
I used to attribute it to daydreaming, but since I wasn't doing anything exciting, like blowing cars up with my mind or flying a really sweet fighter plane, I decided it wasn't daydreaming. I was examining some fact, instance, or event from different angles, calling on past experiences or knowledge of history to further understand the one item I was analyzing. It wasn't quite unlike Victor Hugo in Les Mis - the way he would tangent on some small item of interest that would turn out to change the whole course of events later on. Is that impressive? Who knows? Most people think I'm just zoned out, not listening. Half the time, my thoughts are on something that, in my intense analytical deconstruction, leads me to a very depressing train depot of conclusions. I've learned to not log or record those conclusions. The other times, it's refreshing to be able to come at something from different sides and come to a reasonable decision that I won't regret later.
I'm not sure yet if this is the ultimate way to think, but it seems much more efficient than just having a problem presented to you and guessing, or going with your gut. I'm not saying you can't go with your gut, but there should be some process by which you conclude your gut has the right course of action. Most people these days, in my opinion, don't look before they leap, and people like that die! (metaphysically speaking). You don't even have to do one of these extreme deconstructions, but just use your frakin' head (pardon my BSG language) and common sense. A pity that common sense is not so common, as Voltaire would put it.
No comments:
Post a Comment