February 27, 2008
-
When you think to yourself, you are staring at your thoughts directly. In this state of thinking to oneself, thoughts are in their initial state, bereft of words, simply seeming to us as the things they are—that is, whatever thoughts are, and are like.
Sometimes a person will say or write that they were reading another’s thoughts. From my experience, however, I can say that when reading someone else’s writing it is not the same as thinking one’s own thoughts to oneself. More accurately, reading should be described as reading about their thoughts; words, after all, are the description they put to the thought.
So the claim is that thinking our own thoughts is much different than when we are reading the products of someone else’s. But does it have to be this way? I think not. (Heh.) It seems that when reading, a person’s eyes are moving over the words and the person is comprehending what they mean. But if so intent, a person can then remove the words from the concept just described and look directly the at thought itself—as though it were their thought they thought on their own. It is only fair, after all, to treat others’ thoughts with the same consideration as we do our own (if we wish to truly consider them, that is).
Here, simply, is the relationship that seems to me to be that between thoughts and words. First we look at the thought. Then, because we have a thing called ‘language’ we describe the thought. But then, second hand persons read the words and in doing so are only wading on the surface. They have not yet taken up the effort of moving their mind as close as possible to the original mental state of the author’s mind. The possibility exists, it seems, to remove the words one has just read, and look directly at the thought just described—as though it were a live, breathing creature of the mind right before you. It is the difference between seeing a person on television and talking to a person right before you.
Thus, a maxim I hold when reading is, ‘Do not merely read others’ thoughts; make them your own.’
Does this seem true to you?
Comments (9)
haha interesting..
-g
hmm. What you describe is very similar to the discussion about the reading of scripture, textual criticism, and Biblical interpretation.
However, I’m not exactly sure what your “maxim” means. To take one’s thoughts (communicated through speech or written word) and make them your own, could mean one takes another’s thought and interprets them in their own context or as you described you try to get as close as they can “to the original mental state of the author’s mind.”
However, I think another option has both items. We should try to understand what someone has said or written as close to their original “intent” as possible and then use that understanding to apply to our lives today. Even if it is something we disagree with. Once we can understand what it means as best as possible, then we go through a process of how that relates to us personally and the world around us.
Could this last part be what you really mean? Or am I way off.
Oh well, that is what I get for taking a class in Hermeneutics.
My question, in response to your maxim, is this: Is it possible for the writer/sharer of the thought to actually convey the original thought down to the last detail, every aspect, every nuance? I know from my own experience that when I write, or when I discuss my thoughts, that I often involuntarily edit, correct, rearrange or reconsider my thoughts. This comment, actually, is the product of thinking and then re-thinking an original thought.
Hmm. Have I ever told you that your blogs often make my head explode? Heh heh heh.
Be blessed.
very insightfull!!
“when you think to yourself….”
as my writing teacher says, “it is impossible to think to anyone else.”
@vangelicmonk -
I was hoping someone would mention reading Scripture. This is important because there are a lot of thoughts behind the words of Scripture that aren’t necessarily mentioned explicitly in the text; moral and spiritual apprehensions about the world and God and such.
The maxim at the end is actually something I wrote a long time ago, which oddly enough happened last post as well (the second to last paragraph is from a private post from about a year ago!). It is really only a general summary of the idea, and should probably read ‘Do not merely read others’ thoughts; consider them as if your own.’
I agree that in reading Scripture we have to deconstruct our motives; they are probably not the same as the authors, which is important. This does then include doing things (in obedience to Jesus) that we might not even understand at first. But that is entirely consistent with the way disciples were back then, too; they didn’t have a clue!
@show_me_your_glory -
A good point, and I agree with you: no, you can’t communicate a thought entirely. There is always more to it. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever written anything after which I’ve thought, “Ah yes, now they’ll know what I was thinking.” That is why it is such a lonely thing to be a thinking creature.
Another reason I don’t think we can ever communicate a thought clearly to each other is because each one comes in context of all the other things we’ve ever thought. Every day we wake up and are thinking, and over years and years we become a certain sort of person. That’s why when we tell someone ‘You know, I think I have very low emotional intelligence, things are very hard for me to figure out’ they can never truly appreciate the contextual force such a thought must have for us in light of everything in our own life. Even this thought, that every thought we have is in context of all of our other thoughts and therefore we can never truly communicate the meaning inside of us to another human, comes in light of everything related to it in my mind, in terms of my life and what it means to me.
Take any one blog post by a Xangan; they know all the thoughts before it, and are now living the ones after it. All we see is that one post.
My friend Drew and I were actually musing once about how it would be awesome/funny if in social contexts when someone said something that had a whole lot of meaning for them in their life, but when no once else knew that, time would freeze and an asterisk would appear in front of them explaining the comment in light of the history of it. We had a good laugh over it, but it is pretty weird when we say things that are meaningful to us in places where other people could never know that. Hmm…
@StrokeofThought - You make a good point about “deconstructing” our preconceptions and views. Many times “post-mods” only seek to deconstruct Scripture (and not construct anything in return).
@StrokeofThought - Hmm, an asterisk. I like it.
Although, I find I’m one of those people who tend to just give the back story in hopes that I’m not coming off as really annoying. Which, really, is interesting for me to consider about myself in regards to your original post. Do some people have a built-in need to make sure that others truly understand their thoughts? (Augh, am I needy? Nooo!) And on the other hand, I wonder if supplying the back story actually helps the reader make the thought their own, or if it turns off the interest altogether, because suddenly they have the whole story which may not be as easy to swallow as just the bits and pieces.
I agree… Hmmm.