12 – Freedom From Thought

Any attempt to disentangle our expanding world of ideas from our technologies and the civilizations they support can be seen as human cognition struggling to structure more understanding than its limitations could ever manage.   We can divide and sub-divide our conceptualizations of reality as much as we like, but the process is arguably one in which more only becomes less in terms of a true and well-rounded understanding.

Although obviously useful for simple matters of everyday life, does abstract thought not become progressively inept as it moves from the mundanities of the here-and-now towards the highly speculative contemplation of life’s big questions?   If words and thoughts serve any usefulness at all regarding the meaning of life, is it not as an ironic illustration of their ultimate uselessness in such domains?   Whatever sophisticated abstractions might be heard from gurus, professional philosophers or men of god on such matters, their output is generally situated somewhere between intellectual entertainment on the one hand, and conveniently unquestionable axioms or forms of faith on the other.   But could any ruminations in these areas ever produce anything of tangible worth when the relevant questions themselves seem to contain their own circularity?   For example, is asking about the true nature of existence not inherently stupid, given that the concepts of nature and existence are mere inventions of the mind?

That our cognitive form of abstraction can even pose such monstrous questions is arguably one of its faults.   Or is the problem that our cultural evolution has not yet taken cognizance of abstraction’s inherent limitations?   Either way, the bigger any question appears, the more we seem out our depth.   And given that abstraction knows no constraints on where it might wander, the potential for discrepancies between human imagination and real-world human experience knows no limits – all whilst a mass fixation on fantastical forms of entertainment illustrates a positive appetite for what is actually arrant nonsense.   As further highlighted by the many forms of vivid creativity running through our various cultural histories, we compose our many tales of reality within a seemingly unbounded universe of ideation.   To mention that millions have been born, nurtured, ruled or murdered ostensibly in the name of multiple gods that few now seriously believe ever existed is only to scratch the surface of countless cultural ideas of great impact but little or no verifiable substance.

By its very creative nature, human abstract thought is out of control, and the dangers of ignoring this should be obvious to anyone paying attention.   History suggests any fanciful idea at all can be made believable through enough propaganda, brainwashing and coercion.   At least, such was the case until science and objectivity with their fairly standardized version of the universe began overruling more parochial ideas.   But although that version includes much detail superficially well-grounded within objectivity’s presumptions of its own credibility, larger philosophical questions regarding that credibility have actually been silenced or forgotten in the process.   Hence, the real-world implications of unchecked technological development remain unacknowledged and thereby unaddressed.   These omissions are closely related, if not understandable as two sides of the same issue.

The objective view of the universe, with all its obsessional measuring, quantifying and classifying of whatever it examines, is actually devoid of any standardization regarding its core procedures and ideas – reality exhibiting no inherently sound units or building blocks to which thought can reliably anchor itself.   As an ideology, objectivity also lacks any clinical, independent, or otherwise verifiably authentic method for differentiating sound ideas from wild imaginings; such a distinction being in effect subliminally decided at the rather visceral level of individual or group choice, with group-think invariably a significant influence.   In particular, no one dare probe the underlying technology of abstract thought for fear objectivity’s whole house of cards might fall.   Despite its presentational façade of consensus, methodological procedures, peer-group review processes and so forth, objectivity simply cannot get itself outside the human mind and all the fragility that its unquestioning use of abstract thought implies.

Objectivity tacitly assumes the human mind to be some instrument par excellence in terms of potentially understanding each and every area of human life.   This is exactly how and why modern culture is worryingly lacking in any idea that the weaknesses of abstract thought might merit examination as possible sources of uniquely human problems.

Given the inherently divisive nature of the thinking process, it can be reasoned from the most basic logic that our ability to understand the seeming connectedness of our universe is inescapably hampered by the very deployment of any thought process.   A sheet of paper simply cannot be made from any amount of handiwork with scissors.   Not only do we invariably and unavoidably dissect reality by the very act of thinking about anything at all, but we also do so in a manner that lacks any demonstrably sound discipline.   And this too is inescapable, given that all the concepts we choose for any discussion are ultimately embedded within the mind, and amidst the absence of any inherent units of reality.  

The atom, the table, the galaxy, plus everything else we might imagine, are all ideas we have been told about, having previously been invented by the minds of those who went before us – just as anger, hatred and happiness are labels we were once given in other areas.   That we reach very good levels of consensus about the suitable use of such labels and concepts is no doubt based on the levels of success this human form of thought technology has so far delivered, but all such objects, entities and phenomena remain inherently nebulous on closer examination, and can never be demonstrated to reflect any discrete or truly disconnected components of reality.   There simply is no such thing as the universal atom, table or galaxy.   Even by common sense ideas, the opposite is actually true; as far as we understand it, every supposed table is in fact both utterly unique whilst also being inextricably connected to its environment.   Logically the same is even true of atoms, unless we believe two or more to be utterly superimposed on one another such that we would never know more than one existed anyway.

Once these issues are understood, it can be seen that thought is simply a tool – and a tool that is in certain respects worse than useless.   If one cannot grasp intuitively the hopelessness of a mind attempting to encompass the apparently unfathomable connectedness of our universe, one might at least reflect on the futility of thought trying to think away an empty stomach, the need for water, or a lack of oxygen.   In truth, abstract thought is a technology that serves little purpose other than to forward the many other technologies built upon it – including the clandestine and murky world of applied manipulative psychology.

As a form of thought itself, philosophy can do little more than reason the limits within which it is confined.   Whatever lies beyond those limits must remain mere speculation – at least as far as thought is concerned.   But in terms of present-day academic and intellectual culture, even the humble recognition that the thinking mind does indeed have such limitations would be a not-insignificant revolution, given that a current and widespread foolishness is to tacitly but effectively deny abstract thought has any limitations at all.

A greater awareness about thought’s nature might clarify where it is most useful, as opposed to being misleading, a waste of energy, or even downright dangerous.   Momentary ideas and exchanges aside, how much can we trust thought to deliver beneficial outcomes in complex areas?   Popular though they may be, do any of our numerous tales of reality in the domains of politics and religion offer meaningful insights into anything at all, other than as a collective demonstration of just how socially corrosive thoughts on such matters can prove?   Given their many contradictions, it should at least be obvious that there is a good degree of nonsense being taken very seriously in such areas.   Dare we consider that every last one of these tales may in fact be nonsense in light of their shared lack of any decisive and final verification?   Moreover, if we are reluctant to abandon them and leave ourselves no faith in anything at all, is that not simply because a beneficial social persona effectively demands embracing beliefs of one sort or another?    However bizarre, earnestly believing some subset of mankind’s nonsensical and contradictory ideas appears socially preferable to not believing any of them – a situation that emotionally blocks its own transcendence.

A fork in evolution?

Given the focus of conventional science is centered on the raw stuff of matter and energy, ordinary scientific approaches should be recognized as poorly suited to tasks concerning why humans think and behave as they do.   Even biology can seem oddly obsessed with the details of cells, molecules and biochemistry as if the myopic view down the microscope could somehow help understand what it truly means to be an individual organism, complete with all the magic that the body-mind complex entails.   And notably, magic is certainly not too strong or mystical a word with which to describe ourselves and the countless other lifeforms that somehow reproduce in manners remaining beyond meaningful human comprehension.

Even those who choose to believe in the so-called big bang theory as somehow creating everything in our universe, should never mistake such a crude idea for some sort of knowledge regarding life itself.   In addition to the mystery of existence in general, every single one of us is the outcome of a reproductive process that, for all it has been scrutinized in great detail by the human mind, predates the very arrival of abstract thought itself.   Indeed, the entirety of human thought can be seen as merely one of its by-products.

However, if there is one overarching reason to put conventional science and objectivity aside when searching for a fuller understanding, it remains the poorly-reasoned dismissal of subjective experience.   To dismiss subjectivity may serve the goals of whoever wishes career success as an objective thinker, but within a hierarchically arranged society, such goals are rooted in the acquisition of social power, as opposed to any search for truth.   In contrast, once an individual pursuing more honest goals is committed to a genuine investigation of their whole life experience, they have direct access to a vast swathe of rich content that science systematically plays down or refuses to entertain as a legitimate field of investigation.  

From this perspective, it is no overstatement to brand all conventional science as corrupt in its prioritizing of consensual social goals over authentic and unfettered appraisal of the human condition.   Driven by the same desires as many churches to gain power via the manipulation of consciousness and thought, the whole scientific endeavor has long been striving to shut the individual off from what is arguably the deepest parts of his life.   The fact that many within the scientific community would vehemently deny such an accusation with genuine horror only stands as evidence of how subliminal, endemic and effective such manipulation of consciousness has become.

Meanwhile, and quite ironically, the sort of fortress mentality some people reflexively adopt in the face of such criticisms only highlights a certain usefulness in viewing the individual as the most suitable base unit of reality – perhaps the most valid unit the mind might entertain in its efforts to decipher the human condition.   Not only does the individual amass his unique mix of beliefs, personas, and skill-sets to navigate life’s challenges in his own peculiar manner, but the full integration of these things within the overall organism provides the rather autonomous, consistent, habit-ridden and recognizable characters we all are from day to day.   Albeit intellectually idiotic to wholly isolate the individual from his environment, it is notable how journeying to a different location typically makes very little change in terms of what is considered one’s personality.   And although scientism may have split the relevant conventional ideas of all this into separate fields of psychology, physiology, biology and countless sub-sciences, only a fool would allow such divisive academic thinking to obscure the fact that each one of us feels very much like a whole and single entity: a person quite distinct from others.   While we may recognize others as members of the same species, from birth to death we all seem confined to living as one and only one example of that species.

If conventional ideas present an increasingly atomized picture of reality, and if the converse – some utterly holistic cosmic consciousness – would theoretically leave the mind completely devoid of any concepts to even compose thoughts, the individual appears philosophically relevant as a self-contained thing of truly astonishing complexity and at least relative independence.   Even the etymology of the word individual suggests this has long been recognized.   Therefore, in terms of simply being alive and attempting to understand the life experience, the endlessly analytic approach of modern science appears rather blind to what seems the most relevant unit of reality thought has yet devised.

Alternatively, if looking at all life in a general sense, nothing outside life appears to have free will or be able to recreate itself in any manner resembling organic reproduction.   Seen through the eyes of physics, entire planets, stars and other celestial bodies are just barren wastes of energy and matter when compared to the miracle of the tiniest insect.   It becomes arguable that reducing all our thinking to endless analyses of whatever can be observed and measured in a physical manner is blinding ourselves with so much quantifiable detail that we overlook how the truly meaningful inquiry remains about life itself and living units.   When the molecular blocks of life are in fact reported to be spread out across interstellar space, the traditional fixation on the simple physics of any situation just looks all the more misplaced.

Working within an exclusively physical perspective whilst ignoring subjective experience is the philosophical equivalent of a physicist examining electrons whilst refusing to look at the nucleus.     Whatever justifications anyone proposes for the rejection of subjectivity, it is surely stupid to blank this side of our being – if only because it is the seat of all our positive and negative emotions.   Even the most materialist mind must surely accept that any happiness within material possessions or physical engagement with this world is realized through emotions.   And given that emotions literally motivate us into action, being a stranger to that side of ourselves constitutes a sort of psychological blindness in which troublesome, chaotic and poorly-understood states are permanently likely outcomes of not fully knowing who we really are.

In transforming our perspective such that it ranks subjectivity alongside objectivity – or perhaps, such that it fails to make any hard distinction between the two – our entire understanding of the world undergoes a simple but dramatic change.   Even if we remain within conventional causal thinking, the supposed causes of whatever transpires within the human world must henceforth accommodate the endless thoughts, ideas and plans of every last individual.   Notably, this reduces causal thinking to an impossible venture in terms of amassing all the relevant data, never mind processing it.   As a consequence of this perspective, not only do mainstream intellectual perspectives of reality suddenly look far less well substantiated than our culture generally likes to consider them, but every last individual emerges as instrumental in the creation of human reality.   Of course, going further, there is no reason to separate human reality off from whatever is considered as reality outside human affairs.

However, it is no surprise that those in formalized positions of power reflexively demonstrate disinterest in such expanded perspectives; if such ideas were accepted, conventional political thinking would be revealed as mere tales of reality – just as would everything from the most mystical religions to the hardest of sciences.   The potential to profoundly rethink all human understanding could hardly be greater, whilst the individual might better understand his own life on his own terms.   The totality of reality reappears as utterly complex and thereby rather impervious to abstract thought, with the cognitive tidiness of conventional causality appearing as delusional idiocy wherever it is applied to anything other than the most simple and mundane matters.

Hence, albeit common, it is quite misguided to imagine the decisions and acts of important individuals and institutions to be the only key factors controlling social reality’s evolution.   In truth, both so-called leaders and their followers are equally instrumental in whatever transpires; the illusion of the leader being in charge only results from the extensive subservience that followers contribute to the situation.   Consequently, any would-be understanding of the social mechanics tends to be shrouded in illusions at every level – leaders typically believing they really do have power beyond the ability to cultivate and exploit their followers’ desires to be led.   And in terms of any understanding of how society unfolds, there is also the not-insignificant matter of whatever might transpire wholly outside human control but nonetheless impact people in unpredictable manners.   The proof of all the wrong-thinking this rather chaotic and misunderstood scenario creates is conspicuous within the multitude of historical situations where the promises and predictions of so many in high places simply never came to pass – even when they gained the support they sought in making those promises and predictions, and genuinely tried to bring them about.

This is another perspective from which the basis of most cultural thinking appears flawed: not only by its philosophically shaky formulation but also by the deceiving narratives of those who understand and exploit human gullibility via cleverly-crafted tales of reality.   To avoid doubt on this matter it need only be considered that when people will kill their fellow humans in huge numbers for their own perceived advantage, it is ludicrous to imagine much less dramatic measures are not used more extensively for similarly self-centered ends.

Given the much-expanded scope of such thinking, a deliberately vague and wide-reaching concept of evolution proves more appropriate for grappling with social change than all the simplistic ideas of would-be specific causes.   Instead of approaching an intellectually intimidating level of complexity with naïve ideas of eventually discovering simple mechanisms of what causes what, it can just be reasoned that whatever combines a realistic possibility with an unimpeded propensity – perhaps the desired outcome of one party or another – is something likely to happen.   To pursue some more exact explanation is arguably a fool’s errand.

With this more generalized thinking, understanding the making of today’s world can mostly dispense with the usual historical details of documented human history.   As well as being gross simplifications, such details are likely very selective and distorted in any case, given their normally conservative provenance.   They may have produced many tales of reality that are widely accepted as official human history, but at best they attempt to find circumstantial explanations for circumstantial events.   These compartmentalized narratives dubiously put great emphasis on what might otherwise be regarded as historical trivia, whilst more generic ideas that might help understand broader facets of the human condition tend to be suspiciously absent.

Hence, although social power is conventionally recognized as residing with tribal leaders, monarchies, aristocracies, churches, government bodies, judiciaries, military forces, political parties, large corporations, and all other hierarchical social structures, little is heard regarding the common mechanisms binding humans within all such structures.   Endless details and ideological nuances only tend to obscure that all those structures are nothing but humans who, from organic survival perspectives, are all pursuing the same basic goals.   The obvious inference is that much of the superficial convolution of civilization can be reduced to just so many efforts by each individual to assert their social worth.   For what better way is there to secure everything from physical security and sexual fulfillment to enhanced social power, than to have others fall under one’s command?

The means of exerting the essentially generic form of social power common to all human hierarchies is too rarely considered within everyday understandings of human history.   But how could the history of our species be told without all the hierarchical social structures that created groups from otherwise disconnected individuals?   And when the individual organic being is very arguably the most relevant unit for understanding life in general, the convention of interpreting human history as a set of more or less unrelated events seems to miss the point.   It feels more appropriate to generalize our history as the increasingly dramatic results of an organic species integrating the core technology of abstraction with its more primal drives.   The latter view might be rather irrelevant in terms of understanding why a given monarch fought a certain battle in a particular year, but knowing any number of such historical details is extremely irrelevant to any understanding of the greater currents operating throughout all human history – most notably the persistent duping and frightening of the gullible and the vulnerable into servitude within formalized hierarchical structures of many guises.

Although the individual emerges as a useful unit to approach both biological and societal evolution, separating him off from his social integration within groups is a blinkered approach.   Likewise, the façades and doctrines of different groups should not be taken seriously at the cost of overlooking more visceral and instinctive aspects of all individuals acting both alone and within such hierarchical structures.   Given that existing outside the social group is inherently dangerous, it is only natural that the individual seeks to integrate wherever possible – ideally making himself the power center of the social group.   Thus, competition for social position seems almost inevitable and is of course conspicuous across many species.

Meanwhile, the modern idea of equality appeals to those who see major imbalances in today’s world, even if this is just a predictable reaction to the extreme forms of unchecked power so typical of human civilizations.   Although the basic competition to be head of the pack seems fairly widespread throughout nature and can be reasoned to benefit a species as a whole, its current human manifestation looks neither straightforward nor without problems.

It seems that when technology is added to the mix, the resultant ability to formalize and augment power using all the persuasive tricks of ideological thinking goes unchecked in the absence of complementary knowledge about how and why this is done.

This perspective effectively views all supposedly noteworthy human history rather generically as being embroiled in ongoing attempts to create and expand hierarchical groups in manners unseen elsewhere in nature – major empires being the most obvious and notable examples.   Very arguably, the evolutionary arrival of technology is the only factor that makes humans significantly different from any other species, even if, given abstract knowledge’s cumulative nature, the most visible distinctions between human hierarchies and the herds and flocks of other species are increasingly monstrous.

But when considering much of the machinery of any hierarchy to be based on dogma and indoctrination – mere tales of reality – it is inevitable that the increase in the size of any such hierarchy entails an increase in the scope and deceptive nature of its doctrines.   Hence, the apparent size of any empire also represents its propensity to collapse amidst the growing cultural deception and lies it is founded upon – the prime lie being that its leaders and administrative machinery genuinely has the interests of the individual at heart.

Nature equipped us to bond only with those whose sociability provides mutual benefits.   But our instincts in this direction are abused when we are told incorrectly that, for example, another nation wishes to destroy our nation, or that failure to meet certain economic targets will inevitably spell all-round destitution.   Such lies are told in the interests of those who tell them – not for the benefit of the audiences that may thus be fooled into subservience.  

Under countless guises, such forms of deception have been the way of our species for many millennia, but only because we have not yet grown into our evolutionary destiny.   The simple proof of this lies in the increasingly widespread recognition that our world order is anything but safe; it is a state in which apocalyptic outcomes of various kinds become more likely by the day.

To speculate about how to fix such a situation is itself a potentially dangerous game.   Human history is littered with utopian ideas – all of which have more or less failed, if not proven disastrous.   The search for the next great doctrine replete with its erudite leader is simply another mile down the same troubled road that led us here.   It is built on a naïvety that fails to understand the limits of conventional thinking.   Before it is even formulated, it is by nature another set of human assumptions falsely imagining us to be masters of our fate.   As we are inherently incapable of gleaning the fullness of our entanglement with reality, or even of fully understanding one another on a conscious level, we fool with all such matters at our own peril, unless we recognize certain lines marking the edges of our mental abilities.   Accordingly, wisdom requires the humbling of human knowledge and ideas – not their expansion.   Only the blind fail to see truly intractable limitations.

More specifically, personal development lies in overcoming the false separation of body and mind that conventional knowledge and ideas have created.   It also lies in transcending the assumption that the divisive thinking central to abstract thought is anything more than a tool of occasional worth.   The whole emphasis on objectivity at the cost of knowing one’s own situation and momentary disposition is a process by which one succumbs to an exploitative imposition of reduced awareness.

We are sentient beings who do nothing at all at any point that is not somehow relayed through the organism.   And so, much as objectivity may have relevance for certain tasks, using it in an exclusive manner is an anathema to learning non-intellectually how one’s overall state interacts with the external world and its stimuli.

The key to reclaiming personal control in the face of external human manipulation lies in attentive observation of the overall movement that is one’s life – not in filling the mind with yet more abstract thoughts.