming the basis of the test known as The Hartman Value Profile (HVP). I’ve used this test in my practice for many years, apart from my published research examining its cross-cultural and biomedical validity; and its use profiling the personalities and clinical status of combat veterans, POWs, patients with different problems in living, students, doctors, substance abusers, and high achievers.

Finally, there are many business entrepreneurs engaged in marketing this test (HVP) to clients on a proprietary basis in many countries throughout the world today; all of which reflects favorably on the validity of our new science of values behind it all. This test of values is important because it is at the tip of a revolution in science which holds many unexplored implications and potential applications. You’re likely hearing about it here for the first time because it remains one of the world’s best kept secrets at the moment.


p.s.  Paris! May your spirits soar !!!

Returning to the US before the tragedy of November 13th, and as a former resident of Manhattan for thirty-three years with vivid memories of 911, I share the sadness of it all. I know that in the end the power of Good & Love in the World will triumph over this new face of Evil & Hate. I trust our developing science of values will make it easier to spot and deal with this and all forms of Evil in years to come! Ref

Are You a Feeler, Doer, or Thinker?

The simplicity and power of Three Little Words

Leon Pomeroy Ph.D.

Simplicity because everyone knows the meaning of feeling, doing, and thinking. Power because we’re prisoners of the values behind them. Power because they allow us a test of how we organize and exercise values for better or worse. Power because we now have a science of values and can measure them…a new science, a second science that never existed before. Power because we all stand to benefit from the cultivation of an expanded awareness of what’s behind Our “Three Little Words.”

“Three Little Words” happens to be the title of a popular song of the 1930s by Kalmar and Ruby. With minimal paraphrasing, I give you a few lyrics of Their Three Little Words”to help us remember Our “Three Little Words:

Oh I need to remember that wonderful phrase

To hear those three little words

“Feeler, Doer, Thinker”

For the rest of my days

And what I feel in my heart

They tell me sincerely

What no other words can tell me so clearly

Three little words

Seventeen letters

Which simply mean “Feeler, Doer, Thinker”

And what I feel in my heart

They say sincerely

What no other words can tell me so clearly

Our version refers to the Feeler, Doer, and Thinker in all of us. Our scientific and clinical interest in them derives from the convergence of psychological and philosophical thought following the publication of philosopher Robert S. Hartman’s Structure of Value, and autobiographical Freedom to Live; followed by my New Science of Axiological Psychology summarizing my twenty-five years of research supporting Hartman’s approach to values, their clinical relevance, and the descriptive, explanatory, and predictive powers of these dimensions of value-vision lurking behind beliefs and thought styles resulting in emotions and behavior.

Hartman called them the Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Systemtic dimensions of value. I will more intuitively refer to them as the Feeler, Doer, and Thinker dimensions respectively. They strongly influence all behavior and the construction of identity, personhood, self, and self-esteem. This is the story of Feeler, Doer, and Thinker ways of sensing and behaving, and how each of us organizes and exercises them in different ways for better or worse.

Each dimension has its “moment in the sun” responding to different situations with different degrees of sensitivity, influence, balance and plasticity. The goal is always adaptation, survival, choices, and flourishing in the moment with a sense of past and future, history, and consequentiality. Biosocial and psychosocial evolution produced these centers of valuation to protect us from “choking” on the growth of values with roots in the “protoplasmic irritability” of cells. They are centers of cognitive processing organized around and dedicated to the three dominant forms of “seeing-with-values” which results in beliefs and thought-styles behind “normal” pro-self, pro-social behaviors and “abnormal” anti-self, anti-social behaviors, including all that is said to be good or evil.

The existential or identity values among them contribute to the construction of self and the “architecture” of the “puppeteer mind” pulling the strings of the “puppet” brain; although at times their roles are reversed in response to genetic influences, prescribed and recreational drugs, and environmental pollution. I also have in mind not wanting to see today’s fashionable neuroscience steal the show while a some like me work to advance axiological science and psychology. This is valuecentric psychology based on the science of values without which a science of psychology and critical thinking are impossible. Some believe this new science is more important to our survival than all the natural sciences…including today’s neuroscience! What do you think?   


The ideal state of Feeling, Doing, and Thinking centers on balance while retaining sufficient flexibility to allow the dominance of one value dimension over the others even as it recruits the others to serve a useful purpose before giving way to the dominance of another dimension. Hopefully this dynamism serves the right reasons and not the wrong reasons. There can be unhealthy deviations or bending of Feeler, Doer, or Thinker dimensions resulting in “garden variety” or “more serious” problems in living. In the case of more serious Feeler-Deviations, we have the examples of manic excitement, depressionnarcissism, and loss of empathy to the point of psychopathic behavior. Doer-Deviations can result in self-defeating perfectionism and procrastination. Thinker-Deviations can trigger obsessions, paranoia, fanaticism, anger, extreme nationalism and religiosity; or whatever “flavor of the moment” influences susceptible and suggestable personalities and imaginations. Today’s zeitgeist appears to favor terrorism wearing the mask of religiosity and protest. Is political correctness a clinical or subclinical mask of some underlying pseudocultural pathology as discussed in a previous blog?

Less acute, “Garden variety” Feeler-Deviations might include flattened affect, inappropriate affect, shynesscynicism, alienation, and disturbed communication. Doer-Deviations may result in compulsive behaviors and rebellion against authority. Thinker-Deviations may cause one to become more an observer than participant in life. My point is that the organization and exercise of “not so little” dimensions of value is behind “big” emotions and behaviors. They are also behind the “thought-styles” psychologist Ellis made important in his approach to psychotherapy (e.g., catastrophizing, musturbation, helpless-hopeless conscious “self-talk” or unconscious and internalized “thought-shorthand”).


Each of these dimensions finds expression as “building blocks.” They impact all of us as habitual self-evaluators. Some become the “existential dimensions” of self and self-esteem;” where the Feeler-Self “makes love,” The Doer-Self “makes work,” and the Thinker-Self makes plans, solves problems, and searches for meaning.

The Thinker-Self is “home” to ideologies and utopias which can become existential when the Feeler-Self gets involved with the “business” of the Thinker-Self. Freud called this involvement “cathexis.”  It ranges from the casual to the fanatical. Do you suppose this cognitive “mechanism” is involved with today’s excessive and fashionable “political correctness?” I hope to return to the question next month!

Different moments and challenges call for different “valuational styles” giving rise to different “belief systems,” giving rise to different “thought styles,” giving rise to different emotions and behaviors. This involves rotating permutations having to do with prioritizing or ordering of Feeler, Doer, Thinker capacities and sensitivities. Making matters more complex is the fact that conscious and unconscious thought-styles lurk behind emotions and behaviors as discussed in the pages of The Guide to Rational Living and Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy by Ellis. This is consistent with the basic assumptions of axiological psychology and today’s interest in philosophical counseling. “Our Three Little Words” stand for the “not so little” core dimensions of value and valuations that have great consequences.

Who Are You?

Are you a Feeler, Doer, or Thinker? In some ways, let’s hope you’re none of them, and in other ways let’s hope you’re all of them. On average we may be seen as one of them as we struggle to be all of them in responding to the moment, the past, and what the future might hold for us. It helps to be on friendly terms (i.e., be aware) of our Feeler, Doer, and Thinker selves remembering that flexibility beats rigidity coming from either the axiological mind or molecular brain.

You wouldn’t want your hand to freeze on the steering wheel, or your foot to freeze on the accelerator of your racing car. The same may be said of our Feeler, Doer, Thinker selves under the control of our General Capacity to Value where “carpe diem” (i.e., “seize the moment”) rules, and hopefully without the bias and excesses of Feeler-Fears like anxieity; Doer-Don’ts like procrastinations; or Thinker-Thoughts like paranoia and obsessions, etc.

Carpe Diem flexibility is important to getting the good things in life for ourselves and those we love. It’s important to own and not disown our deceptively simple, powerful and “Not so Little Selves.” Axiological psychology and axiological science makes the study of three dimensional “mind space” a priority much as historic natural science has made the study of three dimensional physical space a priority for many years. Psychology must have both systems of science rather than “piggy back” on the asymmetric evolution of natual science without value science. This is a matter of great clinical relevance beyond academic preoccupations with behaviorism, learning theory, or operant conditioning over the years. The new science of the Feeler, Doer, and Thinker cuts to the heart and soul of everything psychological because they are taproots of all that is psychological.

As to “carpe diem flexibility,” consider the boxer in the ring making moves towards, away,and against his opponent. This metaphor captures the “dance” of Feeler, Doer, and Thinker sensitivities and behaviors. This is also consistent with the distilled wisdom of the ancients and Biblical wisdom found in the Book of Ecclesiastes (The word Ecclesiastes means teacher) datilng back to 500 BC when Jews lived without a king in a province of the Persian Empire. After contemplating “carpe diem flexibility” and the Book of Ecclesiastes, I then discovered by accident a book by J. Borg at Barnes and Noble. I was interested in what he had to say about such things. According Borg, Ecclesiastes is the most “user friendly” book of the bible because it speaks to the modern world. Ecclesiastes also resonates with Zen Buddhism and Eastern wisdom exposing the universality (i.e., cross-cultural, cross-national) of human values and valuations discussed in my book. This ancient voice offers a modern critique of conventional religious and sacred wisdom, and advises us to beware of ego (i.e., self-esteem) “chasing after the wind.” It speaks to the question of whether life is worth living, knowing we’re from dust and destined to return to dust.


Borg, is professor emeritus of religion and culture at Oregon State University. He rightly observes that “scholars don’t agree on how to interpret the Book of Ecclesiastes.” He and I are in agreement. We find it “life affirming” with useful reminders on how to live our lives…then as now! It’s a voice that encourages us to live simply, fully, strongly and vigorously rather than tentatively. This is consistent with my belief that life is a construction, that we must find meaning and vital absorbing interests on our own, and then pursue them strongly and vigorously. Professor Borg suggests the Book of Ecclesiastes is a kind of “alternative wisdom” much as axiological science and psychology are forms of “alternative wisdom.” I want to believe the two are converging after thousands of years of separation. Both Ecclesiastes and axiological science are roads less travelled, and the best years are ahead of them given today’s hunger for values appreciation and clarification. If there is such a thing as “true wisdom,” my guess is it involve the wisdom of both. The wisdom of the Book of Ecclesiastes would have us believe Life is a gift. Deal with it. Enjoy it. Before returning to the wisdom of “Our Three Little Words,” let’s consider the following quotation which is the best known passage from Ecclesiastes: 

“There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heavens:

   a time to be born and a time to die, 

    a time to plant and a time to uproot,

    a time to kill and a time to heal,

    a time to tear down and a time to build,

    a time to weep and a time to laugh,

    a time to mourn and a time to dance,

    a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,

    a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,

    a time to search and a time to give up,

    a time to keep and a time to throw away,

    a time to tear and a time to mend,

    a time to be silent and a time to speak,

    a time to love and a time to hate,

    a time for war and a time for peace.”

The Big Picture:   

That is a voice from more than 2000 years ago that speaks to the modern world that has only recently discovered a scientific approach to values. It’s enough to make us ask “what took us so long?” So much for the “alternative wisdom” of the ancient world, let’s consider the “alternative wisdom” of this new science and Feeler, Doer, Thinker ways of seeing-with-values made important because we’re all habitual self-evaluators. Who hasn’t experienced or felt the impact of self-esteem? This is the “business” of psychology, and it is a “business” too important to be left in pre-scientific (i.e., literary, religious, philosophical, today’s psychology) hands alone!

From my perspective, today’s psychology is still a pre-scientific discipline because it continues to ignore the scientific and clinical relevance of values and their contribution to the “puppeteer mind” pulling the strings of “puppet brain.” Clinical psychology has ignored how “twisted values” produce “twisted thoughts,” be they “garden variety” or “more serious.”  Brain neuroscience has raced ahead of axiological science and this is a gap we hope to close by drawing attention to axiological science. Meanwhile I will leave “twisted molecules” to neuroscience and focus on “twisted values” with axiological science. I suppose this makes me a new breed of psychologist. One who makes values in the world of facts equally important. Facts have long been the subject of natural science while values have remained beyond the reach of natural science.

In order to reach values we must embrace and pursue a second system of science. This failure of psychology is an accident of history (i.e., because a science of values defied the best minds for thousands of years). This historical accident is the tragic flaw in the character of my profession and beyond that, the character of societies and civilization with their growing number of discontents.






Our science of values and new thinking in psychology (remembering that morals are normative values) originated with the convergence of psychological thoughts and the philosophical thought unfolding in Hartman’s theory of value which predicted the existence of three core dimensions of value having descriptive, explanatory, and predictive powers.My published research supports these predictions and effectively transformed philosopher Hartman’s theory of value into an empirical science of values and valuations.

This is a revolution in science and psychology! It is a new paradigm as defined by historian Thomas Kuhn in the pages of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The evidence is now so strong that this science can no longer be ignored. This is a “paradigmatic shift” in science and psychology and one that never existed in my college days at Amherst and Austin. The only “voice” concerning values at the time that made any sense to me was that of Professor Milton Rokeach who argued that the concept of value is the most important, least understood and least studied concept in psychology and the social sciences including economics; the weakness of which gave us the Great Depression of 1929 and the Great Recession of 2008, from which we’re slowly recovering at present while its delayed impact in Europe and China has them struggling to do the same. I mean to imply that value science gives us hope that the future will bring a transformation of “opportunistic capitalism” to “humanistic capitalism,” and all that this implies.


The foremost applications of axiological science are valuemetrics and axiological psychology amounting to an “alternative psychology” and “alternative to psychological testing” without psychological testing. This is because of the ability of value science to go deep and to tap into layers of values at the “heart and soul” of everything psychological. This is not science fiction and is sometimes difficult for those steeped in clinical and historical psychology  (e.g., classical conditioning, learning theory, operant conditioning, instrumental conditioning, behaviorism, cognitive psychology, positive psychologybehavioral economics, and the intuitive psychology of Freud, Jung, and various schools of clinical psychology) to appreciate. Few suspect how so much rides on so little. This is to say that much rides on the organization and exercise of three dimensions of value making values clarification, values appreciation, and values measurement the Holy Grail of psychology and the social sciences!

The universality of what “Our Three Little Words” stand for means values are at work everwhere and at many levels ranging from cognition to emotion, to the constructing of self, self-esteem, and all behaviors aimed at coping with the moment and making choices while vaguely aware of past and future.

We are dealing with the building blocks of being and becoming. They must be studied and understood with the same precision natural science brings to the study of facts, and neuroscience brings to the study of the brain. Our Three Little Words represent an approach to mind that natural science has problems with and has neglected! The mind, as much as the brain, is too important to be left to ideology, philosophy and religion alone, and here we have a lot of catching up to do.


We are now on the threshold of a new era with our new science and none too soon! We have tomorrow’s psychology today. We have the “seeds” of tomorrow’s preventive psychology today because value science enables culture-free, religiously-neutral, moraleducation which is tomorrow’s preventive psychology. All this remains one of the world’s best kept secrets in spite of the fact that entrenpreneurs are successfully marketingaxiological science and valuemetrics every day to business and corporate interests the world over.




For years psychology modeled itself after medicine and the natural sciences, and failed to grasp the clinical importance  of a scientific approach to values and morals. This included Abraham Maslow’s speculation that the concept of value might be obsolete for lack of precise meaning. Psychologists Milton Rokeach and Albert Ellis rejected the dea and later Maslow came around to accepting that philosopher Robert Hartman (a professor at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville and the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. The National Autonomous University of Mexico is a public research university in Mexico City…it is the largest university in Latin America) was onto something! That something inspired my independent research for more than twenty-five years while engaged in private practice and work as a senior staff psychologist at the outpatient clinic of a government hospital in New York City.

Axiological science, or the science of values, is based on Hartman’s theory of value, and my collaboration with some of Hartman’s students and others interested in advancing his contributions. My published data established the validity of Hartman’s test of habitual evaluative habits, including those of habitual self-evaluators like you and me. We’re all self-evaluators caught up in habits that concern identity and self-esteem. I’m referring to the test Professor Hartman developed in Mexico City in collaboration with his student Dr. Mario Cardenas who was a student of both  philosopher Hartman and psychoanalyst Eric Fromm. Mario, whom I got to know, told me that Fromm and Hartman never got along, and that he had to avoid any mention of Professor Hartman in the presence of his psychoanalytic mentor Fromm. Both were expats living in Cuernevaca at the time.

Their value profiling methodology amounts to “psychological testing” without psychological tests, and this should get your attention. It is the product of a system of “alternative wisdom” embedded in a rigorously developed, testable, a priori theory of value, and a very unusual approach to test construction by psychological standards (i.e., based on the definition of good that avoids examples of good, and based on the logic and mathematics of set theory…which is mathematical modeling of values and valuations) . The empirical validation of this interesting theory, and its predictions gives us an “alternative psychology” and “alternative psychometrics” which promise to enrich psychology. This also gives us the beginnings of a true science of psychology fulfilling the vision of many, and this should get the world’s attention. This achievement clears a path for other “social sciences” to follow. It provides a solid foundation for the development of tomorrow’s preventive psychology today, which is merely science-based, moral education. This is also the substance and promise of philosophical counseling in years to come!


Medicine involves the “artistic” application of natural sciences such as chemistry, biology, physics, anatomy and so forth. Valuecentric or values-based Axiological Psychology involves the “artistic” application of axiological science. We must have an “integrated science approach,” and not merely the integration of the natural sciences, but the integration of two systems of science including natural science and value science. This is a rejection of Abraham Maslow’s suggestion the concept of value might be obsolete and fulfills the wisdom of Ellis, Rokeach, and Hartman while clarifying what is meant by a “tragic flaw” in the character of civilization and its discontents identified by Sigmund Freud…and it promises to give our civilziation a “soul” that some of our enemies claim is lacking!

We all end up juggling all that the Three Little Words of “Feeler, Doer, and Thinker” represent. We do so in order to meet the demands of the moment, deal with our memories, make choices, and plan for the future. This involves Feeler-empathy and emotional intelligence or the lack of it. It involves Doer-actions and pragmatism or the lack of it. It involves Thinker-reasoning and rational problem solving or the lack of it. Hopefully we execute our value-vision with carpe diem strength and flexibility much as the boxer in the ring makes his “three moves towards, away and against” his opponent…and with the Ecclesiastical flexibility and awareness of “a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heavens.”

Let’s remember that responding to a Feeler-oriented or biased person as a Doer or Thinker won’t work. Responding to a Thinker-oriented or biased person as a Feeler or Doer won’t work. Pacing Feelers with feeling, Doers with action, and Thinkers with reason works better. Otherwise, segue (i.e., transition) with caution and skill. We “instinctively” know this to be true; but often forget. Always remember the deeper meaning of “Our Three Little Words” as representing more than meets the eye! If the 1930 lyrics of Ruby and Kalmar’s Three Little Words” helps, then let us remember that song as well.







© Dr. Leon Pomeroy, Ph.D.

p.s. How psychology ever expected to become a science without a science of values amazes me! How we ever expected to develop a “preventive psychology” to rival “preventive medicine” without a science of values amazes me! How so many years were spent pursuing “behaviorism,” “intuitive clinical metaphors,” and now “neuroscience,” without a science of values, amazes me! Ref

I am an Out Atheist, Antitheist, and Antireligionist as a Valuized Ethical Duty.

How can we silently watch as yet another generation is indoctrinated with religious faith, fear, and foolishness? Religion and it’s god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime. What proof is “faith,” of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion? When you start thinking your “out, atheism, antitheism or antireligionism is not vitally needed just remember all the millions of children being indoctrinated and need our help badly and who desperately need our help with the truth. Three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science,” “pseudo-history,” and “pseudo-morality.” And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion.

I am an Axiological (Theoretical and Normative VALUE Theorist philosopher) Atheist

Axiology and Value Theory?

“Value theory is a range of approaches to understanding how, why, and to what degree persons value things; whether the object or subject of valuing is a person, idea, object, or anything else. This investigation began in ancient philosophy, where it is called axiology or ethics.”– Wikipedia

“The term “Value Theory” is used in at least three different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “value theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion — whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect. In its narrowest sense, “value theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to consequentialists. In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”. Axiology can be thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are good, and how good they are. For instance, a traditional question of axiology concerns whether the objects of value are subjective psychological states or objective states of the world. But in a more useful sense, “value theory” designates the area of moral philosophy that is concerned with theoretical questions about value and goodness of all varieties — the theory of value. The theory of value, so construed, encompasses axiology, but also includes many other questions about the nature of value and its relation to other moral categories. The division of moral theory into the theory of value, as contrasting with other areas of investigation, cross-cuts the traditional classification of moral theory into normative and metaethical inquiry, but is a worthy distinction in its own right; theoretical questions about value constitute a core domain of interest in moral theory, often cross the boundaries between the normative and the metaethical, and have a distinguished history of investigation.” – (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“Normative generally means relating to an evaluative standard. Normativity is the phenomenon in human societies of designating some actions or outcomes as good or desirable or permissible and others as bad or undesirable or impermissible. A norm in this normative sense means a standard for evaluating or making judgments about behavior or outcomes. Normative is sometimes also used, somewhat confusingly, to mean relating to a descriptive standard: doing what is normally done or what most others are expected to do in practice. In this sense a norm is not evaluative, a basis for judging behavior or outcomes; it is simply a fact or observation about behavior or outcomes, without judgment. Many researchers in this field try to restrict the use of the term normative to the evaluative sense and refer to the description of behavior and outcomes as positive, descriptive, predictive, or empirical. In philosophynormative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong. Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theoriesbeliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are (purportedly) factual statements that attempt to describe reality. Normative statements and norms, as well as their meanings, are an integral part of human life. They are fundamental for prioritizing goals and organizing and planning. Thoughtbeliefemotion, and action are the basis of much ethical and political discourse; indeed, normativity is arguably the key feature distinguishing ethical and political discourse from other discourses (such as natural science). Much modern moral/ethical philosophy takes as its starting point the apparent variance between peoples and cultures regarding the ways they define what is considered to be appropriate/desirable/praiseworthy/valuable/good etc. (In other words, variance in how individuals, groups, and societies define what is in accordance with their normative standards.) This has led philosophers such as A.J. Ayer and J.L. Mackie (for different reasons and in different ways) to cast doubt on the meaningfulness of normative statements. Philosophers, such as Christine Korsgaard, have argued for a source of normative value which is independent of individuals’ subjective morality and which consequently attains (a lesser or greater degree of) objectivity. In the social sciences, the term “normative” has broadly the same meaning as its usage in philosophy, but may also relate, in a sociological context, to the role of cultural ‘norms‘; the shared values or institutions that structural functionalists regard as constitutive of the social structure and social cohesion. These values and units of socialization thus act to encourage or enforce social activity and outcomes that ought to (with respect to the norms implicit in those structures) occur, while discouraging or preventing social activity that ought not occur. That is, they promote social activity that is socially valued. While there are always anomalies in social activity (typically described as “crime” or anti-social behavior, see also normality (behavior)) the normative effects of popularly endorsed beliefs (such as “family values” or “common sense“) push most social activity towards a generally homogeneous set.”  – Wikipedia

Theoretical philosophy? – Wikipedia

“The division of philosophy into a practical and a theoretical discipline has its origin in Aristotle‘s moral philosophy and natural philosophy categories. Theoretical philosophy is sometimes confused with Analytic philosophy, but the latter is a philosophical movement, embracing certain ideas and methods but dealing with all philosophical subject matters, while the former is a way of sorting philosophical questions into two different categories in the context of a curriculum– Wikipedia

Here are examples of theoretical philosophy subjects I delve into:

Noradrenaline and our Presumptions of Reality (regulation of the Brain’s ‘Inner World’)?

Axiological “Presumptive-Value” 

Axiological “presumptive-value” success: Sound Thinker: uses disciplined rationality (sound axiological judgment the evaluation of evidence to make a decision) supporting a valid and reliable justification.

Axiological “presumptive-value” failure: Shallow Thinker: undisciplined, situational, sporadic, or limited thinking lacking a valid and reliable justification.

Presumptions are things that are credited as being true until evidence of their falsity is presented. Presumptions have many forms and value (Axiology) is just one. In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of something or action, with the aim of determining what actions are best to do or what way is best to live (normative ethics), or to describe the significance of different actions. It may be described as treating actions as abstract objects, putting VALUE to them. It deals with right conduct and living a good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively high valuable action may be regarded as ethically “good” (adjective sense), and that an action of low value, or relatively low in value, may be regarded as “bad”. What makes an action valuable may, in turn, depend on the ethic values of the objects it increases, decreases or alters. An object with “ethic value” may be termed an “ethic or philosophic good” (noun sense). Values can be defined as broad preferences concerning appropriate courses of actions or outcomes. As such, values reflect a person’s sense of right and wrong or what “ought” to be. “Equal rights for all”, “Excellence deserves admiration”, and “People should be treated with respect and dignity” are representatives of values. Values tend to influence attitudes and behavior and these types include ethical/moral values, doctrinal/ideological(religious, political) values, social values, and aesthetic values. It is debated whether some values that are not clearly physiologically determined, such as altruism, are intrinsic, and whether some, such as acquisitiveness, should be classified as vices or virtues.” refref

Disproof by logical contradiction

‘A Logical Impossibility’

In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical, usually opposite inversions of each other. Contradiction by the creation of a paradox, Plato’s Euthydemus dialogue demonstrates the need for the notion of contradiction. In the ensuing dialogue, Dionysodorus denies the existence of “contradiction”, all the while that Socrates is contradicting him: “… I in my astonishment said: What do you mean Dionysodorus? I have often heard, and have been amazed to hear, this thesis of yours, which is maintained and employed by the disciples of Protagoras and others before them, and which to me appears to be quite wonderful, and suicidal as well as destructive, and I think that I am most likely to hear the truth about it from you. The dictum is that there is no such thing as a falsehood; a man must either say what is true or say nothing. Is not that your position?” Indeed, Dionysodorus agrees that “there is no such thing as a false opinion … there is no such thing as ignorance” and demands of Socrates to “Refute me.” Socrates responds “But how can I refute you, if, as you say, to tell a falsehood is impossible?”. – Wikipedia

The Way of a Sound Thinker?

“Sound thinking to me, in a general way, is thinking, reasoning, or belief that tends to make foresight a desire to be as accurate as one can with valid and reliable reason and evidence.”

Sound axiological judgment, to me, a “presumptive-value” success, is value judged opinions expressed as facts with a valid and reliable justification. In an informal and psychological sense, it is used in reference to the quality of cognitive faculties and adjudicational (relating to adjudication) capabilities of particular individuals, typically called wisdom or discernment. In a legal sense, – used in the context of a legal trial, to refer to a final finding, statement, or ruling, based on a considered weighing of evidence, called, “adjudication“.

A shallow thinker (i.e. not a Deep Thinker, a person whose thoughts are reasoned, methodological, logical, empirical, profound; an intellectual) quickly talks, often with boastful postulations, likely just as often pushed strongly and loudly as if this adds substance, and they do this before fully understanding what’s is really involved. Whereas, a Sound Thinker is reasoned (comparative more reasonedsuperlative most reasoned) generally based on reasoning; being the result of logical thought. As a first debate process, a Sound Thinker commonly poses Questions to understand slowing down and assessing all the facts or factors involved and then builds their argument or ideas. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradictionprinciple of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. It is the second of the three classic laws of thought.

Sound Thinkers don’t value FAITH

“Damien, I am an atheist but I have faith in gravity tho, but it isn’t exactly “faith.” – Challenger
My response, “No, I don’t agree, you don’t have faith in gravity or gravitation, as it is “a fundamental force” you have proof or if lacking some direct proof would use inference and if even less evidence you use conjecture, not faith. Do you gauntly thinking you need faith in gravity because you wonder or worry that when walking down a set of stairs that you going to fall back up? You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) as there is massive proof, almost to the point that it is easily self-evident. You don’t need faith (strong belief without evidence) for anything, as if its warranted it will or should have evidence or it doesn’t deserve not only strong belief but any amount of belief at all as sound beliefs need something to ground their worthiness in relation to reality; the only place evidence comes.
“Gravity, or gravitation, is a natural phenomenon by which all things with mass are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including planets, stars, and galaxies. Gravity is responsible for various phenomena observed on Earth and throughout the Universe; for example, it causes the Earth and the other planets to orbit the Sun, the Moon to orbit the Earth, the formation of tides, the formation and evolution of the Solar System, stars and galaxies. Since energy and mass are equivalent, all forms of energy, including light, also cause gravitation and are under the influence of it. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the ocean tides. The gravitational attraction of the original gaseous matter present in the Universe caused it to begin coalescing, forming stars – and the stars to group together into galaxies – so gravity is responsible for many of the large-scale structures in the Universe.” Ref

Sound thinking to me, in a general way, is thinking, reasoning, or belief

that tends to make foresight a desire to be as accurate as one can

with valid and reliable reason and evidence.

Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality

Religionists and fideists, promote Dogmatic-Propaganda whereas atheists and antireligionists mostly promote Disciplined-Rationality. Dogmatic–Propaganda commonly is a common motivator of flawed or irrational thinking but with over seventy belief biases identified in people, this is hardly limited to just the religious or faith inclined. Let me illustrate what I am saying, to me all theists are believing lies or irrationally in that aspect of their lives relating to god belief. So the fact of any other common intellectual indexers where there may be right reason in beliefs cannot remove the flawed god belief corruption being committed. What I am saying is like this if you kill one person you are a killer. If you believe in one “god” I know you are a follower of Dogmatic-Propaganda and can not completely be a follower of Disciplined-Rationality. However, I am not proclaiming all atheists are always rational as irrationally is revolving door many people believe or otherwise seem to stumble through. It’s just that god belief does this with intentionally.

Disciplined-Rationality is motivated by principles of correct reasoning with emphasis on valid and reliable methods or theories leading to a range of rational standpoints or conclusions understanding that concepts and beliefs often have consequences thus hold an imperative for truth or at least as close to truth as can be acquired rejecting untruth. Disciplined-Rationality can be seen as an aid in understanding the fundamentals for knowledge, sound evidence, justified true belief and involves things like decision theory and the concern with identifying the value(s), reasonableness, verification, certainties, uncertainties and other relevant issues resulting in the most clear optimal decision/conclusion and/or belief/disbelief. Disciplined-Rationality attempts to understand the justification or lack thereof in propositions and beliefs concerning its self with various epistemic features of belief, truth, and/or knowledge, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, reliability, validity, and probability.

ps. “Sound Thinker”, “Shallow Thinker”, “Dogmatic–Propaganda” & “Disciplined-Rationality” are concepts/terms I created*

Axiological atheism can be thought to involve ethical/value theory reasoned and moral argument driven apatheism, ignosticism, atheism, anti-theism, anti-religionism, secularism, and humanism. The valuations move up the latter as the levels of evaluation is made to value judge all the elements to better understand the value or disvalue available to reach the most accurate valuation reasonable with a sound aware value conciseness. Axiological atheism can be thought to involve Ethical Atheism.

Below shows the 7 axiological atheism argument flow to show the value layers and my thoughts on it:

1. Apatheismwe are born and by the fact reality is devoid of magic removes theological desires to understand the obvious naturalistic world, until we learn otherwise. (a “presumptive-value” failure, thus no motivation to adequately start the evaluation needed to understand if there is real value for an Axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy). = no value

2. IgnosticismSees theological arguments and language as equivocation, contradictory, and/or un-cognitively relatable other than emotionalism or the like. I see Ignosticism as using the Theological non-cognitivism arguments of “mind understanding issues” (rationalism challenging) and an evidentialist/verificationist arguments of “lacking evidence issues” (empiricism challenging). As an atheist, I am a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods. In my non-belief, I am also ignostic feeling that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god(s). As an ignostic, I am a person who rational no idea of anything from reality whatever to label as “a concept of god” thus I can say I have no idea of anything that can connect to the term god and no reason to think anyone else can either. (again a “presumptive-value” failure, no good  Ontology of the thing for Identifying values that could influence belief but without what is needed to understand if there is real value for an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy). = no value

3. AtheismHow can we not reject the concept of gods, aka: supposed supreme magical beings, when not even some simple magic is supported in reality. So how then is it not even more ridiculous to claim some supreme magic aka: gods which are even further from reality. May I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion? As an atheist, I am a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods. In my non-belief, I am also ignostic feeling that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of god(s). As an ignostic, I am a person who rational no idea of anything from reality whatever to label as “a concept of god” thus I can say I have no idea of anything that can connect to the term god and no reason to think anyone else can either. Atheists talk about gods and religions for the same reason doctors talk about cancer, they are looking for a cure or a firefighter talking about fires because they burn people and they care to stop them. We atheists too often feel a need to help the victim’s of mental slavery, held in the bondage that is the false beliefs of gods and the conspiracy theories of reality found in religions. If you think you believe in a god, “what do you mean by god,” saying a name tells me not one thing about the thing I am asking to know “its” beingness / thingness / attributes / qualities. Thus, what is the thing “god” to which you are talking about and I want you to explain its beingness /thingness / attributes/ qualities? Religious/theistic people with supernatural beliefs often seem as though they haven’t thought much about and that is something we can help using ontology questions about the beingness / thingness / attributes/ qualities they are trying to refer too. What do you mean by god, when you use the term god? And, I am not asking you for the name you attach to the thing you label as a god. I don’t need to know what the god you believe is known “by.” I am asking, what is the thing you are naming as a god and what that thing is, its qualities every detail like all things have if they are real. Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god? As an atheist, I feel more wonder than I did as a theist because I thought, “big deal” to any wonder I experienced, thinking god could do anything. So with such an unrealistic mindset, everything lost its wonder but it’s the opposite as an atheist. As a theist, the world was full of superstitions and supernatural magic possibilities and thus utilized thinking that was not in the real world. As an atheist all I have now is the real world, not that all atheists seem to get this, we all are in a real world devoid of magic anything, therefore, everything adds to my feeling of awe. There should be little debate with atheist acknowledging discernable reality compared to theists with non-reality claims. Yes, I have way more awe and wonder as an atheist than I ever had as a theist because as a theist anything was possible with god. Therefore, as a theist things where not that amazing. However, as an atheist grasping what an absolute accidental or how random things are, with a 95 to 99 % of all life ever existing on this planet went extinct. I am thoroughly amazed we are even here the evolved children of ancient exploded stars, likely born in galaxies born in super-massive black holes, it’s all amazing. There is no evidence for Gods. But is their proposition outside of reason? As always start in reality from the evidence we do know, such as never in the history of scientific research or investigation has any supernatural claims shown to be true. So it is completely outside of possibility and is utterly ridiculous. Therefore, belief should be rejected as there are no warrants at all and it is axiologically unworthy to such a preponderance to demand disbelief. (yet again a “presumptive value” failure, no good Ontology of the thing not the cognitively meaningful claims relatable to reality that must be attached to all magic and gods claims for Identifying values that could influence belief but without what is needed to  understand if there is real value  for an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy). 

4. AntitheismAnti-theism requires more than either merely disbelieving in gods or even denying the existence of gods. Anti-theism requires a couple of specific and additional beliefs: first, that theism is harmful to the believer, harmful to society, harmful to politics, harmful, to culture, etc.; second, that theism can and should be countered in order to reduce the harm it causes. If a person believes these things, then they will likely be an anti-theist who works against theism by arguing that it be abandoned, promoting alternatives, or perhaps even supporting measures to suppress it. It’s worth noting here that, however, unlikely it may be in practice, it’s possible in theory for a theist to be an anti-theist. This may sound bizarre at first, but remember that some people have argued in favor of promoting false beliefs if they are socially useful. To me, I think many may have a misconception of the term. Atheism and anti-theism so often occur together at the same time and in the same person that it’s understandable if many individuals fail to realize that they aren’t the same. Making a note of the difference is important, however, because not every atheist is anti-theistic and even those who are, aren’t anti-theistic all the time. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all and not always. To me as an antitheist, I see the concept of gods antihumanistic and wholly harmful to a free humanity and if the so-called gods somehow do end up being real that I will switch to direct opposition as I would any tyrant oppressing humanity. Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is a term used to describe an opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications and definitions. In secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to the validity of theism, but not necessarily to the existence of a deity. As an anti-theist, I am a person who is active in opposition to theism: both the concepts of god(s) as well as the religions that support them. This is because theistic concepts and theistic religions are harmful and that even if theistic beliefs were true, they would be undesirable. (And, again a “presumptive value” failure, of the other value challenges of the lesser evaluations and value judgments addressed inthe apatheism, ignosticism, atheism value judgment conclusion and an Axiological Atheism assessment of the god concept that must be attached to all magic and gods claims Identifying a lack of value and/or disvalue that influence harm to real value in an axiology assessment to accurately place its value violations in the value hierarchy). 

5. AntireligionismNot just Atheist, axiological atheists should be antitheists but this generally will involve anti-religionism. it would generally thus hold anti-religionist thinking. Especially, I am an anti-religionist, not just an atheist, and here is why summed up in three ideas I am against. And, in which these three things are common in all religions: “pseudo-science”, “pseudo-history”, and “pseudo-morality”. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. And my biggest thing of all is the widespread forced indoctrination of children, violating their free choice of what to not believe or believe, I hate forced hereditary religion. As well as wish to offer strong critiques regarding the pseudo-meaning of the “three letter noise” people call “G.o.d” (group originated delusion)! As an anti-religionist, I am a person who can look at religion on the whole and see it is detrimental to the progress of humanity thus am in opposition to all and every religion, not even just opposition to organized religion. In case you were wondering, I am anti-pseudoscience, anti-supernatural, and anti-superstition as well. May I not be a silent watcher as millions of children are subjugated almost before their birth let alone when they can understand thought and are forcibly coerced, compelled, constrained, and indoctrinated in the mental pollution that religion can be. My main goal against religion is to fully stop as much as possible forced indoctrination, one could ask but then why do I challenge all adults faith? well, who do you think is doing the lying to children in the first place. End Hereditary religion, if its a belief let them the equal right to choose to believe. “Religion is an Evolved Product” and Yes, Religion is Like Fear Given Wings…  (And, one last time a “presumptive value” failure, of the other value challenges of the lesser evaluations and value judgments addressed in the apatheism, ignosticism, atheism value judgment conclusion and an Axiological Atheism assessment of the god concept and anti-theism  assessment of the god show not just a lack of value but a possibly or likely harm demonstrating bot just a lack of value but a real disvalue and that includes the religions potentially removing value  in an axiology assessment to accurately place it in the value hierarchy). 

6. Secularismis the only honorable way to value the dignity of others. If it was not true that there is a large unequal distribution of religion contributing to violence then there would be equal religion and atheist secularism violence. You do not see atheists bombing agnostics the very idea is laughable however even different branches of the same religion do will and have killed one another. So, violence not who we are it’s something we need to be compelled to do. Therefore, please support secularism. We are all one connected human family, proven by DNA showing we should treat each other as fellow dignity beings, supported equally (no gods and no masters). States may often have powers, but only citizens have the glue of morality we call rights. And, as they say, in my “dream society”, lots of things are free (aka. planting free food everywhere, free to everyone); but I wonder what you mean when people say you can’t just let things be free, I think, yeah, how can I take free stuff from a free earth. If one observes the virtues of (T. R. U. E. “The Rational Universal Ethics” or “The Responsible Universal Ethics”) that connect to all things as that of the connectedness equality like those which mirror the rays of the sun, fall down equally with a blind but fair indifference. (what is being expressed is that this sun shining will not favor one over another, no, the same upon everyone offering its light to all plant, animal, human, women, men, single or married, homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, nonreligious, religious, people of means and those without, able-bodied and those which special needs, people of color, and those who are not, those with access to resources and those which out, young and elderly, etc.) All who wish to follow T. R. U. E. thus embodying a universalize equalitarian standard of ethics should strive to be like a ray of connected light to the world, shining equally and freedom to all of the world. By such efforts a nonbiased unitive ethical approach is possible, one would have an increase in positive feelings to help others understanding equalitarian connectedness. If you don’t think different you will not behave differently, if you have never lived differently it is hard to see things differently and if you do not strive to understand difference one is thus unknowingly or not bound by limited encapsulation. I am for a Free Secular Society. I am not for oppression or abuse of religious believer and want a free secular society with both freedoms of religion and freedom from religion. Even though I wish the end of faith and believing in myths and superstition, I wish this by means of informing the willing and not force of the unwilling. I will openly challenge and rebuff religious falsehoods and misunderstanding as well as rebuke and ridicule harmful or unethical religious ideology or behavior.

7. Humanismis the philosophic thinking that humans can solve human problems by human means, without feeling a need to appeal to the likes of holy books, mystical anything, nor the belief in gods or religions. But, instead, aspires to a true belief in humanity, viewing it with a persuasion of equality. This caring realist thinking found in humanism utilizes an unstated assumption or aspiration, to do no harm as much as possible and to do good whenever one can. Moreover, we are all one connected human family, proven by DNA showing we should treat each other as fellow dignity beings, supported equally. And, no one really owns the earth, we may make claims to it even draw lines on maps thinking this makes the fantasy borders, illusion supported by force and the potential for threat. Thus the ethical truth is we need to share the earth as communally as possible. And use the resources as safe and ethically as possible striving towards sharing and caring. (do no Harm and do good = Humanism). My core definition of humanism is that humans can solve human problems by human means. I am not saying other things can’t or shouldn’t be added to it but to me, a definition of humanism must always contain something coherent to such a thinking or not contradict such as I have offered. Thus, why it is appropriate to say “good without god” when one is a humanist.

I argue for Atheism on scientific, archaeologically/anthropologically, philosophical, social/humanitarianism and prehistorical/historical grounds. 

Archaeological, Scientific, & Philosophic grounds: Link
Prehistorical/historical grounds: Link
Social/humanitarianism grounds: Link

My life; the good, the bad, and the ugly on the road to the Mental Freedom of Atheism

What is a god?

If you think you believe in a god, “what do you mean by god,” saying a name tells me not one thing about the thing I am asking to know “its” beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities. Thus, what is the thing “god” to which you are talking about and I want you to explain its beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities? Religious/theistic people with supernatural beliefs often seem as though they haven’t thought much about and that is something we can help using ontology questions about the beingness/thingness/attributes/qualities they are trying to refer too. What do you mean by god, when you use the term god? And, I am not asking you for the name you attach to the thing you label as a god. I don’t need to know what the god you believe is known “by.” I am asking, what is the thing you are naming as a god and what that thing is, its qualities every detail like all things have if they are real. Are you just making stuff up or guessing/hoping or just promoting unjustified ideas you want to believe, what is a god?

Do you want what is true or want what you believe without concern for what may actually be true?

I am not the thing abuse made,

I am a shooting star blazing bright, shining far pass my past.

Religion and it’s god myths are like a spiritually transmitted disease of the mind. This infection even once cured holds mental disruption which can linger on for a lifetime. AndIf you are a religious believer, may I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is “faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion?

I Don’t Have to Respect Ideas

People get confused ideas are not alive nor do they have beingness, Ideas don’t have rights nor the right to even exist only people have such a right. Ideas don’t have dignity nor can they feel violation only people if you attack them personally. Ideas don’t deserve any special anything they have no feelings and cannot be shamed they are open to the most brutal merciless attack and challenge without any protection and deserve none nor will I give them any if they are found wanting in evidence or reason. I will never respect Ideas if they are devoid of merit I only respect people. When I was young it was all about me, I wanted to be liked. Then I got older and it was even more about me, I wanted power. Now I am beyond a toxic ego and it is not just about me, I want to make a difference. Sexism is that evil weed that can sadly grow even in the well-tended garden of the individual with an otherwise developed mind. Which is why it particularly needs to be attacked and exposed; and is why I support feminism. Here are four blogs on that: Activism Labels Matter, thus Feminism is NeededFeminist atheists as far back as the 1800s?Sexism in the Major World Religions and Rape, Sexism and Religion?

Having privilege in race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, nationality, etc. does not mean one did not have it hard in life, it just was not hard due to race, gender, sexuality, ability, class, nationality, etc. if one has privilege in that area.

Empathy: think in another’s thinking, try to feel their feeling, and care about their experience.

Theism is presented as adding love to your life… But to me, more often it peddles in ignorance (pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality), tribalism (strong in-group loyalty if you believe like them and aversion to difference; like shunning: social rejection, emotional distance, or ostracism), and psychological terrorism; primarily targeting well being both safety and comfort (you are born a sinner, you are evil by nature, you are guilty of thought crimes, threats of misfortune, suffering, and torture “hell”).

Hell yes, I am against the fraud that is the world religions.

Why not be against the promotion of woo-woo pseudo-truth, when I am very against all pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality and the harm they can produce. Along with the hate, such as sexism and homophobia are too often seen or the forced indoctrination of children. And this coercive indoctrination of the world religions, with their pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-morality mainly furthered by forced Hereditary Religion (family or cultural, religious beliefs forced on children because the parent or caregiver believes that way). This is sadly done, even before a child can be expected to successfully navigate reason; it’s almost as if religious parents believe their “woo-woo pseudo-truth” lies will not be so easily accepted if they wait on a mind that can make its own choice. Because we do see how hard it is for the ones forced into Hereditary Religion. It seems difficult for them to successfully navigate reason in relation to their woo-woo pseudo-truth, found in a religion they were indoctrinationally taught to prefer, because after being instructed on how to discern pseudo-truth as truth than just wishing that their blind servitude belief in a brand of religious pseudo-truth devoid of justified, valid or reliable reason and evidence. I care because I am a rationalist, as well as an atheist.

Thus, this religious set of “woo-woo pseudo-truth” pushed on the simple-minded as truth bothers me greatly. So, here it is as simple as I can make it you first need a good thinking standard to address beliefs one may approach as a possible belief warranted to be believed. I wish to smash that lying pig of religion with the Hammer of Truth: Ontology, Epistemology, and Axiology Questions (a methodological use of philosophy). Overall, I wish to promote in my self and for others; to value a worthy belief etiquette, one that desires a sound accuracy and correspondence to the truth: Reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. May we all be authenticly truthful rationalists that put facts over faith.

I have made many mistakes in my life but the most common one of all is my being resistant to change. However, now I wish to be more, to be better, as I desire my openness to change if needed, not letting uncomfortable change hold me back. May I be a rationalist, holding fast to a valued belief etiquette: demanding reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment.

Truth Navigation: Techniques for Discussions or Debates

I do truth navigation, both inquiry questions as well as

strategic facts in a tag team of debate and motivational teaching.

Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”

Compare ideas not people, attack thinking and not people. In this way, we have a higher chance to promote change because it’s the thinking we can help change if we address the thinking and don’t attack them.

My eclectic set of tools for my style I call “Truth Navigation” (Techniques for Discussions or Debates) which involves:

*REMS: reason (rationalism), evidence (empiricism), and methodological “truth-seeking” skepticism (Methodic doubt) (the basic or general approach)

*The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)

*Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion: use of facts and reasoning (motivational teaching)

*Utilizing Dignity: strategic dignity attacks or dignity enrichments (only used if confusion happens or resistance is present)

Asking the right questions at the right time with the right info can also change minds, you can’t just use facts all on their own. Denial likes consistency, the pattern of thinking cannot vary from a fixed standard of thinking, or the risk of truth could slip in. Helping people alter skewed thinking is indeed a large task but most definitely a worthy endeavor.

Some of my ideas are because I am educated both some in college (BA in Psychology with addiction treatment, sociology, and a little teaching and criminology) and also as an autodidact I have become somewhat educated in philosophy, science, archeology, anthropology, and history but this is not the only reason for all my ideas. It is also because I am a deep thinker, just striving for truth. Moreover, I am a seeker of truth and a lover of that which is true.

Ok, I am a kind of “Militant” Atheist

I want a war of ideas where the loser is ignorance or hate and the victor is kindness and a rational mind. Not another religious war with people where the loser is always humanity no matter the victor. What I hope for with my discussions or expressed ideas is not so much to strive to change people’s mind. But instead, I wish to inspire your mind to reason and to thrive on the search for valid and reliable evidence as well as a high standard n your ethics of belief. This ethics of belief I hope everyone adopts is something like this: reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment. Sadly the professed thing of hope, “Religion” can be an and too often is an easy excuse to do horrible things, which is clear throughout history.

I am a BIG fan of the truth.
“Where did you find it?! Mankind has been diligently seeking truth since time memorial!” – Challenger
My response, Your statement is a “truth claim” right after asking about truth: “Where did you find it?! Mankind has been diligently seeking truth since time memorial! (a “truth claim” emphasized with two exclamation marks seeming to demonstrate that you believed you had said a confirmed truth. So you do believe you have found a truth while acting as if you don’t know, and seemingly by your strength of assertion, believe I guess, that no one can but here I am teaching you truth!!!

I have been asked before, how can I stand to deal with illogical, ones lacking critical thinking, the unreasonable, misinformed but fully believe, deliberately uninformed or deluded people, often so kindly?
Well, I believe in others, or at least their ability to reason even if you don’t know how or are not paying attention currently. I can do deal with most people as I am often fighting for them even if they only feel I am against them and it usually is not that hard to do with a heart of compassion, as I care for the future of humanity and people have value. And, if people don’t listen or grasp logic, I try something else like reasoning. If they will not listen or grasp reasoning, I will try just getting them to think, maybe on something they can agree or they do understand trying to work them back to the rationalism they are not getting or are avoiding. Then, if I can get them to reason, I build that up to logic. If they don’t seem to get them to thinking or are trying to avoid I can draw them back to feelings, maybe on something they can agree or they do understand trying to work them back to thinking, then reasoning, and then finally back to logic with which they are not getting or are avoiding. In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

“Damien, what I find interesting is how an atheist like you 

spends so much time and energy on God and religion.” – Challenger

My response, Well, let’s see, maybe because we atheists and anti-religionists care to inform our fellow humans who have been lied to and are lying to others and often forcing religion on children indoctrinating them with lies over truth and it’s harming us all. You know, all the religious hate groups and religious violence stuff and the like. What I find interesting is how could a responsible caring ethical person stay silent against religions, that my friend is a much better question.

As an atheist rationalist, I tend to filter everything through reason, empirical facts, and ethics before they can be accepted as justified, true or good.

A Rational Mind Values Humanity

A truly rational mind sees the need for humanity, as they too live in the world and see themselves as they actually are an alone body in the world seeking comfort and safety. Thus, see the value of everyone around them, as they too are the same and therefore, rationally as well a humanistically, we should work for this humanity we are part of. Moreover, we simply can either dwell in or help its flourishing (the humanity we are part of), as we are all in a metaphoric way, are in the hands of each other and communally need each other. We rise by helping each other and we may fail if we keep going as hurtful as humans too often are to each other. May we be good humans. We can be builders of life or its destruction. The person is political so the actions of my life are the expression of my political values even before I tell you what brand I may claim. We are not our past, though we are bound to it. We are also not our future self yet. So, just be the best you in the here and now. May the actions of my life be written deep with the poetry of my humanity. What do your actions say?

I am a high thinking primate, just trying to live an honorable life, being of service to others, and I wish as a life’s mission to be a kindness aficionado. And, I like to contemplate humans, humanity, and human flourishing.

My core definition of Humanism, is that humans can solve human problems by human means. I am not saying other things can’t or shouldn’t be added to it but to me, a definition of humanism must always contain something coherent to such a thinking or not contradict such as I have offered. Thus, why it is appropriate to say “good without god” when one is a humanist.

We as humanity must work together as one people and one human race. We can no longer sit back and watch the world burn. We are accountable for the world staying the same thus leading to extended suffering, or change the world to start alleviating suffering. For too long we have gotten comfortable with eyes of hate, which only seem to find victims, instead of eyes of love, helping us find friends. I am not calling for fighting for a political party; I am trying to inspire humanitarian flourishing not limited to even a country. As I wish to look to the big picture, that we are all global citizens, and I say it’s time we start acting like it. I, as others, promise to strive to help be the change so needed in this world. Will you join us?

“Theists, there has to be a god, as something can not come from nothing.”

Well, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something. This does not tell us what the something that may have been involved with something coming from nothing. A supposed first cause, thus something (unknown) happened and then there was something is not an open invitation to claim it as known, neither is it justified to call or label such an unknown as anything, especially an unsubstantiated magical thinking belief born of mythology and religious storytelling.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.

The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:

Show one: Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses.

Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”

Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!

Show seven: Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State)

Show eight: Paganism 4,000 years old: Moralistic gods after the rise of Statism and often support Statism/Kings: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism)

Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO

Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO

Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO

Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO

Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO

Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO

I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.

The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.

An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”

My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?

I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.

I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.

This series idea was addressed in, Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public: VIDEO

Our 12 video series: Organized Oppression: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of power (9,000-4,000 years ago), is adapted from: The Complete and Concise History of the Sumerians and Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia (7000-2000 BC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szFjxmY7jQA by “History with Cy

Show #1: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Samarra, Halaf, Ubaid)

Show #2: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Eridu: First City of Power)

Show #3: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Uruk and the First Cities)

Show #4: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (First Kings)

Show #5: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Early Dynastic Period)

Show #6: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (King Lugalzagesi and the First Empire)

Show #7: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Sargon and Akkadian Rule)

Show #8: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Naram-Sin, Post-Akkadian Rule, and the Gutians)

Show #9: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Gudea of Lagash and Utu-hegal)

Show #10: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Third Dynasty of Ur / Neo-Sumerian Empire)

Show #11: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Amorites, Elamites, and the End of an Era)

Show #12: Mesopotamian State Force and the Politics of Power (Aftermath and Legacy of Sumer)

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.

Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?

Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reach its height of empathy? I as everyone, earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.

I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist, but I am happy to tell you, my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief, that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.

Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.

At the same time as the rise of the male god, 7,000 years ago, there was also the very time there was the rise of violence, war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago, and it moved across the world.

Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d  

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)

Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticallefty

The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.” http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft

Cory needs our support. We rise by helping each other.

Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie

Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.

Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”

I am not a good fit in the atheist movement that is mostly pro-capitalist, I am anti-capitalist. Mostly pro-skeptic, I am a rationalist not valuing skepticism. Mostly pro-agnostic, I am anti-agnostic. Mostly limited to anti-Abrahamic religions, I am an anti-religionist.

To me, the “male god” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 7,000 years ago, whereas the now favored monotheism “male god” is more like 4,000 years ago or so. To me, the “female goddess” seems to have either emerged or become prominent around 11,000-10,000 years ago or so, losing the majority of its once prominence around 2,000 years ago due largely to the now favored monotheism “male god” that grow in prominence after 4,000 years ago or so.

My Thought on the Evolution of Gods?

Animal protector deities from old totems/spirit animal beliefs come first to me, 13,000/12,000 years ago, then women as deities 11,000/10,000 years ago, then male gods around 7,000/8,000 years ago. Moralistic gods around 5,000/4,000 years ago, and monotheistic gods around 4,000/3,000 years ago. 

To me, animal gods were likely first related to totemism animals around 13,000 to 12,000 years ago or older. Female as goddesses was next to me, 11,000 to 10,000 years ago or so with the emergence of agriculture. Then male gods come about 8,000 to 7,000 years ago with clan wars. Many monotheism-themed religions started in henotheism, emerging out of polytheism/paganism.

“Animism” is needed to begin supernatural thinking.
“Totemism” is needed for supernatural thinking connecting human actions & related to clan/tribe.
“Shamanism” is needed for supernatural thinking to be controllable/changeable by special persons.
Together = Gods/paganism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or QuotesMy YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This