Wow. Jim's enlightened *and* he gets to make 62 posts in one week, several of them after having been very politely asked by Rick to stop at 56. That's some "quality of thought," all right. :-)
I guess when you're enlightened politeness and group etiquette aren't important any more. One more reason we should all get there, eh? This is 35 for me and *not* being all enlightened and perfect like Jim, I'm going to stop. :-) See you next week... --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@> > > wrote: > > > > > > I've been noticing lately the difference between thoughts as > they > > > are ordinarily recognized, and those apprehended at a more > > > fundamental level. Thoughts on the surface level of thinking > will > > > typically contain just the one thought; "I need to go to the > > > store", "The sum of 57 and 85 is 142", "That person approaching > is > > > smiling at me". Constructs may then be built from the assemblage > > and > > > relationships of these single thoughts, but nonetheless they > remain > > > lovely, linear and singular. In contrast, there are thoughts, > too, > > > apprehended at a more fundamental layer of their emergence, > which > > > contain entire perspectives, entire worlds within them. > > > > > > When I encounter such a thought, I am astonished at the amount > of > > > information it contains, and all of the information I am able to > > > unravel from it once I express it in a linear fashion. Many of > my > > > posts here are the results of such thoughts, appearing first as > a > > > concentrated singularity, but then sometimes unraveling into > > several > > > paragraphs or more. I haven't been able to see them as a precise > > > shape yet, just before unraveling, because the process is one of > > > intuitively expending the discrete energy of the thought through > > > expression until it is exhausted, like pouring out a glass of > water > > > along a straight line until the glass is empty. Unlike a surface > > > thought, a singularity, these more subtle thoughts already > contain > > > all of their associated structures and constructions inherent in > > > their seed form. > > > > > > I think it would be fascinating to see the spherical energy of > the > > > thought, its exact shape, prior to the unraveling process. I'd > like > > > to know how all of that energy is stored, precisely, and what it > > > looks like. Does it look like an atomic structure, with a > > > concentrated core, surrounded by shells of decreasing energy, or > is > > > it more like a coiled spring—the energy inherent in the shape > > > itself? To be continued. :-) > > > > You've described my own experience, except that > > for me (and maybe you left this out for simplicity's > > sake) it's more of a spectrum. Most of my thoughts > > are nonverbal (which is odd, given that I'm so verbally > > oriented!). It's only when they're pretty well > > unraveled that they become linear enough that they're > > susceptible to being put into words, and then only > > when some intention to do so is involved. > > > > At the other end of the spectrum are those highly > > complex and subtle thoughts you describe, but there's > > also a range in between of less complex, less subtle, > > but still nonverbal thoughts. These in-between > > thoughts constitute the bulk of my operational > > thinking. > > > > I can't "see" the shapes of the really subtle > > thoughts either, except to sense that they're > > distinctly three-dimensional ("dimensional" being > > to some extent a metaphor here), and there are > > times when I suspect further dimensions may be > > involved. These I find extremely difficult to > > unravel into a linear form, and when I try to put > > them into words, I frequently end up with vast > > tracts of impenetrable text that *still* don't > > completely capture the original thought. Very > > frustrating, especially for a professional > > editor! > > > Yes, absolutely a spectrum! And yes, agreed that they are multi- > dimensional. Perhaps we can just pick a starting point anywhere > within the ball of string and begin unraveling. :-) >
