The Shadows of Totalization, Part XI

We have on the table this characterization of thinking:

“Isn’t this exactly what thinking should be: A Disturbance? Of conventionally used images. The Dynamics of Creative Interruption […]Curves instead of angles.”

As we begin to evaluate and criticize this characterization, we get this disavowal,

“I am not a philosopher. I don’t do philosophy, but I spend a lot of time listening in (through osmosis, diffusion, inspiration, etc) on those who are and do, trying to free my own thinking from “the formidable school of intimidation which manufactures specialists in thought”.

It is easier and safer to deny one is a philosopher who philosophizes than it is to admit one is a philosopher, but a bad one, who philosophizes, but poorly. Of course the one who does so still wishes to arrogate unto himself the ability to do what is in my opinion the primary and most important power of philosophy: to free thinking. Wouldn’t it be much cleaner and honest to say one doesn’t do philosophy well and therefore has the weakest ideas how to free thinking, and then subject to criticism the candidates of weakness,sickness? One cannot move on in any other manner--

One can use an assortment of sneaky tricks to hide one’s inability to move or free thought, and this is a good one,

I tend to look at philosophy as literature in the Nietzschean sense of "la gaya scienza", and to read philosophers as troubadours, singers, knights, and free spirits.

However, it is only partially true that this one tends to look at philosophy as literature in the Nietzschean sense of “la gaya scienza.” What is also partially true is that this one demands thinking to overcome doxa, ‘conventionally used images’, common sense, good sense, and all the rest of ‘the stuff’ which stuffs up empty mental spaces.

The difficult problem-- and if we fail to recognize it we may as well consign ourselves to the retard bin-- is to find a way to look at philosophy as la gaya scienza(as this one understands gaya scienza, but I think this one misunderstands the term) and as rigorous and critical. This will involve not allowing oneself to shift from viewing philosophy as la gaya scienza when one finds that convenient, over to philosophy as rigorous and critical when that’s convenient, and vice versa, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

If only all free spirits were free spirits! But they are, alas, most frequently not. Most frequently, and especially nowadays,they are the most enslaved. The sprightly song these troubadours sing is usually either a dirge or the work song of a chain gang. Their only hope would be to submit this freedom of theirs to a relentless criticism--they are generally free of that desire, however.