GS Chandy: >If, by the way, you're really interested in actually exploring/ using "thought as a (practical) system" [as opposed to just providing e-mail links to others' works about it], do check out the 'One Page Management System' (OPMS) if you will, and you may find that this is precisely a practical 'tool for thought' - *designed as 'a system'* - (and usable by any high-school student to help the user arrive at a clear understanding of what's involved in accomplishing any 'Mission' of current interest. This is done by using one's available ideas AS A SYSTEM). I have sometimes referred to this 'systems tool for thought' right here at Math-teach.
Well, you certainly have missed the point. If you do ever acquaint yourself with the viewpoint offered in "Thought as a System" the idea is not to praise the notion of TAAS, but to explore its flaws and limitations. It at least suggests that more thought won't fix some of the problems we face, (even if supercharged with OPMS.) I brought it up because I found your endlessly repeated "thinking for oneself" to be very simplistic. Just repeating over and over doesn't make it any more than a cliche. Analyzing the nature of thought itself, and questioning its efficacy in solving societies most severe problems, is at least off the beaten path.
And by the way, a link is all that's necessary if I am simply trying to draw one's attention to existing work.