Stances vs. Modules Wow, I hadn't noticed our huge agreement here. The point you make on this post is a central theme on my blog. I use the term "modules" where you use "stances". But throughout my blog, I try to get Christians, Buddhists and Atheists AWAY from discussing systems and instead, digging down as deep as they can to discuss the smallest mind patterns they can recognize and name for the purposes of dialogue -- the less abstract the better. Thus, I may even encourage to go deeper than "Monism" and "Eternalism" etc... But as a half-way point, so to speak, these are a far improvement over "Christianity", "Buddhism" and "Atheism", "Democracy" or whatever layered abstraction they use as a banner. I think the challenge for us is to be encouraged with each layer down we dive but to never be smuggly satisfied with any layer we are at -- I'd wager you agree. So, in light of our huge agreement, I have three thoughts/questions: (1) Essentialism I wonder if "Essentialism" is another module/stance that could be considered an important 'mistaken stance'? BTW, perhaps "unbalanced" stance may be another productive way to name these views. (2) Web/Nest of Stances I don't think a stance has consequences in isolation necessarily. But as a module of mind, is in complex relationships of networks with many other stances -- each weighted emotionally and each linked to particular environmental triggers. So that two people with the same stance, can display them completely differently -- one healthy and one unhealthy depending on all the checks and balances of other stances and habits. (3) Judging a Stance It seems we must have some way of judging a stance in utilitarian or some other standard to call it mistaken, confused or unbalanced. Have you been explicit with this? Is it merely the inability to accept nebulosity or something of that nature? Further, if my #2 is correct, even this judgment will be severely hampered and instead point us more directly to our standard -- the course on which we feel the ship should be set.