This is probably the point that we are getting our wires crossed up on. It all boils down to our different views on what we mean by thought and thinking.

As humans, our brains are always chattering in terms of language. This is often referred to as the brain "thinking". It's impossible to turn off this brain chatter. However it is possible to ignore it. In fact, learning the practice of ignoring it is at the heart of Zen Buddhism.

But what happens when we mangage to free ourselves from the constant flowing river of thought in our brains? Do we black out and cease to experience life? Absolutely not. On the contrary once we've learned to experience things without thought we have made a major leap forward.

Understanding truly amounts to nothing more than judgements. When we think we've understood something all we have truly done is categorize and label all of the various aspects of it that we have individualized, labeled, and compartmentalized.

We call that understanding.

But is that true understanding?

A Buddhist would say no. The true understanding comes when we abandon that kind of analytical thought and just experience things without attempting to understand them.

You make it sound like if there is no analytical understanding there can be no cognition. I disagree. I believe that there are deeper, more intuitive understandings that do not require analytical thought. You may wish to dismiss them as being merely instinctual, and perhaps this is my greatest protest. They aren't necessarily instinctual at all, they are simply experiencial. Don't confuse the experience with instinctive reactions.

From a Buddhist's Point of View:

Can you experience a flower without thinking about it analytically?

Instead of looking at the flower and recognizing that it has petals and a stem and leaves and specific patterns of colors, and it might even belong to a certain family of flowers or have a specific name, just experience the object without labeling it or trying to define it or categorize its parts. This can be done. And we don't even use the "thinking" part of the brain (the part that is thinking in terms of language).

Yet, this kind of experience is the greatest understanding of all.

So I guess I'm just having difficulty with your premises of what thinking and understanding necessarily mean.

As I said before, if you limit this in terms of analytical thinking and analytical understanding then I would agree.

I guess what I ultimately have a problem with is the idea of dismissing all non-analytical thought as not qualifying as thought at all.

You seem to be considering only analytical thought processes here.

There's nothing wrong with that, if that's your intent. My only concern is that you don't seem to be limiting your discussion to that. You seem to be trying to say something about thought in general, as well as potentially consciousness in general as well. You've already suggested that you are considering conscious thought. However, to that I would suggest that the non-analytical experience of the world is also conscious thought. But non-analytical experience does not require language. On the contrary, language serves to defeat non-analytical thought as language demands the classification and organization of concepts and ideas into known or previously understood patterns, memories or symbols. That's how language works.

Also as I've said before, I have nothing against logic or analysis, as you well know I'm addicted to that type of thinking myself. I love it! It's beautiful and it does indeed allow us to do wonderous things.

Just the same, I would not reduce all of thought into that box. And this is where I guess I have a problem with what you appear to be saying.

I would agree that Language is representational of understanding, but I would not agree that understanding is representational of language. I think understanding trandscends language. Language is merely one facet of understanding. They are not inextricably linked as I see these concepts.

Again, these are just my thoughts so that you may better understand why I'm having difficulty in accepting that all thought can be reduced to a concept of language. I feel that thought is far more than just analysis. For me that's merely one aspect of thought. A powerful aspect to be sure, but still it's not the totality of thought.

So linking language to analytical thought I really have no problem at all. But to link language to all thought in general is where I have objections.

The whole point of Zen Buddhism is to experience non-analytical thought. It's not easy to master, but it most certainly is doable. We can indeed leave the chatter of our brains in the background. It will always be there chattering away, but kind of like a radio in the background we can ignore it and focus on other things of non-analytical nature.

In fact, when the brain is chattering away when we aren't paying attention to is, is the brain still thinking? It's certainly processing thoughts in some way or another. To the Buddhist it's just a river of thought flowing through our brains. If we aren't consciously interacting with the river the thoughts just float on by. Only when we pay attention to our brain's analytical processes do we chose which thoughts to focus on and expound upon.

But being in a state of pure consciouness does not require analytical thought.

So I would suggest that your thesis here appears not about awareness, understanding, or pure thought, but only about an analysis of analytical thought itself.

James,

I think that you are touching on something quite profound, and in no way am I attempting to deny that. In fact, I am including it by equating language to representational understanding. For all intents and purposes, I find that I cannot think of any form of language - nor has one been mentioned here by another - which would be excluded from that definition, and that it also effectively describes my own not-so-common form of conceptualization which happens to revolve around the function of language. While that phrase does not spell out everything that is included, i think it does include evrything that can be 'spelled out' - with or without terminology.

What do you mean by analytical thought? Could we develop that aspect of this conversation beyond that term? I am not sure that I agree with your assertion concerning it, meaning your ascribing it to my own claims, in general.

Awareness itself adds another dimension, and that dimension needs to be further exposed in order to fully appreciate this facet of which you speak.

Would I be correct in saying that awareness is not dependent upon language, and that perhaps the difference between being aware of experience and being aware of how to describe that experience necessitates that they are two diametrically opposed things. That description itself removes value by insufficiency alone?

Jeremy,

I want to say that I am taking note of your posts, and appreciate your manner of dissection... being a reductionist myself - for the time being.

Di wrote...



It seems that the first paragraph is describing the involuntary interrelations between the conscious and the unconscious 'portions' of the mind. While that may not be language, only conscious perception births unconscious elements, and therefore both most certainly depend upon some form of representational understanding for the existence of that content. Is that safe to say?

To me, these are definitions pretending to be something other than definitions.

You are saying that unconscious elements do not exist without there first being conscious perception? Are you suggesting that everything that goes into our minds is first consciously recognized?

(In this post, language = recognized, shared human language)

Yesterday, Di's comments had me wondering about feral children, non-human animals, the role of language in development, and what really happens when a person has non-verbal insights.

If feral-child humans are incapable of having some of the nonverbal thoughts that I have, and the use of language as a child is the cause for this difference, does this require that I'm using language unconsciously, without realizing it?

As I fell asleep last night I realized this (as a requirement) is absurd. Its entirely possible that the use of language develops the nervous system with greater general purpose ability.

Probably, if a collection of not-quite-feral but not-very-well-educated children were put in two groups, and one group played a TON of chess, backgammon, go, checkers, etc (and the other group was denied very much stimulation at all), then the game playing group would have many mental skills that the others didn't have. Maybe they'd be better at language, maybe they'd be better at solving mechanical problems. If so, this would not mean that when they solve a mechanical problem they were internally 'playing chess'. It would just mean that chess playing developed their nervous system, and they applied that development in another area.

(This post deliberately ignores the question of whether a 'private, internal non-shared language' of some sort is at play when a person has non-verbal insights.)

Di,

I don't agree with this conclusion.




It almost assumes that only humans can 'think' and that what animals do does not qualify as 'thinking' but is only an unconscious 'instinct." It also states that stimuli (information) and structured process of memory development can only occur through HUMAN communication.

That is absurd as far as I am concerned.

So I would have to ask for a detailed definition of what a person means by the words "think or thought." Can only humans think and can they only think if they have developed a language? I don't think so.

UNLESS you want to define THOUGHT as something only humans do. (Which is silly if you ask me.)

An animals brain processes information and stimuli and it thinks. Some animals even have a language of their own so that blows that idea out the window.

Humans are so arrogant.

Now if you want to claim that about CONSCIOUS analytical thinking, well, thats another story. Call it human thought.

Massage wrote...



I am unclear on what this means, exactly. Definitions are incapable of pretending, so then, what are you inferring?



To this...



You responded as such...



Yes and No.

Unconscious elements are born of conscious perception. That is not to say that everything that exists within the unconscious was thought about consciously. It takes conscious perception and memory to form an unconscious.

Perception does not equal awareness, it is however, a prerequisite. Awareness and some form of representational understanding are both required for conscious recognition of that which is being perceived. However, one must not necessarily recognize everything which is perceived while in a state of conscious mind, just merely perceive.

It is only after a foundational understanding is had that one begins to frame experience according to what they believe, which is necessarily framed(constructed) via some form of representational understanding. At the point where there is enough accepted belief to substantiate the existence of a world-view, the unconscious has been given the necessary elements to exist, resulting from repeated and/or accepted conscious thought gaining a form of internalization. The unconscious then begins, quite independently, to perceive through conscious experience without the need for a 'conscious recognition' of that which is being perceived.

As long as one looks out into the world through the worldy fingerprint which is placed upon each of us it will forever remain incorruptible.

Is thought an unspoken language?

Yes it is and no it isn't.

Is it possible to have two answers to be true even if they contradict themselves?

See it as possible! Try to come up with a logical conclusion why both answers could be correct.

What is it that gives a thing it's orientation in the human mind?

Surely a thing not dependent upon human understanding for existence will exist without language, so - in that sense - representational understanding(language) does not create a thing's existence in that case, at least. Examples would include material things independent of language, the universe, the trees in my yard, etc.

To perceive the existence of a thunderstorm devoid of previous representational understanding is to witness one as it happens - in person - without any form of prior exposure. After that, one will have registered that experience into memory through some form of representational understanding - for the very first time. Be it the spine tingling, electrically charged air creating an upright forest of human hair upon the arms and sending shivers down the back causing the body to shudder, or some other measure of personal remembrance, the brain registers that experience in some way, and gains a form of representational understanding thereby facilitating the ability for the orientation of that experience.

Where is involuntary feeling and emotion in all of this? It is interconnected with that form of representational understanding(whatever it may consist of), and adds to it's overall complexity. While an accurate knowing of all of the elements which combine to constitute the existence of the storm need not be had, there will exist some form of registry - necessarily through representational understanding. That is the foundation of more complex languages meant to be used for communicative purposes which could facilitate the ability to distinguish between different types of storms through the recognition and further thinking about those differences.

What would qualify as thought in a situation where one was experiencing something for the very first time without prior representational understanding? Does understanding necessarily depend upon thought relationships to prior beliefs?

There are exactly as many ways to frame experience and therefore relate to the world around us as there are individual representational understandings of the world. Each set of elements has it's own grounding in some form of language(representational understanding). Language, as Heidegger so aptly noted, is the house of being. Although I disagree with his assertion because of the differences between our ideas of what constitutes language, it holds true in my personal view, as well as his for him - for different reasons, of course.

Last nigth I began listening to an audio book called "The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment", by Eckhart Tolle.

http://eckharttolle.com/the_power_of_now

I'm finding it quite enlightening.

In this book he states: "Descartes' proclaimation, 'I think therefore I am' couldn't be more wrong".

He goes on to state that while consciousness is required for thought, thought is not required for consciousness. He explains this is some depth. The very idea of becoming enlightened in the sense of Eastern Mysticism, is to come to the experience of this truth. A truth that cannot be conveyed through language of any sort.

Many spiritual leaders refer to this power of pure consciousness. By pure they actually mean consciousness that is detached from thought. This is the key to spiritual transformation and enlightenment.

I personally believe that much of what may be confusing in this thread is the very concept of thought itself. I've already made attempts to differentiate between Analytical Thought and Pure Consciousness which many people may actually associate with thought.

In fact, if we go back to René Descartes' famous quote, "I think therefore I am", we might ask the following questions concerning precisely what he meant.

Did he mean:

"I analyze things logically, therefore I am."

Or did he mean:

"I have conscious experience, therefore I am."

It's hard to know precisely what Descartes had in mind. He was a mathematician and he did analyze things logically in much depth. But was that what he mean when he said, "I think therefore I am."?

Or did he actually mean, "I'm capable of experiencing thought, therefore I am."?

According to Tolle, and many other spiritual teachers, the latter makes far more sense.

In other words, some people would say that if we experience something then we have cognized it, (i.e. we are consciously aware of it). Yet we can do that without any analytical thought whatsoever.

Yet some people would claim that to cognize something (to be consciously aware of it) qualifies as a thought.

So in this sense I just feel that there is some ambiguity in the very meaning of the word thought.

You ask, "Is thought unspoken language?"

I would say, "Yes, analytical thought is indeed unspoken language, however, pure unadulterated consciousness (which I also consider to be tought, is neither analytical nor language. It's just pure consciousness, pure experience, and in that sense it is pure thought without any need for symbolic analysis or expression.

So it is with this aspect of thought as pure awareness that is unadulterated by any form of judgment or labeling where I differ on the idea that thought is unspoken language. No, thought, in its mose pristine and unadulterated form, is not language at all, but rather it is pure awareness without any judgements, labels, or descriptions attached that would be required of a language.

In this sense language is the nemesis of pure awareness. Language is the adulteration of pure thought. Language is the manifestion of judgment via the very simple fact that language is the labeling and categorizing of experiences. Pure thought is just the pure experience without the labeling. To label is to judge. Pure thought and pure conscious awareness is non-judgemental.

Therefore thought in its purest unadulterated form must necessarily not be a language. Language is the adulteration of pure thought.

So this is where my objection lie.

I'm in total agreement that analytical thought is unspoken language.

However, I would be in total disagreement that pure thought or pure conscious awareness is unspoken language. It's not language at all, it's merely pure awareness without any need to label anything. Language is all about labeling the experiences.

So this is where I'm coming from.

As long as you understand the difference between analytical thought and thought as pure awareness, then I agree that analytical thought is unspoken language. But that's merely one aspect of thought. Analytical thought is not required for consciousness. But conscioussness is required for analytical thought. Yet many people consider conscioussness to be a form of thought in it's own right. For some people, Awareness = Thought, in other words.

"I think therefore I am", actually means (or should mean), "I'm aware therefore I am."

It doesn't mean, "I think analytically, therefore I am."

This may seem like a subtle point, but for me it's paramount because pure awareness is the root of being, yet analytical thinking is merely something that pure awareness makes possible.

Analytical thinking is not required for pure awareness, but pure awareness is required for analytical thinking.

Yet for many people, pure awareness would also qualify as "thought".

This could be viewed as a mere argument for semantics, but I personally feel that it's important enough to recognize this distinction. Because many people (especially in the context of a philosophical discussion) equate thought to conscious awareness. Yet conscious awareness is not unspoken language. It's is simply the pure unadulterated experience without any need to label or categorize. It's the antithesis of language.

I think Descartes meant:

I think therefore I realize I am.

Eckart Toll:

He discovered the power of NOW just prior to committing suicide.

He divorced himself from this reality basically because he couldn't handle it. His message is basically, don't worry, be happy. We've all heard that before.


Sorry I made a mistake! He discovered the power of NOW prior to ALMOST COMMITTING SUICIDE.

HE DID NOT COMMIT SUICIDE. He just gave up worrying about the future and fretting about the past.

(((Jeanniebean))) Good to see you. I was starting to get worried aboutcha

I've been busy. Thanks for worrying.

I corrected the above post. Eckart Toll did not commit suicide, he just considered it, and discovered the POWER of NOW.

I dont know if you knew about this or not but QuantumThoughtbubbles was begging ,and I mean begging, you to post something in her Create a Planet thread over in Poetry section. She really thinks your awesome and I just wanted to let you know.

I have been busy creating a planet. LOL

Thank you JB. You may not know it, but a lot of us really look up to you for not being afraid to be unique