The Importance of Instinct in Critical Thinking
The United States Government has never officially conceded that the cold-blooded murder of President John F. Kennedy, under the noonday sun in Dallas, was a conspiracy.* Quite to the contrary, the government has colluded with corporate media for more than half a century now in an attempt to condition Americans to think otherwise. And yet, despite this coercion, an overwhelming majority of Americans feel that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone...and many of them believe that he did not act at all, in facilitating Kennedy's death.
How, then, have a majority of American citizens come to regard the abiding governmental view on the murder of JFK as inaccurate, or even nefarious?
Instinct, according to various dictionaries, is defined as, "natural intuitive power"; "something you know without learning it or thinking about it"; "a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned"; and "a natural ability."
Not long ago--before society was overrun by an avalanche of electronically disseminated information--those seeking to come to an understanding of controversial government policies and clandestine military operations were forced to rely to some great degree on their own internal judgment apparatus. With the tendency now running towards an overabundance of information--sources, propaganda, and nearly every other conceivable facet surrounding the concept of knowledge acquisition, interpretation and assimilation--the detective work, as it were, is continually being done for us.
This bodes ill for many reasons--not the least of which is that we are being shut off from not only our own history, or the world itself...but from our very perceptions.
There are some instances where definitive proof may never exist; where demanding evidence that one, thus, cannot hope to attain precludes the higher path to truth that an individual's perception may provide. Holding out for ultimate proof, then, can in some circumstances have a stultifying effect on one's capacity to realize truth. Humans were given instinct for a reason: But where it once reigned near the top of the hierarchy in mankind's approach to interpreting and understanding the world, it has since been relegated by many of its possessors to the role of a nearly useless accessory.
Facts are king now; perception a pauper.
This has become a ubiquitous and lamentable reality. Even here at Oped News--a bastion of fairly vigorous independent thought--there are, for example, those who admit to believing that 9/11 was a false-flag event; and yet, they still refuse formally to label it as such, as no one has validated for them what their own instinct should have sufficed to verify long ago. This correlates with the inability in some people to place deserved value on any bit of information that hasn't been sanctioned for them--generally, from on high, as it were; and it is a vital ingredient in the vile recipe that constitutes the systematic undermining of the concept of free thought that has become prevalent in our society.
Facts are one thing--and they are valuable...when and where practicality and responsibility permit them to be applied; this need for authoritarian vetting of every individual piece of a historical puzzle, though, is not only disturbing, but profoundly witless and wholly unproductive. There comes a point where one is obligated to keep one's own counsel on matters both large and small. To grant the power of any entity--in whatever form it may take--absolute dominion over one's own senses, where perception and common sense should prevail is, I contend, deleterious to the extreme. That, however, is what comes when the lust for convenience and the need to be told by so-called leaders or experts outstrips the value of individual perception--when those in a society allow a small group with ostensibly benign, but in truth largely questionable, virtues to do their thinking for them.
It is, I feel, worthwhile to note that in seeking definitive proof of some controversy, one may very well receive nothing more than an interpretation of said event from one who is no more qualified to interpret that event than the seeker himself. It may, in fact, lead to little more than flawed interpretations masquerading as factual proof...or, worse still, to someone else's propaganda holding sway, depending on the point of view of he who offers it. Again...there are some circumstances where definitive proof may never exist. In the matter of false-flag events, for instance, it is orchestrated from the outset that the only people who will ever know for certain the full scope of a particular event--including, of course, whether or not that event is indeed false flag in nature--are those who plan it and order its execution and who leave no written documentation of their crimes. ...Or even, in many cases, any credible witnesses.
In those instances, one seeking truth would be better served in accumulating what responsible evidence one can, and relying on instinct to bridge the remaining gulf.
...And so, too, would the rest of us be better served.