Book Excerpt: The Amphiist Doctrine

The Amphiist Doctrine:

Reaching our Full Potential

By

Jaclyn Holland-Strauss

© October 31, 2024

If all situations are supposed to be

black and white,

then why are we gifted with colour?

Chapter One

Introduction

Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Let’s examine life together. If a concept is notable and important, I will repeat it often.

The world is not what it used to be. Some people think this is a good thing, while others regret the changes many of us have experienced. It can be easy and understandable for us to feel hopeless. A lot of us don’t know what to think about many of the topics of contemporary importance. And this disengagement covers all of the major areas of life. A lot of us can’t afford to pay for the groceries we need to realize our full health potential. We can’t afford gym memberships (although admittedly, many people wouldn’t join even if they could!). Many can’t find a significant other, and both men and women are ill at ease in this new world. Due to the current state of feminism, men are scared to flirt with women, lest they get accused of sexual assault. Women are frightened at being ghosted (ignored) by men after they have ‘hooked up’. An increasing number of men are alarmed at the thought of getting married and losing a large portion of their money in a divorce–as well as access to their children. Trust is often non-existent between men and women. And the media’s breathless reporting on such matters harms gender relations even more. In fact, anything the media discusses normally becomes worse. They are more concerned with advancing the agenda of the elites rather than sincerely solving problems.

In another field, today’s music is overproduced and doesn’t require the talented singers with whom older generations are more familiar. There are still talented musicians, of course, but there are not as many as there used to be. And the ones who exist often don’t exercise the same freedom as before. The sameness of so many songs is becoming increasingly apparent. One man who shall remain nameless writes a lot of the contemporary pop songs that find success. Since 2000 or so, originality has fallen by the wayside. And repeatedly, television shows are rebooted, meaning that producers take a show from twenty years ago, for example, and redefine it for the current television landscape.

Not all of the changes have been negative. The differently able, for sure, live in better conditions compared to what they used to, although undoubtedly the problem has not been completely solved. However, if we compare the negatives and the positives, it seems as though the former far outweigh the latter. More women are becoming educated. Mentally afflicted individuals are no longer hidden up in the attic. There is more of a focus on diversity than ever before. But even with these positive changes, they are only seen as positive by a certain part of the population. Some people cringe when they hear the word ‘diversity’. I know some of them!

I’m in a constant struggle to improve my world and the larger community around me. I actually believe that if everyone on earth followed the tenets of amphiism, the subject of this book, then we would enjoy world peace. That might seem like an overstatement, but I hope that by the end of this book, you will see the potential of amphiism to change humankind for the better. If we can sort human beings out, then we can solve the vast majority, if not all, of the problems our world faces.

Not many people love grammar, but now there is a particularly awful aspect of it: Pronouns!  How the whole pronoun thing began makes it somewhat understandable. If someone feels as though they were born in the wrong body, then it’s a source of trauma for them if they are referred to as the wrong pronoun. It seems as though so many of the battles that are waged today in the public sphere are engineered. See: The elites! For instance, one side says that people’s pronouns should be respected and that people who misgender others should be imprisoned. That’s one extreme take. The other side insists that the whole issue is nonsensical, and that there are two genders, male and female, and we should call people who recognizably look male “Sir” and who look like women “Ma’am”. Whenever you see a video where a burly looking person insists on being referred to as a woman, realize it’s very possible they’ve been paid to make a scene. I doubt it’s always spontaneous, although of course there are people just looking for attention. But sometimes it’s those darned elites again, trying to stir up trouble. If the general public is focused upon who’s a man, who’s a woman, what is a woman, etc., then we are not asking inconvenient questions like, “Why does the cost of oil constantly increase but my wages stay the same?” If we’re one of the fortunates who have a job…

Probably by this book’s end, you will be able to discern clearly my world view. But you should also be able to say honestly that I have given opposing world views a fair hearing and that I have not judged any view that does not accord with mine. Amazingly, we can have a very strong opinion on an issue, but we still may be wrong. Any opinion I express in this book might be incorrect. I acknowledge it. But give me a chance to explain myself and if you wish to write me after you read this book, then feel free to express yourself kindly to me via email, amphiist@hotmail.com, etc.

The answer to all of this is amphiism. Let me explain what it means in full. And let me begin this specific section by explaining what I think led me to my world view of amphiism. When I was just 23, I joined the Mormon church. To make a long story short, certain Church leaders discriminated against me–I was born 3 months prematurely and perhaps as a direct result of that, my deformed genitals were spread throughout different parts of my body, leading to ambiguity and confusion. Nowhere were they fully formed. I suppose the best description of myself is intersex. I hope that if you disagree with this concept or anything in this book, that you be patient and keep reading. You’re sure to agree with a subsequent point, and I’d rather you have a fuller view of me than that afforded by my messed-up body—over which I have no control.      .

In religious terms, there has never been as much distrust in what leaders say as now. In terms of politics, there has never been as much distrust in what leaders say as now. I think this suggests a pattern. I am a champion of those who are weak, small and/or powerless. This is basically all of us when it comes to combatting Big Pharma and other large societal forces. As you will clearly understand by the time you finish this book, an amphiist does not just have an opinion and leave it there. So I don’t denounce everyone remotely connected with the pharmaceutical industry. There are doctors who issue the prescriptions they sincerely feel will help their patients the most, without regard to any commission or payment they might collect. There are pharmacists who would rather leave their careers rather than take advantage of the patients who go to them. In past generations, people slapped some cod liver oil on their chest and in a few days they were all better. Now a lot (but not all) doctors recommend chemical pills that do more harm than good. Chemical pills are sometimes necessary, but not nearly as often as some might wish. Doctors recite what they learn in their books in medical school but often place too much faith in the same.

We’ve had a whole generation or more now of people having been abducted by vanity. They use Botox and fillers to smooth out their wrinkles, resulting in a perpetually surprised expression on their faces. They are desperate for youth. Personally, I think this is partly because they haven’t accomplished what they wish to and have dreamt of for their lives, and so they resist any idea that means that time is passing, and the realization of their dreams is becoming increasingly less likely. I know that is why I colour my hair. I have definitely not accomplished my goal of becoming a valued writer who has plenty of book sales to my credit (yet). I’m not being negative when I write that; I’m just recording a fact. And one could argue that having such procedures is helping one to reach their full potential.

My advice for everyone, including myself, is that we need to work as hard as we can to realize our various ambitions, but we also need to leave it up to whatever higher force dictates our lives (it’s entirely possible that we dictate our own lives). If we don’t obtain what we want, then we need to be philosophical about it and console ourselves with the thought that perhaps it wasn’t meant to be for whatever reason. However, we should attempt to manifest our dreams into reality, and do it with as much strength as possible. I’ll go into manifestation in much detail near the end of this book. It’s vital to know how we can turn our dreams into physical reality. Possibly, the emotional lessons we need to learn in this life would not be taught to us if we actually got what we wanted every single minute. And our subconscious knows this and acts or doesn’t act accordingly. I’ve also heard that the biggest tragedy in life is getting what we want. I think it’s an interesting topic to (self-)explore. Before I go any further, I’d like to point out that it’s much harder to manifest our dreams if we are on a low vibration. Not being a natural aristocrat, not being emotionally intelligent, not being woke, and not being self-actualized or at least on that path, will lower our vibration to the point where any manifestation is problematic. These terms will be fully explained over the course of this book.

Background

Some years ago, I tried to come up with a word which would sum up my worldview. It took me a while, but I thought a good starting point could be the Greek word ‘amphiism’. It means both sides. I accepted this at face value at first, but then I realized that if we apply this word to life’s situations, then it’s more apt to say that we should look at all sides and perspectives, since there are always multiple stakeholders involved.

I want to make the point that this monograph does not need to be read all at once. It is broken up into different sections, partly for this purpose, to make the reading easier to digest. It is written with an awareness that if you do not understand something I write, the fault does not lie with you, but instead with me (usually). If you have bought this book, then that is a sign that you are intelligent enough to wish to better yourself, so if you are smart enough to make such a wise decision, you can definitely understand everything in this book. And if you don’t, then you can always ask me! amphiist@hotmail.com

A lot of the concepts in this book, such as emotional intelligence, have obviously been around for a long time. The value that I have added in this book comes from how I have combined the many concepts great philosophers and scholars before me into a simpler narrative that is hopefully more understandable. I have also tried to make these abstract theories significantly more practical, because that is where a lot of value lies. I think the most valuable insight I’ve offered is my explanation of how important it is to be on the right level of vibration so that we ensure manifesting our desires into physical form, and the practical examples I have demonstrated regarding what we need to do in order to experience the correct vibrational level. For example, if someone does not do what we wish them to do, instead of delivering angry words to them, we should be patient and wait to see if they self-correct. You’d be amazed (or maybe you wouldn’t!) at how often this ‘strategy’ works in everyone’s favour. It’s hard to do at first, yes, but especially once we see positive results, it will become increasingly easier. Our knowledge that we are improving in such an important regard will help us have the necessary self-confidence and faith to transform our desires into material reality.

I get the impression than an awful lot of people just kind of go through life, trying to make it through each day, pay their bills, feed their families, save a little money, have some good friendships, a loving partner, etc. In other words, they don’t examine their lives. And it’s no wonder these thoughts occupy most of our time, because of how difficult it seems to be for so many to obtain them. Especially when certain forces seem to try their very best to stop us from achieving such fundamental goals (and sometimes we are one of the forces). If a person is barely able to support themselves, they are not going to be concerned about the finer philosophical points in life.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is relevant here. He thought that people are motivated by different things, depending upon what their circumstances are. At the lowest level, humans are motivated by the basic necessities of life, such as food, water and sex. Governmental policies and rules often result in people not moving further up Maslow’s hierarchy. If you have to worry about literally what food you’re going to feed your children, you are not going to be nearly as concerned with more abstract issues, such as those concerning politics, religion, etc. Self-improvement is a luxury which assumes that you have enough necessities to move on from an obsession with that topic. Maslow’s next highest level has to do with safety and security, including such pleasant things as land we can call our own, a house with a lock on the door, etc. Having a job also helps us to feel safe and secure. If we are fortunate enough to possess all these things, we can move up through Maslow’s hierarchy, although it could be argued that this is also a practical level, given that at this stage, we are motivated by our relationships in life and belonging to groups, such as family and friends, who offer us support. The next step in Maslow’s hierarchy is enjoying self-confidence, self-esteem, and a good reputation. If you are thirsty for water, at that moment you are probably not thinking about how you fit in with your peer group. Practical takes precedence over the abstract, since we notice directly how practical events influence us, whereas abstract issues do affect us, sometimes directly, but they don’t appear as noticeable to us.  If all four of these levels are running smoothly in our lives, then Maslow’s final level is known as self-actualization. This is when we realize our full potential. Elsewhere, I discuss the spectrum along which our capabilities in life are measured. So my advice is to take care of each of the lower needs as soon as possible so you can get on to the business of reaching your full potential.

Scholars have discussed (like Maslow, the father of motivational theory) something called peak experiences. Colin Wilson, an important writer, has written about this phenomenon. They are those intense surges of happiness that hopefully we all experience from time to time. One of the main debates with regard to this issue is whether or not these peaks come as a result of something we did or if they are more random. Wilson’s thesis is that indeed, we can control this through discussing them with others when we experience them. So if he is right, this is another case where we have far more control over our lives than we popularly suppose. A lot of people these days tend to think that we are at the mercy of those with money and societal power. That may be true on a macro scale, but it’s different on a micro scale. We do have power over ourselves, including our thoughts, and now with Wilson, over peak experiences where we suddenly feel that everything in our life is wonderful and that our potential for happiness is unlimited. Imagine if we had the capability of proactively arranging for this feeling rather than it being something that happens beyond our control, not randomly, but beyond our ability to manipulate. An example of a peak experience is when we are sitting down to dinner, we look across at our family, and an overwhelming feeling of happiness envelops us. I imagine it’s much easier to live a contented life if we have such an experience very often. Or it could be for no specific reason at all. And to be content is to help ourselves realize our full potential as we are motivated to go even further.

It is very important to note that amphiism does not support sitting on the fence, or not making a decision on a given issue. That is the coward’s way out. There is nothing wrong with having a strong opinion about something, as long as sincere work went into our decision, making it eventually informed. Then the opinion has substance. We should look at all perspectives, inasmuch as is possible, before we make a final decision. For example, on the subject of abortion, if we are a strong supporter of a woman’s right to choose in all circumstances, no matter how late in the pregnancy, we should make a point of reading books or articles or anecdotes which advocate for the opposite side, that which says abortion is not a good choice for women and that they will surely regret it. Then perspectives in between these two extremes should be sought and read. Multiple pieces on each perspective is obviously even better, from reliable sources. Then an informed decision can be made about abortion or any other issue. We should not confuse emotion with a logical argument. Some women become extremely upset about this topic because they feel that since it is their body, they have a right to choose what works best for them. I don’t wish to embark upon a full discussion of abortion here, because it will distract from my point that we should research all sides of an issue before pronouncing our own opinion on it. I’ll examine it very near the book’s end in more detail. And we should keep emotion out of it. Please see the section on emotional intelligence for what this means in a practical sense. Our opinion will necessarily be subjective, since no matter how much research we do, we will doubtless base part of our opinion on our own personal experiences, which seems to me to be an entirely reasonable thing to do. Disclaimer: I welcome emotions and recognize their importance, but only in some circumstances.

So often in society, people attempt to solve a problem by moving to the opposite extreme, and in so doing, they accomplish as much destruction as their predecessors, just in a different way. Let’s take feminism as an example. There was a time in almost all societies when women weren’t allowed to get an education, own property, divorce their husbands, etc. Then came the first wave of feminism, when women began to get ‘rights’. But after that, they went beyond equal pay for equal work, and instead became radical. Contemporary feminism insists that women are superior to men, rather than the other way around, which was always taught in patriarchal societies. Giving women some important rights was fine, but taking away men’s rights is not the answer.

Sex is another example. For centuries, sexual repression was the norm in the West. Sexual repression is extremely dangerous. The more we repress something, the more our subconscious devotes attention to it, and it assumes undue influence upon us. But we shouldn’t explore the opposite of repression, which would be hedonism. We should explore a modification of repression, rather than unrestrained pleasure. We should weigh the pros and cons associated with specific situations. The middle way is almost always the best.

This is why lying is frowned on by an amphiist. If we lie, then we make it harder for others to figure out the world around us. Not seeing the world around us in a realistic way ensures that our decisions (and opinions) will not be as worthwhile. If I tell someone that a particular dress doesn’t make them look fat, when most assuredly it does, the lie does no good, ultimately. They will wear the dress and potentially embarrass themselves. So lie perhaps in self-defence, but not for one’s own benefit otherwise.

Amphiism is very hard work. It is far easier to lie to someone than to study in depth one’s reply and make sure that we tell the truth but in a tactful way that will not trigger the person who looks fat in a particular dress! Not everyone has the self-discipline necessary to be an amphiist. We have no control over how others react to our own amphiism, though. If we say something tactful like, “I prefer your red dress because not only is it slimming, but it shows your best feature, your curves. I would kill for those curves!”, and the other person becomes offended by our words, then we shouldn’t judge them, but simply move on. We have no idea why they are offended, really. There may be something in their past which causes them to react in a certain way. If we were they, then we would very possibly feel the same exact way they do, and react identically. Dale Carnegie gives such advice in his book How to Win Friends and Influence People.

One of the great benefits of amphiism, however, is the control it does indeed afford us in general. Always, no matter what the government, our parents, our relatives, our friends or our enemies (friends we haven’t interacted with yet) can say and/or do to us, we have control over how we react. Being proactive is always better than reacting. Our planning time is less and therefore we can fall into the trap of speaking without thinking or making a decision without analyzing all of the various positive and negative consequences. Many of us feel like we are slowly losing control over our daily lives, and this was especially so when COVID was raging (it still is, to some extent). We don’t control the rapidly-increasing gas prices or whether our partner is supportive. There are far more things we don’t control than we do control, which is why we should show gratitude for the control we do indeed have over our emotions, thoughts, etc.

When we think about something, we give power to it. Conversely, and wonderfully, when we refuse to think about something or at least not dwell or linger on the thought, we rob it of its power. Examples of thoughts to avoid include, “Oh, I knew I wouldn’t get that job.” Or “Things never work out for me!”. Examples of thoughts to encourage are, “I need to find a job. I’m going to sit back and meditate. I know if I focus, great ideas will come to me,” or, “I’m so happy I found this job! It suits me perfectly and uses my unique skillset!” Follow such latter thoughts with writing down any ideas that come to you. That way, there is a written record. A lot of us lead very busy lives, and it helps to have something written down that we can refer to later. It isn’t just helpful to follow this advice when it comes to things we want. If we know we are going to have to do something unpleasant on the following Tuesday, then after we have done all the necessary planning and preparing, if any, we should just cast the thought of Tuesday out of our minds. Thinking about it will solve nothing. Think of something pleasant instead. In fact, the more unpleasant Tuesday might be, the more pleasant should our fantasy be that replaces the negative thought. If further negative thoughts do creep in, make sure you replace them with positive ones; they don’t need to be on the same subject. You don’t need to lie to yourself and think that Tuesday is going to be wonderful if realistically it probably won’t be. Then you’re not being authentic. Just accept that there will be some unpleasantness up ahead, but move quickly on from it and think of something you’re grateful for from the recent past.

If we were all meant to see, no one would be blind. If we were all meant to hear, then no one would be deaf. But even animals can feel, as well as all human beings to varying degrees, so since everyone seemingly feels, feeling and emotion must be more important than the other two senses I’ve mentioned. Emotions are always valid because they are based on our subjective experiences and they arise out of the most natural parts of our being. We should always respect our emotions, and those of others. However, they should not be our gods. We have no obligation to respect someone’s opinions on a given matter, but we do have a responsibility to respect their emotions. If they are upset by something, for example, we have no guarantee that we wouldn’t feel similarly upset if we had just experienced what they just did. I say in this book that we can’t always trust our emotions, but more specifically what I mean when I say that is that we cannot always trust our reaction to what we feel inside.

One of the secrets to a happy life is to control our emotions. It’s the emotional intelligence part of Natural aristocracy, Emotional intelligence, Wokeness, Self-actualization. Specifically, sometimes wonderful things happen to us (or we perceive them as being wonderful in the moment). Or sometimes awful things occur to us (or we perceive them as being awful). The trick to being happy is to stay calm regardless of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The reason for this, other than learning to master our emotions, is that if things turn out differently than we expect, we will be less likely to put our emotions through the wringer and question reality. It is very frustrating to get excited about potentially good news only to realize later that it didn’t happen due to whatever reason, or it happened but it didn’t turn out to be the good news we predicted. Or something we think is horrible could be a huge future blessing. If we refuse to get excited over something ‘good’, it will make it easier to not get too depressed over something ‘bad’. A calm sense of peace, regardless of circumstances, is what we are after. We don’t have a lot of control in this life, but we have more than we traditionally think, so we should grab it where we can. If we submit to our circumstances, then we will always be at their mercy. It sets us up to be dupes. But we are the ones who are duping ourselves. The next time you get a great job or a new relationship, don’t let yourself get too excited. Be thankful for the potential blessing but wisely leave it at that.

The traditional acronym most of us are familiar with ‘NEWS’, stands for North, East, West, South, or what’s happening in the world from all 4 directions. In amphiist terms, NEWS stands for Natural aristocrat, Emotional intelligence, Wokeness and Self-actualization. A natural aristocrat is someone who is not born a prince/princess, duke/duchess, marquess/marchioness, earl/countess, viscount /viscountess, baron/lady, etc. They are born aristocrats or marry into the aristocracy.

A natural aristocrat, instead, is someone who has nobility of character. A person can both possess nobility of character as well as be part of an actual aristocratic family, of course. From an amphiist’s point of view, a natural aristocrat is someone most people think of as being kind, honest, polite, true to their word, full of integrity, slow to anger, open-minded, non-manipulative, non-superficial, tolerant, etc. If we aren’t naturally this way, we can learn and practice these traits until they become a part of us. Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the characteristic where we have control over our emotions. If someone says to us, “When will you ever learn?”, we don’t react in anger. We try to see the situation from their perspective. An emotionally intelligent person says something like, “I hope I learn someday so I don’t keep repeating the same mistakes!” There are varying definitions for ‘woke’. From an amphiist’s perspective, woke means being awake and aware of what the elite is doing in this world so that we are not caught unawares, but it does not mean what is traditionally meant by the term (asking for a baby’s consent to change their diaper is one ridiculous, extreme example). Being woke really means looking behind the scenes at what world leaders and others do, rather than just focusing on what they say, which could be all lies (not necessarily, but certainly possible in any given situation). I have a very open mind. Self-actualization means reaching our full potential. We have satisfied all of our lower-level needs, such as the need for food, sex, water, etc., safety and security, like shelter, a feeling of belonging to a group that’s important to us, self-confidence, and now we are ready to be motivated by a feeling of self-actualization. We are our best selves. If we have a particular gift, such as a sense of humour, we capitalize on it and fully express it…but we don’t turn a strength into a weakness by sacrificing others to our humour. Telling jokes is fine but using hurtful humour such as sarcasm would be an example of turning our initial strength of a great sense of humour into a weakness of hurtful words. The ideal balance for us is exploit a strength to an extent but pull back when we realize it’s becoming something hurtful.

Some of the academic disciplines relevant to amphiism are Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy, Astrology, Psychology, Political Science, History, English, Religion, Philosophy, Physics, Sociology, Business, etc. Which subject do you think would benefit the most from amphiism? Science is especially interesting, because it concerns space and time, and how flexible each is, how they can be manipulated, and so forth. Everything in life is energy, as many scientists and scholars have stated.

Part of Chemistry deals with turning base metals into gold, or alchemy. Similarly, amphiism can help someone turn their lives and characters into gold (natural aristocracy). Business is perhaps the most relevant discipline to amphiism. One of the most exciting aspects of Business is Human Resources. It’s basically now people management and helping people realize their full potential in aid of making the organization for which they work realize as much revenue as possible. Just like amphiism, which of course can be applicable far beyond organizations.

Amphiism’s relevance to the everyday world cannot ever be overstated. In journalism, a person can take advantage of amphiism by showing all perspectives to an issue, rather than just showing the side that the people who support the paper financially, wish expressed. Let the reader decide for themselves the truth of a situation, based on their own experiences. A successful journalist can make lots of good contacts in this and other fields. They can advance social justice. They can show the advantages and disadvantages of certain actions in society. They can be historians by looking into the past so we don’t repeat its mistakes. They can whistleblow when necessary but remain discreet when appropriate. A winning journalist can fulfil their duty and responsibility, as well as obligation to their public by keeping people aware of what’s going on in the world. Without supporting a particular agenda.

Earlier, I mentioned subjectivism. Ayn Rand did something revolutionary with her work on the opposite, objectivism. She had certain philosophical ideas and came up with the novel idea (pardon the pun) of teaching these principles through novels. She was on solid ground here, because I’ve read that the best way to teach principles is to do it through entertainment. Her classic book is Atlas Shrugged. She taught that altruism (caring about others’ well-being) is destructive, while selfishness is a noble ideal towards which we should all aspire. She was a strong supporter of individual rights and distrusted the collective (so she was against communism and socialism). She did not favour governmental regulation; she believed this undermines freedom and liberty. For Rand, one should be free to pursue one’s self-interest, even if it exists at the expense of others, for whom we have absolutely no responsibility.

An amphiist will agree with some of Rand’s points, but not all of them. There is good and evil in all philosophies, probably including amphiism. When a particular company implemented Rand’s ideals in the United States, it fell apart (although we can’t base our entire opinion on her philosophy on one case study, since it might not be representative), with different departments pursuing their own self-interest to the point where infighting became rampant. Check out Denise Cummins’s PBS article if you are interested in finding out more about this topic.

Amphiism, on the other hand, celebrates subjectivism. Each person’s viewpoint is based on their own experiences and as such is legitimate. What if they conflict? Then we do not bully the other person. We allow them their own opinion and celebrate ours, also. That way, all human beings are given the essential dignity to which we all have a right. Amphiism teaches that we should always care more for others than we do about ourselves, but including ourselves. We should collaborate with others, and not compete (take notes, contemporary feminists!). If someone performs an act as part of their culture, and that is not practiced in your own culture, don’t judge the act based on your own cultural preferences and traditions. There’s no objective morality, in other words.

All truth is internal and dependent upon the life circumstances and world view of the individual holding the opinion. A subjectivist could believe that amphiism supports the idea of practicing a combination of subjectivism and objectivism. Our individual circumstances do matter and will inform our opinions, and that is totally justified and legitimate. Subjectivism might say there is a God. Objectivism says there’s no evidence for that, but it may be true. Subjectivism says someone is kind. Objectivism says if you can come up with examples of their being kind, then it makes sense to believe that they possess the particular trait of kindness. The controversy comes when the government has policies that are unrestrictedly either subjective or objective. Because human leaders run governments, their policies are often subjective, or at least begin as being subjective. Hopefully, if they gather advice from a variety of stakeholders, including representatives for the masses, official national policies will have the best interests of all global citizens in mind when such policies are formulated.

In other words, an amphiist has an extremely negative attitude about human nature, and an amphiist will clearly acknowledge that we ourselves are just as corrupt as anyone else. Just because someone’s an amphiist in no way means that they are exempt from the accusations one can level against humanity. Any situation which can be used to oppress others is not a beneficial solution. Similarly, this could be an argument for why women shouldn’t be allowed in the workplace, although an amphiist doesn’t make such categorical or blanket statements. But the point here is that since men are indeed likely to oppress women in many circumstances, and since sexual harassment becomes a very real problem as we have seen in the workplace, it stands to reason (for some) that it should just be men in the workplace (not to mention that this would mean less unemployment for men in some cases).

Conversely, if women weren’t allowed in the workplace, how do they realize their full potential if part of it is through their careers? Again, an amphiist will never argue that women shouldn’t be in the workplace, because that ideally is where some women belong in order to take advantage of their innate abilities and to realize their full potential, but I am just showing one side of this issue as it comes to me from the perspective of different stakeholders. A great way to impress your bosses at work is to demonstrate clearly that you see a variety of stakeholders’ opinions, and you have taken each of their stakes and subjective interests into account when offering any recommendation.

An example of a policy that should be objective has to do with religion. When the constitutional republic (not democracy!) of the United States was created in 1776, one of the most important parts of the Constitution was freedom of religion. This includes freedom from religion. Religion is an extremely subjective issue. Adherents to a particular religion ‘know’ certain things to be true, but this is objectively false. They believe it (have faith) and what they believe could well be true. But it’s not an objective fact. If it were, then faith would be completely unnecessary. The best we can do in our imperfect world is to permit people, all people, to hold the religious beliefs they sincerely espouse, and which make sense to them based on their own personal life experiences. And if their life experiences tell them no religion is true, then they have the right to exercise their freedom from religion. If they accept one religion and dismiss all others, then they are exercising their freedom of religion.

The fact that we need to exercise faith automatically means that our relationship with any religion is subjective. All human beings have a subjective relationship to religion. An atheist does. A devil worshipper does. A Jewish person does. A Muslim does. A Christian does, a Buddhist does, etc. Until God tells us personally which religion, if any, is true, then we hold only subjective opinions on the matter. An understanding of subjectivism is vital for anyone who is interested in amphiism.

An amphiist believes that there is truth and beauty in all religions. Sometimes two religions will teach doctrines that stand directly against each other. Christians believe in the Atonement of Jesus Christ, while Muslims love Jesus as a Prophet of God, but they do not accept that the Atonement actually occurred (I focus on Muslims and Christians mainly for now, because those are the two religions we hear so much about these days. As I learn more about different world religions, such as Buddhism, I will delve more into them in my weekly newspaper, Amphiist Weekly, available for subscription at http://www.jaclynhollandstrauss.com/shop.

Not only should we defend the adherents to every religion, but we should defend countries where one religion predominates. When we hear in the West about Pakistan, it’s often all about terrorism, how Pakistanis protected Osama bin Laden. We never hear about the positive things. Pakistani men protect their women from the outside world.

I know of one Muslim who had to stay in Canada, even though he’d already graduated, because his sister was going to university and needed a chaperone or guardian so that she would be protected. Men in the West used to have this attitude in Victorian England (when Queen Victoria ruled the kingdom), but sadly it’s a thing of the past. One negative thing about Pakistan is the issue of honour killings, where if a woman is raped, she is stoned by, say, a brother who is supposedly protecting the family’s honour. Of course, there is the small minority who believe in honour killings, but this is a clearly small number of people. If a person believes in Islam, as the vast majority of the people of Pakistan do, then they will not believe in honour killings. The standard of living is extremely high in Pakistan, especially as compared with other countries. Pakistani men understand gender roles better than men in the West do, too (again, this is a blanket statement). Pakistani men do not let themselves be simps or people who let themselves be walked over by their women. They, according to Islam, respect women very much. And the big issue is how they protected bin Laden. It should be remembered that Pakistanis are extremely familiar with how often the West has destroyed many Middle Eastern countries and if they feel it makes sense for them to protect a man who fought against the colonialist, imperialist West, then we in the West, at least, have absolutely no right to judge. No one likes or welcomes violence, but it becomes more tolerable and understandable when we become aware of the geopolitical context surrounding the issue.

Without going into too much depth on why life in the Middle East is so violent, I’d like to make the point that the Catholic church has obviously existed for centuries. Some recent teachings of Catholic Popes have departed from traditional doctrines, and it can be interesting to see what the new, revised beliefs are in some areas. 1: Heaven and Hell are not actual locations in a physical sense; they are states of mind. Heaven is being with God, while Hell is being distant from God. The implication is that a person can always change, that one can move from Heaven to Hell … and vice versa. 2: Heaven is for all good people, not just those who belong to a particular faith. In other words, a good Christian has a better chance of ending up in Heaven, whatever the precise definition, than a bad Muslim. Of course, the opposite is also true. 3 In an attitude of great tolerance, the Pope in 2000 kissed the Quran in a meeting with an Iraqi Patriarch. This seems like a wonderful gesture of interfaith harmony. It would never have happened with previous Popes. As an amphiist, I like these revisions, but I’m not sure if they’re true or not. Perhaps the decisions made by a particular Pope are merely subjective. Since we’re not discussing issues with God ourselves, we can’t know for sure. If God exists, then He surely could be considered objective, given His perfection.

Subjectivity makes the world more complicated for when we try to arrive at the truth, but it makes life far more interesting, since it results in diversity of opinion. Life is all about nuance, with no easy answers. Let’s look at the issue of backbiting, where people have a knee-jerk reaction against it. Backbiting is much criticized as something extremely negative. However, motivation as it so often is, is what’s most important when considering this practice. There is a huge difference between someone maliciously talking behind another person’s back, and someone taking a sincere interest in human nature by discussing, including negatively, someone else’s behaviour. You can tell if someone is being malicious or not. If they defend the person as well as outline their mistake(s), then their heart is probably pure. We should distance ourselves from the malicious, whether they are backbiting or doing something else that’s toxic. But if we know of someone who takes a fair and balanced approach when they discuss others (and also, if they have said it to the person’s face as well), then we can rest assured that they are not bad people, at least in this regard.

A lot of us have been duped by someone in our lives. Probably almost all of us who read the news have similarly been duped by so-called journalists who give us only their biased view of a situation. One of the most important tenets of amphiism is that journalists (and everyone else, but journalists especially) should be impartial and objective, including when discussing a scandal involving someone in their family, or a friend or other loved one. In the first paragraph of the article in the suggested reading below, the word ‘harsh’ is used. This tells us immediately that the author of the article disapproves of Chris Cuomo’s behaviour. A journalist is not supposed to approve or disapprove; they are merely supposed to report. It’s up to commentators to actually analyze.