S. S. Thyer

Don't Speak

Other people are stupid and closed-minded, you shouldn't blame them for being like this because it's mostly the fault of society --enforced normalities, and genetics. Most people think too vertically and hence are affected greatly by their biases; if you make connections between abstract, metaphorical and literally they will apply their vertical thinking and assume you're insane because they can't peer over the fence like you. One mode of thinking is focused on by society and that is to be closed-minded and fixated on one thing, it makes you easier to fit into a hierarchy --hierarchy is essentially order incarnate which is the reason that flat thinkers are useful as they can be compartmentalised without issue. Vertical thinkers can't see into the future, they can't have a vision, they can only iterate upon a realised vision from the lateral thinkers. Lateral thinkers can share a vision with more ease than vertical thinkers can share anything; vertical thinkers will all be in their own unique pit which they've dug for themselves, some pits will be extremely close so they can reach across but for the most part the pits will be too far apart which is why some of them will never meet --they can only dig down not sideways.

Discipline is for sane people. A strict routine is required to keep away from the pulls of sin and maintain an orderly and normal life. Sane people are robots, they aren't exactly people --they aren't exactly conscious. Sane people are the leaves in the wind, the current in the stream, they are people like all the other people, sanity is complacency is normalcy is mundanity. Discipline is synonymous with order, order is the physical world, chaos is the mind. Thoughts and ideas are wrenched from the depths of chaos and forced upon order; that is the function of the lunatic, to enforce chaos upon order. To be insane is to lack discipline --obviously not entirely because within the yin there is yang and within the yang, yin; to build in the nature of order you must use order--, to be insane is to be spontaneous and procrastinate --procrastinate not so much in the sense of time-wasting, but the sudden shifts of focus based off of the ideas generated within. We're not so sane from birth, those who don't conform are labelled as ill, diseased by their chaos, prescribed pills for ADHD and OCD. Genius is chaos, innovation is too. We've been inculcated by order, order is not good --nor is it evil-- there needs to be a balance. Judge Holden is as white as an albino, his mantra is complete and utter order, through his order evil is promulgated; Batman is as black as the night, his character is chaos, a bat emerging from the unknown gloom of the cave --of Gotham--, yet he is agape incarnate.

Debates only work when you have an audience. The neutral onlookers are the only people who will change their minds; to hold a position to then debate it requires you to latch onto the position, that is, in a debate the goal --at least formally-- is to get the other person to concede their position or the primary points of their position. There is no humbleness in a debate because of the large audience ready to judge you when you inevitably fail; i.e. the actual goal of a debate is to inflate the ego, it's a battle decided by whoever's ego is the largest at the end. Debates aren't 'battles of intellect and wit,' they're battles to satisfy your warped perception of your own correctness. Every now and again, you might come across a more genuine debater who will most likely be on the correct side and acts in good faith to convince the opponent and the audience because he thinks it's a salient truth. This person tends to be a lateral thinker because he has genuinely taken into account all the positions excavated by the vertical thinkers, by looking down from above the lateral thinker generally has a better intuition of the truth; that's why when he's wrong he's still right in the sense that his shallow investigation has left him blind to the total truth and his current truth is a place on the path to the real truth.

If you properly judge each opponents argument relative to the other, you will generally arrive at the truth; debates really aren't as complex as a 1-hour discussion because when the person on the accurate side of the position makes a good argument for the truth it cannot be dismantled with another argument based on truth and so the argument is subverted and obfuscated by the opponent who either focuses way too much on the negligible details, changes the subject, attacks the argument with fallacies or attacks their opponent's character and truthfulness with ad-homs.

The vertical thinkers will typically take the side that the majority takes for every issue apart from the highly focused areas where they dig, it seems only logical why they'd do this as people tend to want to believe in truth more than lies as truth is order and the world is order, so it makes for an easier life to believe in the truth. There seems to be an issue in modern-day physics, a sort of cognitive dissonance cherry-picking to ignore glaring issues that disprove theoretical models to then pretend said theoretical model is law and get every prediction based on that model wrong so you then have to fabricate special exclusions for your model which follow no logical pattern. For instance, when Richard Dawkins is questioned on the efficacy of the big-bang hypothesis --which he believes is law--, he says 'it's really quite simple' that everything came from a single point which expanded from nothingness, when questioned on how this something from nothing is possible and how a point can exist without dimensions to exist in he says 'that's what makes it so interesting,' no, that's what makes your baseless theory so stupid and impossible. Mind you, this 'big-bang' theory was developed because of the mainstream acceptance of Einstein's relativity which gets over 90% of it's predictions of planetary orbits grossly wrong to the point where you can't even use it on things that are too large or small.

Don't debate, just observe and act based on your found truths. It isn't bad to listen to other people and pull the truth from their claims, what is bad is when you interject and correct them; they won't understand, they might take you too literal or not literal enough, they won't see the relevancy, they'll hyper-focus on the intersection between your point and their hole, they'll start questioning fundamentals like generalisation, they'll start appealing for the majority held position and use emotive and other fallacies. Arguments aren't productive for them or you and will only create animosity and fractures; people can't learn to understand you, so it's better not to interject and create dialogue. Don't speak, listen, judge, and wait for vindication.