“Long Thinking, Deep Thoughts, Profound Questions”

Creative thinkers, leaders in the realm of ideas, are those who know how to think long thoughts, to sustain a mental question long enough to reach the end of the answer. Few people do this. We’ve been trained since birth to accept what others tell us as reality without looking deeper. Children are rewarded for getting “the right answers” on test rather than for growing original answers or questioning the pat answers they’ve been given. Curious kids are told “curiosity killed the cat” or “you ask too many questions.” The system is set up to discourage long thoughts because people who think are a danger to the system. Thinking deeply enough allows you to connect isolated pieces of information, revealing the system’s real mechanics and ultimately its agenda. If enough sheep on the farm start thinking about their situation, noticing the pens that confine them, wondering why their wool regularly vanishes and what happens to their friends who disappear, that’s a danger to the sheep farm operation. Humans getting too smart is a danger to the New World Order.
 

Let me explain why I ask that. Conspiracy researchers have their fingers much closer to the pulse of what’s really happening than the mainstream news (which is dedicated to promoting human dependence and illusion). But Icke, Jones and other outspoken lovers of freedom have not figured everything out nor do they claim they have. Their understandings are works in progress. To swallow whole everything you read in a David Icke book without examining the research yourself is to be a follower, and being followers got the human race into its current fix. When we act like sheep, we tend to get herded into a pen.

To accept as final truth everything David or Alex says, or that anyone else says, is to limit the mind’s ability to grow beyond a certain point. It limits the ability of the human race to grow in knowledge, because how will human knowledge evolve, if the humans themselves refuse to evolve it? Worse, making someone “knowledge king” in our minds takes away our power and bestows it on another individual. That power can then be misused by the leader for his own self-aggrandizement, or manipulated by others who find a way to influence the leader and through him all the people that he leads.

It is hard for many people to resist the temptation of power, but we offer that temptation to people we put on pedestals. That they typically grow arrogant and messianic is our fault as much as their own. Better to listen to brilliant people, with their fresh perceptions and insights, and let their ideas inspire and stimulate our own original thought. Then we contribute to the growth of knowledge and human freedom, along with the person who inspired us. If we simply swallow whole everything the person we admire thinks, we’re nothing more than a groupie, comfortably finding personal identity in another individual rather than doing the work of becoming ourselves.

I never understood before I started this blog how much even aware people tend to follow the leader. I see it in the people who write in for advice, setting me up as an authority on life when I am just a person who insists on asking questions and thinking long and hard until I get to my answers. I see it in the fawning emails some people write, and in the hateful emails they typically write later. Such readers diminish themselves, believing because I have original ideas I must be superior to them. They then try to correct the mistake by heaping on me personal abuse to right the balance. It’s like school children – worshipping people they place on pedestals one moment, then drawing mustaches and horns on their heads the next. Where I see group-think most is in the emails that go on and on expounding Eastern philosophy, attempting to correct my misguided opinions. These people don’t see that they’re regurgitating the easy, familiar explanations and excuses they’ve been taught. They refuse to look deeper, into the holes in the excuses and the gaps between the explanations.

When we give up one belief system to adopt another, it makes us feel free. We’re tempted to regard ourselves as enlightened. In fact, we’ve jumped from one pen into a slightly larger one. We think we’re out in the open range because we refuse to look at the edges, those disturbing still-existing fences, the boundaries of the thought system. We may frolic happily for a while, feeling superior to the sheep who haven’t leaped the wall we did, growing irate at anyone’s suggestion that the space we cavort in may not be real freedom.

I haven’t been writing much lately because I’m going through an inward period, deeply thinking through many things. This isn’t an answer time for me, an expounding time. It’s a contemplative time, looking at the holes, the gaps, the still-remaining questions. Insights are coming in bits – small puzzle pieces. I write when I have something to say, and I won’t say until I understand. Long thought can’t be hurried.

Anyone can teach themselves to think profoundly, to discover new and deeper connections. You simply have to ask “why” and “how” and “what evidence supports this.” You have to refuse to accept other people’s viewpoints as fact, even the unique and brilliant ones, even your own unique and brilliant ones. You must look at the uncomfortable places where your beliefs are in self-contradiction, or where they don’t fully explain your experience. These chaotic spots are not something to shy away from, but keys to deeper answers. They are disguised doors that, when engaged, lead outside the holodeck.

Thinking takes time. We have to make space for it. We need quiet time to think long thoughts, to get to the bottom of things. It’s not accident that our lives are so busy and loud that most of us have no time for quiet thinking. That keeps the humans sheep, oblivious of our pens, following the dictates of our masters.

I’m reading a stimulating book right now that I don’t like at all, a book a reader suggested to me. I recommend it. It’s called “Making a Soul,” by John G. Bennet, a disciple of Gurdjief’s. I don’t like the book because I don’t like Bennet’s conclusions, but I cherish the experience of reading it because it challenges me. The author has seen through parts of the illusion. He thinks deep thoughts and posits profound questions. His conclusions get waylaid because of some of the assumptions he still makes, but how refreshing it is to read something filled with original, provocative ideas rather than rehashings of the dogmas we’re accustomed to. I get some of my best insights from reading new things I don’t like and listening to original opinions that disturb me. The uncomfortable clash between another person’s insights and my current opinions always forces me to delve deeper in my own pursuit of truth.”