The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'

the author's site ^ | 1972 | Dallas Willard

[unspun]

The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'

This paper has been read to the University of Southern California philosophy group and the Boston 1972 meeting of the American Philosophical Association, as well as to the Houston meeting of the Southwestern Philosophical Society. Appeared in The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, IV(1973), pp. 125-132. Numbers in "<>" refer to this journal.

---

Among the principal assumptions of major portions of philosophy in recent decades have been: (1) That philosophy somehow consists of (some sort of) logic, and (2) that logic is a study of and theory about (some sort of) language. There, of course, follows from these a third assumption: (3) That philosophy is a study of and theory about (some sort of) language--though this implication should not be taken as representing any phase of the historical development of recent philosophizing. Instead of listing these three points as assumptions, it would probably be more correct to regard them as categories or complexes of assumptions; or perhaps, more vaguely still, as 'tendencies' or proclivities of recent philosophical thinking. But precision of these points need not be put in issue here, as this paper does not seek any large-scale resolution of the problem area in question. The aim here is to examine only one proposition which plays a role in the clearly existent tendencies referred to: Namely, the proposition that we think in or with language. I hope to show, first, that we do not always think in or with language; and then, second, that the very conception of thinking in or with language involves an absurdity. What implications this has for broader philosophical assumptions or tendencies will not be dealt with here, though the implications in question seem to me to be extremely important ones. That human beings think in language is explicitly stated in such diverse places as ordinary newspapers, the more sophisticated popular magazines and journals, and serious discourse in the humanities and the social sciences, as well as in the technical writings of philosophers. To prove this broad range of consensus would be idle; but, in order to have the philosophical context clearly before us, we may give a few brief quotations. <126>       (1) Man, like every living creature, thinks unceasingly, but does not know it: the thinking which becomes conscious of itself is only the smallest part thereof. And, we may say, the worst part:--for this conscious thinking alone is done in words, that is to say, in the symbols for communication, by means of which the origin of consciousness is revealed. (Nietzsche, Joyful Wisdom, sub-sec. # 354)      (2) Let no one be contemptuous of symbols! A good deal depends upon a practical selection of them. Furthermore, their value is not diminished by the fact that after much practice, we no longer really need to call forth a symbol, we do not need to speak out loud in order to think. The fact remains that we think in words or, when not in words, then in mathematical or other symbols. (Frege, Mind, Vol. 73, p. 156)      (3) It is misleading then to talk of thinking as of a 'mental activity'. We may say that thinking is essentially the activity of operating with signs. This activity is performed by the hand, when we think by writing; by the mouth and larynx, when we think by speaking; and if we think by imagining signs or pictures, I can give you no agent that thinks. If then you say that in such cases the mind thinks, I would only draw your attention to the fact that you are using a metaphor, that here the mind is an agent in a different sense from that in which the hand can be said to be an agent in writing. (Wittgenstein, Blue Book, pp. 6-7)      (4) ... The woof and warp of all thought and all research is symbols, and the life of thought and science is the life inherent in symbols; so that it is wrong to say that a good language is important to good thought, merely; for it is of the essence of it. (C. S. Peirce, Collected Papers, II, p. 129)      (5) Words only matter because words are what we think with. (H. H. Price, Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. XIX, p. 7)      (6) Theorizing is an activity which most people can and normally do conduct in silence. They articulate in sentences the theories that they construct, but they do not most of the time speak these sentences out loud. They say them to themselves.... Much of our ordinary thinking is conducted in internal monologue or silent soliloquy, usually accompanied by an internal cinematograph-show of visual imagery.... This trick of talking to oneself in silence is acquired neither quickly nor without effort.... (Ryle, Concept of Mind, p. 27. See also pp. 282-83 and 296-97) <127>      (7)This helps to elucidate the well-known difficulty of thinking without words. Certain kinds of thinking are pieces of intelligent talking to oneself. Consider the way in which I 'thinkingly' wrote the last sentence. I can no more do the 'thinking' part without the talking (or writing) part than a man can do the being graceful part of walking apart from the walking (or some equivalent activity). (J.J.C. Smart, Philosophy and Scientific Realism, p. 89) These quotations will suffice to establish the context within which philosophers speak of thinking in language (or with language). Many other quotations could be added from the literature.1 It is not assumed here that the persons quoted all occupy the same position with reference to the relationship between thought and language. Yet it would be interesting to see what any of these thinkers, or others who suppose that human beings think in language, could save of their position from the critique which follows. Uneasiness about the conception of thinking in or with language has been expressed by a number of writers, but only over limited aspects of it.2 Here we shall consider arguments which purport to call the conception into question entirely and in principle. First, consider a reason for rejecting the view that we always think in language. It consists in the fact that thinking often occurs without the production, manipulation, or perception of sense-perceptible signs, without which there is no use of language. Such occurrences often provoke offers of 'A penny for your thoughts.' Thinking: Whatever we may decide to call them, and however it is that we are conscious of them, there are intentional states of persons, more or less fixed or fleeting, which do not require for their obtaining that what they are about or of be perceived by, or be impinging causally upon, the person involved. In order to think of3 Henry the Eighth, <128> of the first auto one owned, of the Pythagorean theorem, or of the Mississippi River, it is not required that they should disturb my nervous system. Such states (t-states) of persons are often called 'thoughts', especially in contrast with 'perceptions', and being in such a state is one of the things more commonly called 'thinking'. One no more needs to be going through a change of such states in order to be thinking, than he needs to be changing his bodily position in order to be sitting or lying or sleeping. Rarely if ever--as is alleged in the case of mystic contemplation--are these t-states unchanging. Usually they flow, at varying rates, intermingled with person states of many sorts, governed by such transitional structures as inference, goal orientation, objective structures given in perception or in other ways, and elemental association of 'ideas', among others. In what follows, we shall use 'thinking' to cover both the single t-state and the flow of such states, without regard to how intermingled with other person states. Language: Sense perceptible signs or symbols are an essential constituent of language. It is always false to say that language is present or in use where no signs are present or in use. And, whatever else a sign may be, it is something which is apprehendable via its sensible qualities. That is, it is something which can be either seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled. Moreover, the use of language requires some level of actual sensuous apprehension of the signs which are in use on the occasion. (Confusion or distortion of this sensuous feedback can render a subject incapable of writing or speaking; and, of course, without perception of the sign-sequences emitted, one cannot understand the person emitting language.) Now cases can be produced almost at will where thinking occurs without language being present or in use. This, of course, is something which everyone--including the proponent of thinking-in-language--very well knows. It is these cases which, together with the assumption that we always think in language, create what in (7) was called "the well-known difficulty of thinking without words." If, as in (3), "thinking is essentially the activity of operating with signs," then when there are no signs--and when, consequently, the means by which we produce, manipulate, or perceive signs are not functioning--we do have a difficulty. In fact, a difficulty so severe that it amounts to a proof that thinking is not essentially the activity of operating with signs, and that often we think entirely without language. One cannot operate with signs where there are no signs. <129>  As the above quotations indicate, the most common move made to save 'thinking in language' at this point is the shift to 'silent soliloquy,' as in (6), or to 'pieces of intelligent talking to oneself,' as in (7). These are latter-day shades of John Watson's 'sub-vocal language.' Of course one can talk to oneself or write to onself. But talking and writing to oneself require the production and perception of sensuous signs just as much as talking and writing to another. The realization of this is what drives the thinking-in-language advocate to silent soliloquy or to nonvocal speaking--the written counterpart of which would be invisible writing. That is, they are driven to flat absurdities. A silent soliloquy--that is, silent speaking--is precisely on a par with a silent trumpet solo, for example, or silent thunder. A poet may say:        Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard             Are sweeter; therefore, ye soft pipes, play on;        Not to the sensual ear, but, more endeared,             Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone;...                (Keats, Ode to a Grecian Urn) But there are in fact no unhearable melodies, no ears other than the "sensual," no ditties of no tone. What those who speak of silent discourse have in mind is, no doubt, the fact that interlaced with our thinking of or about things is a great deal of imaging of linguistic entities. (This is especially true of academics or intellectuals in general, because of their great concern with expression of thought. Probably an adequate phenomenology of thinking would exhibit great contrast between them and other classes of persons precisely at the relation between thinking and degree of activity in imaging linguistic entities and events.) But imaging a word is not using a word, any more than imaging a horse is using a horse. Moreover, imaging a word, phrase, or sentence is not producing or perceiving a word, phrase, or sentence any more than imaging a horse is producing or perceiving--or otherwise 'having'--a horse. To image a linguistic sequence is not to have it in a special sort of place--the mind--nor is it to have a special sort of linguistic sequence. To image is to exemplify a certain sort of thinking or intentional state, and a sort which does have interesting relationships with other kinds of thinking. But there is no reason at all to suppose that all kinds of thinking necessarily involve or are accompanied by this kind of thinking (imaging) directed upon language segments. And if there were, it still would not follow that all thinking requires language, since this kind of thinking about language segments is not itself language at all. Nor does it require any <130> language present in order for it to come to pass, since intentional inexistence applies to mental events when language segments are the objects, as well as when sticks and stones and animals are. Having considered a reason for rejecting the proposition that human beings always think in language, let us now consider whether they ever do. In fact, the difficulty is not, as Smart (above) and others have thought, in seeing how one can think without language, but in seeing how one would think with it. Thinking with or in language must consist in doing something with symbols, and so necessarily involves doing something to them--e.g., producing, altering, or perceiving them. If we would do something with the knife (e.g., cut the bread), we must do something to the knife, (e.g., clasp it in our hands). But, as we have seen, thinking occurs where nothing at all is being done to or with signs, there not being any signs in these cases. The power or act of having or changing t-states--that is, the power or act of thinking--is, then, not a power or act of having or altering linguistic symbols. (It is not, in fact, a power of doing anything with or in anything at all. The profound difference in kinds of powers and acts involved here is what Wittgenstein calls attention to in the last sentence of (3) above.) Thought is, of course, practical, in that it exercises an influence upon, or makes some difference in, the world of sense particulars. But it alone is not capable of acting with the sorts of particulars used in linguistic behavior as its immediate instruments. It is just this incapacity which makes it impossible for the advocates of thinking-in-language to give any account of the mechanisms or the 'how' by which the words in which we, allegedly, think are produced, manipulated, and gotten rid of--though they must be produced (or stored and hauled out), manipulated, and, in some sense, gotten rid of, if we are to think with and in them as our tools or instruments. Merely to ask the question of how, in detail, this is done in the course of thinking reveals, I believe, the absurdity of 'thinking in language'. Mere thinking can do nothing to signs which might be used in a language, and hence it can do nothing with such signs, or in the act of modifying the conditions of such signs. It is absurd to suppose that one can do x with y without in some way bringing about a change in the condition, state, relations, or properties of y. It is this and only this that I put by saying that it is absurd to suppose that one can do something with y while doing nothing to y. If it is replied that, of course, the mind or thought does not do these things, but that when we write, speak, hear, see, and otherwise relate to actual words in the actual employment of language, we then are thinking, with bodily parts managing the symbols involved, then it <131> must be pointed out that, while we may indeed also be thinking in such cases, we are not simply thinking. The total event here, to which language certainly is essential, is not thinking. Correct use of language can even occur, as has been pointed out by Wittgenstein, without the occurrence of any peculiarly relevant t-states. On the other hand, thinking does occur without the use of hands, mouth, ears, eyes, fingers in any appropriately relevant manner. Hence, what can only occur by the use of these is not the same as thinking, though it may somehow involve or influence thinking. Smart remarks in (7) that, when he thinkingly wrote the sentence, "Certain kinds of thinking are pieces of intelligent talking to oneself," he could "no more do the 'thinking' part without the talking (or writing) part than a man can do the being graceful part of walking apart from the walking." This may be true of thinkingly writing the sentence (whatever that means). But it does not follow that one cannot think that certain kinds of thinking are pieces of intelligent talking to oneself without the use of language, though Smart clearly thinks that it does. Of course one cannot thinkingly write without writing. But that is nothing to the point of whether or not we can and do think with or without words. Also, the comparison to graceful walking is not apt. We do, as above shown, sometimes think without words or symbols, while no cases of grace without behavior are known. Now it is very certainly true that some processes clearly involving thinking as described above depend for their occurrence upon linguistic behavior and the sensible signs which it involves, for example, the processes of learning algebra or the history of the Basques, or learning how to counsel emotionally upset persons. But it is to be noted that these are not themselves processes of thinking, but rather are extremely complex processes involving all kinds of events and entities other than language and other than thinking--e.g., feelings, perceptions, buildings, other persons, days and nights, books, and so on. None of these processes is a process of thinking; and for that reason alone it is invalid to infer from them that thinking is linguistic behavior, or that one thinks with language. What is essential to things or events of a certain sort must be shown essential to them taken by themselves, not in combination with many other things. With reference to the involved processes in question, it might be more appropriate (though it would still be wrong) to say--as some have said in recent years--that we live in or with language. Nevertheless, it is certain that some kind of dependence relation--probably similar to feedback mechanisms--exists between linguistic processes and their sensuous signs, on the one hand, and certain sequences of t-states on the other. What, exactly, this relation <132> of dependence is continues to be veiled by, among other things, a priori assumptions about what thinking and language must be and do. One such assumption is that which holds thinking essentially to be an operation with signs or symbols, or doing something with--or in--linguistic processes or entities. The view that we (necessarily) think without language is, today, regarded as so outlandish as not to merit serious consideration. But this is not due to a lack of arguments to support it. My object here has been to focus upon certain arguments purporting to show the absurdity of thinking in language. The main points in these arguments are: Thinking does occur without any accompanying language whatsoever, and thus shows itself not to be a power or act of managing linguistic signs, once it is clear what such a sign is. Thinking, as distinct from behavioral processes involving it, can do nothing to signs or symbols, and hence can do nothing with them. NOTES See for example, Ramsey's Foundations of Mathematics, p. 138, and Kneale's remarks in Feigl and Sellars, Readings in Philosophical Analysis, p. 42. Return to text. See S. Morris Engel, "Thought and Language," Dialogue, Vol. 3, 1964, 160-170; Jerome Shaffer, "Recent Work on the Mind-Body Problem," American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. II, 1965, esp. p. 83; R. Kirk, "Rationality Without Language," Mind, 1967, pp. 369-368; G. Ryle, "A Puzzling Element in the Notion of Thinking," in Studies in the Philosophy of Thought and Action, P. F. Strawson, ed., (Oxford: 1968), pp. 7-23. Interesting remarks on the issues here are also found in Bruce Aune's Knowledge, Mind and Nature, chap. VIII and H. H. Price's Thinking and Experience, Chap. X.  See also Wm. James, "Thought Before Language; A Deaf Mute's Recollections," Mind, Vol. I, 1892; and see Wittgenstein's comments on this in Philosophical Investigations, No. 342. Return to text. I use only think here, for simplicity; but think that and other structures of such intentional states (and sequences thereof) might also be mentioned. Specifically, I would also wish to hold that instances of thinking that, in the sense of inferring or puzzling something out, occur in the absence of appropriate linguistic entities or activities. Return to text.

[Consort]

Did you read my post? I explained clearly what is wrong with this notion.

I didn't agree with the explanation.

[tpaine]

You undoubtably believe you explained something in that reply.

Sorry kid, but it's all bafflegab bull to me.

Granted, like many here, you can string together 'symbols' with the best of them, - they even have a semblance of rational structure & meaning. Just the illusion though. There's no 'there' there.

[RightWhale]

Advertising agencies, political campaign managers, World Trade Center rebuild architects, NGO projects: big bucks in symbol manipulation. Most philosophy, political science, linguistics course cheat you. You may have been cheated if you aren't working with a view out huge windows on the umteenth floor of an important building in a deliberately utopic metropolis such as Chicago or SanFran.

[tpaine]

Point made, and rebutted.
--- Get some new lines, roscoe.

[unspun]

Does that mean you think we don't need to ping each other any more?

[betty boop]

Did you read the post? Shall I repeat it? The post answered that question.

No it didn't, Hank. At least not the question I was asking.

Here's my "take-away" from what you wrote. You say that concepts are not just abstractions from reality, but integrations of various aspects of it. That is, they are good things that "add value." Fine so far as it goes, in principle. But where I think I see you actually applying concepts, the feeling I get is that you regard them as "ultimates," to which actual instances in reality are subject in order to be qualified, to be known, as members of the "set" the concept denotes. Which again, is fine -- as far as it goes.

BUT the downside is -- there is nothing in the (abstract, integrating) concept "BIRD" -- which does allow you to "first-pass" filter real objects for qualification as members of the denoted set -- that gives you any help whatever in discriminating between a song bird and a hawk. Concepts as such are limited in that regard; they tend to focus on the generic, but are fairly useless when it comes to dealing with the particularity of things they putatively describe or apply to.

To try to put it another way, if you resist the idea that "reality is always richer than the concepts that can be derived (or abstracted) from it," then the only alternative argument I see is that concepts are reductions of reality intending to stand in for it.

And that makes for a pretty good definition of doctrinal thinking, IMHO.

[unspun]

To try to put it another way, if you resist the idea that "reality is always richer than the concepts that can be derived (or abstracted) from it," then the only alternative argument I see is that concepts are reductions of reality intending to stand in for it.

That is why it is better to realize we have "considerations," rather than only "concepts" in our minds. That is much kinder to reality and to my part in it, it seems clear to me. ;-`

But then again, one cannot tear objectivity away from subjectivity.

[Hank Kerchief]

Cataracts, color-blindness, double-vision are errors in reasoning?

Of course not. I never suggested anything like that. What I said was if I draw conclusions about that which I perceive, it is my reasoning that is wrong, not the perception. If I beleive the light is green (when it is red), because I am color blind, it is not the grey color I see that made me think that, it has to be some assumption about where the "green" light is supposed to appear, for example. This only means, perceptions do not interpret themselves, they are only perceptions. Any conclusions we draw from them are a matter of reason.

Again, logic alone is not enough to "know" the truth about reality. Without true sense data, empirical sense data, logic is blind.

Really. How do you know that? I mean, without logic?

You could have saved yourself some trouble. Webster is the last place I would look for informatin about epistemology.

Please see my views on concepts in post #386

It's important to remember that our debate ...

I'm not debating. Both betty boop and Alamo-Girl will assure you I am only here spreading my doctrine.

If, as you believe, all we can know about the ultimate human objective can, and must, only be known using logic/reason, I think it would be useful to the discussion to examine that, in your own knowledge, and see if it is true.

I'll be glad to discuss it. I already know it is true.

Hank

[betty boop]

Of course, one could then argue that energy is the ultimate substrate in which symbols manifest, a pervasive field of unknown origin that we only see from differentials in the energy field (as manifested symbols).

Well tortoise, we can also see this ultimate substrate in divine Revelation, together with the "symbols" it engenders -- believe it or not. But I do know what you're talking about here. Energy, "the ultimate substrate" of the theoretical physicists is what Christians call Life. Everything that is comes from that source.

BTW, I truly enjoy your posts, tortoise. It's rare to encounter such a meticulously analytical mind with so many perceptive and provocative things to say. Thanks!

[Hank Kerchief]

OK. Then what is the mind?

Rational/volitional consciousness.

I do not mean to be cryptic here, but the question actually requires a much larger explanation than is possible here. For me to answer it fully would require me to explain my entire ontology, to demonstrate the place of consciousness in the heirarchy of existence, which makes it capable of apprehending material existence (that which consciousness is conscious of) but differentiated from it, as that which is conscious of material existence.

The concept is not actually a difficult one, but complex, and one for which most people have very little background on which to build. I have discovered the concepts always have to be built from the ground up. There is not space here to do that.

Hank

[cornelis]

Both concepts and language (words) are abstractions from reality, not reality itself.

But the abstracted thought is itself as "real" as the object it is related to. My guess is that you would concur. And so it is permissible to say "it is reality itself." It is not permissible to say it is the actual the object: trees do not grow in our brain. But our knowledge of the tree is real and therefore concepts and language constitute reality. This clarifies a needful distinction between what is real and what is sometimes called actual.

The exclusion of reality from concepts and language is Parmenidean, not realist. Correct me if I'm wrong.

There is another way it must be real, although "true" can be used here as well. For the abstraction to retain a relation to the object, this abstraction participates in the existence of the object. In Aristotelian terms, the object is the content determining cause of my knowledge. This sort of absraction leaves behind the material-- at least. It is not the same abstraction used in art, which will often stresses incommensurable difference and is anti-mimetic.

[Hank Kerchief]

I didn't agree with the explanation.

I suppose that is to be expected, since your words represent things, and my words represent concepts, some of which are for things, others for relationships, qualities, events, etc.

It is unlikely we will agree on much.

Hank

[Consort]

What part of my post did you disagree with? Living beings are conscious in varying degrees. As humans, we are conscious as living entities and we are conscious (aware) of being conscious.

[unspun]

If "consideration" sounds like a tautology, then you might like to substitute "regard."

Regarding is what our minds do at essence, it seems to me, also our hearts.

We may regard in symbols or more directly. One doesn't have to resort to symbols to regard "love" or "desire" or "goodness" or "hurt" and even how these traits may affect people in their own minds and hearts. One understands these aspects of life or not, but deals with them much more directly than to require symbols, it seems to me.

These are not concepts, nor abstractions, though we may work at conceptualizing and abstracting by means of their existences. (That gets into the work of intentional reason.)

Dr. Willard's excellent insights or not, it is appropriate I think to call the mind's (and heart's) regardings "states" of the mind and heart, states being defined as a relational involvement.

[circles]

Let me see...

I'm supposed to believe that words and symbols are not needed to convey ideas...

Yet the author uses far more of these than necessary to try and convey this viewpoint..

Perhaps I can write a thesis on THIS concept...

[Consort]

It is unlikely we will agree on much.

Maybe we do agree on much. I know that my explanation may be wrong. Do you know that your explanation may be wrong, as well?

[Hank Kerchief]

You say that concepts are not just abstractions from reality, but integrations of various aspects of it. That is, they are good things that "add value."

This is an example of what is wrong with attempting to discuss very broad subjects, like epistemology, in a piecemeal fashion like this. I did not say concepts are either or both abstractions or integrations, but the process of forming them uses abstraction and integration. The result of the process is the concept, but a concept is an identification, in most cases, of a class or category existents. But a concept does not just identify them as a random collection of things, but means something specific about them, that is, their nature which is what makes them members of the same class or category, which is what the essential qualities do.

A concept does not "add" anything, it only identifies what is already so in reality, but could not be apprehended otherwise.

What a concept does is enable us to identify things, like birds, the to distinguish between variations of them, like song birds and hawks, which we could not do without them.

Concepts as such are limited in that regard; they tend to focus on the generic, but are fairly useless when it comes to dealing with the particularity of things they putatively describe or apply to.

No, concepts focus on the actual nature of existents so their similarity, differences, and relationships (their real qualities) can be identified. This is all we can know about any aspect of reality. Concepts enable us to do it.

To try to put it another way, if you resist the idea that "reality is always richer than the concepts that can be derived (or abstracted) from it ..."

But concepts are not "abstracted" from it, they identify it, so we can know it, which otherwise we cannot...

then the only alternative argument I see is that concepts are reductions of reality intending to stand in for it.

But what is this word you keep using, "reality." Does it mean anything? Does it just "stand in" for what you mean, or does it represent a concept, a concept for what you mean by "reality?"

Hank

[Consort]

Yes, words can provide an established definition of a concept that we all can all agree on, as is done in a dictionary and in an encyclopedia.

[unspun]

I'm supposed to believe that words and symbols are not needed to convey ideas...

Nope.

In fact, he was distinguishing the conveying of ideas, which requires language, from the purer thinking process itself, which my utilize symbols as tools of consideration, and which mmay consider some things more directly. He was drilling into the essence of what thinking is, from what I see here in the living room.

[betty boop]

The workings of the mind are also much richer than a manipulation of symbols, I think…. thinking is a kind of orchestration of many things conceptual and relational. It seems fundamentally to be the consideration of relationships and is where subjectivity and objectivity meet….

Agreed, unspun. And I like the way you laid out the self-analysis:

“1. a sense of the circumstances and players (persons, variables, etc.) I'm thinking about (containment)
“2. Feelings
“3. considerations (with or without words or pictures)
“4. Symbols
“5. focused reasoning (which uses symbols more strongly, but not at all thoroughly, as one who is communicating)
“6. a sense of result
“7. Determinations”

(3) and (5) are of particular interest to me. It seems that “considerations” includes both things that are known and things that are understood. For some strange reason, it seems the former is often unaccompanied by any type of symbolization, where the latter usually is. For instance, I could truthfully say that I know Mr. X is drinking himself to death without understanding the reason why he’s doing that. My “knowledge” comes about as a simple recognition based on my relationship with Mr. X. It is immediate, or unmediated by symbols. But if ever I did find myself in a position to learn Mr. X’s reason for drinking himself to death, I wouldn’t really be in firm possession of this knowledge, wouldn’t be able to “understand” it, if I were unable to symbolize this information in such a way as to “explain it intelligibly” to self-reflective consciousness. Which gets us into (5) – “focused reasoning,” which seems to be a process that inevitably uses language symbols.

Do you think it would be useful to draw distinctions between and “knowing” and “understanding?”