The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'

the author's site ^ | 1972 | Dallas Willard

[fifteendogs]

Your thoghts are very provocative. They, however, do not fit into the reality of my life. I am not challenging what you have to say, I only offer that my experience of time do not fit with what you have described. I will say that your definition, if usable, would provide a far greater life experience than what we have realized thus far.

[headsonpikes]

"Thank you for your input."

You owe me.

Of course, you knew that.

[fifteendogs]

Sometimes my limit of understanding of your language puts me at a disadvantage. Could you please explain what it is that I owe you?

[Consort]

They, however, do not fit into the reality of my life.

I see what you are saying, but if the given definition is true, then it is the reality of your life, and mine, whether we like it or not. Once we accept only one possibility, then we stop growing. It's important to keep an open mind and be willing to consider new possibilities.

[fifteendogs]

Your understanding is welcome. I hope that we can communicate further without the static of the uninformed. There are many things that I would love to share with you but I am not willing to expose myself to the inferior intellect that frequent this environment. If you are interested, please contact me thru private email.

[headsonpikes]

"...what it is that I owe you?"

I gave you something of value; someday I would like something of value in return.

That's what you owe me.

But you knew that.

[fifteendogs]

I hope that in some way that I am able to repay all my debts.

[unspun]

Furthermore, since thought, like emotion, is universally experienced, if not by all of mankind, then at least by all those participating in this philosophical discussion, there is currently no one (including Wittgenstein) truly impartial enough to determine how "people" in general actually think.

It is likely in general that the functioning of human beings is similar among them. Just as it is apt to say that people's fingerprints consist of roughly parallel, curved ridges. Psychologists have studied these things.

[unspun]

You brought up the phrase I AM which God gives to Moses as a "nickname" for Himself. It is a profound sentence and a most excellent way to begin meditation and worship - to enter the domain of thought where language fails.

Right on. That's where it begins.

[unspun]

"Now God-and-me, there is autonomy."

That is like trying to knock a hammer into the breeze.

No, that is like feeling the breeze and breathing and being thankful for it.

[unspun]

What is an "untrue" thought: a thought you do not have? a thought about something that is untrue? or a thought you believe is true, but about which you are mistaken?

I was speaking about inaccurate thoughts, thoughts that do not convey reality.

I haven't said that thoughts are things that happen to us. (But I allow that there are thoughts conveyed by the Holy Spirit or by demonic spirits. That is because I believe what I am told by One whose authority is infinitely greater than mine. And of course, it does not affect my understanding that would demand scientific evidence of this.)

[tpaine]

You got it kid.. 'Profound' is me middle name.

[unspun]

demands truth

To demand truth is more like insanity, especially when one refuses the truth one has been shown.

[unspun]

And what happens in your mind just before you arrive at the symbols you relate to the impetus your mind generates?

Do you arrive at the symbol or do you form your mind into approximate analogy with the thoughts of others?

Excellent question. I think both seem possible, also both at once.

[unspun]

Churchill said ... "1st we build our architectire --- then our architecture builds (( prisons )) us" ! Language is shorthand (( notation )) ... but then we forget the translation --- message // theme !

Excellent observation, fC. Analagous to what WT described as getting used to the miraculous so much that it becomes very difficult to realize it's wonderment.

[tpaine]

unspun wrote:

"Now God-and-me, there is autonomy."

-and -

"That is like trying to knock a hammer into the breeze."

-and-

"No, that is like feeling the breeze and breathing and being thankful for it."

-and -

"I haven't said that thoughts are things that happen to us. (But I allow that there are thoughts conveyed by the Holy Spirit or by demonic spirits. That is because I believe what I am told by One whose authority is infinitely greater than mine. And of course, it does not affect my understanding that would demand scientific evidence of this.)"



[I feel a lotta 'breeze', -- and, - I rest my case.]

[Hank Kerchief]

Hank, as you likely know, reason/logic requires the subject to be limited, in order to apply the rules of logic. In other words, it can only be used to "know" a subset of reality.

It is true, reason does not make one omniscient. But, if we are to know anything about reality (which I define as all that is, the way it is), reason is the method we must use.

...more than we can know by using pure sense data/empiricism, but less than we can know of reality it total.

This is a little confusing to me, but what I think you mean is that we can be conscious of a great deal (for example, I can see at night a vast universe) but by reason can only reach a partial understanding of all that we are conscious of. If this is what you mean, I think it is a mistake to use the word "know" for that which we are only conscious of. I understand it is a common use of the word, but in an epistemological sense, we only know what we have conceptually non-contradictorily identified and integrated with everything else we know.

I think this answers the rest of your comment as well. (By the way, I do not agree that an insane person can use logic perfectly. They might use logic correctly in some specific area of cognition. If they were completely logical about everything, of cousrse, they would make no mistakes, and would be perfectly sane.

Thanks for the comments.

Hank

[unspun]

The concept of one singular human thought process has been around for ages.It is simplistic to lump biological and hard wired human characteristics such as Greed,Lust,Pride, Envy,Anger,and Sloth (often refered to as the seven deadly sins)as shared thinking.

Frankly I don't see a requirement for uniformity or complete accuracy in human understanding, in order to say that the processes of humans at large are human processes and may be described as such. Also, the relationship between truth to humans is always that of infallible master to fallible student. Here is how A.W. Tozer explained that:

Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So one hundred worshipers [meeting] together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be, were they to become 'unity' conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship.

But have we all acceded at least that human thought is not the stuff of language? If so, I do also suggest a stroll through this: (on what science and the study of God are each suitable for).

[Consort]

I read once that there are two types of thinking: active and passive.

Active thinking is the intentional concentrated thinking on a given subject until the subject is known or until the thinking is distracted or turned to another subject.

Passive thinking is done without definite intent and is invoked by a fleeting thought or a sensation or idle play or day dreaming.

[f.Christian]

We're in a train wreck --- derailment ... side track !

The switchman // conductor is the undertaker --- they are robbing --- killing us !

"Conservatives have lost their mind. Not their minds, but their ... mind (( soul )) * * . What the late Russell Kirk called “the conservative mind” seems to have disappeared from our political landscape."

... * * ... I see it everyday on the FR --- it is alarming !