How often do you spend time ‘Seriously’ Thinking about your Thinking?

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:

  1. Evidence based facts themselves CHANGE as understandings broaden and deepen and . . .
  2. 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.

4 Comments

  1. Matt

    I notice that from this point:

    “…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.”

    The resistance begins to get very great.

    From this paragraph on:
    “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 is nearly impossible for me to take anything in. I had to re-read this paragraph several times and put it together by reading backwards and sideways through the paragraph to be able to take in the logic. So it would seem to be evidence that what is stated at the end of this article is actually ‘operational’ here and now because it’s sabotaging and making impossible exactly the areas and thinking lines and ways of thinking about our thinking that are described here.

    Reply

  2. Tyron Brewington

    I was invited by this website months ago by Arjang. i have not read a lot OF the newest pages (none of the simulation pages. Arjang has tried to orate the simulation ans subtle series posted on here, however,) because of all sorts of shit that has been impacting my day to day life. I only know I and close others, like the Rockefeller family (whom I have worked for for 5 years) knew and feared what the current condition of the world, filled with with corruption, lies, not enough resources, and all other sorts of bullshit. You are absolutely correct about us being involved in a cruel, programmed con we call “life”, and I have been aware of all the lies and manipulations that infect every aspect of the political, societal, corporate world (my specialty). In spite of all the schemes I know and constantly think about, is very hard for me to understand and “register” everything I have so far read of this site.

    I have tried, for many years, to change the world, expose all the underhand deals and betrayals that impact everyone’s life, and teach people how false their perspectives and “know how” of life is, only to be met with denial, resistance, ignorance… violence. It is very difficult for people to know where I come from, and what I think.

    And here, I find myself in the exact same position as those unbelievers (ironic). With what little I have read of this site, I feel that you’re conveying that it is impossible to change anything at all, all efforts are futile. This makes me think, every time I think of this site, or converse with Arjang, that the best option you have is to just destroy absolutely everything, as the only true “solution”, because everything, everywhere is completely compromised. Is this what you are trying to convey? What can be done, in spite of all this shit?

    Reply

    • Clive

      I feel that you’re conveying that it is impossible to change anything at all

      Nope, what I’m stating is this:

      ‘IF’ your understandings of how reality is and how things ACTUALLY are, are NOT understood in terms of HOW THEY ACTUALLY ‘REALLY’ ARE then you’ve no baseline from which to start even figuring out ‘appropriate’ solution possibilities.

      ‘IF’ you believe or ‘Know’ that the world is flat then your THINKING is dictated by these assumptions and the possibilities you will allow yourself to consider will all be ‘flat earth’ orientated.

      ‘IF’ you believe or ‘Know’ that earth is a spiritual learning school then again the possibilities you will allow yourself to consider will all be ‘Spiritual Learning School’ orientated AND this particularly delusion will have many THINKING and convinced that some ‘higher’ beings are in ultimate control AND . . . we cannot do much or we cannot influence anything ‘really’ as it’s all set up and ‘locked’ in and defined by others.

      So, this site gives you an pretty accurate ‘bullshit and fantasy free’ baseline, unfortunately it’s also a seriously ‘disturbing’ baseline at least for many people. From my perspective I don’t care how bad it appears to be because the more I know then the more chance I have to figure out even more AND with that there is at least the possibility of figuring out how to change it (at least in the time left before my next incarnation/memory wipe).

      So, some people will come here and think ‘it’s hopeless’ others will come and read and perhaps THINK what about ‘XYZ’ or doesn’t this connect with ‘EFG’. As part of this, you could say that one of the ‘functions’ of this and my other sites is to give people the opportunity to leave comments so I’ve some chance of appraising their thinking and understanding abilities AND their abilities to comment when everyone coming here is pretty much interfered with and directly managed to NOT comment AND to NOT be able to THINK properly.

      Reply

  3. Cow

    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.

    Wasn’t a movie made, with this exact premise?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasantville_%28film%29
    http://youtu.be/PJ6QzkIwQu0

    So what you are pretty much saying, in this page, is that Earth is but another “Pleasantville”, where everything is predisposed to staying aligned with very bland and desensitizing ideas, routines, and concepts(which they all consider to be Perfect and incontestably true,) and to even introduce different perspectives to these things is likened to David and Jennifer’s effort to defy the script of the show, and inevitably introduce color in their usually black and white world?

    I wonder what interesting and colorful things lie beyond our “Pleasantville” style simulation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *