Thoughts and ideas can be picked up and examined for validity and usefulness, and freely discarded from the toolbox if they don’t pass the inspection. When someone brings you a new idea you can welcome it in, and then either add it to the toolbox or show it the door.
Free Your Mind And The World Will Follow
Caitlin Johnstone
20729

Ideas like forming a “counter-narrative” and throwing it into “the gears of the machine?”

I think you mistake having a view that is trivially different from the prevailing consensus as having some special insight into the “truth.” Claiming that the world is full of brainwashed lemmings, and then claiming — with no evidence, no insight, no examples, no explanation — that you and others with your political views are exceptions, seems like the exact same claim made by everyone with a superiority complex. In this, you are very much in synch with the status quo ‘revolutionary’ ideas are projected.

Take, for example, your very clumsy example of how “One of our ancestors was once clever enough to connect a string of information about how things work and figured out that a spear can be thrown much further when launched from a leverage device, for example, and this made it a lot easier to get food…”

Are you sure this is what happened? Have you examined this example that you present as a fact? Is it a fact? Or does it matter, so long as it makes your point?

Does throwing a spear further really make it easier to get food? What about accuracy- how is it affected by such 'leverage devices’? Are such simple machines really best seen in isolation, and either “welcomed” or “shown the door”? Such dichotomous thinking is not really wise, is it? In fact, it is often a hindrance to developing a simple, seemingly useless idea into a more useful and potentially powerful application.

Is it possible that you have it absolutely backwards? That in fact the throwing of a spear using a lever was not arrived at via contemplation of how things work, in this physical sense? Is it plausible that such a tool was first created simply by mimicing a natural phenomenon that was witnessed, or by simply enhancing the motion of an arm, and that such simple inventions were later analyzed by others who thereby “connected a string of information about how things work”? And that these analyses formed the basis of much of our science and technology? Is this something that can be researched, by someone with intelligence?

If you can invent — yes, INVENT- an example that was so clearly NOT critically evaluated (or even basically researched), and use it to illustrate your claims and ideas regarding your special “wisdom” skills (regarding the critical evaluation of reality), what does that tell us about your actual skill set?

I mean, if we were able, though brainwashed, to think critically about this example, and what it illustrates, we might see that you have in fact illustrated that your conception of wisdom includes the skill of just making shit up because you think it makes you look smart and/or because you think it supports your claims.

I think that you are either far more ignorant than you could ever accept (which means you will likely remain so, out of self-preservation of your self-involved self-image); or else you are a paid provocateur, and are counting on the assumption that those who would see wisdom in your writings are not all that prone to critical thinking — and are far more prone to confirmation bias and ego stroking (which are closely related, obviously). That’s what I “think.” It is not necessarily a fact just because I think it, just to be clear.

The minute some ideologue shifts from spouting an ideology, to telling me how wise and woke I am because I share their views, is the same minute I thoroughly re-evaluate my thinking…

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated St. Steven’s story.