Miley Cyrus knows what is wrong with the world

Miley being smart…

Miley Cyrus is quoted as saying something truly profound:

“I like the way I think right now. But don’t Trump supporters like the way they think? So I’ve also got to be open with the way I approach people with my opinions.”

She was opining about her personal growth and lessons learnt post-election.

Now either Miley is smart, super dumb or just got lucky. But it does not matter, because even a broken watch is right twice a day.

The problem really is that people “like” the way they think.

Notice how feeling and thinking become converged into the same thing?

Notice how thinking is assumed to be good when it produces a good feeling, i.e.(the thought is liked?

That is what people (necessarily) do when the thought can’t be (and isn’t) judged as objectively good or bad, but it’s merit is determined by the emotion it elicits.

If she recognises that this is the case, she is smart. If she is merely articulating how her mind works, she is dumb.

But she is right either way.

And she comes to the correct conclusion: “ got to be open with the way I approach people with () opinions.”

It appears people don’t recognise it, and don’t allow for the fact that they are usually dealing with opinions, which what even rational thoughts are when they are clothed in feelings.

Most rational people will agree with me up to this point: best to deal with facts, not emotions when solving the world’s problems.

What follows, is where people switch off; because, you know… “emotions”.

But the FACT of the matter is that what follows is TRUE because it is where logic takes us.

And this is then when even those who claim they love logic, and especially ‘love science’, abandon the logic in favour of their feelings. Because they don’t LIKE where the answer leads.

Follow me carefully:

If the ‘facts’ are not referenced (ontologically) to an absolute truth, then it cannot be true.

It can be better.

I can be commonly accepted.

But.It. Cannot.Be.True.

For an ABSOLUTE ontological referent to exist, you MUST accept that this will ULTIMATELY lead to a metaphysical/supernatural entity. (I.e. God.)

For an ultimate TRUTH CLAIM about the MATERIAL world to hold, it must be objectively referenced from a ‘NON-MATERIAL’ point of view. That requires a non-material place/thing/being to exist as that reference point. If it doesn’t, it means the reference point is logically subjective.

What happens in real life is that things are true by accident (in that it corresponds with the absolute truth). We intuit it and/or accept it as true on the basis that it conforms with our expectations of reality.

But these thoughts and these agreements we have about the world are mere opinions.

To deny the supernatural, is to adopt the natural-only as an explanation of reality. If naturalism were true, we are all stardust.

You see, if ‘WE’ are stardust, we are one with the spacetime around us and in us. One with the tree outside, with the computer screen in front of us and the dog at our feet.

If we are all matter and all part of this spacetime fabric, then one ‘part’ of the fabric cannot call another part of the fabric good or evil, right or wrong. That would be like the first sip of a bottle of coke claiming it is a better than the last.

Sure, you can make claims about pragmatism. Or claims about reality. Or claims about science. But it is all just the rustling noise of spacetime fabric.

No matter how logical you feel things are logical; it just ain’t. Except by coincidence, but definitely not because you can claim it to be thus.