Judy: "> 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!"
Me: Are you hip to Daniel Pink's A Whole New Mind, Why Right-Brainers
Will Rule the Future? It I just started it and it may offer a piece
to this puzzle.
http://www.danpink.com/
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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!
>
