I'm reading this cool book right now, "Reclaiming Cognition," about how thought is embodied, about how learning and thought necessitates movement and interaction with the world... the boundaries between the brain and the rest of the body, between the body and the world can get pretty fuzzy. Sorry! Kinda random. This thought provoking poem just provoked that thought.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think the world, every thing in it, would be better off with less thought since most thought seems to be centered on things that don't even exist, while those very thoughts are used in determining the course of behaviour. This cannot be other than destructive due to inaccurate responses to reality.
"things that don't even exist" - well, I can relate to your frustration, but at the same time: everyone has their own way of deciding what is real and what isn't - I can't really be sure mine is in every way definitively better than everyone else's.
I think that's an excellent measure of truth. Very pragmatic. But how far are you willing to take it? If sociologists determined that some unscientific superstition, say belief in the after life, on average made people more happy, and its converse, the belief that death is just death, often caused people to be depressed - then would you promote this unscientific belief? The specific example isn't important, I'm just curious how far one might take the idea that a belief system being less pain-causing makes it superior.