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
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
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
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
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.
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