BTW thank you for some of your body language in cohesion with your ideas, I can tell it is an abundant outlook. No one can deny this man has vast knowledge of his own right. Beautiful take on how emotion caters to type of thought and how important self control can be. Very Self Aware. You even attest to the power(and the traps of) of belief, like the forefathers of philosophy.

I would love to see you deconstruct the ego of R rated movies and youthful blunder. Also, thank you for the music references on your blog! #nowplaying

Are you asking if supporting vaccination as a medical procedure is lower? Or if “provax” as an identifier, used to substantiate one’s own arguments through pseudo-alignment with the perceived benevolent intent of the institution of western medicine is lower? If it’s the latter then yes, it’s a form of dogma. Even though vaccinations can be useful, being pro-anything, especially pro-institution, as a means of intellectually bypassing oppositional argument is lower. The way I like to think of ideology is “self-subjugation.” By that I mean, sacrificing the inherent value that is provided by direct experience in order to promote a belief, even if there is a lot of empirical evidence that backs up one’s claim. Self-subjugation is effectively “lower perspective.” It is a strict denial of relative perspective and nuance. Think of it like you’re standing under a giant redwood. You’re on the ground, closer to its roots than the top, clearly. You say “wow, this has to be the tallest tree I’ve ever seen.” You may be right, but the truth of your direct experience is that the validation of that claim exceeds your own perspective. You have the “lower perspective” literally because you cannot see the height of the tree as it actually is, absent of your perception. Not only that, but you might have actually seen a taller tree before, but it didn’t become an object of your perception because you didn’t categorize your own perspective that would include it in this set “tallest tree I’ve ever seen.” But we’ll say this redwood actually is the tallest tree you’ve ever seen. Even though your point of view is aligned with the higher perspective (that you have indeed never see a tree taller than this one), it doesn’t make your perspective the higher perspective . Because you don’t actually _know._ This is why Leo is talking about epistemology, or how you know what you know. Knowing something that is correct doesn’t make it the higher perspective. It’s knowing what makes it true that elevates the perspective. So now let’s say, actually you are a forest biologist. Your job is to find tall trees and measure them. You have a proven method of doing this and it’s usually accurate. That method was part of specialized training, that presumably the general public is not trained on. So you do it and add the measured height into your recorded data throughout your career. Lo and behold, it is in fact the tallest tree you’ve ever … recorded with this method. Your perspective is higher than the original example. Because you know its height relative to other trees’ heights. But how do you know if this method really works? Like you said, there are quite a lot of medical doctors who aren’t “provax.” Doesn’t mean they’re “anti”, but it means they understand that even highly supported medical methodology was just created by another person, who had their own dogmas. Almost everyone has dogmas, so it’s not hard to believe that even very educated doctors do as well. But denial of a dogma is not inherently a “higher perspective.” It can actually still be a “lower perspective” because there’s no proof that they are correct. Being skeptical of institutions is always a great first step towards higher perspective though. Just be wary that skepticism is _not_ the same thing as denial. You have to be open to being wrong about your own beliefs.