Mark, I define 'thinking' as the conventional naming and narration mentally constructed using words. Awareness, on the other hand, can be of all types of non-verbal experiences.
Marsha On May 11, 2011, at 11:56 PM, 118 wrote: > Hi Marsha, > I think if you pay attention you will notice that we do not think in > words. The only time we do is when we are formulating a communication > or thinking within the social level. Thinking is much deeper than > that, and words are just the tip of the iceberg (as it were). Most of > our thinking goes unnoticed by that focussed part. You may be speaking > of is the difference between psychological "attention" and > consciousness. This is poorly informed Western psychology that > presents such a dichotomy. > > Have you ever heard of "thinking without thinking"? This is popular > terminology within Zen for the process of mindfulness, and it is just > that. Strange I know for those who live in a world of words. > Attention, in its Western form, has been relegated to a function > required for survival (you know, all those Darwin worshipers). > Certainly, a focal point of attention helps us perform tasks, but what > do you think the rest of the brain is doing during this time, standing > idly by? That just would not make sense. Ever have a thought > suddenly appear in focus out of nowhere. Don't you think that there > was something going on to produce that thought? > > It does not take much of the brain to be in attention, and the rest of > the brain is not asleep during this time. Because of Western > psychology, many believe that they are their focussed thoughts. This > is really a shame since it is so untrue. What a waste that would be > if the sum total of ourselves where just what we were focussing on at > the time. This occupies about 1% of our total thinking. If you let > your thoughts go free, do not concentrate on them, but just observe > them as something that is happening to you, you will find that there > is much more going on in there. Certainly do not take my word for it, > but don't waste your life surrounded by static quality. > > Good luck, > Mark > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:20 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> On May 11, 2011, at 3:59 PM, 118 wrote: >> >>> Mark: >>> What you say below is incorrect. You are speaking of the Social >>> Level. We think outside of language and only use it for >>> communication. >> >> Marsha: >> I am speaking about thinking, not consciousness. I am sure human >> beings are conscious of many experiences outside of language: smell, >> taste, hearing, touch and sight to name the most obvious. >> >> >>> Mark: >>> Many things are true to the individual; things are >>> only agreed on at the Social level. >> >> Marsha: >> I understand thinking to go on at both the Social and Intellectual >> Levels. >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:51 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello Arlo, >>>> >>>> Been thinking that we can think and characterize reality only subject to >>>> language, which is conventional (sq) and says nothing ultimately true. Do >>>> you accept your last statement (Assimilating language...) as true? >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 10, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: >>>> >>>>> [Marsha] >>>>> Is this about an autonomous individual? >>>>> >>>>> [Arlo] >>>>> No. In this paragraph the author is stating the extremes, or poles, of >>>>> "structure" (determinism?) and "agency" (free will?). There have been >>>>> other terms for these, but within structuration theories (such as >>>>> Giddens, Archer, Parker and Bourdieu), these are recast not as antagonist >>>>> forces, but mutually enabling and mutually supportive. Agency is always >>>>> enacted within structure, and structure is always influenced by agency. >>>>> Greater structure brings greater agency, simplistically, rather than >>>>> being inversely related. The incredibly rapidity of world travel, and the >>>>> ensuing "freedom" to move around the globe, rests on a very complex >>>>> structure of mechanics, navigation, flight theory, schedules, airports, >>>>> etc etc etc. If you remove the structure, the agency of the individual >>>>> to move around is severely diminished. Moreso, Boudieu also considers the >>>>> same duality regarding "words" which Mark seems to suggest is a form of >>>>> imprisonment. Assimilating language provides us with far g re >> at >>>> er capacity to act than a feral human would have, albeit it at the same >>>> time (like roadways) channeling our thoughts in certain ways. ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
