The Difference Between Thinking and Reading, Realizing and Repeating

Our creative faculties are all too often stunted from living in noisy overdeveloped urban environments, and spending too much time indoors watching television and looking at computer screens, but did you know that even reading too much can also be detrimental to your creative faculties?

How so? Well as someone who absolutely loves books, spends a lot of time reading books, and whose life would be significantly diminished without books, what the hell do I mean?

It's not that reading in itself is detrimental. Of course not. Reading is good. Reading is the surest way of rapidly improving your education. But reading too much, without regularly taking time out for personal contemplation, to process what you've read, to think for yourself, to directly listen and observe and ask yourself questions and form your own answers, without doing that, both reading and watching television, or doing anything that becomes a substitute for thinking, can become detrimental to your intellect.

It is possible to be an avid "well read" reader without being a thinker, without being much of a creative, independent, or innovative thinker.

There are a lot of repeaters in this world, many who are overpaid and overrated, people who dutifully repeat whatever the experts say, without really understanding or verifying the facts independently for themselves.

It is possible to appear quite learned and intelligent by merely memorizing what you have read or what you are told by others, to be a walking encyclopedia, a human computer regurgitating assorted facts and trivia, while at the same time being little more than a thoughtless repeater, a programmed robot parroting other peoples ideas without having any actual experiential grasp or understanding of those ideas independent of books or words, or without even having any original thoughts and ideas of your own.

Well maybe you'd counter that there are no original ideas, that there is really nothing new under the sun, everything is borrowed, recycled, rediscovered, and re-exchanged. That all ideas are a collaborative affair, and that nothing is truly independent or original. Maybe so, but in this case, when I speak of an original idea, I mean it in the sense of the idea arising from the quiet contemplation of your own mind. It doesn't matter if that idea was partially shaped and influenced by other ideas not uniquely your own, nor does it matter if you are not the only one, or are only one among thousands receiving the same insight or realization. What matters is the experience of the idea arising seemingly independently within your own mind, rather than being feed a prepackaged version that requires little to no thinking or experiential knowledge.

I hope I inspire you, but ultimately your inspiration is your own, is a personal relationship between the inner you and the outer world. You may feel as if the inspiration comes from outside of yourself, but actually inspiration always originates from within each person. Or rather, it is an experiential connection between the microscopic and macroscopic, between self and the cosmos.

Inspiration is like a radio frequency that's always on, but is only received if you are tuned to the right channel. When you are inspired by someone or something, it's not that they are the source of inspiration, but that all that is happening is that they've helped you turn the channel within yourself in alignment with the frequency of inspiration, that they too are tuned into, but it is up to you how long you maintain the connection, whether you raise or lower the volume, or whether you change to a different channel completely.

All knowledge and insight emerges from a receptive state of mind, but there is a difference between receiving ideas from others in their finished product already translated into words, and having the same ideas emerge independently in your own mind. There is a difference between experiential knowledge obtained on your own, and theoretical knowledge obtained from others. Theoretical knowledge can be experienced if the abstract ideas can be applied to the real world, as theoretical principles visualized affecting objects in space, or otherwise conceptualized having some real world application. And of course experiential knowledge can be translated into theoretical knowledge the very moment it is articulated into words.

If you get most of your ideas from books, from other people, without actually experiencing the insights yourself or applying them to the real world in your own way, how many ideas in your head are actually your own? Not only that, but to what extent do you truly understand and have personally tested what you are reading, and to what extent are you merely repeating?

That's the primary danger of reading too much, that of thinking too little. When reading and absorbing other people's ideas becomes a substitute for thinking, that's what I mean when I say that reading too much can potentially be detrimental to your capacity for independent creative thought.

Read to enhance your mind, not to completely erase your mind and replace it with somebody else's. The goal should be the expansion of consciousness, not the annihilation of consciousness. So by all means don't stop reading, but do consider turning off the television and going outside more.

Just make sure to also spend some time thinking, questioning, contemplating, realizing, and better yet reading the wordless wisdom written in the tapestry of the earth and the sky, and listening to nature's wordless sounds circulating all around, within and without, above and below, and beyond the written word of pseudo experts, thoughtless repeaters, and other overrated clowns.

The Meaning of 'Dissent is Patriotic'

Earlier last month I wrote a post called Dissent is Patriotic. Well, it's been getting some traffic lately, but it was really nothing more than a rambling rant, that didn't really do either the title or the subject justice. 

In fact, I see now that I didn't even explain in that post exactly what that slogan means, because I took it for granted that it was self-evident. 

Well, I'm sure the phrase 'dissent is patriotic' has probably been used by many people, but it is officially attributed to the historian Howard Zinn. That is where I got it from. But what does it mean? I'll tell you what I think it means.

To say that dissent is patriotic does not mean that all dissent is patriotic, or that dissent in and of itself is patriotic. What it does mean is that dissent, which generally means the opposition to official policy, can be patriotic in certain circumstances. And not only that, but the right to disagree with official policy, or the freedom to have a dissenting opinion without fear of suffering unreasonable punishment for disagreeing, is built into the very fabric of a free and democratic society.

For instance, if your country is founded on a specific set of rules and principles, and the people in charge institute actions and policies that violate, undermine, or subvert those rules and principles, dissent (meaning rebellion, opposition, protest, the failure to comply or support the people in charge and their polices), would in such circumstances be considered patriotic.

Patriotism simply means love and support of country. By country we mean not only the land and its people, but our collective society, our culture, our government, and the founding principles and laws of our nation.

But laws can and do change. Just because something is lawful, doesn't necessarily mean that it is true, or just, or morally sound. For instance, slavery was once legal. At the time of legalized slavery, would you say it is patriotic to support the institution of slavery? If the founding principles of your country support slavery, than perhaps you could. However, if you believe that the institution of slavery violates what your country stands for, than supporting slavery would in fact be quite unpatriotic.

If you believe that all men and women are created equal, and that all human beings have a natural born right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and such a belief is written into the very laws and principles that your country was founded on, support for slavery, or anything else that opposes those principles, would be inimical to not only patriotism, but the ideals of truth, justice, and democracy.

So in such a circumstance those opposing the legalized institution of slavery, would be a good example of dissent being patriotic.

In a society based on democracy and the rule of law, patriotism does not mean uncritically supporting your country, right or wrong, no matter what. Country in this sense meaning government, your elected representatives, their official policies, and the military. Patriotism means supporting certain fundamental founding principles, values, and laws inherent to a democratic society, and holding your elected officials accountable to them.

If on the other hand a democratic nation is for instance taken over by a fascist tyrannical coup, that subverts democracy and the rule of law, it would not be patriotic to support such an administration's policies or military engagements.

So in conclusion, to reiterate my points: The phrase 'dissent is patriotic' basically means an opposition to tyranny and evil, corruption and injustice, and the abuse of power in high places, while actively seeking to change the people and policies responsible for subverting democracy and the rule of law.

The Difference Between Solitude and Loneliness

Here's a great quote from The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt about the difference between solitude and loneliness:

The lonely man finds himself surrounded by others with whom he cannot establish contact or to whose hostility he is exposed.

The solitary man, on the contrary, is alone and therefore "can be together with himself." In solitude, in other words, I am "by myself", together with my self, and therefore two-in-one, whereas in loneliness I am actually one, deserted by all others.

All thinking, strictly speaking, is done in solitude and is a dialogue of thought.

Solitude can became loneliness; this happens when all by myself I am deserted by my own self. Solitary men have always been in danger of loneliness, when they can no longer find the redeeming grace of companionship...

To me this description in many ways parallels the differences between introversion and shyness. With introversion as an orientation of thinking more akin to solitude, and shyness more akin to loneliness. In that someone who is shy, may wish to be with others, but is afraid to reach out to them, and if ending up alone feels lonely; whereas an introvert being fully content with themselves, may selectively choose to be alone but without feeling lonely at all; with solitude being a positive experience of being alone, loneliness being a negative one.

I myself am a solitary person. Not a lonely person. I've never felt lonely before in my life. Not even as a little kid, when I was for awhile the new kid on the block who didn't have any friends. I've always felt perfectly at peace with myself, my greatest solace being nature and books. I've never felt completely alone because I've always felt a deep sense of companionship and connectedness with the earth and the sky and the greater universe.

If I were locked up in solitary confinement without a book or a window, that would be hell, but so long as I either have access to a good book, or can be outside and see blue sky and stars and green grass and trees, and hear the sounds of nature and the sounds of birds singing, even by myself I wouldn't feel alone, wouldn't be lonely.

Of course that could all change in the blink of an eye, where solitude could easily digress into loneliness, where strength could be overtaken by weakness, where peace of mind could dissolve into misery...where if this connection to love is severed completely, all that would remain in its place is a feeling of separation, alienation, and isolation.

All it takes is a split second for your attitude to change completely, where your entire world could be turned upside down and inside out.

Attitude really is everything.

In order to never lose this feeling of connectedness, this "redeeming grace of companionship" with the world, it requires an attitude of openness and goodwill toward the whole world.

So that even in the absence of human companionship, you will never feel entirely alone, and even in the absence of housing or material possessions, you will never feel entirely homeless or deprived, but feel at home and among friends wherever you may be, even when alone you'll experience a peaceful solitude without loneliness.

Faces of Death

Today I finished watching a documentary called Faces of Death.

I started watching this one last night and finished it today, and let me tell you, all I can say is WOW! I've never seen anything like this before. Not for the faint of heart, that's for sure. But if you can handle it, it's worth watching at least once.

Faces of Death is a graphic documentary film about death, but could just as easily be a horror film. In fact it's so graphic that it has been banned in over 40 countries! Yes, it's morbid. Yes, it's disturbing. Yes, it's shocking. Some may even refer to it as death porn. Using real life film footage from hospitals, morgues, autopsy rooms, war zones, slaughterhouses, public executions, accident and crime scenes, mausoleums and graves, this video graphically depicts the many faces of death, be that death by disease, accident, murder, or execution, this film shows it all.

It's not something I ever need to see again, but I do think it is worthwhile watching once. At least catch the first 20 minutes of it. The tour of the cemetery in Mexico with the mummified corpses is one of my favorite parts. Well that and the autopsy showing the removal of the human brain. It's not that I like it, but it's shockingly mind blowing and unbelievably surreal stuff.

It's uncanny to see how much the face is like a mask. When a person is dead and the skin of their face is peeled away from the skull, what's left is a lifeless mask, no different than any mask you could buy in the store. Because there is no life in it. The mask only comes alive when someone is wearing it. You see this truth illustrated most vividly during an autopsy. How a dead body is like a lifeless doll, like an inanimate object. Because it is not the flesh and bone that lives, but it is the energy of the spirit of the person that animates the flesh, and when that energy leaves, what's left is nothing but a pile of rotting meat and bone.

Yes, death is an unpleasant reality, a reality that most people do not want to face, that most people do not want to think about, but you should, because like it or not you too will die, and so will your loved ones. This is not to say that you should become obsessed with it, but just that you should never forget this painful truth, that you will not live forever, that death is stalking you every moment of your life, and will eventually catch you in the end when you least expect it.

I'd like to think that I will live a long time. Seriously. I'm all about longevity. Very health conscious. Doing everything in my power to maintain my strength my youth and my healthiness. But you know what? Even if I beat the odds and become the longest living person, and maintaining my youthfulness for as long as possible, you still can't live forever. Maybe there is such a thing as the immortality of the soul, but the body itself is doomed. While you may extend your life, you can't extend it forever, all things must eventually come to their end. That's just the way it is. It's a painful truth that I'm still trying to come to terms with. And there is no other way to come to terms with it without facing your own death directly and resolutely with your eyes wide open and wide awake and aware.

All things die. You could even say that life lives by eating life. Someone must die in order for another to live. Though I must tell you that after seeing this film vegetarianism seems even more appealing to me than it did before. I don't want to be complicit in the taking of anyone's life. Sure plants are living things too, but a vegetarian diet just seems a lot kinder to me. There is no viciousness in it.

Whereas killing an animal is extremely vicious. What you don't think so? Why don't you put yourself in its place for a moment, and see if you still would feel that way. Do onto others as you'd have them do unto you. Does that mean anything to you? How would you feel to be hunted for your flesh? How would you feel to see your loved one's murdered before your eyes to satisfy someone's hunger? Because that's what's been done to the animals you eat. Murdered. If you kill a person to eat their flesh? It's called murder. If you kill an animal to eat their flesh, it's called hunting, it's called survival, it's called sport.

But either way it's killing, the taking of a life. Obviously you must do whatever you must do to survive. People have even been known to turn to cannibalism in times of need. Desperate people often do desperate things. But if you have a choice in the matter, if vegetarianism is an option, it seems the far more superior choice. But what do I know? Some people love the thrill of the hunt, and are truly blood thirsty people. The African Masai for instance, drink the blood of their prey, it's like a sacred ritual to them...where their not just drinking blood, their feasting off of it like a vampire consuming its soul.

I had a dream of being hunted once, actually I've had more than one dream of that nature, but only one dream where not only was I being hunted, but I was actually caught and killed and eaten alive. It was terrifying. I remember it vividly, even though it occurred a couple years ago. In this dream I was hunted by a very large bird, either an owl or an eagle. It had me cornered and immobilized by its talons, and there was no escape, no talking my way out of it. I was going to die that day becoming somebody's dinner and there was not a single thing I could do to stop it.

You could say that hunting is natural, that it is natural for life to eat life, but I got to tell you that from the perspective of the hunted, nothing could seem further from the truth. Nothing felt more wrong than it did at that moment of being hunted, like it was the ultimate injustice, the ultimate betrayal, the ultimate violation. It felt like what was happening to me shouldn't happen to anyone ever, because it was nothing less than murder.