On the chance that some may be curious....
- Thread starter GeoFee
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
GeoFee
I am who I am becoming...
Some Thoughts on Thinking
It is not possible to make thinking known as itself. Thinking is that immediate activity of being which escapes description. Making it known involves me in a reduction. The process of thinking, thought, is presented as thoughts, the product of thinking. Product and process are as different as any polar pair.
Thinking flows as a continuous event in my awareness. It is directed now in this direction and now in that. It is not fixed. Nor can it be fixed. This is not to suggest that it is broken without hope of repair. My thinking is perfectly intact. Being intact means it is not liable to reduction of any sort. This is a given which is often forgotten.
We all think as the fact of our being human. That thinking is as automatic as our breathing. Our awareness of thinking gives rise to thoughts. There should be no confusion between the activity thinking and its production of thoughts. Thoughts are the reminder of thinking. They make known where thinking has been. But they cannot contain or reveal the thinking itself. No matter how minimal the gap between thinking and thought, they are forever and immutably distinct. Can this be proven?
The concern for proof is a refusal of being as itself. We wish to make a matter certain by establishing its proof. Thus we protect ourselves from the freedom which is resident in the activity, thinking. Being aware of thinking is too much sacrificed to being aware of thoughts. Thought is easily made to serve commodiously. It may be parleyed into the essential factors of power. It is the basic commodity of profit. Where the proof of one thought is extended to the claims of certainty it overrides a similar claim of another thought. These distinctions have no bearing on thinking.
We may say that all persons engage in thinking. We may not prove this. It is open to the acceptance of all. Each one need only consider personal experience to validate the claim. But the claim may not be imposed to bind another to its content.
Thinking is valid in its constitution of the basic singularity of being. Where there is thinking there is identity. This identity is the mark of evolution. Evolution conceived not as a progression of events but as the unfolding of potential.
The distinction is essential. Progress is motion in a direction open to an infinite possibility. The progress may be towards any undetermined but possible end. An unfolding potential is the realization of that which is already present in the fact of being. These are distinguished in the contrast of moving to or away from a centre.
Movement towards a centre may be accomplished from any point on a circumference. Movement from the centre is possible in any direction of the circumference. Movement to the centre tends to unification. Movement to the circumference, which extends infinitely outwards from the centre where the radius is defined as movement, tends to differentiation. Starting from a common centre, two points move proportionately further apart as they move from the centre. This identifies the modern dilemma.
Thus, I have the task of discovering that which is intrinsic to my being in the world. I am not oriented to becoming that which is not now available. I am not oriented to the future. The present is the place at which all that is possible already exists. At whatever point of the circumference and whatever the radius, I am irrevocably defined by my relation to the centre. That centre is my thinking, manifest here only as its memory. This is important for several reasons.
First it means that there is a completeness in me which may not be withheld by some external authority. There is no configuration of thought which may make any final claim on my thinking. It is this freedom which is negotiated away in the transaction of modern economy. Thoughts are valued in some hierarchical fashion. Bargaining is the process of accumulating a thought repertoire adequate to meet the challenge of another's similar though dissimilar thought repertoire.
Second, all of my relations are necessarily conditioned by a common relation to the centre. My consideration of any matter can not be finally determined by the particular point of view, location on the circumference at any given radius, without a final qualification by the centre. Each relation, then, is conditioned by the essential consideration of movement to or from the centre. A point moving to the centre is a thought consistent with my own thinking. A thought moving from the centre is a thought inconsistent with my thinking. All thinking is to or away from the centre. That is, all thinking is towards itself or away from itself.
Thinking towards itself is thinking consistent with itself. Thinking away from itself is thinking conditioned by some thought. Generally a thought projected into the future. Thus the thinking abandons itself as itself to seek itself in that which it may not possibly be.
This thinking is located in these present manifestations of thought. But the thinking itself is not resident. It passes through the form of thought to continue as itself on its way. That it continues does not imply an object to be realized at some future point in time. It is in itself the attainment of that which it seeks. Thinking is focussed on thinking.
Any thoughts on thinking...?
George
Last edited:
Ritafee
Is Being Human
"First it means that there is a completeness in me which may not be withheld by some external authority. There is no configuration of thought which may make any final claim on my thinking. It is this freedom which is negotiated away in the transaction of modern economy. Thoughts are valued in some hierarchical fashion. Bargaining is the process of accumulating a thought repertoire adequate to meet the challenge of another's similar though dissimilar thought repertoire."
I think I thought that !
I think I thought that !
Hermann
Well-Known Member
Thinking is making sense of reality. It is creating concepts, and interpreting reality with these concepts. It is a conceptualization of reality, based on the analysis of phenomena. Thinking is, above all, a creative process: an arbitrarily creative process. Our thoughts and concepts are arbitrary creations, are metaphorical interpretations of reality. We may think they are absolutely true, but they are not. What really goes on we don't know.
Hermann
Well-Known Member
Yes, arbitrarily means that we chose our conceptual creations. We can't possibly claim that our concepts are objectively or absolutely true. I put in in bold because this is an important distinction.
I think this is so firstly because of the viewpoint of the observer, which is chosen by the observer and determines the truth of the observation. The same thing looks differently when the viewed from a different viewpoint. And, as far as the human experience is concerned, there is a limitless number of viewpoints and truths. One can pick one's truth--arbitrarily.
But, more importantly, I think it is impossible to determine truth by analysis alone because the reality we analyse is in an ultimate state of unity, inseparability or synthesis. Analysis is antithetical to synthesis. Reality, as it really is, in its holistic oneness, can only be experienced. It cannot be analyzed and still be what it really is. Any analysis fragments the inseparable whole and it no longer is what it really is.
Reality, in its ultimate isness, can only be experienced, and is being experienced, in the pure, unconceptualized experience, when we experience the unified whole, which some of us call God, in its undivided wholeness. Then we experience the unitive love that keeps the godly whole unified.
Our thoughts can't grasp IT, but we can and do experience IT in the pure, unconceptualized experience.
Thinking is overrated, and the pure experience is underrated. That's what I think!
I think this is so firstly because of the viewpoint of the observer, which is chosen by the observer and determines the truth of the observation. The same thing looks differently when the viewed from a different viewpoint. And, as far as the human experience is concerned, there is a limitless number of viewpoints and truths. One can pick one's truth--arbitrarily.
But, more importantly, I think it is impossible to determine truth by analysis alone because the reality we analyse is in an ultimate state of unity, inseparability or synthesis. Analysis is antithetical to synthesis. Reality, as it really is, in its holistic oneness, can only be experienced. It cannot be analyzed and still be what it really is. Any analysis fragments the inseparable whole and it no longer is what it really is.
Reality, in its ultimate isness, can only be experienced, and is being experienced, in the pure, unconceptualized experience, when we experience the unified whole, which some of us call God, in its undivided wholeness. Then we experience the unitive love that keeps the godly whole unified.
Our thoughts can't grasp IT, but we can and do experience IT in the pure, unconceptualized experience.
Thinking is overrated, and the pure experience is underrated. That's what I think!
Hermann
Well-Known Member
Now to the big existential questions: What is right thought? Is there such a thing as right thought? And, if there is, how do we derive it?
Given that our analyses are relative to the viewpoint of the observer, and that there is a virtually unlimited number of viewpoints and truths, which viewpoint is good or right? Which is the best, and how do we determine it?
I think there is no "best" viewpoint, although some of them are worse than others. I think the basis for analytical thinking should be the opposite of analytical thinking: intuition!
If, in the the pure, unconceptualized experience of reality, we experience reality as it really is, as an undivided and indivisible whole, then it seems best to immerse ourselves in that holistic experience, and act directly, intuitively and spontaneously, right from the depth of the experience. This is also know as intuition, and intuition is the opposite of reason. When we use intuition as the basis for our reasoning, then we can't go too wrong.
According to the teachings of the Buddha, there are four "Rights." They are:
Right Consciousness
Right Thought
Right Action
Right Livelihood
The sequence is important. First comes Right Consciousness. Right Thought arises from Right Consciousness, and Right Action from Right Thought.
The Right Consciousness, on which everything is based, is the consciousness, awareness and experience of reality as a wholistic whole. The wholistic whole, as it really is, cannot be grasped very well by the logical intellect, but in can be experienced or intuited in the pure experience of reality. In it we experience how things really are. If we immerse ourselves in the pure experience, and think and act directly from that awareness, then we can't go too wrong.
Intuition and reason are diametric opposites, they are the opposite poles of the human intellect. Reasoning from the depth of intuition bridges and balances these opposites, and unites the two poles of intelligence. This is unified or holistic intelligence, also known as wisdom.
"O men, seek ye wisdom, for wisdom is more precious than gold."
-BOOK OF PROVERBS
Given that our analyses are relative to the viewpoint of the observer, and that there is a virtually unlimited number of viewpoints and truths, which viewpoint is good or right? Which is the best, and how do we determine it?
I think there is no "best" viewpoint, although some of them are worse than others. I think the basis for analytical thinking should be the opposite of analytical thinking: intuition!
If, in the the pure, unconceptualized experience of reality, we experience reality as it really is, as an undivided and indivisible whole, then it seems best to immerse ourselves in that holistic experience, and act directly, intuitively and spontaneously, right from the depth of the experience. This is also know as intuition, and intuition is the opposite of reason. When we use intuition as the basis for our reasoning, then we can't go too wrong.
According to the teachings of the Buddha, there are four "Rights." They are:
Right Consciousness
Right Thought
Right Action
Right Livelihood
The sequence is important. First comes Right Consciousness. Right Thought arises from Right Consciousness, and Right Action from Right Thought.
The Right Consciousness, on which everything is based, is the consciousness, awareness and experience of reality as a wholistic whole. The wholistic whole, as it really is, cannot be grasped very well by the logical intellect, but in can be experienced or intuited in the pure experience of reality. In it we experience how things really are. If we immerse ourselves in the pure experience, and think and act directly from that awareness, then we can't go too wrong.
Intuition and reason are diametric opposites, they are the opposite poles of the human intellect. Reasoning from the depth of intuition bridges and balances these opposites, and unites the two poles of intelligence. This is unified or holistic intelligence, also known as wisdom.
"O men, seek ye wisdom, for wisdom is more precious than gold."
-BOOK OF PROVERBS
Layton November
Well-Known Member
Yes, arbitrarily means that we chose our conceptual creations. We can't possibly claim that our concepts are objectively or absolutely true. I put in in bold because this is an important distinction.
I think this is so firstly because of the viewpoint of the observer, which is chosen by the observer and determines the truth of the observation. The same thing looks differently when the viewed from a different viewpoint. And, as far as the human experience is concerned, there is a limitless number of viewpoints and truths. One can pick one's truth--arbitrarily.
But, more importantly, I think it is impossible to determine truth by analysis alone because the reality we analyse is in an ultimate state of unity, inseparability or synthesis. Analysis is antithetical to synthesis. Reality, as it really is, in its holistic oneness, can only be experienced. It cannot be analyzed and still be what it really is. Any analysis fragments the inseparable whole and it no longer is what it really is.
Reality, in its ultimate isness, can only be experienced, and is being experienced, in the pure, unconceptualized experience, when we experience the unified whole, which some of us call God, in its undivided wholeness. Then we experience the unitive love that keeps the godly whole unified.
Our thoughts can't grasp IT, but we can and do experience IT in the pure, unconceptualized experience.
Thinking is overrated, and the pure experience is underrated. That's what I think!
Much liked - and with a thank you to you, Hermann.
I think it is Late in November for me.
In my daily life, I try to walk the path you describe.
In my daily death, I am a part of everything - and everything is part of me.
Is it funny that Proverbs also say that wisdom is a pain ... sort of like the dark mother of con-science ...
Chi'z often manifest as a multitude of eyes watching you ... that you cannot see ... the un seen or just un conscious?
Be the death 've meis if I don't have concern for the future ... this is what we leave for creations children. Many don't give a damn about what they leave! Such was once known as pas'ova ...
Chi'z often manifest as a multitude of eyes watching you ... that you cannot see ... the un seen or just un conscious?
Be the death 've meis if I don't have concern for the future ... this is what we leave for creations children. Many don't give a damn about what they leave! Such was once known as pas'ova ...
Hermann
Well-Known Member
I think and feel that we are not only one inseparable whole, but that every one of us is also an individually unique manifestation of the inseparable whole. Unfortunately, most of us are aware of being a unique individual only, and unaware that we also are one inseparable whole, and therefore succumb to the illusion of absolute separateness. This makes us alone and lonely--and depressed.
But when we immerse ourselves in the pure experience of reality, then we experience the unity that underlies all diversity, the oneness and sameness that underlies uniqueness. Then the depression of loneliness is overcome.
If, as I speculate, the Principle of Complementarity is not only a physical but also a spiritual principle, then opposites necessitate each other. Then the reality which we analyze is also in a state of synthesis, and the separate and disparate parts of the universe also are one inseparable whole. Then there is unity in diversity, and oneness in separteness and uniqueness.
It is difficult to get our heads around nonduality or synthesis because we are so hung up on our rational intellect, with logical analysis as the only means of deriving truth. But the cosmic synthesis is also and equally true. IT, however, is antithetical to analysis, and therefore can't be figured out analytically. But we can experience IT, and do experience IT, in the pure, unconceptualized experience of reality.
Getting IT
IT is we; we are IT.
We can't comprehend IT without experiencing IT,
But we can experience IT without comprehending IT--
For we are IT!
IT reveals everything;
IT explains nothing.
The interpretations
Of ITs revelations
Are our creations.
-Hermann
But when we immerse ourselves in the pure experience of reality, then we experience the unity that underlies all diversity, the oneness and sameness that underlies uniqueness. Then the depression of loneliness is overcome.
If, as I speculate, the Principle of Complementarity is not only a physical but also a spiritual principle, then opposites necessitate each other. Then the reality which we analyze is also in a state of synthesis, and the separate and disparate parts of the universe also are one inseparable whole. Then there is unity in diversity, and oneness in separteness and uniqueness.
It is difficult to get our heads around nonduality or synthesis because we are so hung up on our rational intellect, with logical analysis as the only means of deriving truth. But the cosmic synthesis is also and equally true. IT, however, is antithetical to analysis, and therefore can't be figured out analytically. But we can experience IT, and do experience IT, in the pure, unconceptualized experience of reality.
Getting IT
IT is we; we are IT.
We can't comprehend IT without experiencing IT,
But we can experience IT without comprehending IT--
For we are IT!
IT reveals everything;
IT explains nothing.
The interpretations
Of ITs revelations
Are our creations.
-Hermann
Layton November
Well-Known Member
Nothing is nothing.
Everything is everything.
Nothing is everything.
Everything is nothing.
All is one.
“Beyond our ideas of right-doing and wrong-doing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass, the world is too full to talk about.
Ideas, language, even the phrase ‘each other’ doesn’t make sense any more.”
― Rumi
Layton November
Well-Known Member
I can’t write you into relevance. Let your actions make it so. - LN
Hermann
Well-Known Member
Layton November
Well-Known Member
Yeah, meet you there!
I think, at times, we have already been there! - LN
"My hope is for us to come together not only embracing shared beliefs and values, but acknowledging our differences in ways that promote respect and appreciation. To ask for a shared vision is a fair and legitimate human proposal; what is not fair and legitimate is to dictate the ways on how we get there.[Emphasis: Mine] If we are to emerge from the long shadows that can engulf us, we must talk with each other, come to understand each other, and renew ourselves and our perceptions of each other."
-- Alma Abdul-Hadi Jadallah
"The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr
Hermann
Well-Known Member
Actually, I think we are there, all of us, all of the time--if only we were aware of it! Eden is in us and all around us, but, alas, most of us are not aware of this. And even those of us who are aware of the ultimate paradisical state of being sometimes slip and lose the awareness. But, once we have been there, we can easily find our way back.
LN ---- "I can't write you into relevance!"
Sort of like the field under the old OK'y tree ... that one marked with the yelloe ribbing ... but don't sai it as it is ... or they'll believe you to be manifestly thinking ... ND SUCH KNOWLEDGE IS WRONG ... bible sais so!
Sort of like the field under the old OK'y tree ... that one marked with the yelloe ribbing ... but don't sai it as it is ... or they'll believe you to be manifestly thinking ... ND SUCH KNOWLEDGE IS WRONG ... bible sais so!
There are variants tho' what some call deviations from the roués as defined by authority on laws of gramma ... this overlaps the guidelines of myths and the integral understanding thereof ... S(myths)? Like human sickness ... the absence of mind? This would be the infamous dark void ... and the Shadow knows ... whereas emotional gods don't! Alas they lead us into all kinds of failures ... like the Canadian economy where they loan to business at low rates ... but common people are discouraged from following suit!
So what really counts ... industry and business or ... people stopped and observing the insanity?
I have my perspective, you have yours and the corporate reality has another.
I was told today of another Canadian Corporate concern leaving town, closing down operations without telling their employees ... all the wile b'ithcing about lack of employee loyaltee ... like leader ... something follows ... imitation across time ... pas'over?
The only thing that sinks in is the story as altruism is oppressed! This may be poorly understood by those not observing the detailing of the story! But alas it is me that s declared crazy for pondering the complexity when the corporation would like simplicity in the workers: mules or numb drones?
So what really counts ... industry and business or ... people stopped and observing the insanity?
I have my perspective, you have yours and the corporate reality has another.
I was told today of another Canadian Corporate concern leaving town, closing down operations without telling their employees ... all the wile b'ithcing about lack of employee loyaltee ... like leader ... something follows ... imitation across time ... pas'over?
The only thing that sinks in is the story as altruism is oppressed! This may be poorly understood by those not observing the detailing of the story! But alas it is me that s declared crazy for pondering the complexity when the corporation would like simplicity in the workers: mules or numb drones?