THINQon : What is Thinking?

THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself. Continue >

Ronald E. Maxson

What is Thinking?

Latest Post: October 20, 2009 at 12:28 AM

5 followers

Regarding this discussion, what do we mean by thinking? Is there a limit to thinking? Is there a dimension an individual can be in communion with which is beyond thought, enabling such an individual to act in the moment? Is acting in the moment immeasurably faster than thinking, and therefore immeasurably more effective?
If we define thinking as a process of evaluating a circumstance and then making a decision re. how to act, time is involved. If an individual can act in a way that does not involve time, the action will not only be far more effective, but is far more likely to yield a positive result.
This does not mean that thinking does not have its proper place. We couldn't drive a car or learn a language without it. But thinking has no place re. being able to act in the moment.
Athletes, martial artists, musicians, and practitioners of many other disciplines in fact know there is a way to act that is beyond thought, and therefore beyond time, enabling them to do things that would otherwise be impossible.
For athletes, it is called being in the zone, enabling them to act instantaneously when, for instance, attempting to hit a baseball. If they had to think about what they were going to do as the baseball approaches, they would never hit it.
For the martial artist, it is called avoiding blockage. For instance, in sword fighting, if a swordsman--no matter how skilled--is thinking about his moves while in battle, when confronted by a slightly inferior swordsman who nonetheless is able to bypass thinking, the more skilled swordsman--despite possessing superior skill--would nevertheless lose every time.
For the musician in the act of improvising, if the musician is thinking about which notes to play next, such a musician would never play anything in time with accompanying musicians who are playing without thinking.
Because such individuals are approaching communion as a means to an end rather than approaching it as and end in itself, however, they will not receive the benefit of having revealed to them the ultimate meaning of being in such communion.
What is involved, then, in experiencing this communion? What is involved is coming into contact with the realm beyond time and measure, therefore timeless and deathless, infinite and eternal, enabling those in communion to act utterly in the moment. This eliminates having to make decisions; in fact, decision is banished utterly because the individual will automatically act in a way that eliminates choice, i.e., there is no choice to make.
So, how is an individual enabled to be in communion with this realm? The relevant information has been available for thousands of years: What one has to do is to bring psychological time to a stop, to bring thought to an end, to silence ego (the "I", the "me"). When people do this for the first time, however, some get an unpleasant surprise: They experience feelings ranging from mild discomfort to stark terror. Why? Because ego does not like to be silenced!
Once the individual understands this, such an individual is utterly transformed, instantly and from that moment onward, and therefore has no need to repeat the experience because all fear comes to an end at once while the true meaning of love is simultaneously revealed.
In this context, fear does not mean that an individual, when confronted by a tiger, would not try to escape. That is intelligence in action, not fear. Fear in this context refers to anxiety, or what is often referred to as "existential angst". This kind of fear is replaced by love, stemming from the understanding that oneness is the actually, not division, which arises as a consequence of thought (ego).
When an individual does not betray the moment, such an individual is thereby enabled to act instantaneously, and the action will be correct. In other words, such an individual will without exception bring about a positive result, for themselves and for others. And, when something negative occurs that the individual had no part in, if the individual stays in the moment their response will be immeasurably more effective than if the individual does not.
This does not mean, however, that such an individual will never make a mistake, will never--for any particular reason--fall away from being utterly present. But such mistakes are more likely to be corrected the instant an individual returns to being at full attention than they would be if the individual does not.
In my experience, I have found that I was enabled to do things by being utterly in the moment that I wouldn't have had a prayer of doing before I understood what it means to be in communion with the ultimate dimension.
Sincerely, Ronald E. Maxson

Reply to:

Edna Stern

October 18, 2009 at 10:15 PM

86 followers

I’m not sure that I understood exactly what you meant, but I’d like to add my view which might not be so far from what I think you are saying.

I’ve noticed that when considering a situation there is a clarity that comes when you let yourself not think but glide through the different options in an intuitive way until you find the right one that fits all expectations. It is an intuitive form of intelligence and thinking that is gotten through many years of mastering quick thinking and analysis, or alternatively a sort of natural talent that might vanish any day, for example the day you start thinking about it.

You mention the sports and musical fields and being a musician I will just say that it is not simple to go from an intuitive way of performance to a conscious understanding of the works and their requirements. It is essential to understand consciously what the piece is about and what are tools one needs to use in order to be able to transmit it. This understanding enables also to work on one’s skills and progress on different points instead of just relying on a given talent or facility (which usually can lead you just so far).

At the end of the day, I agree that all knowledge should be forgotten and to let one’s intuition speak from one’s inner being as a fresh discovery of the present moment, but the intuition itself needs to come from somewhere.

Reply to: or

Ronald E. Maxson

October 19, 2009 at 6:15 AM

5 followers

Dear Edna Stern,
Thank you very much for your highly intelligent comment.
I would like to reply by first responding to your final paragraph. As I wrote in my original post, the intuition arises from coming into contact with the realm beyond time and measure, and then understanding the significance. Understanding, by the way, can happen at once or take decades. What I have referred to just now and what was discussed in the original post is only a reiteration of information available for thousands of years, predating all religion and philosophy, but nonetheless part of recorded history and easily obtainable.
Re. your second paragraph, the understanding I speak of removes the need to "glide through different options...until you find the right one...". In fact, there are situations in life that don't allow the time it takes to do this, situations requiring that one act instantaneously. The understanding I speak of allows one to do this, without needing to consider options until you discover the correct one. The short version is called "being in the moment". I have found that when I do this, my action will be correct.
And yes, there are people who have natural talent for this communion; it is intrinsic to their being, they don't have to read about what I refer to or engage in any of the acts I describe, they are just able to do it automatically--for them it's a gift that never vanishes because they know it as a fact, as an actuality without ever having to think about it. In fact, it would never even occur to them as something to think about.
Then there are seekers who read about this communion and act to bring it about. When they understand what has happened, they to know it is a fact, as an actuality, not something ever to be thought about--just like you wouldn't think about the fact that steel is hard to the touch--and in the way I've described, facts never "vanish". Perhaps it's just a matter of terminology, i.e., what you are saying is just another way of describing what happens instantaneously when one is utterly in the moment.
About paragraph three: What I describe re. an IMPROVISING musician (such as a jazz player, although classical musicians have also been well known to improvise) requires a procedure opposite of the order you describe: Conscious understanding comes first, then intuitive performing. In other words, a musician must first be well grounded, well educated, and well experienced in both understanding music itself and then being able to play their instrument with the proficiency to "transmit" a piece as composed. Only after this will improvisation have value.
So, then, back to your last paragraph: It demonstrates perfect understanding, and all I've tried to do here is adequately explain where the intuition you refer to comes from. It is my wish that this would be so.
Sincerely, Ronald E. Maxson

Reply to: or

Morgan Milford, young

October 19, 2009 at 8:45 PM

21 followers

Two quotes from the works of Poul Moller, Kierkegaard's teacher:

"[I start] to think about my own thoughts of the situation in which I find myself. I even think that I think of them, and divide myself into an infinite retrogressive sequence of I's who consider each other. I do not know which I to stop at as the actual, and in the moment I stop at one, there is indeed again an I which stops at it. I become confused and feel a dizziness as if I were looking down into a bottomless abyss." And another: "You see, my friend, a movement presupposes a direction. The mind cannot proceed without moving along a certain line; but before following this line, it must already have thought it. Therefore one has already thought every thought before one thinks it. Thus every thought, which seems the work of a minute, presupposes an eternity. This could drive me almost to madness."

The last line is immediately attractive. Could this be the distinction been the sane and the not so? There seem to be two poles, between the thinking and the non-thinking as you define them. The non-thinking, completely removed from the I, seems inherent to the animal, who as we see it, only acts instinctively. The very end of the pole would be the insane that Moller describes. The man so conscious of thinking that his personalities split at every use of the word "I." Division.

But am I right in supposing that animals only exist instinctively? Is it possible that they too can exist in a sort of Kinsey Scale where it is never as simple as being gay or not gay, thinking or not thinking? Does the otter using a rock to break open a clam suggest that he might have some small degree of thinking? Wouldn't instinct just have him hit the clam with his paw or not even at all? And even the insane have moments of lucidity and leave the "I" behind.

I have the feeling that rather than exist so wholly in the moment, the most effective measure would be some sort of balance between the position of "I" and the rest of the world. I'm not sure I'd be willing to leave it completely behind and see the world without it. But I also don't want to give it too much attention so the ego transcends the id.

So my parting question is what makes human thought distinct? And is there an optimal balance that we all might strive for or is it something that merely comes with time and experience?