The Art And Crime Of Thinking For Yourself
Photo: Blair Speed
“Think for yourself” might be one of the most misunderstood expressions, especially in our age of conformist binarism. We might even be encouraged — at some point in life — to think for ourselves, but almost always as a way to be swayed from one structured dogmatic thought into another. Such encouragement is rarely issued to promote creativity or originality, or to break the pattern of cultural thought or norms; usually it's a way to politely proselytize a different bias. It is strange then, that few of us realize the opposite of groupthink is not thinking for yourself, but instead another variety or brand™ of groupthink.
Our culture is specifically organized to ensure people do as little thinking for themselves as possible. Before we even enter into the bureaucratic centers of indoctrination, most parents' mission is to grow miniature versions of themselves. They hand down their beliefs, heuristics, and traumas—not to mention their religion and politics—in an effort to lighten the burden of a youngling’s experience, of course, but to also manipulate an unaware creature into being more tolerable. Almost all hope is lost as a free mind enters our education system. Name a better example of misinformation than calling our current educational system “learning?” It is about culling, medicating, and indoctrinating. “Learning” in these institutions means memorization, repeating what you are told. This system has forgotten that teaching is the highest form of learning. And although the teachers of western civilization are under-appreciated, poorly compensated, and up against a system that does much to minimize their impact, they also rarely encourage students to think for themselves.
We don’t like being around people who think differently than ourselves, politically, socially, and otherwise, and we will go to great lengths to preserve or impress on others what we determine to be “the true way of life.”
The very presence of different thought, especially such assumed as truth by another, can cause a cascade of self-reassessment. But our internal landscape, our perceived reality, appreciates audits about as much as our bodies "appreciate" large fluctuations in temperature. That uncomfortable sensation of any environment that isn’t “climate controlled” can feel similar to what happens internally when first exposed to counter-orthodoxy. The subconscious nature of this human characteristic is frustrating, being merely a series of hard-held ideas that behave as a thermostat; protecting us from the annoyance of anything “different.” We respond unconsciously, acting on impulse as we do when slapping ourselves to silence the buzzing of a curious fly, we slap at ideas that are inconsistent with our comfortable beliefs.
SLAP
We should be clear, in and of themselves most ideas are not good ones, but even bad ideas funnel the human experiment into practices that sustain life and promote a progressive terrestrial experience by narrowing down what is and is not true. This is the scientific method, and it is not possible without the exploration of bad ideas. The modern (or post-modern) interpretation of this might be the worst idea of all: denying that there is such thing as truth, placing the survival of humanity on the importance and subjective nature of the individual. If nature only had one idea it wouldn’t have evolved beyond a single hydrogen molecule, let alone become a complex multicellular sentient being. If nature preferred the subjective truth of individual experience over that of the collective, none of us would exist today. If we think we are outside of nature and the laws of diversification, there is a good chance we won’t be around later, at least in this form. Nature explores different ideas through mutation: chemical, electrical, and gravitational pressure cause cosmological, geological, and biological shifts in this expanding enterprise. Humanity is the result of countless bad ideas.
Most mutations, like most ideas, have poor outcomes. Statistically, 99% of mutations are terrible, and perhaps, we humans are wrong with our ideas with equal frequency. Such errors may be why a majority of us seek historical wisdom or the solace of time-proven ideas, to “just go back to how things were.” Simultaneously, we feel pressured to hand the reigns of our collective wellbeing to progressive tech giants and billionaire do-gooders, to leave it to the “experts, “trust the data” and all that garbage, as if the rich or computer savvy are somehow above the laws of nature. The shift in polarity from conservation to progression will have an equally poor outcome because—again—most ideas are bad; it doesn’t matter whether you are a liberal progressive, or a conservative Christian, most of what you think is wrong.
This push towards the edge of either spectrum manifests because people believe they are above the odds (without proof) but their rationale is the same. It’s either the "Good Ol’ Days" or "TechTopia", and you believe you are thinking differently because you look at the opposite idea and shake your head. You either ask yourself, “How can these genderqueer liberals love like this?” or wonder, “How did these redneck inbreds survive the pandemic and the insurrection?” Although many of the so-called “free thinkers” declare their desire for liberty, they mostly want to be unencumbered by those whose ideas differ, and believe their "freedom" depends on suppressing the “bad ideas” of the “other”. Everyone wants to talk about freedom, but most of us imprison ourselves by trying to prevent others from living with bad ideas. Both poles, the 0s and the 1s, are marketed ideas, commodified lifestyles, and both arrogantly believe they can outsmart and overpower nature.
However, when man is "liberated" from nature s/he learns to become dependent on commandments and commodities and convenience; Nature demands that you think for yourself, commerce merely demands consumption.
Cultural progression and technology promise relief from the devastation of nature, disease, offensive ideas, and violence through the worship of good ideas, like democracy, and capitalism ... oops, socialism. But regardless of the political slant, it is an expression of fear to seek to control others, or to insulate against death, or replace reality with its supposedly improved, for sale, virtual equivalent; the theme park that is the "metaverse". The technopoly that has aggregated the industries of food, medicine, and convenience, convinces its subjects that utopia is just around the corner and available to all who buy from and buy into its marketplace. Multitudes are taking the ride. We all are being taken for a ride; sold the idea that commerce, comfort, and convenience are commandments from scripture. But there can only be hell where nature is not found. For as evil as nature might seem, with its grief and sorrow, its stealing of the young and torture of the old, it is the one place that is equal; equal in its beauty and its horror, and above all, equal in its bad ideas, of which we are one of the worst.
The idea that humans can overcome nature is a lie touted by those whose goal is centrally-controlled homogenization of human spirit. But to thrive we need as many different ideas going as possible, including those of idiot billionaires who fly into space, doomsayers building bomb shelters and squirreling away dehydrated food, and those who claim to know what is good, better, best. We should applaud the 99% for setting examples of how not to do it. We must be free to try living whatever we feel is a worthwhile life, even if it ends badly.
To think differently about the world is to live with nature, it is to practice variation — Mother Nature’s masterful tool. Few people think differently enough to develop their own ideas, and fewer still learn a different way to live or be from such ideas. In fact, most people don’t grasp ideas. Instead, ideas strangle them. This is true of denialists and saints, preachers and prophets, or the political elite and the downtrodden and destitute. If you have a narrative and a group, an agenda, or a mission statement, you have likely given up thinking for yourself. It is time to learn for ourselves, and teach our children how and why we must think for ourselves. There is no going back, and rushing into the future is a physical impossibility. Living now, in the present, with all our bad ideas is all we can or should do, and thinking for yourself is the only way to avoid the consequences of those bad ideas.
The fear that people might ask the wrong questions if someone doesn't tell them the answers is pervasive. People could die. They could join a cult or protest the wrong things, hell, they might become vegan. We have been convinced that someone, somewhere can protect us from discomfort and risk and death, which is ridiculous because we can't even handle the much simpler task of dealing with life.
Yes, there will be bad ideas. Some might even be horrible, an atrocity waiting to happen. We are living some of the worst ideas in human history, including but not limited to the idea that any kind of Crat — democrat, theocrat, autocrat, aristocrat — can change Nature by asserting their power to rule over other human beings.
“But we asked them to rule over us, by voting for them!” Actually, your vote asked them to represent you, but instead you allow someone to rule over you and everyone you love because you can’t figure out how to think for yourself.
