What Does it Mean to THINK?

First off, I am not a fan of being or becoming a prisoner of the Mind. To the same effect, the Mind, like the Ego, has an important function to serve. It is a tool, so learn how to use it. But it's important to discern and make sure that you do not identify with it.

You are not your Thoughts, just like you are not your Ego.

You have a brain. USE it, but don't BECOME it.

Yeah, at first this made absolutely no sense to me either.


BLlllllllllllah. I must vent. I've just read a blog post by Celtic Rebel entitled, "Why Must I Suffer Fools?"

A year ago, had I read it, I would have classified him as an egotistical, elitist ass wipe. I probably wouldn't have read the whole thing, just give it a brief skim and then either leave in a huff or leave a really sarcastic comment to "bring him down a peg or two." But now, I realize that reaction of defensiveness stemmed from somewhere else. Even something as benign as annoyance can point to something much deeper.

My own ignorance.

And how profound it is -- despite the fact that I've received assessments from people that I pretend to know everything or come off as elitist... not that they're even using that word correctly. They're using elitist in a way that the word would have to be defined as, "Someone who uses big words I'm too lazy to look up or talks about concepts that appear complicated on the surface" or "someone who refuses to make every post a digestible affirmation of what I already understand and agree with."

Oy(L).

WHY must THIS fooL be made to suffer fooLs??? It isn't FAIR! Bahahaha. Siiiiiiiigh. Yep. I don't know everything. Never claim to, and never will because there will always be something new to learn. That is the nature of Creation.

(Oh, good lord. I can just hear a vapid Darwinist going off a talking point of -- "'Creation'? Look! There, you see? She's a creationist! How ignorant!!!"

Siiiiiiiigh.

Irony fails those who cast stones.


Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh. I'm probably an even bigger fool to even suffer fools. To even engage with them.

To say, "Oh, well it's because you think they're beneath you."

Siiiiiiiiigh. That is a reaction. Not a valid assessment. And it's a reaction to protect hurt feelings.

Yes, it's important to feel things -- but you are not your literal feelings. Because someone makes you angry does not make that person wrong.


Now I'm coming to a realization that when someone dismisses what I say with, "Well, that's just your opinion" or "Well, I think you're wrong. Dude, don't get mad, that's just what I think."

What is an opinion but a personal viewpoint and belief or judgment that rests on insufficient grounds of evidence?

As for thinking -- real, critical thinking -- doesn't that ask for you to utilize that tool you call your brain to come up with an idea or understanding that begins as entirely your own? What happens to it once it's out there, well... no one can really own. But the actual process of thinking -- that's freedom.

So the question I want to ask these peoples is this: is this what you really THINK, or is this something you've AGREED to believe?

An agreement is contractual by nature. What is a contract? It's a consent between 2 or more parties to agree on something under specified terms. There is no freedom in a contract. If you break one of the stipulations, the contract is vulnerable to being declared as null and void.

So when it comes to hearing something in the "news" (Think about it: N E W S -- North, East, West, South -- isn't it a reorientation of direction in consensus "thinking"?) usually information is posited. And, when you see the source as "credible" you tend to affirm or agree with the information, that it is real.

Off of THAT, one forms an opinion.

(note to self: be more mindful of pronouns in next blog post.)

Usually, when one is presented with news, one is asked to choose one: is what happened a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? That's where one is tricked into thinking that one is thinking.

But really, one is only fortifying a predetermined contract of what one agrees IS reality. That CNN and MSNBC is reporting on what actually "matters." They in-form us, keep us in line in this consensus-based reality and deliberately confuse us to distract us from asking harder questions, or questioning anything at all outside of what choices they've presented before us.

DUDe. It's kind of like the process of voting, isn't it?

Sorry, I meant for this to be an essay, but it's turning into this tangential process for me. Siiiiiiiiigh. I don't even know who I'm apologizing to. Myself? Quite possibly.

Does this absolve me of entering into an agreement of any sort? Of course not.

Something is happening, and other people tend to agree with what is really going on. And yet, I'm not contractually bound to these people. But I do think that we have a tacit agreement to look into alternative news sources and come up with conclusions independent of the reporter when we see the information connect to a much larger narrative of what is going on.

But, as it stands, right now I am in the process of thinking.

And too often people I talk to do not do enough of that. What I mean is that they tend to mistake "thinking" for "agreement" and are nothing more than pots calling the kettle black when they say my postings are "nothing more" than opinions, implying that critical thinking or labor wasn't involved.


Whatevers. Whoever smelt it delt it.