My Solution to Ice Cream Politics:
If you compare the lists of ingredients between any flavors of ice cream, you will notice that the great majority of the things that make up ice cream are identical. All ice cream is the same except for its differences in flavors. If everyone in the world focuses on ice cream flavors, no one can ever come to a conclusive agreement. On the other hand, if you stop concentrating on ice cream flavors and start looking at ingredients, you will be amazed at how much any flavor of ice cream has in common with any other flavor of ice cream. The differences in flavors are only superficial. If you focus exclusively on ice cream flavors you won’t be able to see the forest for the trees, if you’ll pardon my mixing of metaphors.
For me to make sense of people for my own sake, first I had to figure out what things were different between them, and what things were the same. That was relatively easy. Unfortunately, that distinction could only give me an image of people in three-dimensional space—it would only allow me to see what a person was this very moment. Obviously, people are not mere landmarks; their existences are series of events in space-time. To know what a person was at this very moment told me nothing about why the person was like that or what they might do next. In order to be able to truly understand people, I had to understand human behavior. In order to figure out what people are and what they might do because of it, I had to figure out why they were that way in the first place.
In my family of artists and engineers, intellect and feelings have worked together for generations. A lot of people I’ve met who are trying to leave tradition behind equate intellect with establishment, and believe the only way they can reject the establishment and do what feels right is to reject intellect itself. My family has never had that problem. When my grandparents lived near Los Angeles they liked to vacation in the forests of northern California. It was just a matter of time before they decided that the only logical thing to do would be to move there so essentially they could be on vacation all the time. By the time the 1960s rolled around, the concept that people should just be themselves, try to get along with each other, do what made them happy, and quit living their lives around earning as much Glorious Money as possible was old news in my family.
This longstanding family tradition of proto-spiritual logic has given me my completely alien perspective on cultural subjective reality. That brings with it an unexpected benefit, in that it absolves me of any need to believe that any part of anyone’s cultural subjective reality must be true. I have absolutely no emotional connection to any part of that subjective reality, and therefore no subconscious need to prove that any part of it must be right. I can look at the traditional subjective reality of the dominant cultures of the world and see that their version of reality killed something on the order of 180,000,000 people in the in the 20th century, and I can look at my reality and see that it didn’t. If I had to prove that the reality of the masses had been a bad idea from the word go, it wouldn’t bother me in the least.
Because my formula for understanding people had to be based on measurable logic and objective science, it couldn’t contradict science or itself, and consequently it wouldn’t have to depend on faith. It wouldn’t contradict human nature, because its purpose was to define human nature. Because it wouldn’t contradict science, logic, or human nature, and it would’ve been constructed in everyday life, it could be used by anyone who was looking for something to believe in—as so many people in the world are— who didn’t want to be forced to trade in their understanding of the world for abstract faith. On the other hand, because it is a scientific philosophy and not a religious one, it doesn’t require anyone to stop following a religion to be able to use it either. (However, if a person’s religion prevents them from accepting modern science, it will prevent them from using it, but there’s nothing I can do about that.)
Although this is a laughable concept in the political world of 2005, if one objective philosophy could be constructed that would explain the behavior of everyone in the world regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or anything else, everyone would be left with no other choice but to realize that they all had important things in common, and that they weren’t so different from each other after all.
I began this project long ago for my own personal use, but the further I got into it, the more I realized how many other people could benefit from it. I’ve spent my whole life trying to evade civilization as much as possible, drifting this way and that, and now I suddenly realize that I’m sitting here looking at a mathematical formula that could change the world forever. I’ve met a lot of good people in my travels who are all trying to help change the world. But I never thought I was going to be the one to figure out how to unite them all. What can I say? Sometimes you find your path in life, and sometimes your path finds you…
I’m not the first person to have ever wanted to unite the world; I’m just the first to have figured out how to do it scientifically. John Lennon imagined all the people sharing all the world, and I could certainly live with that. There’s no way it could happen right this minute, but it could happen. There are certainly enough people in the world who agree with me.
Good ideas are like viruses—they’ll find a way to spread and multiply, whether anyone wants them to or not. If I can explain what makes people what they are in the universal language of humanity, publish it in a book, and spread it around the world, then one way or another world peace is inevitable.









