I'm not sure I understand the question here.

I think people are inclined to analyze an experience in relation to other similar experiences if they have had other similar experiences.

Your question is too general. You might want to be a bit more specific.

JB wrote this...



In response to this question posed...



---------------------------------------------------------------------

The question is necessarily general because it covers understanding, which is general in nature due to the wide variety of things which are or can be understood.

What does it mean to understand something?

I am claiming that this first necessitates identification(in some way) of the individual elements in question(no matter what they consist of) in addition to the conscious recognition of their relationship to one another and/or the one perceiving... their correlation.

If a specific example needs to be given, then it can, but all examples(I can think of) fit this description at the basic level.

The problem is that experience is constructed post stimulus, and the brain literally fills in the gaps based on previous examples, or expected outcomes.

To identify the elements of experience we must research properly the relationship between stimulus and experience, and then identify the mechanism the brain uses to match up the data into coherent patterns of thought.

This is being done.

BTW Creative have you had a chance to read that book, or get started?

As far as I'm concerned this is basically the definition of analtyical thinking.

You're speaking soley in terms of logos. Logical thinking. Analytical thinking. Comparing one thing to another to make a decuction of some sort.

I figure as much all along. Of course, that kind of thinking necessarily must be langauge-based becasue in order to think like that experiences must be idenditified, labeled, and compared.

You're thinking solely in terms of logos, or analytical thought.

No wonder you can't understand what other people are saying. They aren't speaking about logical analysis type of thinking. They are speaking in terms of pure knowingness. Pure awareness.

So many great spirital teachers discuss these concepts at great length in lectures that often times go on for hours as they attempting to get at the same concept from the many different perspectives.

The very reason being that it's not easy to convey this insight via language. This is why poetry, and parables are so often relied upon to bring out this awareness that cannot be expressed in mere language alone.

Language fails miserably for this. Because the whole idea is to bring about an awareness of the non-language aspect of thought.

I was right on the money from the very beginning of this thread Michael, you're limiting the word 'thought' to only apply to the logical type of analytical thinking.

And like Massagetrade suggested many pages ago. What you are proposing is nothing more than an obvious tautology in that case that should be obvious to anyone.

You're just hung up on analytical thinking is all. Of course analytical thinking would require the labeling and categorizing of things. That obvious.

The point other people are attempting to make is that analytical thinking is not the only way to think.

If one cannot say, " I have reason to believe." ,then one should not say " I believe."...

Just answer the question...

All you are demanding here is that everyone must think analytically and demand that no one is premitted to think intuitively or have intuitive-based beliefs.

Sounds like a dictatorship to me.

All you are truly doing thoughtout this entire thread is totally denouncing the value of intuition.

"To the person holding a hammer, every problem can look like a nail."

What constitutes understanding of an experience without identifying the elements of that experience in relation to other things?

Well, not to sound like Richard Feynman, but what do you mean by understanding?

If you're only concept of understanding is the idea of comparing one thing that you claim you can't understand on its own, to another thing that you claim you can't understand on its own, then in the end you ultimately have no understanding of either. All you have is a relative judgment between the two experiences. This is the very thing that the Zen Buddhists are attempting to get people to avoid.

The whole key to the Zen is to experience everything in its own right and quit comparing things with each other. That just leads to judging one experience based upon a memory of another.

The Zen Master would say that if you need to compare things in order to understand them then you do not understand at all.

That's how the logical mind works. The brain is like a computer and wants to compare everything.

Our job, as the one who is in control of our brain is to just say, "No, I don't want to think like that anymore. I just want to experience things direcly without getting analytical about it all the time, so bug off brain, it's my turn to be in control of how I think and I no longer want to be comparing things all the time like some kind of analytical robot."

Then you will suddenly feel the bliss of oneness and you'll start seeing fairies and little angels will appear to shoot you with arrows when you fall in love and all that good stuff.

Otherwise, you'll just be stuck comparing things forever and never understanding anything.

How do you 'understand' an experience?

An experience is simply an experience.

Okay take sex for example. How do we 'understand' that experience? Do we even need to understand it? Why do people have sex anyway? To procreate the species or for enjoyment?

Do you like it or not? Does it matter if you like it or not? How does one sexual partner compare to another? Is it performance, looks, equipment? Or is it chemistry? Does love necessarily make it better or worse?

These things all depend on the individual having the experience.

Okay say I had hot sex with some guy with the intend of getting pregnant. He thinks he is the greatest thing since sliced bread and he asked my my opinion of his performance. Shall I identifying the elements of that experience in relation to other sexual encounters and be honest with my assessment?

Shall I say, "I've had much better and bigger, but I guess it was adequate. The sperm was delivered. Let's hope it finds its mark."

That's being analytical.

Truely.

Using a word to define itself leads to semantical bullshee-ought. I have had enough of that road.

Since you find my understanding of it to be inadequate in some way...

Show me.

Remove the word itself, and you tell me what constitites understanding, from your point of view. I have and it covers all possible scenarios... on a fundamental level.

Godel had a Completeness Theorem as well... did he not?

Jeanniebean, Abracadabra, Creativesoul, Bushidobillyclub, and Massagetrade all need a vacation in Miami at the beach with Pina Coladas

and that my friends is the meaning of language conscious or not

This thread itself is proof that thought is not language.

Each of us placed what we 'thought' was a thought of import into the discussion using what we thought was a common language.

and most of us have realized by now that the 'thought' we thought to convey was MISUNDERSTOOD by others... (mpc-BECAUSE of the limitations of language)

Language can not truely convey thought. (My Personal Conclusion).

<=== Already on vacation

I'm in total agreement with AB.

Agreed.

Language ain't even language 'cause I can't understand anything Creative says...or thinks...

We don't need to define "experience" if we all know what it means.

Is there anyone here that does NOT know what 'experience' means?

Is there anyone here who does NOT know what 'understanding' means?

Is there anyone here who just wants to think and analyze it to death?

You can take the most simple thing on earth and complicate it if you want, and pick it apart and analyze it, but for what purpose?

Can you understand understanding? Can you experience experience?

Can you understand my experience? ... NO you can't. Not unless you have also experienced it AS ME PERSONALLY.

Understanding comes from experience as felt by the experiencer. It is unique to the one person.

"Is thought unspoken language?" Please expand on your definition of thought used in your question.

Not recognizing that something is so does not make it untrue.

The mind automatically perceives and ascribes an identity to elements of perception... it registers it! That identity is had through some form of language. The belief about the correlations of those elements constitute understanding. All of it constitutes thought. Common language attempts to communicate this, and sometimes fails, and it comes down to how well one understands their own beliefs about the correlations contained within their own experience.

If one says "I doubt that.", then it is based upon a held belief which contradicts that...

I have given grounds for my doubt by entertaining others' expressions the same way that I do my own...

To do that, one must answer questions...

Why, when we get to those pertinent questions, does it become ad hominem and refusal by those who claim that I do not entertain others' thoughts to entertain this side?



What constitutes understanding of an experience without identifying the elements of that experience in relation to other things?