Skip to content

Forget Schools of Thought: Study them All and then Create your Own

by on April 15, 2012
Dontstopquestioning

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
F. Scott Fitzgerald

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
To say the things he truly feels,
And not the words of one who kneels.
Frank Sinatra

Most people will never snap out of the main lines of thinking. But the few who do often get entangled in others. However, there is no single school of thought that explains everything in any subject. To get closer to truth one needs to study them all and transcend them all.

It’s the same with every subject.

When we realize doctors are murderers and start to look for truth about health, we turn to diet. The first thing we find out about are Raw Foods, claiming we need to eat everything raw. Many people will then stop. They got rid of the problem (bad diet and murderous pharmaceuticals) and think they found the answer. But their neighbor, facing the same question, finds an interesting book about Traditional Chinese Medicine. And TCM claims the human body cannot process raw foods. Everything must be cooked.

If these people meet cognitive dissonance is unavoidable. Most people actually will get in row if they pursue the conversation.

Next we set out to find God. First we pick up the Bible. But this is in fact two books. The first tells us ‘an eye for an eye’, the second advises to turn the other cheek. We then go for part three, the Qu’ran, which denies the basics of Christianity by stating Christ survived His crucifixion. Worse still, after perusing the Nag Hammadi scriptures we are faced with the claim that YHVH is the anti God. Not to mention the Tao, the Baghavad Gita, the Tarot and the fascinating accounts of the Shamans.

Our wearying mind in astonishment turns to a simple science like the monetary. But lo and behold: we have people claiming we need Gold. Others say we need paper money. Yet another says the only important thing is to avoid interest on the means of exchange…..

So what does it all mean?
The point is that each and every position has merit. Look at economics for instance. The Austrians have shown us how detrimental Government intervention in the market can be. Social Credit has the great concept of the Gap. German Economics gives us a great analysis of interest. And even Keynes was important, as he paved the way for anti-deflationary measures.

The idea is to give every theory a fair hearing. This is not what is going on now. Austrians have their standard arguments to do away with Social Credit. Social Credit is so proud of the Gap that they cannot hear how others have similar views, but with a different label. The Alternative Schools are united in despising the Main Stream, which in turn has its pundits to explain away all the fair issues that the Alternatives bring forward.

But to give a fair hearing to all, Scott Fitzgerald’s kind of ‘superior intelligence’ is needed. Yet only the very foolish will claim ‘superior intelligence’. Luckily this is not so much a question of talent, but of technique. It takes a little self discipline and emotional awareness to feel through the negative emotions associated with cognitive dissonance. But it can be done. It’s just a matter of a little practice.

And sometimes the unresolved questions that arise from opposite ideas can linger for years in the mind. So patience is necessary too.

But we must. Because although the different schools, in whatever field, cannot ever be truly reconciled, they can be transcended. And they must, because none deliver on their claim for truth.

And at the end of the day: are we really willing to settle for that nagging little voice in our head that is telling us we are buying into ideas that are not really satisfactory?

Every man has the desire and the duty to be able to say at the end of the road:

I did it My Way

The Truth is out there! Never Surrender! Never Quit! Never Settle for Half Truth!

From → The Spiritual

19 Comments
  1. Actually you have to recognize when two opposing views are controlled opposition and still be able to function F. Scott. Bankers are the best at it.

    • lol, quite right, that’s what they call the dialectic, not?

      • Like Republican pressure for a flatter tax and Democrat pressure for a less flat tax when if it was flat neither of those banker representing parties would exist.

  2. Hey Lafbek!
    Jij waardeloze meeloper. Heb je me nu al eens gegoogled? je hebt een grote bek maar verder hoor ik je nergens meer over! Had je ineens door dat je je in een wespennest begaf? Hoe oerdom was jouw reactie naar mijn toe om het op te nemen voor iemand die jij dus ook helemaal niet kent! Ik kan gewoonweg niet begrijpen dat jij die oplichting niet doorziet! Sterker nog, je neemt er zelf aan deel! Niet klagen dus wanneer je aangevallen wordt op het internet!
    Hoedan ook, een lafbek zal je altijd blijven in mijn ogen!

    • Jeroen, jij hebt duidelijk een probleem maatje. Waarom doe je het niet even kalm aan?

      Mijn laatste reactie was heel helder: ik kondigde aan genoeg te hebben van het geleuter.

      Ik snap dat het vervelend is om uitgelachen te worden als je jezelf als ‘ontwaakt’ neerzet, maar als je er even rustig over nadenkt wordt snel duidelijk dat je je gewoon niet zo moet aanstellen.

      Praat er eens met wat vrienden over en vraag echte feedback.

      Je hebt het nodig.

      • Men had mij al gewaarschuwd voor jouw antwoorden. Dat ze pakkend zijn maar nietszeggend en 13 in het dozijn zijn…. Maar al lerend wil ik zelf ervaren hoe hufterig een neerbuigend mensen kunnen zijn. Je ontdekt het in jezelf en je herkent het in anderen… en dat soms in veel ergere mate! Maar hoe laf jij het opnam voor Zeevat die iedereen, inclusief jouw, bedonderd en gebruikt, en op mij wordt commentaar gelevert, hoe hypocriet het allemaal op mij overkomt!
        Jij hebt er genoeg van, ik begin pas!
        Mensen zoals jij en Zeevat en Oldenkamp en al die mensen meer, hebben zichzelf een veer in de reet gestoken als zouden zij Nederland wel ontdoen van al het geboefte, terwijl het geboefte zichzelf verschuilt achter ‘bewustmakende site’ en anderen ‘ontwaakten’ het licht niet in de ogen gunnen! Maar wat is dat wat jouw drijft? Wat is dat wat jouw wakker geschudt heeft? Is dat een economische reden geweest? of was het een touch, zoals ik die beleefd hebt? Vast niet, want zo’n kijkje in de realiteit worden niet velen gegund blijft alleen jezelf over en de leugen die je leeft.
        Maar jij gaat nog meer van me horen, vriend. Je hebt stomme en onzinnige antwoorden gegeven alsof jij het allemaal weet. Maar infeite zijn het de vriendjes van Arend geweest die met stront hebben zitten te gooien naar mij terwijl ik me richtte op Arend alleen…moest ik het verrassend genoeg opnemen tegen al die anderen die zichzelf bewust noemen maar niet willen zien dat ze bedonderd worden terwijl ze er met de neus bovenop zitten! Jij hebt een boel duidelijk gemaakt vriend!
        Ik kom nog weleens kijken hoe het met je Gelre gaat… (een idee dat maar niet wilt aanslaan!)

        • Jeroen, ik beroep me nergens op. Zeevat heeft mij, noch jou bedonderd, hoe kom je daar in vredesnaam bij?

          je vindt jezelf veel te belangrijk joh, hier ook weer: “of was het een touch, zoals ik die beleefd hebt? Vast niet, want zo’n kijkje in de realiteit worden niet velen gegund”

          En hoe zielig je jezelf vind, terwijl je ‘alleen maar Arend aanviel’. Had dat dan niet gedaan. Wie kaatst kan de bal verwachten. Als je niet kan ontvangen, moet je niet uitdelen.

          En wie zijn ‘al die anderen’? Ik was de enige die het voor Arend opnam. Calimero?

          En ja, ik heb een heel, heel scherpe tong. Dus je bent gewoon tegen de verkeerde aangelopen. Daar leer je van.

          En ik heb ook zelfbeheersing: ik zei wat ik ging doen en deed wat ik zei: stoppen, omdat ik het zo grappig genoeg vond. Jij blijft maar komen. Je hebt duidelijk pijn. Pijn is geen goeie motivatie.

          Nu ga ik weer zeggen wat ik ga doen, en ik ga het ook weer doen:
          Ik neem je tegen jezelf in bescherming en sta geen verdere comments hier toe. Het internet is geduldig, ik zou niet willen dat mensen over jaren nog lezen hoe je jezelf vernedert.

  3. Great idea. Let us start with the priniples of staedy work, living wage and a fair boss. Also, Accept the truth that the stock market cannot be more than a politically suported swindle. Just an idea. Thanks Rduanewilling.com.

  4. Anthony,

    Although I appreciate where you are coming from I don’t agree that all views of any subject have merit particularly mathematical phenomena and money is a mathematical phenomena.

    Social Credit is one of the most mathematical theses, but alas it is flawed in terms of overall system stability simply because it never occurred to Douglas, in the case that he was professionally aware of stability theory, that the money system could be subject to such analysis. Another more advanced mathematical thesis is that of John Turmel’s, but by focusing on the question of making the odds even between players in terms of availability of chips he loses sight of a more subtle comprehension of stability when he proposes that stability is achieved by introducing extra interest free money to compensate the instability. It is to his credit to have shown and declared unlike Douglas that zero interest is the preferred solution, even though he concurs with Douglas that compensation of interest also achieves stability.

    Since the days that I was first introduced to this subject by John Turmel (30 years ago) I was always sure of zero interest but never convinced that compensation of interest was viable. But It was only when Prof. Sergio Dominguez PhD. (Eng) with his unequivocal mastery of the notion of stability and the math behind it, that it became succinctly clear to me that a money system instability was determined by the mere existence of unbounded growth and not by whether that grwoth is or isn’t compensated. Most engineers, because they deal with inherently unstable systems are used to compensating them for a “useful” purpose and equating compensation of instability with stability. The term “stabilising” is often used in lieu of “compensating”. However that is not the case, a grenade with its pin in place is still a highly unstable system. What is is interesting, is that once we think of money as a unit of measure we realise immediately that stability and not compensation of instability is what is required precisely because it is a unit of meaure.

    All this goes to show that there is a definitive science to money that once fully documented will but to rest this technically elememtary subject of the nature of money in a way that is not subject to any number of complimentary points of view. Just as the world has mastered the math of velocity, acceleration and angular momemtum in a thoroughly unequivocal manner, so too will mankind put aside the even more elementary concepts of the veritable nature of money.

    In short, technically speaking the science of money is truly a trivial subject that if not for all the voodoo bullshit and half truths floating around and willing mind f$&%&ng nodody would spend a minute talking about it. The merit of the money system debunkers is not the genius of their technical theses but rather it is their uncanny ability to hold an independent conviction that the standard money bull is nonsense and to at least approximate a truer if not exact understanding of the real science in spite of the voodoo. We all know the experiment where nine out of ten conspire against the tenth person to claim that a red light is green and how a majority of these stooges end up concurring that it the red light is indeed green. Well the true money debunkers are those who in spite of the other nine stick to their correct conviciton that the light is red!

    However, it is important to realise that if the technical nature of a given phenomena is not rigorously nailed down no matter how simple it is, any deviance from such an unequivocal definition will open the door to subtle variations that can unwittingly and what is worse consciously be spun into massive false paradigms in which many and indeed a vast a majority may be lost for millenia. Therein lies the importance of math and unequivocal logic.

    As I have said many times, the prerrogative of opinion is reserved for far less cases than most are willing to accept, i.e. for deciding on issues of personal taste or when circumstances require decision making without the means or time to access the necessary data to make fully informed calculations. Of course most people do not have the confidence nor the inclination to attain the technical acumen that would allow them to know the difference and hence practically everything including the conclusive is rendered for all intents and purposes inconcluisve. This represents a field day for those that would benefit from the ignorance of most to pit the “opinion” of the ignorant against a minority of true truty informed and calculated theses. Until of course, the time to pay the piper comes, which is when such intellectual brigands accelerate confusion in which to commit camouflage the most horrendous crimes disguised as virtue in the manipulated “opinion” of the manipulated masses.

    • Basically I think this validates the article Marc: you look backwards, after having gone the whole way and then everything is clear. But earlier in your journey you had to ‘suffer’ the uncertainty about Social Credit and because you did, you found answers.

      Clearly, once we know, we no longer need to accept paradigms that no longer work for us.

      On the other hand, as a master we must always respect the non initiated who is still struggling with conflicting data.

      • Indeed, but at the same time there is no need to constantly re-invent the wheel, a past time most practiced in economics.

        • fair enough🙂
          Man, does one need patience in this business. And I’m only at for maybe 7, 8 years or so. I can understand how YOU must feel, haha.

  5. Angela Martello permalink

    Vegans do not claim we need to eat everything raw but only to avoid any animal products.

    • oops! You’re right, I wrongfully equated the Raw Food school and veganism!

    • I corrected the article, an annoying slip, thank you!

  6. The ancient skeptics (Pyrrho, Sextus Empiricus, etc.) developed a disciplined way to consider claims without either assenting or denying them to begin with. They called it the “epoche”–a suspension of judgement for the purpose of considering conflicting claims. Worth a look.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Gordon Duff, Nazis and the unmistakably macho allure of ‘Anti-Semitism’ « Real Currencies
  2. Daily Bell review: on Wörgl, Gesell, the Fabian society, and the “alternative” media « The Daily Knell
  3. Mutual Credit and Inflation « Real Currencies

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: