"trusting in my own inherent ability to do the right thing," . . .

As we learn, with every current moment, how much of what we were told to be real, when we were very short, has become nearly completely wrong, what we think of as our "ability" is way too sadly often, no longer applicable in specific. Though, our base, instinctual, feelings are still our foundation.

It is what we were told as kiddletts, (eg: religions), that is most currently egregiously interfering with our deep need to think clearly enough to understand what our life is now.

The facts have changed. . . Yet, we still have our genes. Those of us who are able to let go of what is not, and if we can survive the journey beyond the-point-of not-return, will come to understand a different reality.

My father struggled, like many intelligent people, to understand why there were dinosaur fossils near the poles. His idea was that the earth had flopped. Even though this was way after the 1957 year of science when plate-tectonics theory was presented, he had not continued his learning enough to comprehend.I am sure now, that had he had someone, who could, explain it to him, he would have.

Near his end, he was influenced by, the mostly, propaganda the moral majority was spreading about the size of the threat of the Soviet Union, based upon the Mercator Projection (stupidly still used on net maps) that distorts the size of the earth's surface area toward the poles. The maps were/are wrong, and thankfully (praise our best deity), the war was postponed. (I have become aware of how bad it was, and how it is now affecting everyone on the planet. And am very sad for all our decedents.)

Our innate genetic predispositions (as you state) are our anchors. Sad our youth was spent amongst those who were way less knowledgeable than we are now. Of course, not their fault, as it ever was. But their subjective certainty is an impediment to our learning what we should do now.

I often ask myself, "What would Ben Franklin think?"

as long as one doesn’t infringe on another persons “truth”...

@Santanaman9 Wouldn't that work both ways??
If my "truth" infringes on your "truth", and therefore your "truth" would most likely infringe on mine, then neither of us can live our "truth" for fear of infringing on the other and hence, we are back to doing what's expected of us...

For instance...
• If my truth is peeling the outer skin of "ubaubas" and drinking the juices, it shouldn't really interfere with anyone else's truth.
• However, you might belong to the "ubauba" culture, where "ubaubas" are sacred and therefore maybe it does interfere with your truth.
•Does that mean I can no longer drink "ubauba" juice? That doesn't seem fair.

•What if "ubaubas" are what I call dogs? Part of the world has them as pets, the other part, as food.

•What if "ubaubas" are what I call children under the age of 6 years old?

No, I don't eat dogs or children - this was a thought experiment only.
Where does one draw the line? Who gets to decide? Or should we even draw a line at all?

@scurry good exploration thanks

@Santanaman9 I've learned that everyone is doing the best that they can. One must forgive and tolerate their strangeness. I learned when I was 27 talking to people that my truths were not the same as theirs. At 23 or 24 I realised that people could have truths that diametrically seemed to oppose one another. It is all a factor of upbringing and influences. If you are 99% good don't judge those who are 99% bad because you have no idea how they became that way. I find that there are plenty I must avoid but also somehow I must love; not for Christian reasons but because we are all in this together.

@rogerbenham I appreciate your response. Your last sentence speaks volumes. Indeed, it is how we can best get along in this world and possibly evolve. thank you.