Thoughts

[Physics131]

I’m currently asking myself whether there is a difference between how one thinks and the way in which one thinks.

The phrase "how one thinks" describes one’s thinking style in a broad but fundamental sense, while "the way in which one thinks" refers to the more detailed thinking process.
I am distinguishing here between thinking style and thinking process.

As seen in my case, my thinking style is linguistic, while my thinking process is, among other things, conceptual.
In your example, the thinking style is conceptual, and the thinking process might perhaps be intentional?

Understanding this distinction better is fascinating.
These are just my initial thoughts, and they likely contain errors.
Perhaps I should delve deeper into this topic before forming a solid opinion about it.

 

[Physics131]

This somewhat switches the topic.
But there is something I learned and want to share.

Every attempt of trying to define something, tells more about how I want do define something or how I think something could be defined.
It is interesting that this attempts tell actually more about myself then they tell about what is being defined.

And every attempt of a definiotion can be viewed as a sculpture, sometimes more or less carefully chiseled.
As it is possible to create multiple sculpture of the same entitiy, the same is possible with definitions or thoughts.
But the chiseller chisels or crafts in a way where he thinks it would seem best.

And we can inspect and evaluate this sculptures.
With every sculpture crafted we will see mistakes but also improvements.
And we can selectively choose on which sculpure we want to continue working.
But sometimes we can take the best aspects from every sculpture and craft someting very new or even apply it on a scuplure of a very different type.

What I also learned is.
When I try to think about how people or humans are, then I could find possible answers.
But this possible answer actually drscribe more myself then they describe my surrounding.
And only because I think to understand myself to a certain degree (which is very limitied I think), that does not mean that I understand others the way they should be understood.

Only because some people are on the path of self reflection and improvement.
It does not mean that such individuals (myself) should think that everyone rides on the same rail.
Even when one jumped this rail and noticed that is was helpful.
Everyone has to make this first step by his own, initiating a process.
And a process should not be initiated from outside by force.

Every individual can not help every other individual.
Because that would contradict with the term "individual".
But similar individuals can help each other because although they are individuals they share some similarities.
I do not tell that it is impossible to help each other when individuals are too different.
Instead talking about best applicability.

And when forceing a strategy on something which helped oneself.
It actually could hurt the opponets more then it could be benefitial.
Because every strategy, mechanic or tool has a scenario of best applicability.
We do not nail a nail with a screwdriver, although it would be possible.

And this actually tells again more about myself then about what is being written down.

 

[AstralRoots]

What do you think about apophaticism?

Knowing something through negation.

 

[Physics131]

What do you think about apophaticism?

Knowing something through negation.

I had to google this otherwise i did not know much about it.
You can basically negate the logic of a sentence miltiple times without loosing any information. It would be not required when done more then 1 time.
It is the same when writing when x then y or when not x then not y.
I am not sure if this is what you want to address.

 

[Physics131]

ChatGPT told me that I used apophaticism in a subtile way in my text.
That is an interesting insight.

I think it is easier for me to tell what something is not then what something is.
After excluding aspects of what something is not, it is easier to get to the understanding what something is.
With the process of elimination it is possible to get to what and how something is.

That means if someting is not defined by x.
Then something is defined by not x.
Very interesting conclusion.

 

[Varallo]

That’s an interesting perspective, but I think that this interpretation of apophaticism simplifies its deeper intent. So when defining something by what it is not leads to understanding it as “defined by not X,” is leaving out the nuances that are needed for it to be defined as apophaticism. In my opinion it isn’t just about negation; it’s about recognizing the limits of human language and understanding when approaching complex or abstract concepts, or god for that matter. In short eliminating wrong answers works well in bounded systems but is not well suited in open-ended, god type of questions.

So in short I don’t agree with your conclusion, .

 

[Physics131]

That’s an interesting perspective, but I think that this interpretation of apophaticism simplifies its deeper intent. So when defining something by what it is not leads to understanding it as “defined by not X,” is leaving out the nuances that are needed for it to be defined as apophaticism. In my opinion it isn’t just about negation; it’s about recognizing the limits of human language and understanding when approaching complex or abstract concepts, or god for that matter. In short eliminating wrong answers works well in bounded systems but is not well suited in open-ended, god type of questions.

So in short I don’t agree with your conclusion, .

Thank you for clarification.
I want to make sure if I understand it the way it should be understood.
Apophaticism is not about inverting a boolean (true/false) statement which explains an entitiy A.
It is more aboute excluding entities B, C, D of not being similar or equal to entitiy A?

 

[Varallo]

Thank you for clarification.
I want to make sure if I understand it the way it should be understood.
Apophaticism is not about inverting a boolean (true/false) statement which explains an entitiy A.
It is more aboute excluding entities B, C, D of not being similar or equal to entitiy A?

In my understanding it’s deeper than the sum of excluding something, it’s about the inability to understand what can’t be said with language. It’s difficult to explain in a short comment but an example that is used often is in the context of god being infinite. We don’t say, “Infinity is not finite; therefore, it is the opposite of finite.” So it would be more, “Infinity is not finite, not measurable, not bounded,” etc., recognizing that any human category (finite or its opposite) fails to fully capture the reality of infinity.

It’s a beautiful word for some of the experiences that we have, and although not necessarily correct it’s a word that in my head very much relates to the act of understanding the DMT experience. The same goes for aporia.

Thanks for the opportunity to think about this.

 

[AstralRoots]

I had to google this otherwise i did not know much about it.
You can basically negate the logic of a sentence miltiple times without loosing any information. It would be not required when done more then 1 time.
It is the same when writing when x then y or when not x then not y.
I am not sure if this is what you want to address.

Alan watts spoke of the apophatic approach in "knowing" God.

I think any great thinker asks unending questions throughout their lives.

For me, the moment you name, you limit.

I appreciate Taoism tremendously.

The eternal Tao is not the Tao that can be named.

What else can be said aside from direct experience and inquiry?

Id also like to throw in the idea that Sanskrit is a language which does a tremendously better job than English at speaking to things of a non dual nature. This is worthy of consideration.

 

[MAGMA17]

Sometimes I think that the only things worth talking about are the ones that can't be talked about. Their language is silence

 

[ContentCarrier]

Sometimes I think that the only things worth talking about are the ones that can't be talked about. Their language is silence

“No knowledge is necessary to receive the essence of the art, for the origin of every tradition does not reside in thought, but in silence.”
- Eric Baret, 'Let The Moon Be Free'

 

[AstralRoots]

Sometimes I think that the only things worth talking about are the ones that can't be talked about. Their language is silence

I resonated when hearing Jung was alone fascinated by things of a non superficial nature. He always wanted to know about people's dreams.

I hope you're okay with the thread drift, @Physics131 . Then again, the thread title is "thoughts", so I guess we're all staying in topic

 

[Physics131]

I hope you're okay with the thread drift, @Physics131 . Then again, the thread title is "thoughts", so I guess we're all staying in topic

Thats actually very awesome.
Thank you and everyone very much!
I think it should not be possible to get offtopic in any way because of how the thread is named.
It could be about thinking, thoughts or some specific thought.
Good material to talk and think about.
I think we can together decide what we want to dive into more, which would happen automatically by participating.
It helps to extend our horizon in every possible aspect.

 

[ContentCarrier]

“Thinking can’t help me realize the awakened mind. I can’t think my way into it. But if all thinking is empty immediately upon arising, and I don’t get caught up in thought, I have a chance to recognize it through awareness itself.”

(Daniel P. Brown, 1948-2022)