thinking for yourself vs conforming

We’ve seen a lot of bitter argumentation happening on these boards lately–actually forever, but I personally have seen a lot of it lately–and it usually degenerates into a tired old accusation:

“You’re a conformist, incapable of thinking for yourself.”

“That’s the kettle calling the teapot black.”

This typically follows once one party, out of frustration, can’t convince the other of his or her views, and so the accusation usually amounts to no more than: you disagree with my radical views, that frustrates me, so you’re a conformist.

This is nothing more than a consequence of an inability to recognize the difference between reality and one’s own beliefs–which is natural, of course–we all have our beliefs, and being beliefs, they will always seem like reality to us. But some of us, I suppose, don’t realize the implication of this–namely, that though certain alleged facts and truths may seem real to us, that alone is insufficient to dismiss the possibility that we may be wrong. So these people will always think of themselves as capable of seeing the truth for what it is, and the rest of us, when we disagree, must be blind, taken by an illusion of mere thought that we inherit from other sources.

The fact of the matter is, we are a social species and are virtually incapable of escaping our place and function in the social web. There is no such thing as a person who thinks completely independently of the ideas of others, and original ideas don’t come out of a void. Even the most independent thinkers rely on ideas from other sources just in order to come up with their novel ideas. The mark of an independent thinker is not that his/her ideas and beliefs are different from those of the crowd, or that they go against the mainstream, but that he/she is not afraid to question the crowd or the mainstream.

One must also keep in mind that an independent thinker is not always foremost interested in truth, but in the logical connection between ideas. I think of myself when I say this. I call myself a logophile for a reason. I’m more interested (at least when I’m wearing my philosopher’s cap) in analyzing and picking apart the logical ties that connect ideas, views, and theories together. I may disagree with another’s beliefs, but I’m willing to entertain them for the sake of exploring the interconnections that hold those beliefs together, so I will ask questions of them and give commentary on the logical validity of their arguments as though I’ve already accepted their premises. This doesn’t mean I’m not interested in truth, just that logic interests me more than truth, and only when I’m wearing my philosopher’s cap as I said. This, incidentally, is, in my humble opinion, the defining mark of a philosopher in contrast to a scientist. If you’re interested more in truth than in logic (which doesn’t mean you’re not interested in logic), science is the discipline for you. Otherwise–if you like logic more than truth–you’re a philosopher.

I might even go so far as to say that a focus on logic is the defining mark of the independent thinker–those who are typically accused of conforming are accused along the lines of: you blindly accept premises that society and the media feed you despite the glaring contradictions between them. Well, this suggests that in order to think independently, one must at least recognize contradictions when one sees them, and not be afraid to, if not voice those recognitions, note them to one’s self.

So I might put forward propositions or statements that are typical of the mainstream beliefs of our culture, but this is usually for the purpose of scrutinizing their logical relations to other propositions or statements brought to the table in a discussion, either by myself or someone else. I very rarely take an explicit stand on their absolute truth–I don’t believe I or anyone else can be that infallible–but there are times when I assume that the idea is mainstream enough that such propositions or statements will be granted by most people I’m discussing with. But as for absolute truth, I’m very much an epistemic skeptic, doubting sometimes the very coherency of such a concept as knowledge–to me, it’s all just a sea of ideas we’re swimming through; yes, all of us–and some of us realize this, and some of us don’t. The way I see it, I just recognize this while others think they’re onto Truth (<-- with a capital T). We’re all doing the same thing in the end, I believe, starting with the thoughts and beliefs which are already entrenched in our minds (put there by other sources in society and the media) and following them through to the conclusions and positions that we deem to serve our purposes the best. The idea that we can do this independently of such media or society given ideas is a myth propagated by the frustrated and disgruntled–those who are bitter at the rest of us for not blindly believing in their views–and one can, I find, think with a lot more lucidity and rationality if one simply comes to terms with the fact that starting from society and media given ideas is just the natural way that the brain works. This doesn’t always mean blindly accepting these society and media given starting points, but it is what gets the ball rolling insofar as logical thinking goes–one then follows that logic in order to either confirm the rationality of such ideas or discover contradictions therein or against other ideas, and thereby find the grounds on which to reject those starting points. ← This is the true practice of the philosopher–to start with the ideas and assumption his or her society takes for granted and scrutinize them for their logical integrity. Sometimes he/she finds support for them, sometimes finds them totally lacking in any coherency whatsoever. That’s independent thinking–not this blind rebellion against absolutely anything that happens to be mainstream, not this resistance to others who may disagree with you–just following the mainstream ideas through to their logical conclusions and then owning up to those conclusions, whether they agree with the original mainstream ideas or not.

Gib, Good Points. Just to augment the argument with what You may feel does not entirely tie in with the intent of it, the starting point here is one which I totally agree with, but even in a more drastic way, the description may fail, due to the anomalous condition of the media’s barrage. And not only the media, but literature pertaining to ways of thinking.

What happens is a the anomalie of types,of,logic, traditional and differential. We adopt these ways of thinking subliminally, and mix logic as they were commodities, like alternating two pairs of shoes, to give them a day to recover from the use the previous day.

On the other hand, entry from the other point of view, of the truth, becomes prone to becoming a victim to this confusion. We mistake the effect, which really in some or even most cases only an innocent wordplay, into some prepondorous agency of harm, of suspicion, that the intended effect was other then what it was intended to be.

Since, the medium is the message, as the cliche goes, this idea distillate and permeates all levels of communication. The message becomes filtered through a media, which, then becomes understood as anything ‘through which’ and ‘in which’ and even ‘by which’ expressions become tenable. can we not mix the idea of the newspapers, TV, and other sources of truthful information with the type of material used in artistic expression? This double helix can be created as subtly as a thief in the middle of the night, the media becomes the agent and agency of communication. The agency is another form of an authority here, and it is with such intricacy, that the effect of the feeling of despondency develop, and projected upon an unveery recipient(s).

Therefore here, the seekers of conscience could revert to religious material relating to turning the other check. While others would that would compromise their will of assertion.

But I ask if a philosophical resolution, were one to be satisfactorily arrived could overlap with a realization in a meta philosophical,or a psychological derivation?

More generally, Gib, rather then answering point by point, hoping to cover all of the mistakes/miscommunications; it is, at least for me, a matter really, and admittedly an existential effort, as far as logical necessity is concerned; to either go one way, or the other.

General description, or logical analysis. The question to me is my catch 22, sort of speak and it was asked of me previously, that why is it that I prefer description over analysis.

It may point to a misnomer, or an inconsistency, however, this display does not mean a real preference, but simply the result of the mixing of the two logical systems, inclusive and exclusive processes of thought.

 The catch for me is very lengthy, but I need to hang on and wish to indulge You. In spite of the fact that I am writing these notes when all is still,way after the midnight hour.

The confusion , is caused by the anomalie between these two, and the media includes all kinds of things, literature included, as You affirmed above.  That such inclusion,which  causes a case at hand where the analytic mind, subscribing in assimilative formal logic . Clashes with the exclusive, reminds  me of the effort to attain synthesis between the two.  Empiricism does not see a possibility for that.

The effect is the unwary mixing of what can be meant with what is proposed. hence reply to the first part of Your description, as having primary focus on logical propositions over descriptive ones.

 But, this is exactly where the screw up occurs, the media has become too loaded with descriptive material, vague to the extent of giving opportunities to scrutinize their content or meaning.

 This ambiguity then defers or even demands a projection of that meaning , vis, the media will seek to find meaning in it's reception, by market research , regardless of efforts on the other side to try to find authority for some of the proposed ideas.

That the nexus can not be established here becomes matters of fact, when for instance, political expediency in the likes of the popularity and electability of those running for office shifts mainly toward matters of perception, rather then understanding the issues, from which public opinion should really stem from.

That's an aside, and the point being is, that such shifts are the effect of gradual and subtle manipulation ,playing on the co variance of logical systems.

One word, if You have gone this far, is how applicable it is to go from such invariant emphasis, to 

deciding which way to go, to the left, or right?

 The major premise states that it is unlikely that proposed routs of deciding can be done on appeals to principle, only the least informed would claim this.

 The catch is, I believe, based on projected authorities, (and by that, I mean those who seem to

Appear as if they were in charge); knew that those listening on the other side, have neither the taste nor the inclination to out guess. Each other. This is why,
Analysis fails, and Your recommendation of entry through seeing propositional links, is primarily an effort, to get underneath a created confusion, and an effective spoon feeding. 99 percent ,they say have no capacity, at this point to overcome the machines that drive this stupendous machine, and leftists, not ultra ones, only plain liberals, will by now throw up their hands in terror if any of the machines would suddenly collaose under the weight.

The authorities ,those projected wizards of Oz, too, have to be ultra concerned about the reception, lest the exclude, alienate their constituency.  

 So there is the dilemma, of either or, for me causing anxiety of personal kinds, and a no exit situation has developed, so that one is tempted to fall into the middle of the road, which probably not achievable for all practical purposes, sine a lot (me included) have lost their center.

 So Gib and I hope I don't derail this, but parting shot about the psychology of it, the man in the middle, (if You have a chance listen to the late Maurice Gibb' song by that title), the Everyman, has issues with this, effectively alliviated only by anesthetic self administration, the numbing of the senses, because this alienation of  the majorities sense, can only lead to the realization of why bother , analyze this, when really, the only rational thought may be, why bother, let them run the show. 


 The average guy may have some trouble in deciding,but the above and below?  Let them decide, or should I impose a will , on principle?

 Go, or stay? Either one or the other leads to consequences, so, hands tied, alternate states, policy, may work, as present even here at ILP, where

Degrees of alienation/belonging is somewhat present.

The mirrors reflect, and the perceptions of many weigh in, on basis of common sense. Since at times visibility is not an option, is thought, they look away,and put on blinders for the truth is hard to accept, since it may not be obvious.

An after thought: Since You may be put off by my not answering point by point, it is due to ,technical issues, I will have to hand right the whole thing to do it, the refer to that,(which would take an inordinate time) - which I will try to do later on, after getting some sleep. I do not have the kind of mind that can recall without notating. But after re-reading the above written, it lays a groundwork for a point by point reply, if You think. Let me know, at any rate, one way, or the other. Thanks

It’s far, far, far easier to consume (truth, knowledge, wisdom) than it is to produce it.

Even more so when it comes to the height and best of human wisdom. Thus the masses copy and paste words of wisdom, that they usually don’t and can’t comprehend. The masses only need to pretend to be smart, to get by in life. Modernity (globalism) reinforces the dumbing-down of the general population.

Supreme intelligence is unnecessary for survival, and even a hindrance inside the walls of civilization (domestication).

Orbie,

Yes, point-by-point exchanges is usually my style here, but it’s just a style. I’m not committed to it, nor do I turn my back on those who approach me with a different style. I’m not put off by it, but I do have to ask questions (interleaved in your writing in blue) in order to be sure I’m interpreting you correctly. I think I’ve said it before: your writing can be hard for me to interpret, probably in virtue of our coming from two very different places mentally.

I’ll read through your post in a bit more detail later and see what I can make of it.

This is true to an extent, but the masses usually understand something in the words they pass around.

I think there is a current of dumbing-down in American media, and most of the West as well, but I don’t think this has anything to do with globalism.

Gib, thanks for that, and I had a pretty challenging day, got two flat tires, but tomorrow I a, looking forward to really give justice to the glaring holes which are quite evident in my writing, so in this case ,I will change, to an extent that I can deal with. As far as looking at the blue letters inquiries.

Thank You For Your patience,

Hey Orbie,

I had some time this evening to reply to your last post:

Description, in contradistinction from logical analysis, is the artistic/subjective approach which supplies the material with which to undertake a logical analysis. I do this with words a lot. I attempt to get at the nuances and subtleties of the meanings of words by a description of what my concepts of them feel like, and this description yeilds a small set of premises with which to begin an analysis and derive novel insights and interesting conclusions.

So just to be clear, the inclusive is the logical/analytic and the exclusive (empirical?) is the descriptive? Is it inclusive because it’s “inner” (i.e. the processing of thought) and is it exclusive because it’s “outer” (i.e. descriptions of empirical experience)?

So who projects this meaning? Is it the media itself? We the viewers? Or are you reiterating the earlier point you made about the media feeding upon itself through us and our feedback?

Manipulation of the media is the name of the game in politics. By playing on the co variance of logical systems, do you mean the use of pseudo-logic, or sophism more accurately?

Is this a subtle hint at political left and right–as in the liberal left and conservative right?

This seems like the crux of your argument. You called my approach “spoon feeding”. Showing the masses the underlying logical connections between proposed ideas given by the media? The projected authorities–is this how the masses are compelled to abandon logical analysis? That as they get their information from projected authorities, it is a decided matter, and there is no analysis to be done–the authorities have spoken.

Well, in my experience, the conservative right tend to hate middle of the road people.

I think this stems largely from the cynics and conspiracy theorists convincing the rest of us that those at the top of the political food chain are so far ahead of the game, always be one step ahead of us, that any attempt to assert one’s own independence or self-empowerment against them is not only futile but already predicted by those same powers in all their mastermind plans for world domination.

I think you hit the nail right on the head. Why bother seems to be the question always asked.

Yes, that happens.

True.

Thus, instead of trying to convince others about one’s opinions, it is far better to put forth the details of one’s way of deduction in front of others, so they can also go through and comprehend the same process, step by step. Most of the people skip that process, hence the confusion. Let take others to the whole of the journey along with you, so they can also understand why you deducted what you deducted. If that happens, either others will get convinced and if not, they will point out the exact issue why they are disagreeing. That would increase the chances of forming mutual consent.

True.

True. But, there is more distinction.

Challenging the crowd depends merely on one’s courage (wisdom), not intelligence. A true thinker also needs an objective state of mind, and his objectivity should go to such extent when he can be able to see his own ideas also as a third person. He needs the innocence of a child and the intelligence of an master at the same time. And, that is a rare combination.

An intelligent person can find very complex and deeply hidden truths, but what will happen to those truths, which are hidden in the plain sight? Only a child’s innocence can recognize those.

The perfect example of this phenomenon is Newton watching an apple falling from the tree, though i do not know whether that happens in reality or is merely a metaphor. A scientist would never take notice of that, only a child can. And, that is the state of perfect third person. Being a third person does not merely means that one can judge anything without being bias, but it also means that the state of the mind of the observer should be such that he is seeing all this for the very first time.

That needs a child’s innocence and curiosity, when he looks at each and everything with curiosity and tries to play with it.

True. You also have a hint of child’s curiosity. That is precisely what compels you to play with other’s ideas in order to see what happens. You do not know whether anything fruitful would come out or not, you just want to play without caring much for the outcome.

True. But, besides that, a true philosopher also has the honesty and humbleness to accept this mistakes and reject/amend his perceptions, if he or anyone else finds out any flaws. A majority of the intellectuals are just unable to do that. The child within those has been died long ago, and only an intelligent but hard and unbendable egoistic mature is left behind, who does not want to listen anyone but just want to force himself all along.

with love,
sanjay

Well that part is largely true.

But that part is not. It is less about personal belief than you might think.

Quite often the accusation stems from seeing a lack of reasoning for a theory being argued other than:
“Everyone knows”, or
“Science has proven”

…which of course is always false, but a convenience for those who wish to believe that they know what to conform to. All socialist/imperial systems from the beginning require their supporters to agree with whatever they are supposed to believe (propaganda). And that produces a great many conformists, because people generally have to get along with the tyrants from above. And of course, the first thing that is required, is that you accuse any non-conformist of being a loon, crackpot, or merely mentally deficient for saying anything unapproved or contrary. I tend to get accused by those guys before they even know what I am going to say. Often they even say that they don’t need to know what a crackpot is going to say.

Thinking for yourself actually involves thinking. People seldom realize that obvious fact. Knowing is not thinking. Believing is not thinking. Reasoning is thinking, even if it is poor reasoning. And reasoning means understanding the cause behind any belief for each assertion.

If I say that the universe is made of affectance, I should have some kind of reasoning and causal connection beyond merely, “It all makes sense to Me!!” And in my case, I always do.

But I run across people who attempt to think and argue, and for the most part do a reasonable job, but at the bottom, when cornered, they default right back to that old, “Because Einstein said…” or something similar. I run across almost none at all who truly are willing to reexamine the most fundamental beliefs they have. I generally call them “being religious” despite whatever the topic. They are conforming and are often rightfully afraid to not conform.

So really there are 3 categories:
1) total conformist who truly questions nothing of his programmed beliefs.
2) insecure accuser defending his ego after having been trapped in an argument.
3) the one who simply keeps asking for logical reasoning for the belief yet isn’t being given anything other than “They say”.

Hey Gib, James really put it so well, that anything I may add to fill in my own deficiencies, would be superfluous.

However, a few: Yes, the internal and external logic is the way You understood it by implication. A feedback system. There in no synthesis, synthesis is linear thinking. Feedback needs repeated functional derivatives.

The other question You blue lined, NO, You are not spoonfeeding any logical systems, but in a way we all are, since we have unwittingly have also become the message. (Through public opinion research). We are the medium, through which authority becomes a needless, marginal project)

But then ‘why bother’ somehow rings of a resignation ,that I may have used last night after midnight, and reminds of caution ‘not to think’ in the late hours.

There is something else I just though, I read a while back, I will find the source, but a study was done on a group of people relating to authority.This group was instructed to administer electric shocks to some other people, on basis of some scientific authority. The idea was to find how people tended to follow authority rather then resist it, in view of their knowledge that they would cause pain. The study group almost always applied the painful shocks. What was really going on, is that the hurt group were not real subjects, but acting as if they were experiencing pain. That fact had nothing to do with the study, only the real administration of pain was not a goal.
The results were rather general, that people tend to overcome their aversions, on account of authoritarian pressure. This study helps highlight what is really going on in conformism , as it applies to authority. It takes on some of the features of game theory but there is a difference in kind of dynamic going on. I can cite the source if needed.

Another way of stating it would be say that the scientist seeks answers, while the philosopher seeks to expose falsehoods (although there is much overlap between the work of the two). The philosopher tends to be more political as a result, because the biggest falsehoods are usually generated by those with political motives. What is frustrating for the philosopher is not that these falsehoods are so hard to pin down, but that they are often so blatantly obvious, and yet people believe them anyway.

A good example of this is the debate over what causes obesity. Is it the fat you eat, or is it the sugar? Whomever you choose to believe, it is apparent that the food industry has done a lot to promote the idea that it is fat that causes obesity, or, at the very least, sugar is not to blame. See The Secrets of Sugar Fifth Estate documentary:

youtube.com/watch?v=xDaYa0AB8TQ

Even though there is increasing evidence that it is sugar that we should really be trying to avoid, the food industry continues to promote the idea that fat is the culprit in causing obesity, with all its advertising suggesting that low fat is a healthy option, even though all that fat has been replaced with sugar. It is very obvious why the food industry would not like to see consumers turn on sugar: Sugar is one of the cheapest ingredients in processed food; it has a long shelf, requiring no refrigeration; it is highly addictive; and consumers will pay big money to satisfy their sweet tooth with their favorite snack. All this means that sugar is highly profitable, so big industry is naturally going to resist any suggestion that sugar is unhealthy, as they have already been doing for many years.

I know what you mean. I would use the word “objective” here in place of 3rd prson, but I understand what you mean. John Searle brings up a point about what he calls “social realities”–he says that a lot of things we take for granted as being objective have an obvious subjective component to them that we usually fail to recognize in virtue of being part of a specific culture or society. He uses money as an example. If you held up an American dollar bill to a bunch of average Americans, they will agree, as though it were an objective fact, that this is money. But you take that same dollar bill down to one of the Yanomami tribes in the Amazon rain forest, and they might start using it as toilet paper. Thus what makes it an American dollar bill is a subjective, culture-base component that gets added by us to its identity. So yes, it sometimes takes seeing a thing for the first time to be completely rid of all subjective bias (and even then, I don’t know if that’s possible).

A lot of the time, I like to have fun with thought, yes, and share that thought with others. Admittedly, there are other times I like to tease others with their thoughts if I feel they’re being arrogant. But most of the time I like to help people.

Concern for the outcome is something I’m always wary of, though I know I can be wreckless as well–and not just with thought but other areas in my life.

I’m reminded of something I said to Stuart once:

So yeah, aware of it, could use a bit more discipline though.

That’s fair, but would you say the same of someone who said: “I am told that…” or “I once read in a scientific article that…” ← i.e. reporting only their own experiences? And further, the only purpose to this being to explore what ideas and conclusions logically follow?

Well, that’s why an exploration of the logical connection between ideas would be a good thing for you.

But might this hint at an infinite regress? If you must understand the reasoning behind each of your assertions, must you also understand the reasoning behind that reasoning? And then where does it end? At experience? At an authoritative source? And if it is an authoritative source, what then? Do you not make the assertion? Or do you simply make the assertion and own up to the fact that you got it from said source?

And must we do this for literally every assertion? Otherwise, we’re not being reasonable?

And what if we understand the reasoning behind an assertion only to suddenly recognize a flaw therein. Can we still make the assertion and call ourselves reasonable? (I mean, we’d still understand that the reason is what underlies the assertion, flawed as we may now recognize it to be). ← This point’s probably a red herring though.

Also, can one not propose a premise just to have a starting point without needing to understand the justifications behind it–I mean, if one’s purpose is only to look at the interlinking logic that connects that premise with several others?

Keep in mind, James, that one can get a man to be more open minded to the possibility of being wrong by the tone and the temperment one supplies in the discussion. No one wants to concede to being wrong to someone being hostile and aggressive. When debates degrade to the level of conformity accusations, it usually follows from some level of hostility already being there in the discussion. Show a bit of open mindedness first, however, and I think we’d find that some (not all) will be less dogmatic in their views.

Ah, I get it now.

Well, that may have helped your brain in spitting those words out last night, but I think it’s true of society in general anyways. That’s what you get when generation after generations, kids grow up in environments catered to making them feel comfortable–and that’s what modernity, along with technology and this belief in democracy, is doing–it’s making each generation feel that even in a crisis–like a terrorist attack or your own government enfringing your rights–somebody else will take care of things for you, so why bother.

No need, I know exactly the experiments you’re refering to. They’re the Milgram experiments:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W147ybOdgpE[/youtube]

^^ Oddly enough, we were just discussing this over at another thread.

Yes, but I think if you extend this far enough, you’d have to say even scientists are in the business of falsification, not verification, as Karl Popper would put it.

Well, we need both sugars and fats, but anything in excess will typically be bad for us. The problem is that both sugars and fats are highly addictive, and so we tend to over eat on either of these. I’m not sure if there are trends in society wherein a majority are consuming more sugars than fats, or more fats than sugars, but the most credence one ought to give these studies is to say that we, as a society, on average, are consuming an excess of sugars (or fats) that so happen, in the local current trend, to outweigh the excesses of fats (or sugars) we’re consuming. But that’s the most credence I would give it.

People have believed far worse, and dangerous, things from the food and drink industries. Do you remember the trend several years back when 90% of people believed you had to drink 8 full bottles of water a day to stay hydrated? 8 bottles a day! Who the hell drinks that much water? And I’m told one can die from water poisoning. So potentially dangerous too. Then new counter-studies came out and pulled those memes from the shelves. Now I’m being told that fruit juice is bad for my children. It’s juice… from a fruit. And I’m supposed to believe it’s bad for my kids. Yes, they will have their reasons: the concentration of sugar is on par with that of soda pop drinks. At least, that was their original claim. Now it’s: it doesn’t have enough fiber in it.

But then this can also be the case. People often do have views based on what their parents told them, what is commonly held to be true today (in their circles, for example), what soothes them (or, even, pisses them off, if they are addicted to that). So my first reaction is that so far as you write, it is as if you know this cannot be the case.

Which would mean that an independent thinker might be wrong about everything. IOW it is a neutral designation. The person is will to question/challenge - which allows potentially the option of arriving at true ideas someone who is not willing could not - but in the end may arrive at completely wrong ideas or they may not.

Are those the options? Logic or scientific empiricism? Nothing else. Have you decided it is true that one can only gain new knowledge via science?

That is certainly a good skill, but one must also be able to recognize patterns that may or may not appear in media. One must be able to extrapolate, often intuitively, I would say, how the ideas presented in media FIT with your own experiences. One must be willing to experience the discomfort of noticing anomolies, especially, in this contexts, ones that go against mainstream ideas. I would guess there are other skills beyond logic I would add to the list.

This sounds great, but the problem is I think it misses how deep the problem is with how our very experience of reality is created by media. Once one takes a sceptical attitude to information and works this skepticism in the realm of wordy ideas and logical transactions, the overwhelming manipulation and suppression of media (coupled with how this built up your brain from childhood) gives you a non-neutral starting point. I find that people entertain ideas (and I like that verb ‘entertain’ because there is a shallowness to this in most people even perhaps especially those who I think overvalue mental rationalization and logic) and then by default slide back to mainstream even if they cannot find a reason to value the alternative view over or under the mainstream view. So they entertain ideas, live in the mainstream - including internally - for the most part.

To be an independent thinker one must be an independent liver (not the organ). One must be willing to explore experiences and modes of experiencing outside the norm. One should likely go through some kind of culture shock, more than once preferably - live in another country with another language or manage to go through this process in one’s own country. One needs to actually feel what is going on in one’s own mind and how the mind, dictated to by media and other sources, chooses not to notice things, avoids fear (and rage), does not go deeply into reality, but skips along the surface - a surface it has been trained to consider reality, period, and not notice anything else. The BS out there is so deep and rammed home in our brains, mucking about at the idea level is a near guarantee of not changing much at all. It might lead to great discussions, but it is incredibly unlikely to lead to any meaninful change. And taking drugs, for example, can show one that reality is not what one thinks it is, but precisely because one does not have power over the transition to other modes of experiencing - the drug does the work - one does not learn much on deep levels. Most religions train one to control and disattach from the unconscious. Me, I am much more into immersion. Religions have an inherent distrust of human beings, I would even say hatred, and the id is the beast. I think this is one of the common lies. Most people who when they decide to explore the mind in spiritual contexts, use methodologies that have assumptions about the unconscious, the emotions that are rather hateful. Control and detachment are sought. These practices may of course lead to independent thought - in a secular society, say - but they will be conformist thoughts in the religion in particular - Buddhism to Christianity to whatever. It is an old bias, what I am calling assumptions that have a negative, judgmental attitude, even a hateful one towards portions of the self based on confused understandings about what is causal of problems. Adherents to these religions will claim they do not hate and often that they have moved beyond judgment or that they simply observe
as if
for example
simply observing a child
is enough for good parenting. Detached ‘compassion’ is a transcendent form of feeling, but hardly enough. This love of transcendence is another way to sum up the assumptions of most spiritual practices - that there is a parallel hatred of immanence is unstated, but if you can feel, I mean really feel what is going on inside you, you can feel that hatred in these spiritual contexts where people are often smiling and saying nice things about love or compassion or God. If you focus on their ideas, it will likely seem fine and coherent and possibly true, but if you have gone into yourself deeply enough you will notice the incredible judgment and demand for control and suppression.
As an example of the limitations of logical analysis. And approaching spiritual people as a scientist is like trying to understand how a bicycle works by calling the bicycle on the phone.

Some people use thought principally in places where it gives physical results in the material world wherein thought is very useful such as how to repair something, etc… But thought takes on a more significant role: the self. The self is also a product of thought, a higher order abstraction which thought uses to perpetuate itself. As the sphere of thought comprises much knowledge about the world out there, we live in a world of our own ideas and project it onto what we see and hear.

Questions we ask are part of the attempt of thought to continue itself. We already know the answers to them inasmuch as we only accept those answers which suit our predilections and reject the others. But these answers cannot, and in fact no answers can satisfy us. If they did, thought would have to rest in the answer, but that would destroy the process of thought because then it cannot seek an answer any more in its attempt to perpetuate itself. In other words, thought does not want any answer to put an end to itself. If any answer really satisfies the question, it must end the question. But if the question is the thinker, then with the end of the question the questioner must end, and that is the last the thing we want. We really don’t want an answer to our questions.

As long as someone makes it clear that he believes something is probably true only because “that is what he has been told” or because he has seen or heard something, there isn’t an issue. He is merely reporting on potential evidence. He is not presuming a fact or certainty. It is when someone knows that he is right merely because he has always heard it said, or read it in a magazine. And that is an issue merely because of the certainty accredited to what should merely be a hint of evidence. It isn’t religious until it becomes dogma (which now includes a great deal of pop-science; especially QM and Relativity). And it gets even worse when even the dogma is misunderstood to mean something different than the author intended. What do we call that, “misdogma”?

I always try to encourage that, but seldom find anyone interested. People want to just assume to the right or the left and move on. It is easy to just keep everything in the wings as just one of the many possibilities rather than filter to see if the logic really does connect and bring certainty. Most people even in philosophy don’t really care what is or isn’t true or how to find out.

That is exactly where Rational Metaphysics steps in to resolve the issue. The better philosopher knows that epistemology and ontology are essential when seeking truth. And a critical part of both is the defining process. It is the defining process that prevents that infinite regression. For example:

“I am not concerned whatsoever with anything that has no affect upon anything. To me if something is proposed to have no affect upon anything whatsoever, I consider it to not exist. And further if there is affect upon something, then there is an existence affecting that something.” Thus I defined affect as the essential property of existence.

That declaration of definition and sentiment terminates the “what is existence” issue with “affect”. And affect is easily understood already as “to change or modify”. And what is being changed? The affecting itself: Affect upon Affect. There isn’t any more to question that is deeper or more fundamental concerning what existence is, although one might then divert to where affectance comes from (a different issue).

So by understanding that knowledge begins with definitions that might or might not turn out to be relevant, that infinite regression of understanding doesn’t occur. It merely backs up to the point of “by definition”. Why does a square have four corners? Because it is defined to have four corners. How do we know that it really has four corners? Because we are the one’s declaring the meaning of the damn word, idiot! End of story.

It should be done to the point of agreement. If you do not accept that existence is affect, then it cannot be used as a premise. If you do not accept that a square is defined to have four corners, then you will simply never know whether it really does (iambiguous). By denying the definition of the concepts and words being used, one falls into an infinite regression that need not be there. People have been fooled into thinking that words are independent truth items regardless of definition and any definition must be scientifically tested against reality to see if it is right (kind of dumb).

One can’t claim certainty if one is already aware of the flaw that instills doubt. That is why examining the reasoning is important, so as to demon-strate (remove doubt) to oneself that there is no flaw in the reasoning that led to the assertion.

That would be fine as long as the person doesn’t fall into the Carleas fallacy of assuming that just because something believable has been concluded from an assumption, the assumption must be right (his logician’s meeting scenario for one example). Newton and Einstein both made that mistake and thus ended up both being wrong. It is a very common mistake in pop-science. Just because you can picture something as coherent and even make accurate predictions, doesn’t mean that your picture is the truth.

That is certainly true (as modified). And if one is trying to sell an idea rather than debate it, it would certainly be wise to be kind and gentle in proposing it. In fact one can be even more clever and cause the other person to begin defending it as his own idea and thus be stubborn to it for the rest of his life (common social engineering practice of the day). But if interested in being challenged, it is generally a better idea to state things as though there is a reasonable chance that you are wrong and thus tease the fish into biting at the hook. After they have taken a stance, they strongly resist changing sides and thus seek any other possibility of you being wrong … thus the deeply penetrating challenge (Eugene Morrow).

Of course. And also resisting that they are certainly right by the one seeking the reasoning.

I will reply to you all in time ← As soon as I can get some.

Well, I’m not talking about what motives people have for holding onto their beliefs (as you seem to be), but about how they experience their beliefs. I mean, if they are beliefs, they will experience them as projected onto reality–that is, that they will understand them to be, first and foremost, about reality as opposed to their own minds.

Yes. And I agreed with James when he brought this up. Independent thinking isn’t always glamorous, I said.

I’m not trying to close this gate, Moreno. I’m open to other options if you have any in mind. Maybe intuition? I’ve got some interesting views on intuition if you want to get into that.

What do you mean by this Moreno? Are you saying that one might notice certain contradictions in the messages of the media and still have a sense that he ought to embrace those messages nonetheless?

Well, I think you might be confusing thinking independently with thinking objectively. I don’t think it’s even possible to think objectively–not fully–but that’s different from thinking independently. Thinking independently means, to me, allowing (or forcing) your thought to break with the pressures that typically overtake the thinking of the heard. So whereas a typical conformist type of person can be predicted to answer the question “Does violence ever solve anything?” with “Never!”, the independent thinker will actually entertain a handful of scenarios in which violence may solve certain problems, and he may find some of those scenarios plausible and worth bringing up as examples. That isn’t to say an independent thinker can’t arrive at the conclusion that violence never solves anything, only that it wouldn’t be the consequence of a knee-jerk reaction. He will have put some thought into it. But none of this implies he’s thinking objectively. His logic could be completely skewed, all over the map, and downright terrible–but if he’s actively trying to think instead of giving in to the impulse to follow that knee-jerk reaction which society and media attempt to condition us with, he can be said to be thinking independently.

Wow, that’s a lot to chew Moreno. Yet I sense a deep resonance of truth in it–not that it was obscure, but there was a lot jam packed in there and I can’t muster the energy to go into it point by point as I usually do. But the sense remains: it resonates of a deep truth for the most part.

It does remind me of one of the lessons I got out of Nietzsche–that often it pays to look past a person’s logic–the things he states and argues for on the surface–and try to decipher the underlying motive. Ask yourself: why is he arguing such-and-such? Never mind what he’s arguing, try to figure out what he’s after.

So what’s your take on the independent thinker vs the conformist? Would you say that they’re both employing thought for the same old purpose–to perpetuate the self–but the conformist does so by utilizing the common old memes offered to him by his society, whereas the independent thinker has to cultivate his own thought in a more creative vein?

I think we have to be careful when interpreting certainty in other people’s statements. Making statements without the necessary qualifiers (like “I’m told that…” or “I read somewhere that…”) will come off as statements of certainty. Like “Jupiter has 63 moons,” as opposed to “Last I read, Jupiter has 63 moons.” ← But I think the “last I heard…” is often implicit–that is most people, if made to feel comfortable, will admit that the truth of the statement depends on the validity of the source.

That’s because they have an agenda. They’ll be open to a logical scrutiny of their arguments if they don’t expect to find anything dissonant with their overall goals, but as soon as some crack in the edifice is uncovered, they get antsy–it means their logic might not be as reliable a tool for satisfying their purposes as they might have thought, and usually the gut reaction is to patch the holes over with even more thought and argumentation. It’s like a cherished tool that you’ve grown to depend on because of what it can do for you (or what you hope it will do for you) only to find it has a loose part. You could throw it out and start over with a new one, but you’ve invested so much into it already that you feel compelled to patch up the loose part with duct tape, or maybe a brace, or maybe a few extra screws to hold it in place–anything but start over.

Hmm… so I’m going to presume your definition of existence (affectance) is an example of a more general methodology for avoid the infinite regress (as opposed to being the solution to the infinite regress problem–I.e. that we can’t avoid the infinite regress unless we adopt your theory). It seems like this methodology turns not only on coming up with air-tight definitions but on defining existence in some way. Is this right? I mean, once you’ve defined existence, you’ve pretty much defined the ultimate starting point. There’s nothing more basic than existence, nothing more fundamental for it to reduce to. Would you agree?

If you’re being offered a definition, I don’t see what rejecting that definition would accomplish (unless you’re playing some kind of political game). It’s one man’s definition! Take it as he presents it, and see if the assertions he wishes to make actually follow from it. It may be unconventional, and you may be used to a different definition for the word, but as long as you keep clear whose definition is in use, there shouldn’t be a problem.

That’s what I thought.

I agree. And contrary to this, I would think the use of going through such an analysis (examining the logical links between ideas) is not so much to discover truth but to uncover potential holes–in other words, to falsify.

Hmm… I find you attract more challengers the more certain and cock-sure you present yourself. People love to attempt to knock down a tower standing tall.

You mean, he’s resisting both the possibility that they could be wrong and that they’re undeniably right?