Sat 4 Jan, 2020 03:09 pm
As Orwell defined it, doublethinking means accepting two seemingly contradictory beliefs. But here I am going to use it as a synonym for thinking doubly, which is simple way of saying you have more than one parallel flow of thoughts going on at the same time.
This is something we all do, for example, when walking and thinking about the weather. Walking also requires thinking, but we perform it unconsciously, thus it does not usually hinder our conscious thoughts in any ways.
Nonetheless, here I refer to consciously doublethinking. Thinking about philosophy while thinking where you are and what you are doing, that is, being conscious of yourself and your environment while you dwelve into complex concepts.
I used to do this alternately (and naturally), so for some seconds I opened the tap of philosophy and for some others, the one of self-analysis. It worked pretty well, and the streams complemented. Though lately I have been exploring the possibility of thinking both currents at the same time. I am still unsure whether I am doing it, or just switching from one to the other faster than before. Still, I have come to the conclusion that a parallel process of thoughts wholly dedicated to analyze, criticize and correct your “main” current of thoughts is a great advancement for any thinker. This I also consider the basic tool for defining one’s personality, by consciously choosing some of its aspects, so that they match the ideals you believe on.
I would like this to be an open thread and start a discussion, so please feel free to leave your opinion, which I would very much appreciate!
Do you practice this doublethinking?
Which is the maximum number of parallel thinking streams someone could hold? (keeping the integrity of each and one of them)
By the way, Big Brother didn’t doublething, they doubleexisted.
My best thoughts come when I am not looking to think about anything at all...
Yeah, I thought about this week's playoff games at the same time I thought about having to wash the load of underwear in the hamper.
You sure you were not thinking of formula one either?
In science, especially involving discovery , the "looking at both sides" embodies the thing often called falsification qnd becomes the bases by which we can test whether something we may be seeking has any ways to be eliminated from further consideration just by "breaking" any other accepted rules of science" or to remain under consideration by NOT breaking any rules.
Mny times, the only ways we hve to prove the validity of a finding is to NOT disprove it.
You are definitely swimming upstream when redefining Orwell.
Big Brother got these folks believing that War is