On Thinking

I speak of thinking in its philosophical sense, in the sense that Nietzsche or Heidegger or many other spoke of it.
And how I understand it is different from putting before one's self some mathematical or social problem. Though all philosophers have only tackled all that has existed in the realm of ideas that gave birth to our varied social conditions,in their writings they ultimately speak of something much more than what sum of their words can capture.
Thinking as it commonly exists in the academia today is thinking within the framework of the given discipline - that is> holding onto one strand of thought bound by a logic and always within the spectrum of that discipline, and noble as it is , does not come close to the essence - the essence of thinking in the sense that one's entire nervous activity is governed by the right hemisphere ( to take one of the most recent empirical reports of the feeling ) - or that the right hemisphere of our brains is the prime operative merely calling the left to its serivce to test how the concepts under considerations play out when subjected to temporality and arbitrarily assigned ( though may be evolutionarily justified) values.
Thinking understood where one is so displaced from one's prejudices that what one comes across does not find its parallel in human language and continues to allude any kind of framing. And when one does succeed in somehow finding remotely appropriate words to explain or describe it, it is too tainted to have retained any true value or its original essence.

To me there is a difference between seeking knowledge>understanding and being in a state of consciousness where we are one with all that surrounds us.
Then I can not help but ask, why do we attempt to gain mastery in this subject or that if not to attempt to grasp some higher truth. Are we just keeping busy ? Do we seek better understanding of this or that so as to be
able to introduce new words therefore new feelings attached to those words in our everyday usage of them ? while hoping that some day enough of us will share that feeling and that will probably help distance us enough from our
animal/instinctual selves that we will care the same for any other if not more.
I think the only thing that can justify the existence of our educational institutions is, not the teachers who "teach" (tell ? ) students what have already been found, but teachers who try to give life to our curious selves. Once that self is activated and running, it itself will make use of the data banks of experiments and observations without having to worry about the social implications and economic gains they will somehow provide to other institutions
controlled by individuals in whom the will to power manifests itself in seeking more and more physical comfort only.

There is no end point for a curious spirit except to become a free spirit. Free spirit , as I understand it, is a self -prisoner as it may be to its own physiological and psychological limitations- that never stops pushing
against any and all walls that surround it. An intellectual found in the university may be a free spirit in that he/she pushes against the boundaries of ignorance but at the same time allows himself to be fettered by something that his newfound knowledge has only helped strenghthen.

You think you would know when you met an Einstein? When he produced his theory of relativity no one believed him. A genius is a genius only if he can produce an empirical truth or a work of art that finds rapport with enough number of people. Every truth seems evident "after" it has been discovered. A genius's ( genius to me is a misnomer) problem is not to find something grand but to find a mind that understands it.