The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'

the author's site ^ | 1972 | Dallas Willard

[unspun]

Thanks for your "thoughts" tp, did you read this?

an excellent sum-up of an excellent article

[RightWhale]

one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other?

There is another truth available to those with subtle hearing. When a piano is moved its tuning changes. Imagine 6 billion pianos in various conditions and various states of repair and use moving constantly.

[unspun]

active thinking... passive thinking...

That seems to be a useful shorthand. However, are there not different levels (and/or kinds) of intentionality and volition, as well as different kinds of thought?

[unspun]

There is another truth available to those with subtle hearing. When a piano is moved its tuning changes. Imagine 6 billion pianos in various conditions and various states of repair and use moving constantly.

That is why we all need to be in touch with the source of tuning, as well as the tuner.

[fifteendogs]

If nothing else, you do provide comic relief.

[RightWhale]

we all need to be in touch with the source of tuning, as well as the tuner.

We are, though. Whether we find ourselves in a bucolic nature scene or in the cockpit of an SUV missile, we are constantly being administered the reality test.

[unspun]

Here's to all that reality is.... (clink)

I don't have a drink in my hand, but I'll drink from both the earth's water and what is poured forth from its maker.

[GOPJ]

I suspect much of reality is missed because it can't be quantified by today's inadequate machines. (The old "if you can't measure it, it's not real" thing)

Have you ever had an idea that you think is an not an idea because you can't express it? The word "ambiance" sort of alludes to this. You can walk into a place and have a certain conceptual feeling that cannot be put into words for example. Sometimes a piece of music can illicit the same response that can't be captured or conveyed in language.

[RightWhale]

The words and tales change from time to time and fail often enough, but the concept behind the words is still there, constant, unchanging.

[Consort]

However, are there not different levels (and/or kinds) of intentionality and volition, as well as different kinds of thought?

Not necessarily. Passive thinking often leads to active thinking on a given subject and our feelings and our desires affect the intensity of our thoughts on the subject. The power behind those thought are made real by the way we express them in the acts, objects or events that we produce.

The thoughts that are expressed in physical actions by great men and evil men result in the respective great and evil events of our times.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Thinking is merely the mental refinement of a thought or idea.

If so, how did those -pure? -pristine? -raw? ideas "get here?"

And what about untrue thoughts? Where do they come from?

Where the hell did you get this from my simple statement?

Your talking about thoughts, all I was talking about was the mere ACTION of thinking.

[Roscoe]

I tend to see symbol as an individual's explanatory construct of convention, rather than as an external thing in itself.

[unspun]

The words and tales change from time to time and fail often enough, but the concept behind the words is still there, constant, unchanging.

Then it is good to seek for what word and concept may be from that which is immutable.

[tpaine]

Sure thing kid..

But look around a bit more. - You may find the joke is on you.

[fifteendogs]

Whatever.

[RightWhale]

Then it is good to seek for what word and concept may be from that which is immutable

They all are. Is that too 60s a statement?

[Consort]

Thinking creates thoughts.

[fifteendogs]

Sorry about my last response to you. It was rude and dismissive and I apologize. I don't know who you are or what, if any, your agenda might be. I have reponded to many of your posts in the past and I have to admit that you seem to be more intelligent than most of the freepers on this board. There is, however, I believe by you, a deliberate effort to either belittle or embarrass many of the posters on this board. I don't know why you do this, if in reality you do, but I believe that it would be more fun just to engage you in a sincere disscussion of the ideas at hand.

[Hank Kerchief]

Thank you for allowing me to have my views.

LOLOL! I didn’t mean it that way.

I know, that's why you're laughing.

I see you have taken offense at my use of the word doctrine.

Well you know me better than that. I do not take offense at anything anyone says. I have no time for that, besides, it is almost impossible to offend me, because, depending on your view, I am too thick skinned or too numb to be offended.

I just thought it was quaint to call anything I say, "doctrine," since I have not pedagogical inclinations or intentions.

That’s something I do agree with.

I knew you would. It seems an inconsistency to me, but if it is, it is a good one.

Einstein, who was, outside his specialty, often not far from an idiot.

Do you have any sources to back up those statements or are they your opinions?

Well of course, they are my opinions. You don't think I'd be posting someone else's, do you? However, I didn't just make them up. They are based on two things, what I have been told by a few acquaintences who actually studied under Einstein at Princeton, or knew him there, but mostly from the things he has actually said, like many of the things you quote by him.

Hank

[tpaine]

Grow up.
Learn to accept ridicule, or better yet learn to argue against it with at least a semblance of logic.
In your effort to defend your beliefs, you may discover that rationality works better than mysticism in dealing with life.