hopelesshappiness.com

Certainty applies to this moment.

Uncertainty applies to the next moment.

Uncertainty implies that change is inevitable and what applies to this moment may not apply to the next moment... or the next... or the next...

This moment is fleeting.

Last week I said "Certainty is dishonest." Perhaps it is more accurate to say certainty is fleeting because certainty can be honest in the moment - but only in the moment. To maintain a rigid, unchanging certainty from one moment to the next, without seeking new knowledge and without questioning the status quo, is to be dull, dry, dishonest, delusional, and dangerous.

Some mistake certainty for confidence and uncertainty for weakness. I believe it is this confusion that initially encourages one to justify a manipulation of the moment. Once justified, there are many reasons and ways for one to manipulate a moment. Some do so to remain oblivious. Some want to perpetuate myth masquerading as fact. Some are holding on to a particular moment, stretching it to its limit, in order to preserve (their own and/or other's) sanity. Some do it for practical purposes. Some do it for pleasure or comfort. Some do it because they are afraid. Some finagle and finesse knowingly with an intentional agenda. And others are simply shaping a moment to their liking, unaware of consequential fallout. Thanks to these maneuverings the scope of a moment can appear to change. There are some that may equate a moment with a lifetime. Others may see a moment as a phase or stage of one's Life. Still others may believe a moment to encompass a specific time frame (such as a year, or a month, or a week, or a day), or varying frames of time as determined by the duration of a project or the attainment of a goal; and this stretching of a moment into manageable chunks is (as said) practical and understandable - to a point. It is not reasonable though to utilize multiple measures of a moment in an effort to legitimize an inflexible (or lazy) conviction. To compartmentalize a specific concept, idea, belief, mindset, creed, doctrine, ideology, and/or circumstance and apply a 'suitable to one's purpose' measure of the moment, is to be lazy, inflexible, dull, dry, dishonest, delusional, and dangerous.

Granted, it is difficult to renew each and every moment, each and every moment, and this difficulty justifies some workable accommodation; but regardless, the reality we must know is that a moment is gone in less time than it has taken to place the period at the end of this sentence.

This week in a coffee shop I sat near a bible study group as they discussed their certainty in faith. I have said before (most notably here and here) that faith (by definition) is an acknowledgement of and then a leap over unknowns and uncertainty. Faith is not faith without uncertainty. Organized religion strongly encourages (as did the leader of this bible study group) a rigid, unchanging certainty from one moment to the next. This is not merely contradictory and delusional, it is also beguiling and seductive. To be certain of an eternity by stretching a moment into an eternity must be comforting for some. For me, unquestioning quiescence is not a comfort. Yet this bible study group made up of high school students and their 20-something-year-old leader did appear to find comfort in their certainty. And I have trouble finding fault with young people seeking answers. But I would like to see a balance of opposing thought, so that we are not 'only' pushing agendas that proclaim WHAT one is to think, but we are also providing all individuals with an opportunity to learn HOW to think.

One of the first lessons in HOW to think is to know that if only one perspective is presented, there are multiple opposing perspectives disguised or hidden. It is my responsibility to locate, unmask, analyze, and argue. And when opposing perspectives are presented and/or found, if any (or all but one) are arbitrarily dismissed or dismissed due to past thinking or dismissed based on the thinking of another, we have done a disservice to the integrity of this moment and to our self.

I believe the manipulation of moments and delusional certainty to be a characteristic of one who is perceiving their mind as perceiving through reflection, whereas one who perceives their mind as perceiving through the senses is more likely to be adaptable, skeptical, and open to new learning. In other words thoughts attached to sensory experience are more applicable to humanity's progress and survival, and more susceptible to helping one to learn HOW to think; whereas free-floating detached thoughts have more potential to stifle and divide because an individual or group is dictating (or at least advising) WHAT to think. This potential for conflict springs and attacks when one of these detached thoughts is applied and attached to an aspect of our daily existence and/or insinuates itself into our ongoing Life experience, thus corrupting the moment and encouraging delusional certainty.

Simply put, questions answered by belief (i.e. reflective thought) are more controversial and more subject to disagreement than those answered by fact (i.e. sensory experience). Any bias toward belief over fact will lead to divisiveness and (depending on the balance of power) a potential suppression of opposing thought.

I am not suggesting (even if we could) that we eliminate reflective thought. It is not only unavoidable (and enjoyable), but it is also necessary to the learning process which includes finding and asking questions that may ultimately be answered through sensory perception. Experiential thought will ground and balance reflective thought, and reflective thought will drive and elevate experiential thought. Both are necessary, but they must work together in a manner that will inspire progress.

In looking at how these concepts (a moment, certainty, uncertainty, reflective thought, and experiential thought) relate I believe I have a better understanding of why an individual becomes dependent upon belief to a point where sensory experience (i.e. fact) takes a back seat. If we separate a moment into 1) past moments, 2) this moment, and 3) the next moment, and we visualize a volume of certainty, uncertainty, reflective thought, and experiential thought to place within each category of moments, I believe we will see that in theory there is a functional balance in place. But if we manipulate the moments by stretching, redefining, overlooking, or ignoring I believe we will see that in practice reflective certainty predominates. Looking more closely...

PAST MOMENTS:

• In theory, because these are moments we have experienced, and through this experience formulated beliefs, neither experiential thought nor reflective thought have a clear advantage; it is a draw. But because we each recognize the fallibility of human memory and our tendency toward comfort, we are dubious, thus allowing uncertainty to trump certainty.
• In practice certainty trumps uncertainty because I believe we adjust our memories to be consistent with our beliefs; and because of this conformance, reflective thought trumps experiential thought. Additionally, with 'past moments' we are able to lump them all together thus supporting one memory always consistent with belief, and we are easily able to convince ourselves of this (misremembered) interpretation.

THIS MOMENT:

• In theory 'this (fleeting) moment' is the only time we can be certain of certainty because we are actually experiencing it, therefore certainty trumps uncertainty and experiential thought trumps reflective thought.
• In practice we mistake this moment as malleable and stretch our certainty into the next moment, and (for many) the next, and the next, and the next... And when we do this, we have essentially eliminated an actual 'this moment' by allowing past moments to time travel. Therefore certainty trumps uncertainty, and because we are thinking past this moment into a future certainty, reflective thought trumps experiential thought.

THE NEXT MOMENT:

• In theory we cannot be at all certain of the next moment, but we can (and should) examine likelihoods and reflectively assess potential (Exoteric) Goodness and (Inner) Peace, and live this moment accordingly. Uncertainty trumps certainty and reflective thought trumps experiential thought.
• In practice past moments have already time traveled into the next moment, so we already know what will happen. Certainty trumps uncertainty and because there is no future experience, (and even though any reflective thought is from past moments), reflective thought again trumps experiential thought.

Winner In Theory (by a nose) - Reflective Uncertainty.

Winner In Practice (by a knockout) - Reflective Certainty.

I believe Reflective Certainty (as presented) to be an accurate depiction of our present-day vocal majority; and I believe this overall assessment (as presented) to be accurately applicable to our current status quo; and I believe reflective certainty (not balanced by uncertainty and experiential confidence) to be lazy, inflexible, dull, dry, dishonest, delusional, and dangerous.

I also believe that the thinking minority - those who practice a balance of Reflective Uncertainty and Experiential Confidence - is growing not only in numbers, but also in knowledge and comprehension; and I know this bodes well for progress.

Unfortunately, I also still see an overabundance of individuals ranging on a spectrum from fat and happy sheep to the subservient and destitute all created and exploited by the power of reflective certainty.

We must move away from the complex delusion of a misremembered past, an oblivious moment, and a certain future, and we must move toward the more effective simplicity of learning from the past to live in the moment for the future.

This week the first official whack-a-mole poked his head out and said, "Pick Me." This set me to pondering 'Progress' and laying groundwork for an assessment of what will likely be a choice between the more desirable of varied vulnerabilities ranging from quiescence and stagnation to divisiveness and possible danger to continued slow progress to points between and beyond.

If this first candidate is an indication, this election will be typical in that divisiveness will rule the next 590 days. By throwing down the gauntlet (as he has done by simply making his announcement where he did) I am certain that his opponents (on all sides) will feel compelled to take up the gauntlet and throw down one (or more) of their own. And with all of this gauntlet-throwing it will be difficult to form an opinion, and I believe it will leave us vulnerable to (a best-case scenario of) four more years of slower-than-necessary progress. This is not a surprise. Regardless I will work at a determination of which candidate (or candidates) will emerge as a... (is it too much to ask, to say 'sincere'?)... voice of reason, and from there a determination of which voice of reason is most capable of quickly shifting gears from divisiveness to collaborative progress.

The written thought below this paragraph was thought (and written) before the previous paragraphs. It began as an effort to answer a question - "What is the job of the President of the United States?" I now see that this question can (and should) be expanded to include any and all elected officials AND any and all responsible members of humanity; (each individual must define 'responsible' for him or her self).

My job is to strive for Progress.

Progress is ethical agreement to act in a mutually beneficial way that will objectively strengthen the long-term well-being of all of humanity.

Shared Efficiency is necessary to expedite progress.

Shared Efficiency is effort toward

• courtesy
• minimizing harm
• lessening divisiveness
• curbing abuses of power
• expanding and exploring common ground

I believe that we are making some progress... ...
... ... ...slowly

Based on observation, I believe we will continue to improve our collaborative efforts to facilitate progress.

To further expedite progress we must actively acknowledge that we are each individually joined by our uncertainty AND that we are all universally divided by our certainty.

Uncertainty = Humanity = A Sense of Me

Certainty = Cultural Identity = A Sense of Belonging

A manageable degree of cultural identity is unavoidably necessary.

We naturally move from...
Me to Us (Individually Joined)
...to...
Us vs. Them (Universally Divided)

I don't want to be an atheist or a deist or a catholic or a protestant or a jew or a muslim or a hindu or an agnostic - I want to be spiritual.

I don't want to be a fanatic or an extremist or a stoic or a conservative or a liberal or a socialist or a capitalist or an anarchist or a fascist or hard-line or one of the flock - I want to be a thoughtfully active emissary seeking moderation and balance from a common ground.

I don't want to be yellow or brown or black or white or rich or poor or middle class or male or female or old or young or disabled or able-bodied or part of us or part of them - I want to be compassionate and empathetic.

Yet my humanity dictates that I will be of a certain race and nationality and sex, and that I will be subject to some circumstance beyond my control, and that I will suffer some indoctrination as an impressionable mind, and that I will have some opinion that is more sympathetic to one cause over another; thus creating an identification with some labeled groups. I cannot be all things and I cannot avoid all things, but I can mitigate harm through an active awareness of my limitations.

I want to identify with a culture of uncertainty.

Uncertainty is truthful. Uncertainty is natural.

Certainty is dishonest. Certainty is a facade.

Individual Certainty is delusional. Individual Certainty is dangerous.

To make progress we must embrace uncertainty and at the same time, not be overburdened by it.

To not be overburdened by uncertainty we must share efficiencies with all of humanity.

To embrace uncertainty we must broaden our cultural identity to include all of humanity.

If all of humanity were to work toward ethical agreement, the sheer numbers with which we could fuse uncertainty and dilute certainty would strengthen the long-term well-being of all of humanity.

That is Progress...

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Who said this?
 A. Thomas Jefferson
 B. Charles Darwin
 C. Sigmund Freud
 D. Adolf Hitler
 E. Abraham Lincoln
The answer is given at the end of this post.

It appears (from the limited research I have done) that many people want to focus on "the existence of a god" as the key phrase in this quote. And I agree that this phrase stands out (as if in bold print) and likely influences most interpretations. But after some thought, I believe the key phrase to be "Question with boldness". Consider the quote as it is rephrased below:

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of [an authority]; because, if there be [a legitimate authority], he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Be the authority natural or supernatural, for me the word "even" points back to and clearly encourages one to "Question [all things] with boldness" and the appearance of "a god" merely emphasizes the prominent significance of (and the method for) said 'Questioning'. The original quote may or may not have meant to question the existence of a god. My suggested 'authority' perspective is meant to unmuddy the waters and allow for a less-controversial, more in-depth, common-ground examination of recent written thought surrounding partisanship, ethical decision-making, and the individual/group delusion of (and desire for) superpowers.

I believe it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to find an individual who has never experienced the negative impact from an abuse of power. I believe there to be some (perhaps many) who are oblivious to these abuses of power, and I believe that within this group there are some (perhaps many) that are oblivious because they wield the power. I believe that the more power one wields (or the more one benefits from the powers that be) the more likely they are to be oblivious to potential and actual resultant abuse. (I believe I have said much of this before; which requires me to dig deeper...)

So what is power? In this context it is the ability or authority to act on a decision or a choice (made as an individual, an individual in the name of a group, or formal or informal group consensus), that has the potential likelihood to influence or impact the decision-maker(s) and/or other heretofore unknowing individuals. By this definition each one of us has power. If I decide to play a solitaire game of Go instead of watching HBO and I follow through, then I have had impact on myself. If I decide to go to Starbucks for coffee instead of Subway for lunch and I follow through, then I have had impact on myself and a few other individuals. In these two examples I have not abused my power. An abuse of power is when an individual or group who wields power (as defined above) benefits at the expense of another individual or other individuals, AND the beneficiary (or beneficiaries) acted without utilizing an ethical decision-making process (as suggested in this post from 3 weeks ago). Some might argue that simply benefiting at the expense of others would be an abuse of power and there is some subjective validity to this argument; however, it is the nature of the beast that some pain and adversity must accompany progress which means that there will be circumstance where harm is inevitable - hence, the necessity of an ethical decision-making process to mitigate and minimize the harm.

Additionally individual responsibility for this ethical decision-making process is consistent with questioning all things ("every fact, every opinion") with reason and boldness. We cannot passively accept 'statements of fact' and 'opinions' simply because they originate from within; and 'within' applies to both within a like-minded group, and within one's own gut, heart, or mind. Misunderstandings, false or misleading information, indoctrination, emotional attachments, personal agendas, and other subjective interpretations can influence and discredit rational consideration, and encourage belief that one (or one's group) is more deserving and/or more powerful.

In the rephrased quote above I inserted 'an authority' for the original 'a god'. I am not questioning the existence of authority (defined as the power to decide and act), but I am questioning the legitimacy of 'an' authority. Does a simple exercise of authority (acting on a decision) legitimize one (individual or group) as an authority? I don't believe it should, but I see that it too often does; perhaps less frequently in the eyes of the beholders than in the mind of the beholden, but enough in both directions to maintain a delusion of noble legitimacy.

So far in this (somewhat convoluted) thought, we have:

1. The ability to wield power;
2. The authority to wield power;
3. The abuse of power;
4. The necessity of questioning power and authority (with boldness and reason); and
5. The legitimacy of authority.

We have determined that each one of us has the ability to act on a decision or choice, thus wielding power. I believe this ability to wield power to be different from authority in that authority is determined by varying degrees of fortuitous and/or purposeful circumstance, which is further determined by many factors including capabilities, responsibilities, perceived urgencies, and personal (and/or organizational) degree of compassionate vs. tyrannical strengths. I also believe that authority is necessary to legitimately abuse power. 'Legitimate abuse' sounds like a contradiction but by recognizing the line between ability to wield power and acknowledged authority to wield power we can see that one who can (ability) abuse power (by for example robbing a bank) is by consensus not legitimate, whereas one who has been granted power (authority) can abuse power (by for example discriminately choosing which rules to enforce, when) and be considered legitimate (at least by those who agree, and often by neutral or apathetic bystanders) because they have in some way been authorized.

The question now becomes, can any one (individual or group) be considered a legitimate authority? I believe the answer to be an emphatic "No!" I believe any one (individual or group) who considers themselves to be a legitimate authority has crossed the line into delusions of (and desire for) superpowers. Please note: I do not mean authority as in the context of 'expert' but rather as previously defined - one (individual or group) who decides and acts. And though this granting of authority by allowing an individual or a group to become the personification of authority is necessarily unavoidable, one's (individual and/or group) humanity will forever deny Perfect legitimacy. Regardless of the safeguards (such as the aforementioned responsibility for ethical decision-making) some subjectivity will always creep in, creating the potential for some unforeseen harm; and regardless of effort and intention, subjective ignorance is still an abuse of power.

The quote at the top of this post was written by Thomas Jefferson to his nephew Peter Carr in a letter dated August 10, 1787. I think Mr. Jefferson would agree that subjective ignorance is as much an abuse of power as is any degree of fear-mongering tyranny, though the latter is potentially more egregious. I also believe that by seemingly questioning the existence of a god, Mr. Jefferson was encouraging us to find common ground amongst all of our own in this empirical reality.

...An admonition we should heed.

Aristotle said, "He who is unable to live in society, or has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." Focusing on one who considers him or herself sufficient, at first glance I don't see much difference between a beast or a god as it applies to all individuals who share this empirical existence. Any one who sees him or her self as a god cannot help but to behave as a beast; and any one who purposefully desires others to perceive him or her as beastly cannot help but to lust after supernatural powers. Looking more closely, a beast is coarse, crude, and filthy, and a god is a being of the highest quality, character, and importance. So if one self-identifies as a god they will (by definition) treat others as inferior beings, and if these others do not see that individual as a god they will (rightly) perceive that behavior as coarse and crude. And if one self-identifies as a beast they will revel in the glory of their filth, and others will perceive them as delusionally self-important. The reality is that no one individual is any more (or less) necessary than any other one individual. Each one of us is equally essential. I have said this before.

This week I have considered Aristotle's observation in the context of daily human interaction. For example, yesterday I was downtown when I saw a (human individual) driver (whose car was behind another car at a red stop light) impatiently veer into the left oncoming-traffic lane to make a right turn on the red light. Fortunately there was no oncoming traffic and the lone pedestrian - (me) - anticipating his idiocy, pulled back from the crosswalk and waited. And though a right turn on red is legal, I doubt it gives one permission to behave in this manner. This individual then chose to utilize the center (yellow-striped) turn lane as a passing lane to further his agenda. So - did this individual consider himself a god of his vehicle and lord of all golden pathways he graced with his rusted-out, puke-green presence? Or did he see himself as a beast of the byways bullying his way past lesser beings? (Again I ask) does it matter? The outcome is the same.

Additionally, can an individual behave as a beastly god (or a godly beast as the case may be) in one circumstance and yet be interactively amenable and adaptable in other circumstance? I have read that some individuals feel more powerful and less human behind the wheel of a car as the machine becomes an extension of their mind and body. I believe a position of power (such as workplace management or political office) can also dehumanize otherwise human individuals. So yes, I believe it possible that circumstance can encourage (or perhaps even dictate) behavior and self-identification.

I also believe we can substitute 'they' for 'he' in Aristotle's observation and apply it to specific groups that may self-identify as godly or beastly; (or both). I believe that (as with individuals and daily vagaries) groups must be interactively amenable and adaptable to the capricious winds of societal evolution. (Though this is important, this week's thought was not intended to become a finger-pointing diatribe on Us and Them; so I will move on.)

What originally struck a chord as I digested Aristotle's observation was the implied need. It appears that for the sake of decorum (and possibly one's sanity) we do need society and (optimally) daily human interaction. A very strong argument could be made (and has been by many, many varied thinkers) that this is our purpose. Even within the context of various spiritual, social, cultural, political, and individual beliefs, the shared goodness (or at least the ordinary decency) of human interaction is a common thread. There are periods of circumstance when I do not see this. There are oppressive layers of confusion and uncertainty that on occasion encourage a melancholy solitude. Yet when I submit to and then emerge from this loneliness, to experience even the simplest of cursory social interaction, I feel less constrained. And I realize that my (self-chosen) solitude is not only (by definition) selfish, it is also injurious in that it severs interactive ties that then may take an inordinate effort to rebuild.

I have also realized that any gains made by attempts to sever unpleasant relationships that are unavoidable, are likely short term gains. And successfully avoiding unpleasant relationships simply because they are unpleasant may not always be in one's best interest. So this need for comfortable, respectful human interaction extends to those individuals (or groups) that may (at least initially) create or include discomfort, condescension, and/or disrespect. This is not to say that one must always (when able to choose) subject oneself to unpleasantness over pleasantness, but one should consider the potential benefits of acquiring a taste for unpalatable affiliations. We may not like broccoli, but in moderation it is good for us.

So am I arguing that one's perceived purpose is driven by need? Like a jitter-jiving junkie (a phrase borrowed from Stephen King) is my sanity addicted to human interaction? When lonely, am I merely jonesing  for a fix of friendliness? Maybe...

But if so -- So What? I believe the alternative to be self-destructive. I believe this need translated as purpose to be a healthy dependence that can and should grow into interdependence.

If I develop and nurture the habit of solitude -- setting myself apart, as if I were a god -- then my delusion of self-sufficiency may transform itself into a monstrous reality of being 'unable to live in society.' As a human individual with a vested interest in this empirical plane of existence, I must actively acknowledge this craving for mutually beneficial human interaction. I believe to do otherwise (as a god or as a beast) exposes vulnerabilities, hinders progress, and shrivels humanity. Occasional, contemplative solitude has its place; but not at the expense of synergistic growth, nor for the sake of godlike delusions and beastly behaviors.

Two weeks ago I considered simplifying by diluting disciplined thought through partisanship, preoccupation, and acquiescence. The week before that I identified disciplined thought as a healthy mix of objectivity and subjectivity; and I also differentiated between disciplined thought as a path to learning and growth, and disciplined busyness as purposeful distraction. This week I have been more busy, and less thoughtful. Shame on me!

But now I am forced to write (because I can't not), therefore I am forced to think for myself.

Damn It.

So here is what I am thinking this week...

For many of us it appears that it requires less effort to 'do' for oneself than it does to 'think' for oneself. When I ask 'Why?' the first answer that comes to mind is because (for many of us in this culture) it is easier to just go along than it is to think first. To think first adds a task which many of us feel we are simply too busy to do. Yet as I dig, I realize that doing for oneself has more potential for unintended consequence than does thinking for oneself first and then acting according to that consideration. Stated as such, this sounds obvious; and I believe I have swam this stream before but at this point I will not muddy the waters with a (conscious) rehashing of past thought. I want to see where I go with this.

Surely we do not choose to not think based solely on simple selfishness... and laziness... and obliviousness... and ignorance... and obedience... Okay; perhaps not so solely or simple but obvious nonetheless. There has to be something more... Beneath the surface? Or am I asking the wrong question? I want to look at both of these possibilities.

Beneath the Surface: 

When I ask the question 'Why does one choose not to think for oneself?' and come up with the umbrella answer 'Because it is easier.' is there something lurking besides the simplicity of not having to think?

Perhaps some of us are taught not to think; (though this goes back to simple obedience). So perhaps a better answer is that too many of us are not taught to think. This week I stumbled across and reviewed (in a book and on 2 or 3 web sites) logical fallacies. How many of us recognize, understand, and can explain Slippery Slope, Ad Hominem, Strawman, and Begging the Question? Before this week's review I would have struggled mightily, and even now I might pass a multiple-choice test but I would likely fail an essay test; (I now have a goal for the coming week). And if we cannot recognize a logical fallacy, how do we know what and when to question?

In this same context, how many of us can identify (in general terms) the contrasting philosophies of Plato and Aristotle; (I might do some better on an essay test here, but would appreciate a little time to review). What better way to learn how to think than to study great thinkers. This failure is not only an individual failing, but also a sociocultural failing.

Anything else?...

Of course there are systems in place that encourage us not to think. These include political struggles for power and control, bureaucracies, consumerism, wealth, laws, justice, customs, mores, and ritual, (and I'm probably missing a few), all of which may have (or may have had) their place and purpose but still contribute to our reluctance to think. In this context, I suppose one could point back to indoctrination as an overlying answer to the 'Why' question; but in a sense that takes us back to education (or the lack thereof). If we do not know how to think, we do not know what questions to ask; and even when we have questions, indoctrination, perceived majority opinion, and/or  fear of (some degree of) retribution creates a disinclination to ask.

So were these systems intended specifically to quiet (and control) the masses? Or were they initially more noble in purpose and have simply evolved into the misshapen aberrations characteristic of (at the least) some elements of each? I believe it possible that many systems may begin with noble intent and evolve into an exercise of power, fed by the abundant comfort and vainglorious complacency enjoyed by the vocal majority. Regardless it is systems such as these (strategically placed just beneath the surface) that often lead to the illusion of walking on water.

So I have (so far) found systematic, purposeful deformity and a lack of focused, meaningful education hidden just beneath the palpable waves of selfishness, laziness, obliviousness, ignorance, and obedience. Is there anything else? Perhaps words? I have always heard that actions speak louder than words, yet it is often unconsidered words that compel action; and these words are (too) often spouted by another. I agree that actions speak louder than words, but if they are another's words I believe the resulting action to be arbitrary and potentially dangerous. I maintain that one's thoughts - thinking for oneself, translated first into words, rehashed as thought, brought back to life as words, and then (after questions are answered) translated into action - are far more effective. Thus, mere words and arbitrary action I believe to also be monstrosities lurking just beneath the surface.

I am sure there are other cryptic, shadowy dangers, some just beneath the surface and others deeper. But I need to move on.

Wrong Question?

Instead of asking 'Why do we choose not to think?' we could ask 'Why would we choose to think?' - But I believe (for the most part) this will only give us answers at the opposite end of the same spectrum. However, a renegade (not for the most part) spin-off to this line of thought would be to ask 'How do I (as an individual) convince others of the importance of thinking (for oneself) before doing (for oneself)?' And the best answer I have come up with for this question, so far, is to lead by example. It is good in theory, but, (again, so far), I have not seen sterling results. But then, I am also confident that I have not been a sterling example.

Is the right question then a 'Who?' question as in 'Who is in charge?' Am I in control of my thoughts? Or am I handing that responsibility to the powers that be? This seems a bit simplistic, but it is a thoughtful start.

Could we ask a 'What?' question as in 'What do I choose not to think for myself?' (This could also apply to 'Where?' or 'When?'.) And I believe this question to be relevant in that we are at least considering circumstance and perhaps picking our battles. We all need to (at least to an extent) plan and prioritize and so perhaps this question (What? Where? When?) will aid one in more efficiently focusing personal thought.

We might ask 'How one can (in good conscience) choose not to think for oneself?' but I cannot answer this for anyone except myself.

Are there other questions that could be asked to shed light on one's predilection for doing over thinking?

As I said at the beginning of this post, this week I have been more busy than thoughtful. So perhaps to discover why, I could examine circumstance. I could ask if my busyness is purposeful distraction, or if I could redirect some energies to disciplined thought? As this week has progressed I have done the latter. Though to do so I have literally had to carve out time, (finding 20 minutes here and half an hour there), to advance this written thought. It was perhaps made easier because (as I also said at the beginning) I can't not write. As Aristotle so eloquently said:

"We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit."

So perhaps the most relevant question would be 'What new habits must I develop, (and what old habits must I let go), to move closer to excellence?' I have developed the habit of disciplined written thought, and though this is good, I am still far, far, far from Excellence. This coming week I will study thinking in the context of logical fallacies. Additionally I will consider personal habits (or the lack thereof) and effortfully strive toward improvement and progress. By asking this question and examining my personal habits, I am compelled to think for myself in a way that will positively impact my actions. Thus I am thinking before doing, and (with discipline) I am not as easily distracted or influenced by circumstantial mediocrity.

When I began this post I did not plan or foresee moving toward an examination of personal habits. Yet now that I've arrived, I see that it is important. And this vividly illustrates the value of consistent disciplined thinking for oneself.