Here’s a couple of questions . . .
“Have you ever spent much time ‘thinking about your thinking’?”
“Have you ever ‘seriously’ taken the time to ‘watch’ your thinking particularly to become aware of what assumptions it’s being built on and or how ‘coherent’ or ‘not’ it seems to be?”
I know this might seem obvious but many of peoples decisions for all sorts of life areas RELY on the ‘integrity’ of their thinking yet as far as I can tell virtually no one actually takes time out to follow their own thinking particularly to become aware of let’s say faulty logic or of even thinking lines they ‘think’ are logical but that turn out to be logical only with regards certain ‘assumptions’.
For example I’ve been a bit mystified by so called ‘critical’ thinking as from what I can tell it’s based on a series of assumptions (not logic or common sense) and in a sense it seems to be a way of giving people the ‘impression’ that they are thinking correctly while perhaps not actually being the case. For example critical thinking states to check for ‘evidence based facts’ while somewhat forgetting that:
- Evidence based facts themselves CHANGE as understandings broaden and deepen and . . .
- That evidence based on so called facts ALL rest on various assumptions.
One of these assumptions is that objective observations being repeatedly observed are a totally and completely fit means of investigating all facets of reality. That is a good example of an assumption. In this respect, so called ‘critical’ thinking has a foundation ‘in thinking terms’ as solid as a house of cards stacked up on quick sand as the first ‘thinking’ rule of critical thinking should be to NOT rely on facts or truths derived from any assumptions no matter how good those assumptions seem in the short term.
I’ve even had the odd imagined ‘critical’ thinker leaving badly thought out comments on some of my web sites DEMANDING that I provide objectively observed ‘proof’ of what I’m saying. In other words their ability to think is so poor that they cannot quite separate out that repeated ‘experience’ based observations of none physically, none material realities even when coherently shared by others (listen to the audio on this page here) don’t quite fit into the repeatedly objectively observed assumption set. Yes it’s possible that the assumption set that science is built on is reasonable as a means to investigate what is only physically or materially observable but it isn’t actually fit for purpose when confronted with none physically observable phenomenon. In other words in my experience so called critical thinkers don’t seemed to be endowed with even a basic ability to think coherently.
Let me try and explain this from another angle . . .
It’s almost like being in the bizarre position of only having color blind people investigating, researching and appraising vision and of them then being quite insistent on how vision works and of what is possible in vision terms. While others with ‘larger’ vision abilities whom are unfortunate enough to mention that they can see a whole range of colors beyond black, white and shades of grey are repeatedly told that what they are seeing is ‘IMPOSSIBLE’ AND even worse that they are automatically considered delusional rather than it being the case that their assumptions are incorrect.
All because the colour blind researchers themselves are not only lacking in the senses they need to actually properly appraise larger ‘vision’ possibilities with respect to the current assumptions they are working to BUT they are also lacking on basic THINKING skills that keeps them stuck in appraising ‘reality’ in a severely limited way based on their own lack of experience and limited perceptions.
Under such circumstances I’m sure people with visual abilities beyond those enjoyed by these particular researchers would be quite shocked as to why at best they are not listened to or worse that they end up finding themselves being forcibly treated in efforts to ‘correct’ and eradicate their enhanced vision which is unbelievably taken as a ‘faulty’ disorder. In the same way it’s shocking that academics and scientists super glued to nothing more than some basic assumptions are seemingly incapable of exercising any coherent thinking what so ever about extended and enhanced ‘subtle’ perceptions.
Under these circumstances how badly would the thinking abilities of such vision researchers have to be for them to take such a suppressive never mind automatically disrespectful attitude?
A scientist with colour vision would not only be shocked at how they were treated, they would also likely be appalled and even seriously DISTURBED to be labelled as delusional and inherently FAULTY when in fact it is their colour vision deficient brethren that are not only faulty in their perceptual abilities BUT are also decidedly faulty in their THINKING and evaluation abilities too.
In other words you might objectively observe that people can find themselves being forcibly ‘corrected’ because they have attributes that cannot be verified by people whom don’t have the same attributes while coincidentally the same perceptually deficient people also appear to be lacking in the ability to think beyond what they must be taking as completely ‘true’ assumptions based on their own obviously limited personal experiences and perceptual abilities.
Would you reading this allow ONLY colour blind people to research and define ‘vision’ possibilities?
Wouldn’t you expect that you’d MAKE AN EFFORT and you’d specifically select researchers with the enhancements to research themselves and their abilities? Unbelievably rather than this being taken as sensible, it is taken as being inconsistent with being impartial which is a little odd as then pretty much all of the research on ‘normal’ perceptions would have to be considered invalid on the grounds of not being impartial by default.
It doesn’t take much to ‘stretch’ yourself in THINKING’ terms to extend the above which can result in you asking yourself . . .
“Is there something that the colour vision enabled can perhaps see that ‘someone’ doesn’t want them to be able to see or worse RESEARCH?
Is there something that people with coherent subtle perceptions can see that is the reason why perceptually DISABLED researchers label a range of extra perceptions as faults while making attempts to CORRECT and eradicate what are essentially ENHANCED perceptions?
If you make it this far then you might wonder why there is an observable bias to essentially shift everything so that ONLY the lowest common denominator senses and ‘dysfunctional’ thinking abilities are the ones left standing”
If you consider yourself to be someone openly trying to think about, understand and evaluate different ‘possibilities’ (as opposed to dismissing them out of hand) AND if you are actually VERY serious about doing this VERY well, then would you not be EXTRA interested in ANYTHING that might be sabotaging you from making coherent, open, critical and truthful evaluations?
Would you not?
So, here is a story. It’s a true one too as they all are here.