here’s a concept to chew on and some questions to get myself started.
why does primary thinking result in critical judgement, high quality results, independence, world building and success?
why does secondary thinking result in low quality results, group think, slavery, forgetfulness and failure?
what is primary thinking? critical reasoning, critical thinking, lateral thinking, creative thinking, independent thought, meditation, day dreaming, practicing, playing, singing, interaction, stick-to-it-iveness, observation, experimentation, scientific thinking, altered repetition, conversation, adaptating, flexing, being resilient, comparative thinking, deductive reasoning, syllogisms, inductive reasoning . . .
what is secondary thinking? blind following, rote memorization, self-numbing, self-soothing, prayer, addictive repetition, dopamine surging, dopamine depletion, obsession, compulsion, lust, preacher-congregation learning, power seeking, blind ambition, seeking efficiency, seeking productivity, abdicating self-determination, giving up responsibility, arrogant mistakes, attacking, denigrating, worshipping, blind categorization, stereotyping, making assumptions . . .
these words and definitions make it so fucking obvious . . . it’s almost like i made a list of virtues, biases and fallacies . . . it’s as though the former list were one of thought and progress while the second were the agenda of animalism and trivia . . . these are modes of thinking, not calls to action . . . i worry about (and know the history of) unthinking, secondary-thinkers applying primary-thinking operationally . . . that’s paradoxically a very secondary-thinking thing to do. it results in atrocities like fascism, national socialism, stalinism, maoism . . . then the blind defense against such ideologies with counter-ideologies like nationalism, market capitalism, nihilism, fundamentalism, etc . . . it all makes me shiver a bit with a strong sense of deja vu.
i wonder if my thoughts here have been influenced by daniel kahnemann and amos tversky . . . a bit, but a strict analogy would be a false dichotomy. the structure might be similar, certainly.