Mark, My explanation works for me. If your explanation works for you, then that is good for you. If my understanding changes, I'll let you know. I don't know what else to say. Maybe you're speaking from a Zen tradition; I know nothing about the Zen tradition. Being more a skeptic, Nagarjuna appeals to me.
Marsha On May 12, 2011, at 10:38 AM, 118 wrote: > Hi Marsha, > OK. I would define "thinking" as the sum total of all the activity > that goes into such conventional naming. I am not sure what else to > call the rest of it. Awareness, in my opinion, is separate from > "thinking", and is the basis for individual presence. I see your > narration as simply the final product as it becomes ready for sharing > with another. What you present seems to be the SOM portion of > thinking. But, this is just a disagreement in terminology, and I am > fine with that. In my opinion, the intellectual level is more > involved than simply SOM. SOM is simply a tool like a paintbrush is > for painting. In the same way, I would term art as the entire process > of creation of such, not just the final painting. But, perhaps to > simplify our discussion, we can call art the SOM part, and the > remainder (which is most of it) we can term something else. How about > dynamic art? Using this analogy, we can differentiate between > "thinking" and "dynamic thinking". We could also speak of literature, > and dynamic literature, one is the words, and the other includes > concepts and such. Does this work for you? > > Cheers, > Mark > > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:48 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 >> > 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 ___ 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
