[WARNING] Please do not read following post if you are not emotionally stable or if you don’t want to read things that may not fit your preferred view.
Although I don’t think it’s controversial for more or less open minded people, it can be painful for some people. Consult your parent, teacher, doctor, counselor, guru, whatever if you can’t make up your mind or if you are under medication, treatment, etc. You are warned.
This warning applies to any post of mine (and probably anything in the life). [/WARNING]
As far as I’ve observed my own thinking and that of others, well focused or well organized thoughts seem to come out of the uneasiness, uncertainty, and/or the sense/feeling of contradiction or ambiguity.
It’s the feeling that something isn’t quite right that ignite the questioning process followed by thinking process.
And these sensations/feelings are often caused by conflicting/opposing senses of certainty we are not very aware of.
In other words, (some of) our well focused/organized thought start when we detect conflict/contradiction among our (more or less) subconscious fixations/certainties/beliefs/presumptions.
It is similar to waking up (or leaving) the dream “reality” in which we don’t doubt consistency of the dream illusion when we sense something strange (compared to the memory of waking state, for example).
However, once started, our thought may have different endings.
Some people would be very honest to the desire of having (absolute) certainty and think a lot till satisfaction, while others may not continue to think due to lack of concentration, will, time, energy, and so on.
And even for those who continue to think, there are different tendencies.
Some people would investigate the nature of conflicting/contradicting perspectives that were mostly subconscious up to the point, and then compare them, test them, and so on.
But there are people who would try to protect one or more of perspectives that caused questioning by covering up with other perspectives, rather than bringing them into more conscious region of our mind and facing it.
In other words, some people think to pull the subconscious perspectives while other would think to cover them up and push them deeper into subconscious.
This distinction isn’t permanent nor absolute just like any distinction, and it may change, mix, and blur depending on the subject matter, time, and other factors, as usual.
However, for a certain given subject and moment, it can be very visible to ourselves and onlookers.
If we think in rigid mental frame, not seeing from various perspectives, there is a good chance that we are thinking to protect and cover up certain perspectives (fixations/presumptions/beliefs) that is somehow important or too scary to face (at least for our subconscious mind).
On the contrary, if we are trying to see the bassis/foundation of our perspectives from different angles and often with some uneasy feeling, it’s possible that we are honest to our investigative nature and digging things rather than trying to paint rosy protective coat of illusion over the questionable area so that one can feel “sure”/”certain” of one’s “reality” and one’s “knowing”/”knowledge” about it.
And this kind of distinction can be observed in the different area, too.
“Cover up” thinking is often associated with protective attitude or concern for survival and general well being. It‘s to think for the sake of other concern/desire/fear. It‘s more of thinking used as a tool for protecting self.
“Investigative” thinking is more associated with single minded and sometime foolish disregard for other things such as well-being and even survival. It’s more of thinking for the sake of desire for thinking and it isn’t the thinking to accommodate other desires.
Also, “Cover up” thinking almost always start from “certainty” of some sort, while there is no absolute foundation in “investigative” thinking.
Within so called “philosophy”, “cover up” thinking often manifest as “morality”/”ethic” oriented philosophy, while “investigative” thinking may not fit very well in any traditional established branch of philosophy because these branches are probably established to protect/conserve certain fixations/presumption.
Now, I’m not saying one is better than the other, as I think it’s a matter of personal preference.
Some people love to think even if it’s dangerous for one’s own beliefs and thought patterns and emotional land scape. while others prefer to think more safely.
Also, these two tendencies are usually both present in each of us, I’d say.
Some people are more or less polarized while others are pretty mixed.
But it’s undeniable that there would be some consequences for “protective” and “covering up” thinking, as well as “investigative" thinking.
Since “protective” thinking may conserve and even increases subconscious zone, it may not help to uncover and know one’s own mental underworld.
Also, the freedom of perspective movement would be restricted, depending on the amount of presumed certainty indoctrinated into subconscious, creating rigid mentality incapable of following perspective of others.
It may also mean more frequent conflict within own beliefs and against perspectives coming from outside. And to preserve one’s presumptions/fixations, fanatic actions and words may come out of subconscious mind, too.
In other words, it’s like living in the mine field (mines of subconscious fixation/presumption). And it may explode if someone (or oneself) step on the sensitive spot.
So, there are things “cover up” thinking don’t want to discuss, face, investigate.
There are (half voluntary) blind spots in the “cover up”/”utility” thinking.
As for the “investigative” thinking, it starts from uncertainty and it leads to more uncertainty.
This happens because we would compare things, by seeing differences and the dividing line between them, but we wont find any absolute dividing line. It’s the same when we try to identify something by looking for the line separating the subject matter from the rest.
We wont find any definitive line.
In other words, we can consider arbitrary line of arbitrary division as temporary acceptable one for the given occasion, but there is no absolute permanent division for anything anywhere (other than well hypothetical very well structured limited world).
This kind of “not knowing” can be tough for some people, I guess.
Personally, I was comfortable and felt somewhat lighter when I understood some or more of these, but it’s true that a part of my mind still wanted “explanations” on top of the conceptual understanding although it wont be the absolute one. And it took years before I was comfortable in finding satisfactory explanation for what I felt.
So, it may require emotional stability and other ingredients to continue investigative thinking beyond “general uncertainty” point.
I guess some of “nihilistic” depression is the conflict between a part of mind which wants to continue to think and another part trying to protect/conserve some remaining value/belief/etc.
We often suffer more in yo-yo state in between the tendency to investigate and the tendency to cover up and protect.
Many people get out of it by finding something they want to protect, something they can attach as cling as (if) it’s real/sure/certain, and then using the certainty/reality of it to reconstruct value/belief/etc. It’s very common, I guess.
Some may drop down from the state as they could no longer cling onto any certainty.
But maybe it’s not so common.
And there are many layers of subconscious protective membrane, so to say.
So, some may drop through a few layers and get trapped after that, and then bouncing back to superficial layer or even into fanatical religion.
In other words, “investigative” thinking may have the price to pay, as well.
I guess it all depends on the preferences and deep desire of oneself.