assume everybody is wrong.

Skepticism is necessary to have an accurate worldview. You can’t simply believe something because somebody told you. You have to doubt, often. At the beginning of a philosophical journey, you must even doubt yourself – are you perhaps an unreliable narrator? Can your own mind be trusted?

In the last several years, this perspective has become crystallized in my mind and developed into something like a life motto. It’s a simple principle:

Everybody is wrong about everything all the time.

 The more I interact with people, the more this principle is affirmed. There are exceptions, of course, but it’s an incredibly reliable rule of thumb.

It’s difficult and time-consuming to study something deeply. Philosophy is often tedious. But without deep knowledge of a topic – including a metaphysical theory and epistemological justification – I just can’t see how anybody can understand anything. They might know various facts from a textbook, but that doesn’t mean they actually have any clue what they’re talking about (see virtually any college undergraduate as an example).

So, it makes sense to assume people are wrong. And because of the sinister nature of philosophy, they’re probably wrong about everything. When very foundational beliefs are inaccurate, all of the beliefs which follow are likely inaccurate. It’s like the root of a tree rotting, or the pillars of a house crumbling. For example, if somebody believes that “the government” exists independent of individuals, their entire political theory will include errors throughout. Whether or not they view taxation as theft will determine a massive amount of other beliefs – if they’re wrong, their entire political worldview becomes poisoned (as that belief is justification for a myriad of other beliefs).

Let me be clear: I am in no way making the case for intellectual dismissal. I’m not saying “throw their ideas out without evaluation.” I’m really saying the opposite – evaluate the ideas purely on their merit, without any connection to the person communicating them. When you don’t trust people or give their ideas special treatment because of their “expertise”, you’ll discover that nearly everybody’s worldview is fuzzy and ill-justified.

To me, it appears that the majority of people believe something by happenstance – by chronology and geography. They believe the ideas they heard first – in school or from their parents and families. They end up believing what their neighbors believe, or what their broader culture teaches. Most people are entirely unaware of the silent presuppositions in their culture – they’ve never experienced a contrast. The unquestioned social norms of a man born in New York will be wildly different than those born in Tokyo. If these beliefs are never examined or rigorously challenged, we’ve no reason to believe they’re accurate. It seems most sensible to simply assume they are wrong and unjustified, unless proven otherwise.

We must go one step deeper. The assumption of error should also be paired with another friendly principle: the assumption of confusion. Not only are most people wrong, but they think they’re right. They are confused. Rare is the man who is open-minded about what he doesn’t know. Common is the man who will passionately defend his unjustified beliefs.Remember this when you listen to people argue, and things become crystal clear. It’s the blind arguing with the blind about the color of the sky.

I realize this sounds curmudgeonly; that’s because it is. But if you aren’t concerned about social condemnation, then you’ll quickly realize the accuracy of this perspective. The same is true professionally: most people seem to be fakers who are excellent at giving the illusion of productivity and competence. Though, by comparison, there seem to be many more competent professionals than competent thinkers.

Don’t get me wrong: I am not saying that most people are stupid. I don’t have any firm conclusions about the average person’s capacity for accurate beliefs. I’m not judging intelligence, but rather the accuracy of people’s worldviews and the independence of their thought. If I had to guess, I’d say most people are perfectly capable of critical thinking. The problem, appropriately enough, is the unchallenged beliefs they hold.

For example, we’re taught from childhood to respect authority, whether it’s the teacher, the cop, the parent, etc. The same happens in adulthood, where “the experts” become unquestioned authority figures. If somebody has a PhD, we’ll by golly, of course they know what they are talking about! They couldn’t have become a professor otherwise!

These beliefs, when critically evaluated, start looking shaky. Ever wonder why so many “experts” disagree on any given topic? Why professional economists claim such radically different things? It’s because, necessarily, a large part of them are wrong – and they are wrong because they don’t know what they are talking about. I am convinced that your average PhD in economics doesn’t understand the basics. Surely some do, but I think the majority do not. Book knowledge – the understanding of “facts” and opinions of other thinkers – does not constitute understanding. Under pressure, I think your average PhD will start revealing the contradictions and leaps of faith in his worldview.

How, then, can people who don’t know what they are talking about become teachers and professors? The answer is simple: they know a little bit more information than average. They have a slight edge of knowledge, which gives the illusion of depth to people who can not evaluate the ideas themselves. It’s like a race where you don’t know by how much the winners won – turns out, in the world of ideas, is usually only a foot. The highschool history teacher needs to understand the textbook just an hair more than the students – he doesn’t need a deep, abstract understanding of his subject matter. The same is true in college or in the workplace. The difference in real knowledge between your typical authority figure and regular folks is much smaller than we’ve been taught, and in some cases, it’s razor-thin.

Other times, it’s not even that an expert is wrong – it’s that they don’t care about the truth. Paul Krugman influences a lot of economic thinking, and he is a political hack. Thomas Piketty is now a household name for his fraudulent book about economics; he’s a liar, plain and simple. The man is disingenous, with a political agenda, and he cooked the books. Yet, somehow, he is still regarded as an expert.

But don’t take my word for it. Study a topic deeply (especially in the soft sciences) – find and evaluate all the contrarian “heterodox” schools of thought you can – and then judge the “mainstream” consensus. Chances are, you’ll start to see some large holes. To use a Wizard of Oz analogy, get up the courage and curiousity to peek behind the curtain. You may be shocked what you find.

In my defense, I didn’t always believe this way. It’s only through conversation and experience that I started to doubt people’s authority. I used to be a flag-waving patriot before I started questioning my beliefs in political authority. Now, it seems clear as day: politicians are windbags, full of hot air, confusion, and lies.

Most people aren’t as ill-intentioned as politicians. But, if we’re being honest, it seems reasonable to assume everybody’s worldview is equally inaccurate from the beginning, until proven otherwise.

moving monkeys.

THE HUMAN BODY IS NOT A MACHINE THAT CAN BE TAKEN APART AND MOVED IN ISOLATION WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES.

If you understand a tree by taking it into the laboratory and studying it there, separate one joint from another, train only fixed movement patterns, take movement or knowledge out of context, - you are old. This thinking is a sign of ageing, loss of the imagination to see EVERYTHING IS TOGETHER. Life is complex. There is so much more we do not know, than we know. That’s the beauty of it. We simplify to begin to grasp complexity.

THEN NEED TO MEET LIFE IN ITS FULL COMPLEXITY.

Understand how the joints are working

IN COLLABORATION NOT ISOLATION.

Understand how you work with other people, things, places

IN COLLABORATION NOT ISOLATION.

Understand NOTHING SHOULD BE ISOLATED THAT HAS TO BE INTEGRATED.

WE CANNOT NOT COMMUNICATE

no mind.

Jigoro_Kano_and_Kyuzo_Mifune_(restoration).jpg
IMG_7502.jpg
Bildschirmfoto 2018-04-18 um 08.32.47.png
Bildschirmfoto 2018-04-18 um 10.33.19.png
Bildschirmfoto 2018-04-18 um 10.34.03.png

'Mushin' in Japanese and 'Wuxin' in Chinese (無心 "no mind") is a mental state. Zen and Daoist meditators are said to reach this state, as well as artists and trained martial artists. They also practice this mental state during everyday activities.

The term contains the character for negation, "not" or "without" (), along with the character for heart-mind (). The term is shortened from mushin no shin (無心の心), a Zen expression meaning the mind without mind and is also referred to as the state of "no-mindness". That is, a mind not fixed or occupied by thought or emotion and thus open to everything. It is translated by D.T. Suzuki as "being free from mind-attachment".

Mushin is achieved when a person's mind is free from thoughts of anger, fear, or ego during combat or everyday life. There is an absence of discursive thought and judgment, so the person is totally free to act and react towards an opponent without hesitation and without disturbance from such thoughts. At this point, a person relies not on what they think should be the next move, but what is their trained natural reaction (or instinct) or what is felt intuitively. It is not a state of relaxed, near-sleepfulness, however. The mind could be said to be working at a very high speed, but with no intention, plan or direction.

Some masters believe that mushin is the state where a person finally understands the uselessness of techniques and becomes truly free to move. In fact, those people will no longer even consider themselves as "fighters" but merely living beings moving through space.

The legendary Zen master Takuan Sōhō said:

The mind must always be in the state of 'flowing,' for when it stops anywhere that means the flow is interrupted and it is this interruption that is injurious to the well-being of the mind. In the case of the swordsman, it means death.
When the swordsman stands against his opponent, he is not to think of the opponent, nor of himself, nor of his enemy's sword movements. He just stands there with his sword which, forgetful of all technique, is ready only to follow the dictates of the subconscious. The man has effaced himself as the wielder of the sword. When he strikes, it is not the man but the sword in the hand of the man's subconscious that strikes.

However, mushin is not just a state of mind that can be achieved during combat. Many martial artists train to achieve this state of mind during kata so that a flawless execution of moves is accomplished — that they may be achieved during combat or at any other time. Once mushin is attained through the practice or study of martial arts (although it can be accomplished through other arts or practices that refine the mind and body), the objective is to then attain this same level of complete awareness in other aspects of the practitioner's life.

Proprioception

Proprioception (/ˌproʊprioʊˈsɛpʃən, -priə-/[1][2] PRO-pree-o-SEP-shən), from Latin proprius, meaning "one's own", "individual", and capiocapere, to take or grasp, is the sense of the relative position of one's own parts of the body and strength of effort being employed in movement.[3]

In humans, it is provided by proprioceptors (muscle spindles) in skeletal striated muscles and tendons (Golgi tendon organ) and the fibrous capsules in joints. It is distinguished from exteroception, by which one perceives the outside world, and interoception, by which one perceives pain, hunger, etc., and the movement of internal organs.

The brain integrates information from proprioception and from the vestibular system into its overall sense of body position, movement, and acceleration. The word kinesthesia or kinæsthesia (kinesthetic sense) strictly means movement sense, but has been used inconsistently to refer either to proprioception alone or to the brain's integration of proprioceptive and vestibular inputs.