How Widely Do You Read?

Its my experience that the most delightful people to be around are those who have read the widest, and whose sense of objective truth is complex, because their wide-reading has forced a complex and nuanced understanding of where and how to find truth, and in which ways humans can relate to reality, and so, where further openings for growth lie.

Crazy People Think They Have All The Answers

The most ungodly and obnoxiously out-of-touch are those people taken in by the "God-complex", where, identifying with and as a higher principle (say, God, or the Self, etc) literally think that they have all the answers, as if the answers weren't relative to your perspective and history as an organism.

Let me a language is: Relativity is often associated with moral relativism, but these are very different ideas - utterly at opposite ends. Moral relativity means that truth is based in a biodynamical history of a particular organism. Thus, how your neurons /glia have been 'shaped', and so, the unique shape of your brain-body-in-an-environment, determines how it is you come to express basic motivational functions expressed in normal Human experience.

Now, this viewpoint expresses a secondary truth, inasmuch as the primary truth is the specific way that humans make meaning, and so, what sort of conditions are required for optimal functionality. Such an understanding is inherently a 3rd person oriented vantage point, which, admits 2nd person and 1st person information for the purpose of collating, comparing, and developing a coherent picture of how we work, at a physical dynamical level, and how such physical and dynamical processes correlate, or appear within, as the forms of self-experience we have from the bodily to the self-willed intention.

Thus, we have a primary meaning, which serves as a referent: all human beings exist as and self-organize according to identical principles deriving from the shared facts of how bodily processes become organized around certain psychosocial realities. And which psycho-social realities are these? There is primarily one: that you and your capacities be recognized.

Being recognized, or 'positively known', is what I term a 'species attractor'. Human beings self-organize, or affected by, how their particular motivational state at a particular moment in time is interacted with by other humans: if they are consonant, or acknowledged, what it is you feel, as evidenced by the things you say and the way they're responded to, will potentiate, or energize, how it is you feel in your self. Your self is made 'bigger' by getting the currency that the human really, ultimately, wants: to be agreed with.

Ok, so, we have a common term. To be "agreed with" is not to be taken in the mundane sense, but is to be understood as a "complementary self-function", in that another receives and enacts a state that is basically comparable and symmetrical to that motivational drive, and hence, you feel and move to a higher state of enlivenment because of such 'positive-interference' (it probably, is, indeed, a wave-function phenomenon)

So crazy people, in essence, are people who deny that any of these things are happening; and if they are, they're irrelevant. They think all positions are equal, even those positions that induce negative-interference, and so depress and undermine the coherency and functionality of systems - i.e. the very dynamics of which we experience within ourselves as the feelings we have. If coherency means 'goodness'; people with such viewpoints unwittingly depress/undermine the coherency of social-systems by making them less robust, less enlivened, less happy, and so, more negative, anxious, neurotic, and nihilistic.

There is something deeply wrong with this belief, inasmuch as, it is clear, it is an example of a defense mechanism, instead it is the minds own effects upon itself that is 'being defended against'. Consciousness, inasmuch as it is about clarifying notions/ideas and enhancing cognitive abstraction, has been completely subverted by the civilizational process, as, uniquely amongst the elite class, truly anti-intellectual and anti-realistic beliefs grow and proliferate primarily because such people do not read anything that isn't already consistent/consonant with their existing beliefs, and so, their certainty is largely driven by hiding away from the now overwhelmingly ample evidence, generated since the scientific revolution 300 years ago, and growing at an exponential rate, at a pace that is virtually unstoppable (especially given people, now equipped with knowledge, can defend themselves against the destructive effects of trauma, with a far more realistic attitude than the ancients had).

Such 'hiding from truth' is described especially amongst the people in the art communities who consider themselves to be "intellectuals" (again; their insecurity is through the freakin roof; they simultaneously have intense needs to be known and affirmed; and at the same time, to deny that they have such needs) and who believe - basically like crazy people would - that perception and interpretation lie in the "eyes of the beholder", as if biology, physics, psychology, psychoanalysis, ethology, ecology, neuroscience, and the more general overarching framework of systems theory (soon to be buttressed by a biosemiotic philosophy) didn't exist.

And for them, it might as well doesn't. That doesn't mean, however, that they are ignoramuses who, relative to the widely-read, are truly an embarrassing and frustrating obstruction to the healing of a culture - and a species - that has been suffering for far too long from living in cultures and societies that systematically exploit them, all because of ignorance, idealization and dissociation - and the ignorance of these two, very important polarities which become one in the idealized attitude that I am "only good", "never wrong", "don't need love and care from others", etc.

How we identify is important, which is why reading widely really challenges a person in relating to those parts of them - their identities - which 'believe thus and thus', not out of a reasonable analysis, but because I am committed-defensive, and in believing this, I am liable to being made insecure if something I read presents a more coherent story.

Love

A person rooted in love has nothing to fear from what they read. Learning is a joy, because its real; and knowing more, and knowing more rightly, is genuinely helpful and definitely affords those thusly afforded to recognize reality and its dynamics more clearly than others.

Knowledge and imagination, furthermore, grows moral awareness, so that certain actions can be plausibly simulated in ones mind so that a genuinely powerful feeling state can be produced, which functions with the theoretical knowledge (of what was read in a book) in such a way as to give one a sense of "not being afraid" of succumbing to a certain behavior, lets say, enacting something seen in a nihilistic comedy, and knowing, or recognizing, how that form can get into your experience, and what sort of presence to yourself is needed to constrain the expression of such a dynamical form.

Knowledge - or a love of truth - also increases freedom by leaps and bounds. In a religious fanatic world - whether of the conservative right or the manically permissive/nihilistic left - the system eventually buckles under its dissociativeness i.e. in its destructiveness to social processes, and in todays situation, the planet/biosphere itself.

In the left worldview, as can be seen in contemporary Ontario, inherently unjust and judgemental legislation such as bill 89 - which allows the Ontario government to intervene in parent-child relationships if the child is said to identify as "of another gender or sexuality than the norm", demonstrates a monstrous identification with one cultural value (left identity politics) at the expense of a far more severe traumatological shock that comes when children are separated from parents i.e. when the facts of attachment are violated. Kaythleen Wynne, the liberal-fanatic and high-priestess of this postmodern idealism, is so convinced in the righteousness of her cause that she would cause trauma to children in other, more severe ways, by breaking or intrerrupting the relationship between child and parent - which is a structural need, and much more inviolable a principle of development than the ambiguous ontological reality of gender and sexual identification issues at the ages of concern.

This left worldview is fanatical, and refuses to interface with dynamical realities which force self-restraint and acceptance of 'what is'. It's self-righteousness is through the roof; and obnoxious, because, as other humans are able to do, it is wantonly refusing to coordinate their interests with other peoples interests: its basically a sort of fascism which arbitrarily arrogates the authority to condition children, and threaten parents who oppose such conditioning with having their family torn apart if they refuse to accept the law.

On the right, similarly, a fear of negative effects - a trauma phobia - reduces the degree to which fun and freedom can be had, and so, leads to unnecessary restrictions/constraints on what humans do.

For instance, I like family guy, south park, and other such shows, even though they entertain counter-factuals and play with ideas and images that many people, taking it as a dangerous-thing-in-itself, are not merely offended by, but feel is threatening to the social-coherency of society.

Such an attitude strikes me as overly unaware of what knowledge is able to do. The issue here is acknowledging what is felt: does pitting opposites together make us laugh? Generally speaking, yes. Do we also hate unjust situations? Yes. Both these feeligns are expressions of real human emotional needs, and still, what has existed and continues to exist, is a lack of a psychological sophistication that can acknowledge both, and learn to develop the psychological means to have both, without either 'infecting' the other, so long as we acknowledge that context determines the rightness of something, and not anything else.

What?

So what is knowledge?

Facts from a book?

Or personal experience?

One can read about engineering, but that does not make an engineer.

Experience does. The successes and failures . . . . .

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

basically agree with what your saying but, when people graduate with a degree in engineering they are considered to be qualified as a engineer and have very little experience. and most of that is in a lab of some sort.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

I think that's a point that becomes more relevant with each passing day.

An individual can read, on the internet or in books, and then appear to actually understand the knowledge. Some can carry that even further through clever extrapolation.

In my opinion though, it only ever serves as a foundation for practical experience.

The most brilliant and delightful person I ever knew never really read anything outside of reference books for projects he was working on. The impact he had on people, even ones he had just met, was really something else to witness.

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
So what is knowledge?

Facts from a book?

Or personal experience?

One can read about engineering, but that does not make an engineer.

Experience does. The successes and failures . . . . .

I think it's a combination of the two: theory and practice.

I recall a reality show that was a simulated survival situation. They had an actual rocket scientist and a man who had a career in building maintenance with only an 8th grade education. The group did not start to thrive until those two started to really iron out their differences, get over themselves, and work together.

The rocket scientist may have known the theory of what they needed to do to build survival contraptions, but it was the handyman who could look around at the materials and tools available and really make his theoretical ideas practical.

Together, theory and practice, the two were formidable.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie, Serdgiam, ketsuko

I reckon your quite right guys.

Theory gets you an understanding that provides a basis for practical learning and acquiring of know-how; what might be termed true knowledge.

Books and the internet have made "knowledge" accessible to almost everyone. But this also has a downside, it has homogenised "knowledge" towards a single mainstream dominant view. Diversity in thought is being lost because books, news, and TV provide a blanket effect. The religeous books for instance, lay down a framework within which we are required to think.

It might be comfortable to sit with fellow minded people who all think as we do, but I reckon we need eccentrics in our lives just to make life interesting.

I'm crazy because I have all the answers. I can make them up at will.

Actually, from reading a lot of research, I see a lot of interpretation of the evidence being done using the beliefs and desires of the people who are writing the articles. So I guess there are a lot of crazy people out there. It makes it harder to find the truth.

a reply to: Astrocyte

One - your title has nothing to do with your content.
Two - I think you mean 'subjectivity' and not relativity.
Three - Pot calling kettle.

I read both "Guns and Ammo", and "Cosmopolitan"...

Balance, grasshopper...

a reply to: ketsuko

Information from 'reality TV' - really - that's your experience.

Your points are well taken..... And yet the only people that are willing to read widely are those who are able to have an open mind about any particular subject.... I think the thing that allows people to read widely is also the same thing that allows someone to be able to put themselves in another person's shoes in any given type of situation. That is when we are truly able to stop judging... because we can see both sides of the coin.

Personally I am an information only reader... I really don't read books/internet other than to gain the information I need for a particular project that I may be thinking about or a thought that has occurred to me..... And by the same token I do not watch television or even listen to the radio. I detest hearing ads and commercials on the radio and listening to talk show hosts who somehow think their opinions are more valid or accurate than the average person and who actually have the audacity to think that they should be paid for expressing it. ...

I guess the bottom line for me is...it's not the fact that a person is widely read as much as it is the fact that they possess an open-mindedness to begin with.... and it is this open-mindedness that is the reason that they do read widely.

How many books does it take for you to feel safe? Walking into a room full of people one may feel the need to have armour on - as a protective wall.
Once upon a time, I used to be worried about what to say to people - because I was afraid of having nothing to say - afraid of silence.
I remember being in a group of people that were talking - it was flowing beautifully - and then one person said 'hang on can I speak now?' - everyone stopped speaking and looked and the person then went on to a completely different subject - giving us all information about some computer knowledge. Well, the conversation stopped abruptly.
Some people do not have the ability to converse, to just speak, listen and respond. Some people just have 'facts' to regurgitate.
Just because one has read a book it does not mean it has been understood the way the author wanted it to be understood. Take J Kristnamurti - he said that he didn't think anyone got what he was saying.
I must admit that no matter how many times I read Astrocyte posts - I can never understand them!

It would be an absolute delight to read a post by Astrocyte and understand what he/she is saying.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: ketsuko

Information from 'reality TV' - really - that's your experience.

So you think that just because of the source, you cannot find truth everywhere you look?

The overall scenario was silly and over the top, but watching the rocket scientist design theoretical water filters, solar cars, battery banks, etc., that failed over and over again because he was not at all paying attention to the materials around him that he was allowed and how they would work, only the theory and the ideals of what he would need while the handy man could make things work because he was used to the limitations of material and tool and very practiced at jury-rigging but was stymied about coming up with the systems themselves: electricity, water purification, etc.

Once the two started working together, the group was able to get a working water purification system jury-rigged, built a battery bank to power electric tools complete with a recharging system, cannibalized some nearby solar panels to power a small golf cart.

You're the fool if you think you can't find small nuggets of truth almost everywhere. And that's part of the point of the thread.

How widely do you search for knowledge? I don't watch a ton of TV, but I do occasionally watch some, and even once in a while catch a reality TV show with a premise that interests me like this one did. It was years ago, before my 7-year-old was born to give you an indication, and I don't recall much else about it, only that.

There are times when I am in a mood and I will find an article that sounds vaguely interesting on the internet, read it, and start leap-frogging through links, one interesting thing to the next. I've wound up in all kinds of places. Occasionally, I find worthwhile information in the unlikeliest places.

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
So what is knowledge?

Facts from a book?

Or personal experience?

One can read about engineering, but that does not make an engineer.

Experience does. The successes and failures . . . . .

Knowledge comes from both sources, books and personal experiences. They are not mutually exclusive.

Good thread.

a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Problem with society nowadays is that not only are most people not very well read, they're not very well experienced either...

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Problem with society nowadays is that not only are most people not very well read, they're not very well experienced either...

But they can Google it, so they're experts!

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Problem with society nowadays is that not only are most people not very well read, they're not very well experienced either...

And most of them avoid independent thinking, because they prefer the talking heads or government spokespersons to tell them how and what to think. Even more, they are horribly incurious.