I’m not what you would call a bright person. While others around me tackle the big issues of the day—global warming, the Iraq conflict/civil war, and how best to provide 24/7 coverage and analysis of the four Bimbos of the Apocalypse (Britney, Lindsay, Paris and Nicole)—I am content to blog about coffee pots I have made tinkle in and where to place my iPod as I lay naked in a tanning bed. But as I launch into writing my first novel—Unorthodox Pagan—I have been trying to read up more to inspire semi-coherent writings and thoughts.
Coming off of three hellacious weeks where my writing output tailed off drastically, I decided to jump start the creative process with a trip to the local Borders. $54.37 later I was armed with four new paperbacks intended to fire my imagination. (Actually three books that I intended to plagiarize… make that study… and one grammar guide that I desperately need to peruse.
A good chunk of my Labor Day weekend was invested in a book by Steve Hindes called Think for Yourself! I figured $12.95 was a small price to pay to learn how to break free from the babble, bias and hype of US Magazine, The Daily Show and Entertainment Tonight that serves as the basis for most my opinions.
Overall I found myself enjoying the book immensely although early on I was put off a bit when Mr. Hindes dropped some pretentious, look-at-me-I-have-a-thesaurus adjectives. (I’m sorry, but it’s a little tiresome to have to log onto Dictionary.com to decipher a paragraph. Though admittedly dull, I’m thinking the majority of the population would not understand “cataleptic surfing of the Internet.” Come to find out, cataleptic refers to the loss of contact with their environment experienced by schizophrenics. As a diagnosed Bipolar I with psychotic episode I took exception to this. Never at the height of a manic episode would you find me YouTube-ing videos of a monkey peeing into his own mouth. I was too busy wrestling with the concept that I was the Holy Ghost and my purpose in life was to save the world from its impending demise.)
I sorry, but when writers write to impress rather than communicate it gives me a rash.
My real problem with the book came as I got about two-thirds of the way in. Keep in mind that the book was entitled Think for Yourself! I was expecting to learn how to spot non sequiturs, flawed syllogisms and rhetoric designed to obscure the truth. But as I approached page 132 I realized the book was a bit of a funnel in print.
At the start, we circled around the wide open top of the funnel. The discussion centered on making evidence-based decisions… let the reader decide what decisions to make. But as one swirled downward through the pages, the author narrowed his definition of what it meant to think for yourself. A more appropriate title would be Think Like Steve Hindes or Risk Being Labeled a Drooling Mouth Breather.
Unfortunately I had been sucked down the funnel. I was in the narrow tip and there was no escape. If I didn’t start thinking like Steve I might as well give up any pretense that I was a rational human being. I had found my Higher Power and He was a board certified family physician and lecturer in public policy from the University of Denver.
As I continued to read I realized that any thoughts I had about faith, hope or God were delusional to say the least. I could not escape his perfect logic. My cherished beliefs were beginning to topple.
Then Steve slipped. As he attacked religion (which was not unsettling as I have more than a few gripes with branded and marketed conceptions of God) he played the same old tired hand dealt by many before. How many people, in the name of religion, had done despicable thing? Inquisitions, witch burnings and wars… yeah, he might have a point there. Conversely, he implored, consider the avowed atheist that he characterized as a “very conscientious moralist.” Namely Friedrich Nietzsche.
What?!?
Are we talking about the same misogynist who said women should stay out of important decision making processes and instead prepare themselves to be the play things of his idealized warrior/leaders? Are we talking about the same great moralist whose favorite put down was labeling his German counterparts as Jews? (I assuming he meant this as a putdown even though he took the position that he was not an Anti-Semite… he just felt Germany had more than enough Jews and couldn’t “assimilate” any more. I feel the same way about Belgians. I’m tired of their my-waffles-are-perkier-than-yours smugness.)
Now I only have a minor in Philosophy from lowly Cal State Fullerton—which doesn’t even get me a 15% discount at Denny’s—but even I know that Nietzsche was no great moralist. He was a pathetic little invalid who daydreamed about his superman aristocrats governing pathetic little pawns like you and me. Here was a man who scoffed at the idea of loving your neighbor as it was a sign of weakness and fear. Why else would you have charity for another unless you were trying to appease him?
Thanks for the out Steve. I was you mindless puppet until page 132. But you your flawed reasoning gave my naive delusions new life. Now I’m truly free to think for myself.
Recent Comments