Gramsci really annoyed me with his division of society into intellectuals and non-intellectuals (and then especially with his empty gesture of saying that we are all intellectuals). He is saying that the non-intellectuals should get to determine society's conceptualization of the world while the intellectuals are only fit to serve as scribes. But intellectuals are people too. True they should not dictate, but they should also not be excluded. Even though this annoyed me, it was fruitful because it made me evaluate why I am so passionate about education. I am starting to think that my passion for education is merely my intellectual manifestation of my broader human desire to connect to people. I like that knowledge connects me to history and people all across the world who have read the same articles and had the same thoughts. I love TV and music and friends just as much as education when I think about it because those things connect me to people (whether physically or mentally). Education may not be THE answer I thought it was, and now I think a feeling of belonging and connectedness (in whatever form it takes) is THE answer to what people want. And what is more important than THE answer (because I think there might be a lot of THE answers) is how I got to it. I had to think like a person (with feelings) rather than an intellectual (with logic). So intellectuals don't have to be relegated to the dustbin. But they just have to trust themselves as feeling people and believe that that side of themselves is fully justified.

Next, I wonder what Gramsci means by “conception of the world.” What do you think are some different ways people can conceptualize the world????? (Looking for a real answer here) I tried to think about it and came up with the idea that one’s conception of the world is a combination of logic and a chosen degree of nihilism (by which I mean the decision to intellectually disregard what one knows through physical experience to be very important). The degree chosen varies from person to person. For example, zero degrees of nihilism says that if I am stronger than X, I can kill X and have his stuff. One degree of nihilism says I have more money than X, so I can buy his stuff from him. Two degrees of nihilism says I am smarter than X, so I can control X and get him to give me his stuff. Three degrees of nihilism says I am kinder than X, so let him keep his stuff. Four degrees says X and I are one, so what is X’s is mine. All stages use logic, and vary only in how much of reality they chose to ignore. So saying that the new conceptualization of the world should come from the “real” people is giving them too much credit. It is not like they are enlightened in their “realness.” It’s just that they are the majority, so they should dictate what level of nihilism we function on. The truth is that a society can be formed on any one of those levels and has been formed on most of them. We are in the intellectual phase, and so the intellectuals are seen as the elite dictating the conceptualization. Instead, they just have the right skill at the right time (while the great marathon runners and power-lifters are empires too late for their skill to wield political power). My guess is that the next trend will be toward kindness, and the educational system will then be geared toward honing that skill. I would have no power in that kind of a system. I value knowledge at the expense of everything else, but I do recognize that a system based on kindness would be better than one based on intellect (just as money is better than violence and intellect is better than money).

I just read a book called Paradigm Found by Anne Firth Murray the Global Fund for Women lady. Of all her messages the one that I liked the most was the idea of structuring your efforts to mirror the change you want to see. For instance, if a non-profit is promoting democracy, liberalism and free speech, then it makes no sense to structure that non-profit as a strict hierarchy in which half of the employees have no say in the day to day running of the company. This is an obvious example, but if you are serious about this idea of structuring your operations consistently with your principles you eventually have to rethink a lot of stuff. For instance, say you are fund raising and a corporation offers you a ton of money, but under the condition that the money goes to a certain cause, and your organization supports ideas similar to that cause, but not quite. Do you accept the money and slightly alter your mission in order to do immediate good, or do you turn down the money and stick to your stated mission? I think you stick to your mission. Anne said you stick to your mission because of your principles. I think you stick to your mission just to make life a bit more manageable. Tie your hands one day (the day you state your principles) in order to save time every other day deciding between what amount to equally good and noble choices in the grand scheme of things.