Would you still make this claim?

Yes.

Now I recognize that there may not always be words available that coincide exactly with what one thinks. So it may not always be possible to express what one thinks using words.

But I would say that, just as the map is intendeed to be an exact reflection of the territory, what one writes is intended to be an exact reflection of what one thinks. To me, that is the whole purpose of writing. To express what one is thinking in a form that can be perceived by others.

Sky said:

Absolutely!
And I'd also add:

Thus, if the writer is prone to be MISINTERPRETTED, that's not a reflection on the Reader!!!

Sky,

You do realize that it is not logically possible to agree with everything I wrote on the last page and make that claim as well? The two contradict one another.

This...



...and this...



...cannot both logically follow from this...




Regarding the map analogy...

Aren't you assuming that there is only one purpose and or method for writing, and that everyone is honest and able to effectively put their thoughts into words? Does that not also assume that everyone knows exactly what they believe and why?

I again think that that analogy fails to be an adequate measure by which to draw a conclusion regarding the OP. It is an over-simplification.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion I suppose.

Yeah, after I wrote that I kinda thought this would come up. I failed to put enough emphasis on the differences.

I was speaking of what one thinks, not how one thinks. So I guess my post was actually “off topic”. By bad.

Could you explain what the difference between the two would make?

Simply put, I think of "how" as a process or action and "what" as a result of that process or action.

I would agree with that, and those two are intrinsically meshed as well.

Is there reason to believe that a writer pens all that s/he believes or knows about a subject?

I know I certainly don't.

So I don't have any reason to believe that anyone else does.

I think that depends enormously on the subject.

As a sci-fi writer, I actually KNOW very little about things like time travel and teleportation, since there is really very little concrete TO know. So I extrapolate on what's generally accepted and start making stuff up on top of the "legitimate" foundation.

It isn't what I "believe," necessarily (although I have to be able to assemble it in such a manner that it at least seems feasible), it certainly isn't what I "know" -- it's what I think works within the parameters of the story I'm trying to tell.

Certainly, no writer is capable of that. However, that's no excuse for publishing an unjustified nonesence and expecting the reader "swallowing" that, just because the explanation is implied (or forthcomming)...

Lex,

Would you say that what you write is an exact enough representation of how and what you think/believe - in general - that it could be correctly considered to be an accurate reflection of who you are as a person?

The statement that what a writer writes is a reflection of 'how he thinks' is not the same thing as saying that it reveals who they are as a person.

In fact, how a person thinks may have very little to do with who they are as a person. They might be a wonderful person whose thinking is impaired or influenced in some way unknown to others.

An injury, brain washing, drug addiction, fears, upbringing etc. can all affect how a person thinks and who that person is underneath all of that might be a lot different.

This is where the idea of mental vs spiritual awareness comes in. If you are WHAT YOU THINK and your thoughts can some how be controlled with brain washing, hypnotism, drugs, etc, then you can be controlled and made into any kind of 'person' at all.

You would have to be a person with a weak will or a person who is too weak to use their own will to control their own thinking.

I can't give a blanket yes/no on that.

Here's an example -- in the series of books I'm writing now, one of the ongoing subplots revolves around a former Soviet researcher who had, at one point, detected a "particle of time" in his lab. An alien race has learned of this and is very eager to glean this knowledge from him, for purposes of their own.

The problem is that the aliens are completely unaware that the researcher has no idea how the particle was generated. He was present, he detected it, and that's that. The aliens have gone so far as to create a device to bring back long-dead memories, completely oblivious to the fact that he HAS no memory of creating the particle, since he didn't create it.

I can't sit here and tell you that this necessarily has anything to do with an accurate reflection of me as a person. My ideas, my manipulation of the storyline, yes. Me as a person? I find it hard to quantify it to that extent.

I am interested in these things, and I like playing around with concepts of this nature. But I would say there is some discrepancy, perhaps, between who I am and what I do.

Jb, it seems to me that you are confusing things here. I am going to try an attempt at clarifying what I believe to be a clear case at hand concerning how one thinks being equal to who one is...

The notion constitutes the underlying issues within the OP.



How one thinks is who they are, that alone is the sole determing factor in the who of anyone. How one thinks is directly determined by all that they believe and know, and that influences what they do. That is why it is utterly important for one to know exactly why they believe what they do... and why. It makes one who they are.



If how and what one thinks has little to do with who they are, then please tell me what does. If a person is a racist early in life, then that is a part of who they are. If later on in life, that person is exposed to and adopts a different line of thinking which changes how they think about other races, then it will also change who they are.

If one is empathetic towards others, it is because they hold others' feelings in the front of their minds during decision making which involves others. It is how they think in situations like that. Empathy becomes a part of who they are.

If one is quick to judge others based upon their dress alone, it is because they feel that it is possible to accurately do so. They feel that all people who dress like 'so and so' in 'such amd such' a situation share some commonly derivable trait which can be recognized through dress alone. It is how they think in situations like that. Being quick to judge another based upon dress alone in familiar situations becomes a part of who they are.



Who a person is can change, and does. Who someone is always exactly corresponds with how they think, and how one thinks will determine what they think. It is not as if a person is the same throughout life. One will take into their belief system different things during different periods of time. All of it determines what one believes and knows - and that alone will be measured by how one thinks, constitutes who one is, and influences what one thinks and does.

To this...



Lex wrote...



Yes. I feel that the innate capacity for unpredictability in human behaviour stems from the unconscious, and will cause what we feel are discreprancies in who we are and what we do. If one cannot identify why s/he has done something, then it constitutes a discreprancy within themselves regarding who they think they are and what has been done that contradicts that. Knowing oneself is key, in my opinion. That includes, but is not limited to, knowing what one believes and why... knowing who 'you' are.

That is had by figuring out how one thinks.

I am not confused. I am asserting that a person can consciously and purposefully change the way they think by the use of THE WILL. They are not entirely at the mercy of influences, upbringing, experience, knowledge, etc.

I am asserting that people are NOT their brains or their thoughts. They are the thinkers of thoughts.

How one thinks is not WHO THEY ARE it merely reflects 'where' they are --(spiritually.)



How one feels has more to do with who they are and how they think.BUT who they are is all about the will and what they decide about how they will react to everything in life.



Empathy is more about 'feeling' than thinking. I think love is involved in that.




What one takes into their belief system is a choice. The one who makes that choice is who you are. We are bombarded with many choices of belief in our life time, and we have many to choose from. I believe that these choices are not made 'logically' they are made primarily by HOW WE FEEL about them, NOT about how we THINK about them.

You use the terms "Believes, knows, thinks, influences," etc but you seldom talk about feelings. Why?

It is my opinion that feelings are the primary clue to who you are. Some people let their feelings and their heart guide them, and others, are more into thinking and reasoning.

Changes: What I think about will change and what I feel will change and I --(who I am--) do have control over both of those things-- if I use my will to do so. -- They are not things that determine 'who I am." I am who I am.

I determine what to think and how to feel.

That is the "I am" that is me. Not my brain.

I have a soul. I have a will. I am that, and that is what I am.

I am what I am.

I am not what I think. I am not what I believe. What I think and what I believe change. How I feel changes. Everything about me changes, but I AM ALWAYS THE SAME PERSON.

I am always what I am. Me.

Young or old, rich or poor, good or bad, weak or strong, nice or naughty, I am ALWAYS ME.

IF as in the case of the invasion of the body snatchers happens and some plant makes a copy of my body. That is not me.

Or unless someone clones me... that is not me either. Even if a clone were programed with all my genes and all my memories and feelings, and beliefs, AND THOUGHTS OR WAY OF THINKING...

THAT IS STILL NOT ME!