rosborne979,
Thinking is a natural process of self-communication. We don't necessarily create two or more personalities or characters but just communicate with our memory's database to stay in touch or we would lose all connection and forget who we are the next moment if we didn't think all the time. Since thinking happens in the form of images, in the night this comes up as dreams I believe.
We operate subjectively AS IF there is an internal agent or self doing our thinking and feeling. In my opinion, a problem with much social science is that it treats "the subject" as a mere bundle of variables pushed around by causal forces. A minority school of sociology (symboiic interactionism) refers more to "the actor", not because there is, ontologically speaking, a real agent within the behaving being, but because behavior cannot be adequately understood, or even described, and without acknowledgement of the actor's belief in a self, indeed an internal dialog between two selves: "I" and "me."
In his wonderful post, Fresco notes that:
"The key issue in all this seems to be whether
(a)"consciousness" is an epiphenomenon of "life" which can now be accounted for as a spontaneously occuring process requiring no "causation"
or
(b) whether "consciousness" is a spiritual aspect of some holistic unity, from which we derive our knowledge of "science" itself.
The jury is out !"
At this moment, if I were on the jury, I would see my task as that of choosing between "innocent" and "not guilty."
Frankly, I do not see the "alternatives" as mutually exclusive.
Beena says "Thinking is a natural process of self-communication. We don't necessarily create two or more personalities or characters but just communicate with our memory's database to stay in touch or we would lose all connection and forget who we are the next moment if we didn't think all the time."
I saw a documentary lately regarding an
world renowed musician, Clive Waring, who had, as result of a viral infection, lost his capacity to remember for longer than 7 seconds. His ability to play music was undiminished.
His dilemma was terrible. He couldn't leave his home because he would forget where he was. Conversations with people would be painful because he could not retain his memory
of who they were or what he had just spoken about.
His wife Deborah wrote:
"We are all the sum of our memories, both recent and long ago. They are what make us who we used to be, who we are, who we become. The ancient Greeks understood. They had two rivers in Hades: Mnemosyne and Lethe, memory and oblivion. Our collective memories remind us that we're bound together."
When you talk to yourself, it would seem that it is your memory which is both talking and listening.
The social theorist, George Herbert Mead, based much of his thought on the observation that our thinking involves an internal conversation between "I" and "me". Fictions to be sure, but a pattern that seems universal because of its utility.
JLNobody wrote:The social theorist, George Herbert Mead, based much of his thought on the observation that our thinking involves an internal conversation between "I" and "me". Fictions to be sure, but a pattern that seems universal because of its utility.
Even when I'm playing tennis I am sometimes aware of an internal conversation going on between "I" and "me", but I also noticed that I play my best tennis (in the zone), when that internal conversation diminishes or ceases. When the conversation ceases, then I feel free, and later when I remember it all, it seems as though I was just an incidental part of the flow of motion occuring on the court.
Yes, Rosborne, that is also my experience in performing music and meditating. But when I "design" actions that can have social consequences, I take into account the anticipated reactions of others. In this process "I" consider the consequences for "me" of possible lines of action. Do you see that process in yourself?
JLNobody wrote:Yes, Rosborne, that is also my experience in performing music and meditating. But when I "design" actions that can have social consequences, I take into account the anticipated reactions of others. In this process "I" consider the consequences for "me" of possible lines of action. Do you see that process in yourself?
Yes. It seems to depend on which world you are interacting with, the physical world, or the world of rules and interactions which we humans dream up for ourselves to live in.
Yes, as in most things a kind of situationalism operates. Situations are defined in terms of parameters. Boy that sounds pompous.
As to your original thought;
Perhaps we are thinking to understand or resolve.
I address myself in thought as another party many times and I believe it is a way for myself to logically see the bigger picture so to speak.
Its sort of like witnessing an event. When I'm in it I can't always think straight because I'm tied to self but when I'm the bystander I can think of what to do from another perceptive within my own mind.
Animals are an interesting thought although I'm biast in that regard because I can swear my dog is almost human when I look in her eyes. I do believe she must dream when she is fast asleep and her little paws are twinging and she is mumbling growls and whines. Two other animals that I came in contact with that amzed me were monkeys and dolphins. They almost seem to be conscious with thought when you look in their eyes. Its very bizarre.
The one interesting aspect of thought for me is to completely clear my mind and push every single thought away. This for me is just as amazing as thought itself, especially when I'm having a conversation and completely clear my mind of thought its as if I'm talking srickly on a reflex response. No time to take in a single thought and process what is being said. As strange as it sounds I find I am more aware when I'm not thinking sometimes.
Don't all these situations boil down to ....." who we used to be, who we are, who we (are about to) become".
Yes, process: flux, flow, becoming, unbecoming, impermance. We are not able to step into the river twice both because, strictly speaking, it is never the same river and because we are never the same person. Formally speaking you can, as "shepaints," step into the river "Nile" twice, but not actually.
Azure, yes, the pleasures of medication.
JLNobody wrote:Azure, yes, the pleasures of medication.
Yes but replace the c with a t and than you've got it.
Meditation..... :wink:
Oops! That damned Freud. He haunts me with his slips.
sensory
clear minded sensory meditation is the way to clear your mind and understand the ways of life around you.
PK, that sounds right. In my case the mere sitting and passively watching one's mind for a half hour each morning contributes to a generalized feeling of well-being throughout the day, especially if that mental posture of just observing without trying to either understand or change anything. When that posture is carried with me in my ordinary mind activities, each moment of life is delicious and so much less problematical.
Nobody is talking. And Nobody is listening. (And I don't mean JL). :wink:
EXTRA MEDIUM!!!!!
Hi Doll!
I'm so glad to see you. When did you come back?
Hi Chai Tea!
I just came back today.
I like your new hair style.
How have you been?
