Making phenomenon of thinking and saying what you think difficult. No I don’t think it is me. I say what I think and what I say is provoking. People get very easily provoked which has led me thinking why is that. I actually kind of like what I say. Result of having provoked is mind-blowing, mind-boggling, exciting or disappointing, anyhow telling. But anyway I have to go the issue of thoughts through bit by bit, level by level. It is a difficult subject of how we think, not to speak of how we think we think, how we think others think, why and outcome of what. You know what I mean, getting to the core of thought getting born, being made and evolving from that tiny spark.
Very basic method of making information is you think you know the topic or the person you talk about even though you have probably even met that person or studied the subject or you haven’t asked what that person thinks or haven’t questioned information given to you because the info is so tempting to use for your selfish reasons and your source talks like he/she thinks he/she knows what he/she is talking about. Know better.
I myself am getting lost in human deduction and deception, lost in difference between knowing something and ignorance, world of thinking we know and learning new ways to think, unlearning, refusal to learn and understand. Persistent refusal of admitting mistakes, admitting a new method would be better than what is in use, mistakes in thinking, clear delusional thinking reigning and ways of seeing other people in bad light which for example ever so strengthening far-right movement is doing, also which academics tend easily do as there is strong belief in being absolutely correct and a strong hierarchy of knowing what is right, what is right information, what to know and whom to believe. Do you say out loud what you are thinking or do you censor the worst crap, the most flammable, the not-so-secure things to say, improper, hurtful things or are you having a pseudonym to protect your identity so you can say whatever you like without having to face the consequences? How do we manipulate thoughts of ours and thoughts of others is strangely a very big issue concerning how the world becomes to be. There are things we are permitted to say aloud, common courtesy and politeness prohibit us from doing what might be offensive. Our position in society, gender, age, education, interests and knowledge dictate some of what we can say, what we come up with to say and can have a conversation about. There are things you would not dare to say to someone because it would hurt feelings and damage your relationship with that person and maybe with other people. Still problem of thinking you know, conclusions based on assumptions and passing those conclusions as facts is pretty obvious. Maliciousness and sarcasm can hurt but both especially sarcasm has social task to perform. Not saying out loud to the face but making innuendos and mockery make either catharsis or create hate but make explosive situations just as anger does in a space where anger is not permitted. It is not allowed to be angry in public, we would draw too much attention.
How do we become to think what to make of anything? Society which is built on values, mechanisms of thinking, roles and behavioral patterns help quite a bit in how and what to think. How do we think in a factory can be circulating. We make something out of something we have, or make something out of nothing to have something. Options are still there and somewhat limitless. In a world of self-evident such questions sound stupid because we are thinking in a certain way and making something all the time is a contemporary habit. Quite a lot we do out of habit of doing and thinking. What to do as a humanist is to think, sit and think, not to do all the time (it is the best way to pass the time as is not to think, but not to think at all is not advised). We can clear our minds and consciously not think but be. When we think we are thinking we may not be thinking at all, it is possible, has happened. The impossibility of thinking thoroughly is a common flaw as is incapability of seeing differently. How about doing something that has a seemingly useless result? It is as necessary as it is to fail. I have had a long time a method of doing things completely wrong in my art. After having done many times wrong something interesting appears. When we think too hard we do not get good results because there is too much pressure (thinking the same old same or something entirely new, how does it happen? How much do fear and stress have to do with not allowing thoughts to happen and move on from old to new, to progress, old can be more progressive than new, it can be better than progress that is seen as new..), when we are clearly thinking but we do not know what we are thinking because we are not able to verbalize (so I draw it, find a way to be understood, I scribble, I collect trash, packages and used items and throw them away) it so that others would understand (for me to understand myself is important, as it is good for you to understand yourself) or take it seriously to listen and be bothered? What is interesting for modern person to think is are IQs dropping which is the question much asked lately. Those IQs. It’s a test. Well are they? We are obsessed with intelligence and it meaning the highest standard of human effort and technical quality, achievement and winning.
This is serious, this is funny, this is nothing, this is something, what is this. I really do not understand why there has to be a joke in the middle of a speech, but that is just me. Intelligence manifested in the way we present ourselves hardly stands for intelligence nor it does qualify likability per se. Kindness qualifies, curiosity qualifies. Making the topic lighter is not good thinking when topic is heavy and repetition is a story of not knowing your own way to making a statement and believing it to be interesting. In a factory-like society there are rules to be followed which make a stupid society. There are ways to say, serious and less serious, serious is not always the best. We want to find the best solution, don’t we. We can speak alone and think in solitude but we do need a partner to battle those thoughts. Do we think the thoughts we are supposed to have gender-wise, in terms of age following what a person of some age is supposed to be doing, knowing and thinking, origin-wise Russians think differently than Americans and are very different? What are we supposed, assumed to think and do eventually can get peculiar forms of oppression and social pressure, do we think the same at all and when do we begin to read each others’ minds? Getting paranoid or learning to cope in society and to survive when we do not have the courage to do otherwise or ways of making get strained and bound when there is no escape?
We don’t think colors the same, we all have taste of our own, dreams and hopefully opinions of our own. In this scenario we do have originality, all have unique thoughts, but do we dare to think originally and speak it or say just thoughts of someone else who is a known original, legitimized original thinker? Are there thoughts that cannot be questioned, uniqueness that is more unique or just unique after unique after unique that cannot be compared, put a price on? Cultural progress is dependent on those who dare to question everything.
What makes us think can be seen an individual process up to a point, a chain reaction, chemical, physiological, biological individual human act, as much as we are individual. There must be personal interest to provoke thought. Animals obviously do think but we do not know what they are thinking, so it is an unknown territory for the most part. It is a thought that animals are not as rational as humans, logical and sensible. This gets tricky. Logic is so many times lost from people and poorly understood I dare to question logic of people. You do not know what a creature is thinking does not mean creature does not think, this goes for people as well. Also those who seemingly think may not actually have a worthwhile contribution. Act of thinking for yourself is and has been seen a dangerous process, chain of events: thoughts that make us do, that make others do and think the same way. Part of any serious thinking individual is important as is of those who join that thinking person and challenge him or her. We are thinking because we just are, because we just are, unstoppable, more or less, and we do not understand most of the process of thinking but we think, we don’t have to know why but we would like to. That is an existential question: we think and we are therefore. We do not know the brain enough to say we know someone’s brain. We think to make. We make conversation to make union, to make a difference, we speak to be heard to become seen individuals and this social act is usually important for all people in some way. We become seen when we speak out.
Silent ones may go unnoticed. It does not mean they agree. Meaning of silence is that it is not meaningless and it is not nothing, silence is not empty. But it is seen a form of subjugation and unthinking, a place for the deserted. To understand nonverbal communication can be easier for a silent person who tends to observe. To lack natural stamina and credibility to fit in may be a strength in making something new. Women have been denied speaking aloud and they still do hinder themselves, place themselves to the background and as decorations. They speak of different things and speak differently compared to men, personal and public issues make interesting division, how to speak in public in other way than formally is agreeable. How differently do women speak then, with soft voice, viciously, too kindly? It is a credibility issue for women to speak for a crowd of men for example, a daring issue. Do women have credibility as women, why wouldn’t they? Do women have to fight for credibility in front of group of men who team up together against one woman, team up against artists, feminists, leftists, animal and human rights activists? Women are compelled to imitate male manners of acting out to have authority. Size, stature, tone and base of voice play their part. Imitation game tend to make us all alike to make us likable according to what we like in a person. When we only want things and people to be liked around we build a space in which we can speak of only likable things, speak that does not do much but keep the bubble intact is useless for progress.
We speak out when we are powerful, when we are given opportunity. We also must speak when we are not given opportunity, we must have will power to think we can takeover spaces of speech, we have decided to take the stand, to influence and be of some opinion to show we are thinking and taking part. There is danger in taking part depending what you stand for and who you are, who is against you, where you come from and what kind of values and people are behind you, are you alone or not. Dilemmas of modern individuals who have lots to think about because it is a complex world of ideas wanted to make look simpler than it is, people should have lots to think about but are not doing the thinking because it is demanding, hard work, not necessary, annoying, too dangerous, not interesting, not entertaining enough and too much to ask because why bother your life is not under threat. You may think you do not come with ideas of your own anyway so you follow someone who thinks and speaks for you. Never choose the easiest way.
Peculiarities of national fishing