The Power of Free Thought

THOUGHTS MIGHT LOOK SCARY AT FIRST

Unleashing the Mind

Korsakowian thinking—allowing ideas to roam without the shackles of preconceived notions—sparks innovation and reshapes perspectives. It’s the mental equivalent of wild horses galloping freely, unbound by the reins of convention. This untamed approach to thinking fosters connections between real-world observations, leading to insights that challenge and expand our understanding.

Breaking Free from Constraints

Traditional systems like academia often prioritize structure over creativity, urging us to control thoughts to fit established narratives. But controlling thoughts leads to stagnation, like a carriage stuck on a predetermined path. Free thought rejects this, embracing the chaos of unfiltered ideas. By letting go of the need to align with familiar frameworks, we open ourselves to seeing the world anew—whether it’s a tree that suddenly appears magical in the focus of awareness or a societal trend spotted years before it emerges.

The Spark of Innovation

Sparkling ideas, those rare gems that transform humanity—like the wheel or the internet—often and maybe always arise from free thought. No one thought of it before but now it is easy enogh to copy. Sparkling ideas don’t just solve problems; they redefine how we live, impacting millions and enduring through time. However, they’re buried in a sea of noise. Platforms like X amplify both signal and noise, but korsakowian thinkers can filter the chaos, spotting patterns and connections others miss. This ability to see clearly, unclouded by conventional wisdom, accelerates learning and discovery.

Learning from Reality

Books archive what at some point was considered valuable knowledge, but reality offers infinite knowledge, one just has to explore and look. Korsakowian thinking draws from life’s raw data—conversations, observations, fleeting moments—reconnecting these dots in novel ways. Unlike academic study, which I felt like a worm digging through a pile of old data, Korsakowian thinking (that I am now trying to learn) feels like a rocket, propelling toward insights at breakneck speed. Personal journeys, like abandoning academia for real-world exploration, show that true learning happens when we engage directly with life’s messiness.

The Courage to Think Differently

Korsakowian thinking isn’t always welcomed. It can confuse or frustrate those who prefer predictable ideas. Critics may call it erratic or irresponsible, but embracing wild thoughts requires courage. It’s not about pleasing others; it’s about following what excites the mind. This pursuit, though challenging, is deeply rewarding, offering a sense of clarity and purpose that rigid thinking can’t match.

An Invitation to Think Freely

Korsakowian thinking is a call to action. It invites us to question, connect, and explore without fear of judgment. Some, like the author of these reflections, have foreseen trends—digital design, the internet’s potential—years before others, simply by trusting their untamed ideas. You’re invited to join this journey. Let your thoughts run wild, see where they lead, and share what you find. If this feels too chaotic, that’s okay—step back. But if it sparks something in you, dive in. Follow me, contact me, whatever you like.

Quasi

Hey, I have no idea. I’m just a fool like everyone else, so anything I say should be treated with extreme caution. ‘Extreme caution’ means that anyone who hears my words only has a chance of understanding the insight they contain if they think them through with their own brain. In my opinion, this is basically a good method, no matter who says what.

I won’t say ‘in my opinion’ again in the course of this text; it always applies anyway, so you can think it into every sentence.

Everything someone says comes from a specific perspective. Every idea arises at a certain point in the system, from the person who occupies this position. You can think of it like a coordinate system on which each axis represents a different character trait. However, this coordinate system has not just three dimensions (X, Y, Z), but as many axes as there are personality traits. There are no two people in the same place. This unique position in the coordinate system then gives rise to the perspective that each person has on the overall system.

Every thought is unique as long as it has been thought through by the person who expresses it and is not simply parroted.

Every thought is unique and valuable as long as it has not been parroted. Parroted thoughts, on the other hand, have little value, they are noise.

What I try to do is to recognise the patterns in unique thoughts.

Germany – What Could Go Wrong?

In recent years, Germany has fought intensively against right-wing ideas and fascist tendencies. Society has shown a remarkable mobilisation against extreme right-wing movements and ideologies, but in this struggle one key point may have been overlooked: The possibility that many of the ideas that are branded as fascist are basically just common sense.

The fight against what is labelled ‘right-wing’ or ‘fascist’ has led to a hypervigilance in which even everyday, common-sense ideas such as the need for national security, the importance of law and order or the desire for cultural identity are lumped together with extremist ideologies. This equation can lead to legitimate discussions about important issues such as immigration, integration and internal security being stifled before they can even begin.

For example:

Security policy: the call for a robust security architecture aimed at protecting citizens and combating terrorism is often interpreted as an authoritarian or fascist tendency.

Cultural identity: Preserving and honouring one’s own culture and history is sometimes interpreted as nationalistic or xenophobic, although there is also a legitimate desire for stability and cultural heritage.

Law and order: Discussions about criminal law, asylum policy or public order can quickly lead to resentment if they are seen as signs of a fascist attitude.

The danger of one’s own fascist ideas

Even more worrying, however, could be that many overlook the fascist elements in their own ideas and actions in the fight against what they perceive to be fascism. Here are some scenarios in which this could be true:

Censorship and suppression of opinion: a culture of self-censorship or institutionalised censorship could emerge under the guise of protection from hate speech or false information. This is a classic feature of authoritarian regimes that restricts diversity of opinion and stifles dialogue.

Collectivism over individualism: There could be a tendency to sacrifice individual freedom in favour of a supposedly higher common good. This could manifest itself in politically correct norms that restrict freedom of expression or lead to a ‘culture of denunciation’ in which people are penalised for dissenting views.

Glorification of the state: The idea that the state should accumulate more and more power at the expense of personal freedom in order to achieve ‘good’ goals could lead to an overemphasis on the state. This form of statism can easily slide into a fascist attitude, where the state is seen as the last and only means of solving all problems.

Unified culture: The pressure to impose a unified culture and opinion could lead to the suppression of minorities or dissenters, which directly corresponds to the fascist idea of unity and conformity.

Superior morality: If one group or ideology claims the moral high ground and considers other views unworthy or dangerous, this could lead to a kind of moral fascism where only one view is considered legitimate.

In Germany, the next few years will be about making a clear distinction between common sense and extreme political ideologies. The danger lies not only in suppressing normal, socially necessary discussions in the fight against fascism, but also in inadvertently promoting fascist tendencies in our own political and social practice. It is crucial that this reflection and criticism takes place on both sides of the political spectrum in order to promote a society that is truly based on openness, dialogue and respect for diversity.

The future will show whether Germany can find this balance or whether it will drift in exactly the direction that most people are certainly trying to fight against.

‘It is not racist to point at those issues’

I recently got stuck on a sentence while watching YouTube: ‘It is not racist to point at those issues.’

This can be generalized to: ‘It’s not problematic to point out issues.’

For me, this sentence encapsulates much of the crux of our current social discourse.

My ongoing research suggests that the majority of people often hold strong opinions on matters they categorize as problematic, yet their knowledge on these subjects is frequently superficial. In some cases, individuals have absorbed a vast amount of information (or SNUs – for people familiar with Korsakow), but they view these problems through the singular lens of their own opinion.

If you examine a multidimensional issue (and every problem is multidimensional) from only one angle, you’re unlikely to achieve a deeper understanding of the object in question.

Time and again, in conversations with even the most intelligent people, I’ve observed that they struggle to engage with information that challenges their existing views. Instead, they seek out SNUs that reinforce their opinions, using this information as ammunition to defend their initial stance.

Many do not allow perspectives they deem problematic to affect them. This is the real issue because what happens if you refuse to entertain a perspective? Engaging with a thought or perspective is essential for understanding it, much like you can’t truly know a dog without interacting with it. You can have an opinion on things without truly understanding them, but such an opinion might only accidentally be correct. This approach has little to do with analysis, understanding, exploring, or empathizing with all facets of an issue. In other words, it’s likely disconnected from reality. If you don’t let new ideas affect you, you’ll eventually live in a fantasy world.

Oh, am I stupid

My words wrestle well and have meaning in themselves alone. They have nothing to do with the world.

Oh, am I stupid! I just had to laugh heartily when I suddenly realised my stupidity. I caught my brain linking things that can’t be linked. This is commonly called a mistake. My brain (like everyone’s?) is constantly making connections between things. This sometimes makes sense, for example when I put words in the ‘right’ order. So that the words make sense – or at least sound good. But often enough, my words may sound good, but they don’t really make sense because they can’t be linked to the world.

And this leads to the answer to the first question, which is: Are euphonious words always true? The answer, there should be general agreement, is – no. Words don’t have to be true, even if they sound nice. Everyone has certainly experienced this, at least since the invention of advertising.

The second question, however, is much more difficult to answer and I would be very interested in other perspectives: What about true words? Do true words always have to be beautiful? To examine this question, we must first define more precisely what is meant by ‘beautiful’ here. Beautiful not from the perspective of the moment, because true words are often terrifying. One would not actually expect beauty to be frightening. So beauty here must mean the beauty that emanates from a true sentence when the sentence is uttered in a historical context, far removed from any emotional closeness.

Emotional closeness, as I said, can be frightening.

Next page