Smiless,

Your suggestion for traveling and becoming more aware of the different cultures holds significant meaning to anyone who has.

Obviously the answer is yes if you accept this restricted definition of the word thought and no if you don't.

I don't. So my answer is no.

Here's the mash potatoes.

Allow me to fill your gobblet with some fresh goblin's brew as well.

The following is an table comment directed to Smiless.

I watched Excalibur last night and found it quite interesting, especially after having listened to Deepak Chopra's stories of Merlin and King Artur. I actaully watched the movie twice and found it far more insightful the second time through. Lots of little subtlies, like who could see Merlin and who couldn't depending on who could see past the King Arthur's egoic persona to view his true self and who couldn't.

I thought it was cool too when King Arthur would have thoughts of greed, lust, or other egocentric thoughts. He could not hear what Merlin had to say during those times.

This whole thing of Camelot must have been Celtic because it's a cross between Christainity and Pantheism. Even though it was riddled with references to Jesus Christ in Knighting ceremonies and weddings. However, salvation was in the 'Holy Grail' which is the enlightenment, not the acceptance of "the Christ" as savior.

I think I would enjoy studying Camelot in all its many forms. I never actaully read a book on it. I guess it's about time. I never really realized the deep introspection qualities of it, nor the symbolic meanings of Queen Gwenivere and Sir Lancelot.

It's far more than just a fairytale. It's an instropection from the point of view of a hybrid of Christianity and Pantheism. It orginated from the Welsh who have ties to the Celts. I think this must have been written in an attempt to consolidate these two different belief systems, Eastern Pantheism (which is the root of Celtic Wichcraft) and Christianity.

It's funny how this "Holy Grail" actually became a Christain Symbol from its origins in Celtic panthemism (and potentially from these very legends of King Arthur and Merlin).

As best I can tell from my studies thus far, 'King Arthur and Merlin' did not even have those names in the earliest legends. The legend began as an instropective parable about our egoic mind (which later became King Arthur) and our higher self of pure consciousness (which later became Merlin the magician).

Later Queen Gewnivere and Sir Lancelot were added to the mix to emphasize various apsects of the egoic personalities of King Arthur, (i.e. Greed, lust, insecurities, guilts, etc.)

At the end of the movie Excalibur King Arthur acknowledges that Queen Gwenivere was his guilt and insecurities, Sir Lancelot was his lust, and he had become his greed.

His salvation was the realization that he and the land are one. At which time Merlin returned (his higher self had been reborn).

It's a fascinating legend. I also think this makes far more sense than traditional non-Celtic Christianity. Of course I would because I'm definitly more in line with pantheisic awareness.

Anyway, enjoy your mash potatoes.

Awwww...

It is breakfast time here! I want to cook some heart-stopping bacon, eggs, and biscuits and gravy!



James,

I harbor no ill feelings towards you personally. I want you to know that.

The bottom line here Michael is that you have done nothing other than to demand a particular semantic definition of a word. That's nothing but a huge waste of everyone's time.

You have not accomplished anything or even made a point at all.

Also concerning you following statement:



Nothing could be further from the true.

I do not denounce Christianity based upon the acts of "Christians".

I denounce the Biblical account of God as being utterly absurd and compeltely self-inconsistent and contradictory based on the very book itself. I don't even care what people who call themselve "Christians" do. When I speak to the issue of Christianity I speak directly to the book upon which is stands. I couldn't care less what people who call themsleves "Christians" actually do or believe. Most people who claim to be "Christians" don't even have clue what the Bible actually says anyway.

Same thing applies to people who claim to be Buddhists and Taoists. When I speak to those philosophies I speak to the issue of their core teachings not to the personal behavior or beliefs of any individuals who might claim to be "Buddhists or Taoists". Those are merely followers of a core belief system, and many times the so-called followers genuinely haven't fully studied the very doctrines that they claim to be "following" or they have grossly misinterpreted them for their own egoic purposes.

The bottom line here Michael is that I came into this thread with the intend of sharing potential ideas.

But that was not your goal.

You goal was evidently to make an assertion, claim to have proven it beyond a doubt, and then just act like everyone else was wrong.

I didn't come into this thread to be right or wrong. I just came in to share conversation.

There is no right or wrong. That is the folly of language-like thinking!

You are clinging to the Newtonian world of absolutes. You right,...



No I totally disagree with this.

Dictionary definitions are not intended to be used as absolute truths for the purpose of settling semantic arguements.

The whole purpose of words is to communicate. If you wish to convey a thought, you choose a word that you feel best describes that thought. If you see that word isn't working, then you expound on precisely what it is you are attempting to convey.

You don't just argue semantics attempting to use a dictionary as the referree to win a war of semantics.

Who cares about that?

That's just a waste of eveyone's time!

The REAL meaning of language is to communicate thoughts. Not to defend rigid definitions of specific words.

I'm not the least bit concerned about being right or wrong. That's utterly unimportant.

I'm simply attempting to communicate and share ideas.

You're out to make assertions and claim that you have proven them to be absolutely right in some why or another.

That's just a total waste of time.

What point have you made in this thread other than to attempt to claim that the word thought should only be used to define language-like thinking?

So what's the consequence of that?

Here's my questions to you,...

Do we have control over our thoughts?

If so, from whench does that control arise?

Surely it can't arise from the thoughts themselves.

However, if we have the ability to orchestrate the thoughts in our brain, then surely that ability must quality as a form of thought itself!

This is the essence of the teachings of the Zen and the Tao.

They hold that our true essence is indeed this pure awareness that exists above and beyond the analtyical (or language-like thinking) of our brains.

Yet, if this pure awareness is the actuality of our consciouness, then clearly this also qualitfies as thought. Perhaps the purest level of thought.

You can appeal to dictionaries all you want. If you are going to accept dictionary definitions for everything then why do you bother to even consider philosophical notions? Anything you want to know much surely already exist in your dictionaries by that way of thinking!

You make no sense at all Michael.

Philosophers don't just turn to dictionaries and ask, "Let's see if the publishers of these dictionaries agree with our conclusions".

What kind of a philosopher would you be if that's all you ever did?

Appealing to a dictionary defintion to claim victory in an argument of semantics is nothing short of absurd and is just a waste of everyone's time.

Like Jeanniebean suggested, passing over your threads might be a good idea if this is your style of conversation.

I thought you were genuinely intersted in considering philosophical ideas. If I knew that all you wanted to do is make semantic arguments and pull out a dictionary to claim victory I wouldn't have even wasted my time coming in here in the first place.

I'm not here to argue. I'm here to SHARE IDEAS.

There is no right or wrong. No need to make assertions and try to PROVE them.

Just share ideas. Listen and learn what other people think.

You seem to want to put everything into a box and lock it up as having been a "well proven fact".

Like I said before, if that's the kind of thing you're truly interested in you should become a mathematicians. That's what they do. Once you prove something in mathematics it becomes a "Theorem" and you can lock it up on a box and claim ownership to it.

I personally feel that this would be an extremely futile approach to philosophical ideas. Especially if you're planning on using the dictionary as your referree. Why not just accept the dictionary as a final and complete philosophical bible if that's your view?

I'm not thinking in terms of personal judgements either.

I guess the bottom line is that I just disagree with your semantic approch to philosophy.

What I feel a bit 'betrayed' about is the fact that I asked if you were placing restrictions on the meaning of thought way back in the very beginning of the thread.

That's where I feel 'betrayed' in a sense.

All you had to do back then was acknowledge your semantic restiction and I would have agreed that under that restriction you definition would need to hold, because you are basically demanding that this be the defintion of the word.

But at the time you appeared to be rejecting that semantic restriction, so I went on to elaborate on my ideas and feelings of what I feel constitutes thought.

Then you basically slap me in the face with a demand that you are restricting the word thought to only apply to language-like thinking.

Well, gee whiz. I feel like I've been played, and my time and energy in this discussion has been totally wasted.

I don't understand why this was done. I'll just chalk it up to miscommunication and hope that something fruitful has surfaced from all of this.

In the meantime, I don't accept this restricted semantics of the concept of thought so in that respect I respectfully reject that definition.

On the more fruitful side, these conversations have indeed sparked me to think deeply about non-analytical thought (or non-language-like thought) which you refuse to even acknowledge as a valid concept.

I actually find those ponderings the most enlightening of all, if I dare use that word.

So ultimately, I feel that we just think in drasically differnet ways and perhaps this is the very reason why we are having a failure of communication.

Like you say, there is no need to make this into a personal thing. I have nothing against you on a personal level either.

I think we just see things from such vastly different vantage points that we are having difficulting understanding each other's point of view.

Yes I believe that is the key to understanding a great many things about life. Travelling and actually experiencing and seeing different thought processes,consciences, as of cultures and lifestyles will help us underestand more about the human mind and why they think they way they do in certain parts of the world.

Thanks for the compliment

For most people fantasy is a joke or just entertainment, but little do people realize that it is full of answers we often seek. Fantasy has many interesting aspects to look out for that can help us understand the way we think and to even understand the reasons why we think in such ways.

King Arthur is a great legend with a deep story plot. I have a book on it also that keeps me busy.

The Celts are amazing people with a rich culture full of interesting history to learn from. I really enjoyed my stay there when I had the opportunity. Just recently I have been studying about Druids that go to the Stonehenge. One of the world wonders that has many unanswered questions people still are searching for. Perhaps it was a portal to an imaginative world. Of course that is my imagination going wild, but who are we to say it isn't possible even if it doesn't cling true.

May fantasy endure forever!

Well, one thing that has become clear to me is that some of the stories of Camelot were indeed written by romantic novelists who may have totally not "gotten" the underlying introspective meanings associated with King Arthur and Merlin. Those versions would then just be fanciful fairtales written solely for entertainment.

Other versions may have been written by people who 'got' the pantheistic connection and elaborated on this wisdom.

So it would be interesting to find as many stories as possible and see which authors were in the know about what the story was really about and which ones were just writing from a perspective of pure fiction for fun.

This might even leave open a slot for a brand new writing of it that really emphasises the underlying story of Eastern enlightenment and the human saga of the conflict of the egoic and spiritual mind.

I think this movie Excalibur actaully recognized many of the spiritual elements quite well.

So I toast John Boorman, the producer, director AND screenwriter!!!

Wouldn't that be wild! To be the producer, director AND screenwriter of a movie! Wow! Talk about FREEDOM!

This is a dream come true is always what I say! Just to get a book published by a major publishing house is a dream for me. It will probably stay that way also. John Boorman is living it!

You have me looking for the movie now! I am going to make some snack food and pop in the movie and enjoy it once again.

May we all learn from the wisdom Eastern Enlightenment! It is just a beautiful philosophy that anyone can embrace in my opinion.


Have a beautiful day and don't forget to write that Math book!!

Well, just as a warning, there are explicit sexual scenes containing full screen shots of intercourse with no intent to hide anything.

(Just in case you're planning on watching this with your daughter you might want to realize that it's not exactly a children's fairytale. )

Yes most fantasy movies I don't let my daughter watch, yet she has alot of fun watching the cartoons in this genre.

Please don't ask me how many times I watched Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Sleeping Beauty!

The ironic thing about this is I still enjoy them today


(I apologize for being off topic everyone )

James, my friend...

I wonder if you are aware of how many words you have 'put into my mouth'. I am not angry in the least, so please do not think so. It is just very hard to communicate when you change what I write and apply your own meaning - which as we both know may be different - without actually getting into what I mean when there has been confusion regarding it.

The difficulty in building a bridge of mutual understanding between us lies in meaning, undoubtedly. I think that I have entertained your examples fairly... meaning thought about exactly what you wrote, and then responded according to my own thoughts on our expressions, but...

It seems like you - after reading something I write which unsettles your mind for whatever reason, be it a simple disagreement or something else - get attached to one aspect and then run away in thought. That notion is not problematic to communication unless the focus is on something which I did not write...

That is the basic history of this thread, regarding our exchanges at least.

Just sharing my current thoughts on the matter.

James,

I would like to change the course of how this thread is being managed by us. That is the goal contained within this post. It is going to require - for my own reasons - expressing my personal 'feelings' on the matter. This is something that I usually do not consciously do, especially in philosophy matters.



You James, are the one using the terms 'right and wrong'. My earlier use of the term 'wrong' - one time that I remember - was referencing my own wording.





Which is exactly what I have done here. I have also referenced the Webster's after the conversation needed some clarity on what the words commonly mean, which coincidentally agreed with my thoughts on the matter.

How can anyone know what another is meaning by using a term inconsistent with it's common meaning without clarifying it?

I do this(expand definitions) at times, where I think it is needed. When I do I give substance/reason for what I feel substantiates the need for the revision. I attempt to provide logical and reasonable grounds for this as well. However, in this case, there was no need, because I - just so happen - to have been using the terms in a way that is consistent with their common meanings, as shown by nearly every dictionary possible.

You evidently have a problem with the definition as is commonly used. My thoughts directly follow from those definitions, and therefore you are rejecting them as well, which(by the way) is completely ok by me.



I suppose. I did ask you to clarify - many times - exactly what you meant when you used words inconsistent with their common meanings, and even went into those clarifications when given. They were not given often enough.

Perhaps it could be said that other's may view my writing as a deliberate attempt 'to be right', but that would be so far from the genuine intent. My thinking is very critical when concerning things like this. It is not as much an attempt to disprove another's meaning to them... it is an attempt to gain an understanding from another's viewpoint. That is only had through language and meaning.

I am sorry to those who think otherwise of me. Making personal judgements can create a wall between one's perception of things and those things themselves.



What does this mean? Can this be rephrased, because what those words mean to me conflicts this statement.



You are so far away from even being able to know, how can you make such a personal assertion of my intent? I 'am out' to do everything that I can to ensure that I completely understand(as best I am able) everything that I believe, and at times, this requires extremely precise thought.

If that constitutes 'a total waste of time' to you, then that is ok as well. However, it does no such thing to my own relevent understanding. I feel that that mindset holds much value.



That is clever, sort of... I want to say that I have been avoiding this question for other reasons. Here are a few of the first things which I thought deemed worthy enough(in terms of relevency) to be considered. Be aware that most everything that I posed went unanswered due to the need for another to 'share' their own thoughts more than consider another's.

>>>>>>> It seems to me that any conscious thought needs to be in language lest the one 'thinking' would not understand what it was thinking.

If understanding is not there, can it be considered conscious thought? <<<<<<<

>>>>>>> What can we make of the distinct link between the most intelligent animals having the most complex languages? <<<<<<<

>>>>>>> Can the activity of the brain be considered to be thought if the subject has no way to connect the happenings of it's own brain/mind in a logical construct of which it remembers and understands? <<<<<<<

>>>>>>> Language has one primary function, and it implies much more than just conveying thought. It is more inclusive and fundamental than that. It is the way that a conscious being organizes it's own thought, ties these into memory, and places identity and therefore value upon all else. <<<<<<<



Honestly James... during the process of making this post, I have come to realize that I seem to be the only one - between you and I -truly considering the others' statements. This above question seems like the very essence behind all of the things which you just got finished accusing me of.

Does communicating require listening?

I have an idea! >>>>>>> enter... a light bulb <<<<<<<

I think that it would be beneficial to develop the meaning behind the terms in question, after we identify them, without using the word itself...

What would our converstaion look like then?



I suggest this because I do not believe that I am too attached to the terms themselves to be able to develop my own understanding of what those terms mean to me. This would force one to actually think about what they are writing, would it not?



I have sorta already began doing this, as Massage suggested. In case some of you are quite perceptive, you may have already recognized this change. It has went unmentioned by another...

Wow James, your past couple of posts have really got me thinking...



How can it be determined whether or not one is actually considering another's viewpoint when and if they differ? Does this not require the one doing the considering to use the same terms? Regardless of whether or not the exact definitions or meanings are agreed upon at the time, I think that the road to mutual understanding is necessary, and can be so much easier to pave if one consciously uses the other's terminology.

I mean if I use the term 'butter' and another thinks of the thing that I would call 'plaque', then that would consititute the existence of a 'tear' in the fabric of mutual understanding.

Could that misunderstanding be cleared up if the other continued to use the term 'butter' as though it were the term 'plaque'?

I think not, unless I recognize this and then clarify that recognition to the other.

In a sense James, that is why I made the suggestion to not use the terms in question for the further development of the 'sharing'. I think that a more genuinely true sharing could happen through this measure alone.

Do you?

Hopefully, we can add a new facet to this discussion regarding an attempt at a mutual understanding.

I would very sincerely like to do this Michael because my ultimate goal is to truly share insight and nothing more. When I disagree with the logos that you put forth there is absolutely no personal attachment to this at all. Also, my comments concerning the idea that you're arguments are nothing more than an argument of semantics is not in any way meant to belittle your views. I simply feel that this is indeed the case.

In fact, based on where you are coming from it would seem to me that you would almost need to demand that this is the case. After all, your main hypothesis seems to be that thought equates solely to, or can be reduced entirely to the concept of language. Yet what is language but an attempt to dichotomize the world into well defined labels and then analyze or define what those labels should mean. Therefore you're whole supposition appears to be that we can have no understanding of anything until we've labeled it and defined it in terms that we understanding.

My objection to this was that I feel that we can indeed have an understanding of the world that if free from this linguistic type of logos or analytical language-like thinking.

So our conversation on these concepts seems to have crashed on the semantics definition or limitation of the concept of thought.

You are appealing to some strict definition of a label (the actual language word thought), while I'm attempting to get at the underlying philosophical meaning of thought.

This is going to be extremely difficult to convey through language which is the only medium we have available to us in these forums, but I shall make every attempt to do so.

This may end up being rather long-winded so let me post this dissertation in parts:

Part One - On the Difference between Labels and the Actual Concepts they are Labeling



Unfortunately I'm afraid I don't feel this is possible. The reason being that we are indeed attempting to communicate using language. We can't very well toss language aside and carry on the rest of our communication via mental telepathy. We're stuck with the written word for the purposes of communication, especially in this written forum format.

So we must continue using words and simply attempt to go beyond the labels in whatever way might be possible. I believe that I can do this, and so I shall begin.

The labels (or words) in question are thought, consciousness, and awareness.

However these are far more than just labels, they represent ideas or concepts.

If philosophers just referred to the dictionary definition of these terms every time they wished to consider these underlying concepts then philosophy would be a dead field. There would be nothing to consider. The dictionaries would be a complete record of our philosophy. Anytime we want to know what a concept means we could just look it up in the dictionary and we'd be done. What's to ponder if that's the case? Where would philosophy be if this were the case? Philosophers would have nothing left to do but run out and buy dictionaries and just look up the meaning of any concept they wish to understand.

Moreover, does the dictionary entry for the word thought simply say, "See language.?

If not, and your claim is that we must use the dictionary for a reference for our understanding of all concepts then why should you be so bold as to suggest that the definition of the word thought should be the same as definition for the word language?

Moving away from the Dictionary into the world of Philosophy

Let's just ignore the dictionary definitions of these terms for a moment and revisit you supposition:

You seem to be stating that thought is language and you seem to feel very passionate about this. You post:

.

Moreover you seem to be making some sort of suggestion that therefore this requires that all of our beliefs necessarily must be language-based and that means that we form all our beliefs and understanding of the world by basically labeling concepts and defining them. After all this is the basis of language is it not (other than the communication aspect of language, but you clearly aren't referring to that aspect of language when you say that language is the basis of thought.

The other point that you seem to be demanding is that awareness is not thought.

Well, again this is nothing more than a semantic demand. Moreover you appear to be pushing the concept of awareness out of the way for some reason. Like as if you are not even permitting the concept of awareness to even be considered as thought.

Yet this is the very of the view that I am attempting to convey. I'm attempting to convey the idea that awareness is paramount to thought. My position is that awareness is what directs and orchestrates thoughts.

Therefore, even if you demand a very strict semantic restriction that disallows the very word thought to be applied to the concept of awareness, it is still my position that it is awareness that directs and orchestrates our thought processes.

Therefore I hold that awareness is the paramount concept here. I hold that it is our awareness or consciousness that ultimately brings understanding.

Now I said that this is going to be quite lengthy so allow me to continue this in a series of posts

Part Two - On the Equivalence of Consciousness and Awareness

Yes, it's true that these are just two more labels. None the less, I'm going to attempt to show that the underlying concepts to which these labels refer must necessarily be equivalent.

In fact, I am very fortune to have this course on "Consciousness and Its Implications" here because the lecturers demonstrates the equivalence of Consciousness and Awareness very eloquently. I will attempt to summarize his main points.

In philosophy there is a concept known as "The Cocktail Party Effect". This is nothing more than the observation that we can indeed direct our conscious awareness. When in a setting where there are many distractions we can just ignore what we don't want to pay attention to (or be aware of).

This is just another way of saying that we can direct our conscious awareness. We can choose what we want to be conscious of. Whatever we are aware of, we must necessarily also be conscious of, and vice versa.

To be aware of something is to be conscious and vice versa.

Now please note here that I am not attempting to make some sort of semantic restrictions on these words. I'm merely attempting to communicate the idea that the concepts that these labels refer to are basically, either one in the same concept, or at the very least they are inseparably linked.

With this in mind, I think we can freely use these two labels to refer to the same idea. Awareness is consciousness, consciousness is to be aware.

Well, where is thought in all of this?

You're position seems to be based on some connection between the concepts ofthought and language, and you appear to be suggesting that this is how we come to some understanding of the world. In fact it appears, at least to me, that you seem to be suggesting that this is the foundation for our understanding and beliefs.

Well, before I move on, let me continue just a little bit more from an example that was given in this course I'm currently studying.

Bible Excerpts, and Poetry - an Experiment of Awareness

To drive home the importance of "The Cocktail Party Effect", allow me to share the results of an experiment that has been performed to investigate this phenomenon.

Human subjects were tested for "The Cocktail Party Effect" by placing on their head a set of earphones that were dichotomized. But this I mean that the right and left channels contained completely different information.

In the right channel they were fed excerpt from the Bible. In the left channel they were fed poetry.

The subjects where then asked to direct their attention their awareness or consciousness to only one channel or the other. Then afterward they were tested on their knowledge of what they had heard.

The amazing results are as follows.

The subjects who were asked to direct their awareness to the right channel were then tested on the contents of that particular Biblical passage. They were clearly able to answer questions about these information concerning what the passage was about and whether it came from the Old or New Testament, etc.

However, when these same people were asked about the poetry information that was simultaneously exposed to their left ear, they could say NOTHING about it at all. Including the fact, that the poetry was given in several differnet languages! They weren't even aware of that! They had directed their entire conscious awareness into the right ear information only, and they were completely unaware, or unconscious of the information that was being fed into their left ear.

Of course they did this experiment the other way around too and found the same situation when the subjects were asked to direct their awareness to the poetry. Those subjects had no clue which Bible passages had been read or whether they were related to the Old or New Testament.

The point that I'm attempting to convey here is that our real power of thought does not lie within the concepts of thoughts at all, but rather in the concept of where we decide to direct our conscious awareness.

Part Three - Zen, the Tao, and Pure Conscious Awareness

Now this brings me the point that I've been attempting to make all along. We are not our thoughts. We are the conscious awareness that is able to direct attention to whatever thoughts we chose to focus our attention on.

We give thoughts meaning. Not the other way around.

We are the pure conscious awareness that gives attention to thoughts.

This is what I was attempting to say about Descartes famous quote, "I think therefore I am"

I don't believe he mean, "I am my thoughts, therefore I am"

I believe that he mean to say, "I am pure conscious awareness, therefore I am"

Or maybe, "I am able to be aware of my thoughts, therefore I am"

However, our "thoughts" the only think that we can be aware of?

Of course! And that's the very message of the Zen and the Tao. We don't need to experience the world through "thoughts". We can by-pass thoughts and just experience directly without having to think linguistically, or label and define everyting.

Like Jess Less says, "Just Be!"

We can "Just Be" without paying attention to analytical thoughts (i.e. the language-type of thinking were we label and defining everything).

However, in the most philosophical sense isn't an ability to be aware, to be conscious of something, the same as "thinking". It's just not the language-like thinking of associated with logos and analysis.

But it's still at type of 'thought'.

In other words, if you experience something in your imagination you have had a 'thought'. Yet it doesn't need to be an analytical or language-type thought at all. In fact it can be a totally nonsensical thought.

But how could a nonsensical thought be considered to be language-like? Yet it's still a thought in the most philosophical sense of that concept.

Summary

I feel as though I have conveyed my views on this now.

I'm not concerned with attempting to prove that these conclusions have any actuality. My only concern was that I was attempting to share what I feel is the basis of our understanding and consciousness all the while that you seemed to be demanding that awareness does not qualify as thought.

Yet, if pure conscious awareness is the driving force behind our ability to direct our attention to whatever thoughts we wish to process and how we will choose to conceive and orchestrate them, then surely pure conscious awareness is not to be dismissed when concerning the concept of thought.

A Word about Free Will

I don't want to change the topic to the topic of Free Will, but since we're at a point where the concept of Free Will is at hand, it only seems fitting to mention it.

This is the whole point of Buddhism and Taoism (at least at the core of their teachings). We can't truly be FREE until we realize that our genuine essence if indeed a free state of Pure Conscious Awareness.

So many people get bogged down into believing that they are the analytical thought processes that are going on in their brains. They get entirely caught up in this analytical thought process to the point where they can't get out of it.

This is why the methods of the Zen and the Tao focus so much on meditation (not meditation on thoughts!), but rather Transcendental Meditation - a state of Pure Conscious Awareness that is divorced from analytical thoughts.

But clearly there is still a form of "thinking" going one there. It's just no longer a language-type of analytical thinking. It's more of a state of pure thought that is not analyzing anything.

It's "Just Being Aware"

"THAT", the Zen guru would say, "Is your true essence". This is were your Free Will truly resides. Your brain is merely a tool that you're pure consciousness uses as a toy. Yet, your pure consciousness is clearly able to direct and orchestrate your "thoughts". But doesn't that require a form of "thinking" in it's own right? Albeit clearly not a language-based type of thinking. It's beyond language, beyond labels, beyond analysis. It's the Zen, the Tao, the Spirit. Whatever you want to call it. Yes, it's an indefinable mystical concept, that's why it's called mysticism.