Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”
This continues from a previous article called “Reviewing my connections”.
It is late morning, and thoughts came to mind that I thought I should write a follow-up to that previous article. I chose the title for this article because it has relevance to the previous article “Reviewing my connections”. This morning’s conclusion, that the previous article summarizes to be around the topic of “thinking”. The underlying premise from all of the negative objections can be summed up in the one item, “I don’t like the way you think.”
The underlying aspect of the social structures of our species is simply “conformity”. You have two options, to think for yourself, or conform. The social structure of our species has always found that conformity leads to predictability. Predictability allows outcomes that have been planned. The underlying reason for beginning this article comes from a few days ago. I had made a statement, that I place myself in the position of the third person when there are differences of opinion. Therefore as I stated, I am the facilitator for “us” to arrive at a better conclusion. I had hardly made this statement when the response was “so you’re a shit disturber!”
Well? That ended the communication for the evening. Soon afterwards I packed up my laptop, “I guess we’re done here”.
The stark realization that even though there have been more than 50 years of interaction, I was not allowed to be myself. It brings to the forefront all of the items mentioned in the previous article. This morning it brings to mind Descartes’s statement. “I think, therefore I am.” The realization that in social circles the individual that does not conform, the one that presents or blurts out observations or conclusions, is the individual that must be eliminated from the social collaboration. “The thinker”, is the most despised one, does not conform. Everyone wants to claim that they are “the thinker”. The subconscious realization, without first, the retaliation, the anger and resentment, all because the individual ego is challenged by new information. No longer can the individual stand as “King of the Hill”. Just as in an earlier article discussing the game played with trained bonobos, a temper tantrum is the only response when there is a sense of unfairness. In this case, the unfairness is that someone else knows something that they don’t. Their ego is damaged. And here precipitates my conclusion, it is the default position of our species that ego is in the driver seat. Depending on life experiences and knowledge, the only response in most situations is the temper tantrum. There is simply no knowledge or understanding to agree with the new information. The common response is “why do I need to know that.” Well, you need to know that because from the position of the third person, ego put aside, it is simply data that leads us to mutually come to a new and better understanding with regards to the difference of opinion that we now have. This last statement though appropriate is rarely given the opportunity to be stated. The individual with a damaged ego, a temper tantrum, will never allow for an explanation. To put it further, and more bluntly, “you can’t fix stupid”, which previously they would have entered without hesitation, becomes self-evident of their circumstance.
I realize that very few will comprehend how personal interactions gravitate and devolve concerning the above retrospect. Simply put, “it is what it is.” To those who have managed to get to the end of this article, and without rereading, understand it: thank you!.
/howard
