would you be writing part two?

What I am advocating is not a childlike society, rather, it is a world informed by a more spiritual understanding of why. There is tremendous value in the consistent development of human beings, to greater and greater levels of morality and social consciousness. I wouldn’t for a moment suggest that this is detrimental, or that we should devolve!

First off, I’m in total agreement with what you had stated: children without the buffer of safety must, by necessity, learn the skills necessary for survival. Those needs will undoubtedly come before all higher-level actualization (Maslow’s hierarchy of needs does a pretty solid job of putting this in context). But survival itself need not be seen as an objective experience. It is not the same for everyone. In fact, we are ALL trying to survive, though we’re somewhat abstracted from those more basic needs by the safety net of affluence/civilization, and our actions on a day-to-day basis could even be seen as being ultimately for the sake of reproduction (Dawkins’ Selfish Gene theory). A sense of wonder, or at least questioning, seems to me completely relevant to these needs (even those of basic survival). Children are the fastest learners among us. It would appear their mindset is accomplishing something extremely important!

This is where free thinking comes in. When I suggest “a world without facts”, I am reflecting on the tendency for our minds to be packed full of past data– without the chance for new, freer thinking. We are conditioned to believe unquestioningly in “expert opinion”–note that I am not doubting its validity!– and as a result we become fearful of advancing radically new ideas.

I stand by my previous statement, though perhaps I was unclear. Original ideas are borne of new thinking, not reprocessing of the old. Reprocessing causes momentum, yes, but it can never approach the quantum leaps necessary for real progress.

Do you really believe that all original thought occurred long ago?

Darwin’s theory of evolution was based on a study of nature’s development, rather than “established” wisdom. Da Vinci’s designs revolved around careful experimentation in methods that had never previously been established. The Internet’s potential was barely understood for much of its history, and its most significant uses were created entirely by those unfamiliar with its original purpose. We see this over and over, in fields where real evaluation of a problem (rather than merely following similar approaches) leads one on an entirely new path. Yes, familiarity with existing methodologies are important– (I’ve been referencing a few existing ideas, here) but not nearly as important as having real insight.

You’ve taken this thinking to an extreme in calling it a “radical subjectivism”. Ken Wilber might say that we have strayed too far into the “it” quadrant–and I am remarking on the virtues (too often underrepresented!) of “I”, “You” and “We”. This isn’t about subjectivism; it’s about an understanding both of personal meaning and objective truths.

I’m quite aware that 2+3 is 5, that we can’t in fact fly (maybe in our dreams, which may be as “real” as this one is, but I digress…), etc. These are useful facts, and entirely necessary. But if things are really that cut and dried, how valid is one culture’s interpretation of another? How valid is one side of a conflict? How can we create a useful comparison between, for example, camaraderie that results in failure and success attained in total isolation? How about actions and choices that are morally/legally/spiritually ambiguous?

We are taught in a way that stresses universal truths, at the expense of truly understanding the situation. You’ve accused me of losing track of objective truth, but our universe is quite, quite far from an objective place. I’m only trying to reassert that awareness.

Additionally, while I have issue with “modernity” in many regards, I am dazzled by what it’s given us and certainly don’t think meritocracy is a bad thing. My problem is entirely with our definition of merit. We’ve accomplished a great deal with “this world”, but we’ve also left behind something exceedingly important, and that is (among many other things) the questioning that comes with early childhood. We have grown extraordinarily complacent about one’s place in the hierarchy–(teachers don’t deserve decent salaries? Selfish sports stars deserve endless wealth? Talentless “performers” are worthy of our adulation?) when in reality we should be examining these relative merits in far more detail. We need to ask why we’ve made these choices. In a way, what I am suggesting is such a radical maturity that it resembles childishness, or the free giving of ideas/thoughts/power.

With regard to my friend, I’m not sure how you’ve decided his actions are so “selfish”. He is providing an art in exchange for (hopeful) compensation; barring that compensation, he will continue providing. This hardly sounds selfish to me. And as far as “directionless”, what basis do you have for that belief? He has helped many people wake up to the freedom that is already present in our daily lives; he has inspired and educated without trying in any way to profit from it. What little money he has is spent modestly, and (if we’re arguing economics) he is still supporting the capitalist system.

But what troubles me is more your emotionality behind this argument. Are you arguing that artists are “purposeless”? Is their understanding of an inherent talent, and the subsequent disregard for status quo, that threatening? Is their development of skills less valid than the development of a doctor or lawyer? Are their roles somehow less significant to you? We live in very different worlds, if that is the case. (I’d argue that being a lawyer seems more childish than enriching people’s lives through the free expression of art, but I wouldn’t consider any lawyers I know to be immature). Why do you say that “any success he might have” has to do with the efforts of others? If it does in any measurable way, then those others are similarly pursuing their own self-interest (the promotion of the performer, and the subsequent payoff). We’re all selfish. This isn’t new. Do you see now why I advocate an alternative mindset?

As far as the spelling goes, I’m a stickler for English– know the rules, live by ‘em–but I DID know exactly what your name meant, rendering that clarification unnecessary (but funny!).

Let me ask you: in situations like this, do we place higher value on the rules themselves, or the sentiment they represent? Spoken language evolves much quicker than the written word, yet we do understand and ultimately accept both

Again, great thinking.. and thank you for reading! I’d love to hear more of your perspective.

You seem to dislike the modern world and its economic system (though some kind of merit-based capitalism is hardly modern) and hold up childlike innocence. Yet, it is the benefits of the modern Western world that has secured survival needs that enables children to be innocent at all. Where affluence has not created a buffer for children, they are thrust into the world of adult concerns so immediately that the period of wonder does not really exist. The very thing you abhor has created that which you’ve put on a pedestal.

Second, that childlike wonder is not sustainable in any event. Where basic survival is always a base concern and meeting desires a motivation, the naivety of children is not enough to succeed in a world in which doing both must be done by them and not someone else. That innocence is only sustainable for a small minority in a developed society because there are other who take it upon themselves to meet the big tasks, e.g. safety, preservation of the society, etc., thus rendering people like your guitar playing friend extraneous to the necessary functioning of the society and leaving him free to indulge his directionless childishness. And such a person is fundamentally childlike, naive, and selfish. You say that education should teach people to give back to the world, but what does he do? He pursues his self-interest and mooches off the productivity of others. If he becomes a musical success, it will be more because of the efforts of innumerable others than through his own deeds. Like a child, he lives without purpose and like a child, he lives without direction and he refuses to self-restrict his wide-ranging freedom (which is, again, enabled by others) as a sacrifice to others in order to do either so that he may be beneficial to others. Seems like a selfish, pointless life to me. Why is he so intelligent again?

And those “valueless” pieces of paper have real value so long as they have perceived value. And they have perceived value as utilitarian goods, that they can be used to obtain that which is required or desired. A worry about the desire for money in itself is a different matter.

Third, your notion of encouraging free-thinkers who are in no way fit into a mold is at best bizarre and at worst dangerous. Humans are of necessity bound by the physical world. 2+3=5, no matter how you may want it to be otherwise. That would be education squeezing kids into a certain mode of thinking, but it seems entirely appropriate. Allowing to think that it could be something else does them no favors. Since we are necessarily bound by the physical world, kids should be taught those bounds and how the physical world works. Having found yourself is of little value when you’ve found nothing about the world in which you live, the people around you, or the past that has brought you there.

Simply put, there are facts in the world and to preach otherwise is to engender a radical subjectivism in which each person assigns his own “truth” and few things could be as logically absurd or as dangerous as that.

Fourth, this line, “We cannot create an original idea by analyzing and interpreting existing information,” is just plainly false. If this is your qualification for original ideas, then there is at best only a few such ideas and they were generated long ago around the dawn of rational thought. Almost all ideas are developed through analysis and interpretation of existing information of all sorts.