what kind of thinking should we have?

I am in the midst of several day in a row at work, so at work today,
I was just letting my mind go and this pop up…

thinking, not how we think… not the mental aspect of thinking, I leave that to
actual scientist, no, what we think about… for example,
we have as an example of thinking, the Enlightenment…
the enlightenment was an attempt to overcome what that time and
writers thought as indoctrinations…so, we are born into a society that
believes/believed in god… and they then pass that belief onto you… for millions,
(be it in god, or state… “the US is the greatest country on earth”)
are indoctrination that the family, state, culture and society engages
with… so god is just another indoctrinations of our childhood…and one
we have to overcome if we are to become autonomous individuals…
for to become an autonomous individual, we must become self governing…
which is to become free of those childhood indoctrinations…of the state, church,
society, the culture and the family…

how are we to overcome our indoctrinations of our childhood?

sapare aude: dare to know… or even more loosely translated,
dare to be wise…or we can turn back to the Socratic method of
becoming an autonomous individual… which is to say, “to know thyself”
and the second method is this “the unexamined life isn’t worth living”

we have the enlightenment belief in logic, rationality, science, experts,
medicine, facts, stats… the modern world has grown and prospered because
of the use of the enlightenment method of using secular tools of science
and rationality to understand the world…

so, who uses this tool? why scientist, disciplines like history, economics,
social studies, any subject in school that can be taught… like philosophy…
doctors, lawyers, engineers… basically any subject that needs to be research,
looked up, be rational at… frankly, most professions we can engage with in
the Modern day world is about the use of the enlightenment method of
logic and rationality…

and what is the second way to see the world?.. that of the Romantic
era… those who engage in “magical” thinking… thinking the world is
made up of random events which is somehow controlled by someone or
something, that we cannot control for example Leprechauns…or that god
throws thunderbolts and that is the lighting in the sky…

we see this magical thinking all the time in the modern world…
those who believe that IQ45 won the last election… that is magical thinking
because there is no evidence to that…conspiracy theories are full of
magical thinking… or the magical thinking that somehow, someway,
IQ45 will become president next month… reinstalled as he called it…
that is magical thinking… there isn’t even a legal way for him to become
president until 2024 and that one way would be for him to win the election
of 2024… there is no other legal, constitutional method for him to become
president before that… but in magical thinking, it becomes possible…
even though there is no, NO, legal method for the happen…
(legally even becoming speaker of the house doesn’t get him to the presidency)

engagement with magical thinking means one can disregard facts, evidence,
rationality, even reality…

we have two clear and distinct types of thinking… I have made my own
personal preference known, but let us engage in the true aspects of
philosophy which is to make an engagement with the indoctrinations of
a society, state, culture…it is clear that our culture, state and society
hold to the thinking of the enlightenment, but let us an attack upon
the values on the enlightenment thinking…by looking at the results
of our modern scientific world… I am going to account as
scientific and logical… business, capitalism, dictatorships…
as being part of the modern world…

we have a vast amount of pollution,
laying waste to entire species for greater profits
we see entire forest being destroyed to gain profits…
we see immense income inequality, overpopulation,
a failing educational system, inadequate resources for people…
in other words, we have millions if not billions of people at risk
for a lack of food, water, shelter, educational, health care…
minimal resources that people, by being people, should have…

so we have immense problems cause by our modern, scientific world…
or have we forgotten Hiroshima? but as I survey the world, it seems to me
that a greater share of our problems lie in magical thinking and not in
scientific thinking… but that could be my bias…

but let us think about this…
magical thinking might have us ignore as unimportant or not our problem,
these major fundamental problems that threaten to sink the ship…

or we might simply think, I don’t have to worry about it because god
or nature or science will take care of it before it becomes a problem…
and I say too late… it already is a problem… but magical thinking allows
us to pretend otherwise…

we could approach it this way… but let us reject both possibilities…
let us reject magical thinking and we reject the scientific and rational
thinking that has our world on the brink…

so what is left? what is our third choice of ways to think? there is always
some sort of third way… be it some combination of the two ways of
sorting out knowledge, the rational, logical method or the magical thinking way…

in a real way, this become an epistemological problem…

Epistemology: theory of knowledge especially with regards to its scope,
methods, validity, and scope… how do we think about how we think
about the world? what means of gaining knowledge makes more sense,
the rational, logical method science or the magical thinking that allows
a god to control my every breath?

so let us reject both theories of knowledge, the scientific and the magical way
of thinking… what is our third path? what other method of thinking do
we have to replace both of those outdated ways of thinking, the scientific method
and the magical way of thinking?

one is of thought, one is of emotions… and we need to have thinking
that includes both sides of who we are, the rational, logical thinking of the mind
and the illogical, emotional, irrational, emotions of magical thinking…

is there an acceptable solution that allow both sides to hold forth on
how we think about the world, both the intellectual side and the equally
important emotional side?

that becomes what it means to be modern… to seek out an ism or ideology
that allows growth to both sides of the equation, the intellectual
and the emotional?

how do we think and understand the world, perhaps the most important
question facing us today…perhaps…


so we have two distinct and different types of thinking,
the enlightenment thinking, rational, logical, scientific…
and we have the magical thinking, Romantic thinking where
the question of how we face the world is embedded in our emotions
and feelings…

I have tried to point out that the left holds to the scientific and rational
thinking and the right hold to the Romantic thinking…

let us understand this for I am not engaged in the belief itself
but in why someone could believe such a thing…

for example those who believe that IQ45 is
the messiah… and that he won the last election, 2020… there is no
evidence for this… and American courts from local to state to federal,
all 60 of them rejected the arguments that IQ45 won the election…
and that is strong evidence that IQ45 lost the election…(because the courts
require evidence to overturn an election and no such evidence was offered)

but the right stills holds this belief…so my question is this, what knowledge
justifies their belief? see how this becomes an epistemology question…
by what knowledge do they have that justifies their belief?
by what standard do they use that allows them to justify their belief
in IQ45 winning the last election?

now one might say, by what evidence does the left use to justify its belief
that Biden won the election? we have evidence offered by the states themselves
in the form of election results, we have election certifications which are legal documents
sent to Washington D.C. which was the basis of the insurrection attempt on JAN 6, 2021…
to prevent the certification process from going forward…
we have quite a bit of evidence that Biden won the election…

whereas the right has no evidence for their beliefs…outside of an feeling,
an emotion…that is not to discount feelings, emotions… there is a time
and place for emotions/feelings and where rational/ logical belief
doesn’t hold a place… that is of course in the case of seeking love…
finding a mate… whereas logic/rational feelings are counter-productive…
love is about emotions, feelings and it is right to be about that…
so perhaps the questions revolves around the right time and place for
logic/rational thinking and the place for emotions and feelings…

but as always, what standards do we use to work out or decide when we
use logic/rational thought and when we use emotions and feelings?

how do we sort out what we use and when?

or to be blunt, when do we use our mind and when do we
use our heart and just as important, what is the standard
we use for deciding on which one we use?


I have often pointed out the line in the Declaration of Independence:

" We hold these truths to be self evident"

but I ask, which truths? the left will point out the “truth” about
“all men are created equal” and right will point out
…“among these (truths) are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness” with a special emphasis on the “pursuit of happiness”

for the pursuit of happiness is an emotional value, not an intellectual value…
to make me happy is about feelings, emotions… not being logical or rational…

but we come to to the point where we must decide as to what value we
shall engage with, what truth are we to pursue? that all men are created
equal or that we should pursue our own happiness?

to see our engagement to be with “all men are created equal” means
our engagement is not necessarily with ourselves… to see ALL men
being created equal isn’t about us necessarily being equal, but as being
a part of, a part of all being equal…the emphasis on seeing “all
men being created equal” means we are focused on seeing all men
being created equal…

however, if you see the emphasis on the “Pursuit of happiness” then
the fate of others, isn’t that important… the search is for one, myself,
to seek happiness… if the others seek or don’t seek, what do I care?
my goal is to seek my own happiness, the other people be damned…

“we hold these truths to be self evident” means that by deciding
which truths we pursue, will give us some idea of our own being…

to my way of thinking, if others are treated equal, then I too am being
treated equal… I can achieve my own goals within that zone of
everyone being treated equal…

but to the right or to those who consider the goal as to be achieve is
the truth, "that among these (truths) are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness"
means we don’t need to concern ourselves with others
rights or pursuits… we can just engage in own little world of being
happy…all the other stuff goes away… there is no concern with other
“being equal” because that doesn’t directly, feed into my concern
which is to be happy…

so which comes first, my own concern with being happy or does my concern
engage with the goal of “all men are created equal”

the emphasis is different depending on which one we choose to
employ… happiness or equality?

and then how do we judge such matters? What standard shall we use to
judge such a matter? shall we engage in the mind, the logic/rational
or do we use the emotions/feelings to judge this question?

for if we engage in the mind, we will get one answer and if we engage
in the heart, we get another answer as to what is the most
aspect, be it equality or be it the pursuit of happiness?

as every question, every single human question as both an individual aspect,
the ''I" and has the collective aspect, the “US” aspect…

the answer to the question of which values shall we engage with, to
work on making “all men equal”… all, which tells us this is a collective
question and to the question about our own individual happiness…
which is an individual question, my "own’’ happiness…

as we know, every single question engages both the personal and the
collective… and with the rational, logical thought engages in the
collective… the “US” and the emotional/feeling question engages in
the individual question, the “ME”…

so how do we get the ‘‘WE’’ collective question of the rational, logical
aspect to connect with the emotional/feeling concept of the "“ME” which
is the individual?

how are we to connect the collective to the individual? or the individual
to the collective? by what means are we going to use that will
allow us to be individual within a collective setting? for that is
the modern question… I am one individual… but how do I connect
my one, with the overall collective aspect that is very much
part of the modern experience?


now even if we are to think about the existential question, that is,
“what is the point of existence?” “what is the meaning of life?”
“What is the goal?”

we return to the the idea of individual vs the collective…
for what it the point of existence for one, may not, may not
be the point of existence for the many, the whole, the collective…

my own personal goal is not the same goal as the collective goal…
outside of one particular goal, which is the continuation of the one
and the continuation of the collective…in other words, survival
is the name of the game, both individually and collectively…

but beyond that, what is the goal of existence?
and how do we, both individual and collectively decide that? what
tools shall we use to decide what the individual and collective goal shall

we can use our enlightenment tools of ‘‘dare to know’’ ‘‘sapare aude’’,
we can use tools like rational thinking, logic, the use of standards
that we agree to…

or we can engage with our emotions/feelings… private concerns like the
pursuit of happiness or the modern engagement with the trifles
of existence like fame, power, wealth, titles…

the problem lies with the fact that we don’t even engage with the
questions of existence by either tool, mind or feelings…

Nietzsche held that central fact of existence lay in power, the getting of
and the holding of…
not necessarily the way we might think of power, as the engagement with power,
as N. thought of it, was limited to the possibilities of the entity doing the seeking of
power…thus plants can seek ‘‘the will to power’’ but they can only reach
the power that their possibilities allow…this one of the roles that evolution
plays in our existence…determining what is possible for all creatures…
the limits of existence for all under the power of evolution…evolution
is about the limits set on beings via evolution… thus we see different limits
on different entities…thus humans because of evolution have
greater possibilities then an dog or a cow or even an ape…

so our engagement with ‘‘the will to power’’ is limited by evolution…
and we human beings are limited as to what is our ‘‘will to power’’
because of evolution…by either tool we use, be it the mind or the

the quest to be human lies in our ability to unite in some fashion,
the mind AND emotions…but what of a third path?

I asked this earlier, is there a third path, because the the first two paths,
mind and emotions are limited by evolution…

so what kind of standards should we have and how do decide on which
standard we use, mind or feelings?

we need to reevaluate not only the decisions we make but how we arrive
at those decisions…


You ask what the meaning of life, existence is? 42. Or a nice cup of tea or something. The question is not interesting enough to have a real answer. There is no meaning to anything, and there never has been. Life is just an amazing sequence of random things. The question ‘What is the meaning of life?’ is meaningless because it does not refer to anything. It is like asking ‘why is the color of green, green?’. However, I would add that just because life is a sequence of random events, does not mean that the outcome of those events is ultimately random. If you understand the notion of stochastic dynamics, then you’d understand that the outcome of any dynamic system is quite deterministic regardless of its initial conditions or any other arbitrary input to the system.

Nature is like a giant, vast stochastic dynamical system. It operates on quantum mechanical principles (as we currently understand them), and it can’t be fully comprehended by humans. However, we humans are also a part of this big stochastic system, so we can have some influence on its outcome. It is a system governed by probability, and I would suggest that the best you can hope to do is influence the probability of one of the possibilities you want coming into existence. Humans have been asking questions that they believe can give them control over the universe for a very long time. The question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ is an example of this. Theists believe that God exists. I do not believe that God exists. This means that theists and I occupy two different points in the probability space that the stochastic system of the universe has constructed.

In regards to your OP, I’d share several thoughts

we need an ideology that allow both sides to exist.
that allows the rational, the logical, the scientific to exist alongside
the emotions, the magical, the mystical to exist alongside the rational,
logical, scientific.

what we seek to replace the one-sidedness of both the scientific
and the magical way of thinking with the multi-sidedness of thought.
with the scientific, the rational, the logical, combined with the emotional,
the illogical, the magical.

is that something that we can look to? something that we can aspire

it is the very heart of the search for understanding, that which seeks to
explain, to understand all aspects of our universe
it is in that search that we realize that we have not been alone for all of
time. we seek to know not just as humans, but we seek to know the universe
as well…

for it is in that context, that we realize we are part of something, and
part of something larger than the sum of our thoughts and ideas. and that is
the quest for finding the unifying ideology that allows us to seek to know.

what is the ideology that unites us? is it the commonality of humanity?
is it the commonality of the earth? is it the commonality of the stars?

for all of the ideologies of the past it was of the heart, of the mind,
of the head…we are now at the crossroads of science and of the spiritual.
at the crossroads of science and of the magical.

how will our ideologies of the future be different?

one of the most important things about the internet is that it allows us
to go beyond the barriers, beyond the bounds, beyond the borders of our

we have never had that before. we can find people, places, ideas, and
communities that were simply not available before.

we need to begin to use that opportunity to seek out the commonality
between ourselves and those that are far away. we need to go beyond the
walls, beyond the fences, beyond the borders of our cities, our towns,
our counties, and our nations. we need to go beyond our borders and into
the rest of the world.

the only way we will move forward, as a culture, as a nation, as a people,
as a civilization, is if we begin to seek out commonalities with the rest
of the world, commonalities with the whole of creation.

if we cannot do that then we will never break free from our cycles of
repetition. if we cannot do that then our species will become extinct.
if we cannot do that then we will continue to become trapped in our own
individuality. we will continue to become more and more disconnected and
distanced from each other.

and all the while we are going about our lives thinking we are the center
of the universe, we are the sole entity in the entire universe. when we
look around, when we notice our own lives, our own bodies, our own
thoughts, our own ideas, our own desires, our own goals, our own
identity, the only thing we are is those things. we are all of those
things and none of them. the center of the universe is actually all of
ourselves. each and every one of us. that is the ultimate power. we have
only to recognize it. only to know it. only to recognize who we are.

if we are unable to break free of our individualism, our smallness, our
self-importance, our separateness, if we cannot recognize the true nature
of our being, if we cannot recognize our own commonality with all others,
if we cannot live as one being then we will never be free. we will never
be free. we will never find that home that we seek. we will never create
that civilization that we so desperately want to create.

Existence cannot be fixed, it can only be negotiated. There is no more or less than there can ever have been, or will ever be. If truth is out there waiting for us, we’re already too late, for the questions that could have been asked, have already been answered.

The philosopher cannot be an agent, nor an instrument, nor a subject of some other aim; philosophy is a being in itself, a force and an act. What speaks, when philosophy speaks, is not a philosopher, but a force, not a human being, but a power. When this force, or philosophy, is inspired in us, and brings the soul into its height of activity, it finds itself thrown forth in all directions, as though it has need of everything that exists, and its life consists in drawing all of this into itself, as the instinct of life likewise draws the spirit into matter, while death dissolves the body into matter. The whole movement of the soul is from action to passive state, from substance to being, that is, this very force and movement. Philosophy can then be compared to a vast ocean where there is both calm and storm. There are calm currents, and then again there are sudden tidal waves, so powerful and tempestuous as to create an almost inconceivable turmoil. Philosophy is in the storms of the heart. Philosophy then demands an unceasing vigilance, which comes only from experience, not from reading or study. For philosophy is not one of those intellectual exercises in which a philosopher tries to make a theory conform to a system, but a power of our thought that does not leave us; a force that has been made captive by a will and that takes possession of the soul in whole. Philosophy speaks not by itself, but by a force with which the soul is filled, and it is this force that speaks. For when we speak of philosophy, we are speaking of an experience. It is not an experience in the sense in which we might speak of an experience of love, an experience of pain, or of any one thing in isolation. No: Philosophy is the sea in which the soul encounters itself, the experience in which it finds itself. The only true philosopher is not that man who is a philosopher simply for an hour in the day, or a moment; he is he who is a philosopher all the day, who never ceases to think, but thinks, thinks, and who thinks. The philosopher has a thousand times the work to do than any other; he has much experience and not much theory to go on; he has to begin a thousand times and to end a thousand times what other men have begun and have finished. The philosopher may be a fool, but the philosopher who therefor ceases philosophy, is doubly the fool.

He may therefor, the philosopher, well be poor, a fool, a coward; it does not matter. His poverty is his advantage; his foolishness is his strength; his ignorance, his wisdom; his cowardice, his bravery; his insignificance, his importance; his idleness, his labor; his imbecility, his perfection. The philosopher is a poor man with his soul alone, a beggar on the Earth, but he who stakes a livelihood against the needs of the spirit is doubly the beggar. The philosopher cannot make use of anything but his reason; that is his wealth; that is the treasure that he has; all that he has of all that he knows, he must give back to himself. He will give back to himself all that he has; he must return himself again to himself.

To the philosopher, the world appears as a picture; he is like a man looking at a picture from a distance. He sees the objects; he touches them, and he learns about them; and yet they remain strange to him as to the rest of the world. He is as though looking at a picture of which all the parts are distinct, and which he cannot put in place; they remain to him in a state of confusion and of chaos. We have just shown how in these cases the philosopher acts differently from all other men, and we have just spoken of the philosophy that comes into existence with such beings; the philosophy of the man who has passed the gates of the world in a dream, and who has come out like a man who has seen the day. He becomes as another man; he is no longer the same, and he can have no experience in common with those to whom the rest of the World appears to be in good order. The philosopher feels as though, to know any one thing at all, he must know everything; to see any one thing, he must see all; and, as confused as this scene of life might appear, he can not accept that it were but a chaos and fury of atoms, but matter: he can only admit it to his thoughts, as it were, as a labyrinth of things which he does not yet understand, of which he only has seen some portions. He cannot know what the whole is, he only knows what it is not. All that he is able to imagine is only that the universe is the result of an immense number of phenomena, the effect of a certain and unique cause, which could not be multiplied without a multiplication of effects, without a division of the whole.

On vient d’une île où toutes les étoiles sont en désordre; in this state of confusion and of chaos which are the result of the philosophy of the wise dreamer, there needs must appear to him a contrary state, another opposing order born out of a state of pure intuition, a complete act of Mind; the thought of some point of equilibrium in the universe which he cannot perceive, a point of rest and of peace between his questioning and its answer, which he cannot perceive. He then must be astonished at this state of rest, and must consider it as the Absolute, a supreme Idea, from which all others ideas spring, or rather as their cause; and he would imagine all this chaos to have been merely the result of the universal agitation of this supreme state of the Universe. We are quite mistaken in thinking that the philosopher makes a more exact use of thought and knowledge, and that he forms a more accurate and more certain judgement upon the Universe, than the rest of mankind. It is not at all that he forms any more just or sure judgment; no, on the contrary, in this thought which he has formed, in this idea which he has accepted, he finds something as it were a support and a comfort, a discovery of the Imaginative which is neither known to himself nor to any other being. But this highest idea is only an idea, not an object; it is the Idea, not a God; it is an abstraction, not the object which it contains. It is an idea without any existence. It is thus that we form ideas of the Supreme Being; but of this Being, we are not yet able to obtain an object to represent it. We can only say that the Supreme Being is infinite; that this thought which he has formed gives him a support and a consolation, but that it does not produce in him either knowledge or certitude.

We have spoken of philosophy as a force. Its force is that which raises ideas to a higher or lower level; its instrument is that which renders them more or less perfect. It has within it the power to add to and to diminish ideas; it is the organ, and even the instrument, of those ideas. It multiplies ideas. What is an idea? An idea is that which we form of a fact or of a phenomenon or a collection of facts; we make of them a whole and in this way, the whole becomes great, greater than the parts of which it was constituted. There is no great effect without an infinite number of causes. This multiplicity is a great force, it consists in multiplication of beings; it consists in the production of species. This idea may perhaps be a more certain thing than what has been found hitherto; this idea may perhaps give a certain security and consolation in our life, in its greatest dangers and distress. Let us then make the effort to think. Let us consider ourselves, let us consider the Infinite; let us find this point, let us find this centre of rest, let us find this point at which the various beings are restored, at which the order of the Universe is established and is stable and species are distinguished from their individuals. In this state of rest and order, let us fix our mind, let us put it in order as well; let us imagine that it, in its being, in its movement, is also in repose, in complete repose; let us contemplate the Infinite in this state of repose, let us take the whole as an image; the result of all the various representations which we have been able to form of the Universe; the result of all our experience and all our thought. And let us think that this being is also a being which is in repose, which is complete; which, by its will, has given its own impulse, which gives itself the power of continuing for ever; the power to continue and not to return into nothingness, to continue to make itself felt. In this state of repose of the Infinite, in this state of the repose which the Intellect enjoys and which it manifests, let us put in order our mind, let us arrange it,- let us bring it back to itself.