I thought I’d put this back where it was originally posted, instead of in response to one of the many times it has been reposted. I agree, this was a starting point, and here are my notes about why it is still a starting point and what could be done to get off of that point.
Quotations are from the blog post.
“Of course,” and “wondering about the ‘Why’ of the world” and “it seems inevitable that Gods would inhabit our mindscape”
- You haven’t defined mindscape yet, and Gods just pop in “inevitably”
- You offer a brief theory about early nurturing, then move one
“’Gods’ enabled further successes”
- You say “Not supernatural” but don’t delineate the mindscape or discuss how we created “gods”
- You are using your terms before you defined them
- These are good thoughts, central to the theme, but you pass over them
- More time spent understanding how science began might help
“hubristic trap of believing our ever fertile mindscape is ‘reality’”.
- “reality” in quotes indicates you need to take a moment to define it.
“Which brings me back…”
- And you restate your opening, before you’ve laid the groundwork.
- The science and religion definitions include undefined terms. They are continuations of your explanation of undefined concepts that you are talking about but not defining.
“What’s the point?”
- These are notes to yourself. It’s way too early to get to your point.
- The different color indented paragraph should have been your clue.
You end with applying it to avarice and government and the “Me generation”. We can see where you’re going, but not how you got here.