Spatial thinking

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Re: Spatial thinking

Postby JohnD on October 2nd, 2020, 10:22 pm 

Obviously we have opposite views of thinking and memory. To me thinking has always come first. We were thinking before we emerged from the womb. Memory however takes time to accumulate. It comes from knowledge obtained from thought. It is tainted with our perception of events yet, come the next adventure we rely on our memory for a logical course. We don’t have to, memories last for as long as we perceive a need for their guidance.
In regards to meditation you confuse it with mind control and hypnosis. Both are very different. Why would you look for more than the quiet of a peaceful mind from meditation? If you can achieve this from normal sleep that’s great however I find when I sleep my thoughts are still present though I may not be consciously aware of them. It takes time for the brain to process the day’s happenings. Meditation properly exercise and practised will do in 20 minutes what sleep takes all night to do. It’s not a superpower however, the brain is magnificent.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby charon on October 3rd, 2020, 1:51 am 

John D -

Who is your post addressed to? I have to assume it's myself since I was the last to post before this. On the other hand you've been talking to others too.

Obviously we have opposite views of thinking and memory.


First, why should we have 'views'? Opinions only breed dissent. Thinking is thinking, which we all do, and memory is memory, the collection of past events recorded in the brain. Why have views? It's factual.

To me thinking has always come first. We were thinking before we emerged from the womb.


I'm sorry, but how do you know that? That's obviously a strange assertion. I certainly don't remember anything like that! You must be different.

Memory however takes time to accumulate.


Memory certainly takes time to accumulate, obviously. Presumably it starts when we're born and begin experiencing life on earth :-) Any other assertion would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

It comes from knowledge obtained from thought.


All right, but where does the thought come from? Is thought independent of knowledge? You're saying thought first, then knowledge.

I'd be wary, personally, of making assertions of things beyond our ken. I don't know how babies think, or even if they do. Presumably the brain is recording events but they have no language. Most of our thinking is done with words, isn't it? But recognition of, say, the mother's face and touch would be there... I really don't know.

I'm also not sure it's relevant. We have to deal with things as they are now, with ourselves as we know things now.

In regards to meditation you confuse it with mind control and hypnosis


Not at all, I'm saying categorically that anything like that is absolutely not meditation in its right sense at all. The word means to think over, ponder over, and so on, that's all. I actually think the purveyors of these repetitive techniques have hijacked the word and used it for their own purposes.

Why would you look for more than the quiet of a peaceful mind from meditation?


Because the 'quiet of a peaceful mind' may be nothing at all. As you say, a bit of restful peace and quiet will do that. It's not much, is it? THe idea that you have to sit in a corner and do some weird stuff to get a peaceful mind seems a bit odd to me. It's a long way round to not much. It's also not very logical.

I find when I sleep my thoughts are still present though I may not be consciously aware of them. It takes time for the brain to process the day’s happenings.


Exactly. If the day's happenings aren't entirely sorted out before sleep they have to be sorted out during it, hence dreams, agitation, and so on. And if the agitation is really bad it's hard to sleep at all.

Meditation properly exercise and practised will do in 20 minutes what sleep takes all night to do.


So what are you saying? That practising a methodical technique will give understanding of the day's events? Why not understand them as they take place?

I don't see how a mind practising a system can understand anything. It's occupied with things that have happened - otherwise it would already be quiet and silent - and is now occupied with its practice. So that's an extra occupation. And apparently all this occupation and activity will produce a quiet mind.

I'm afraid it won't, will it? The events of each day, each moment, have to be understood intelligently so order in the brain is established. Order is silence because everything is sorted out, there's no disruption.

That's why I'm saying it has to be done as we go along. After that it becomes much more difficult. But, since we're not perfect in our attentiveness, some things may have to be looked at later. But all this has to do with daily living, daily events, daily actions, it's not apart from that.

I don't think a person whose brain is sorted out needs to practice anything. Nor do I think practising something is going to provide an intelligent understanding of daily interaction.

Practising is mechanical, repetitive, after the event, intelligent comprehension in the moment is not.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby JohnD on October 6th, 2020, 5:30 am 

Comprehension in the moment is much more practised. It needs focus. In life we focus on singular paths and block out alternatives. Choosing to look at alternatives requires great care. It isn't just a matter of saying don't focus on the singular but rather searching for all alternatives. That's much harder.
The perceived order of the brain and daily events is to sit and sort through the events and place them in some order to be retained or forgotten. This is stressful and the cause of anxiety in many. What is more common is to forget all but the most important events of the day. Every day is after the event, you can't review a day while it progresses.
Meditation becomes like a time-out. Stop your mind from thinking of anything but the basics. Twenty minutes is equal to a whole night's sleep. I believe Gandhi practised it and didn't sleep at all.
My proposal is this can be practised to expand the way we think. Following a system is what we do everyday no matter the work we do, even if it is to fill a ledger at one point you learnt through practice and then eventually you understood.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby charon on October 6th, 2020, 6:48 am 

John -

Comprehension in the moment is much more practised


What is this obsession with practice? Life isn't playing the piano or some other activity, it's ongoing, constantly. Events, relationships have to be understood in the moment. One can't practice such understanding, it's either happening or it's not. What is there to practice?

In life we focus on singular paths and block out alternatives. Choosing to look at alternatives requires great care.


But what's the need of choice at all? Things happen on the instant, we don't choose them. Things are going to take place today. I'm not talking about a business meeting where decisions are made after consideration, I'm talking about life in relationship with each other.

Life is exactly that, isn't it? The interaction with others, at home, in the workplace, a shop, a cafe, everywhere. It's in our contact with others that the difficulties arise.

There's no time to choose. The word, the action, is gone before we know it. Someone who is wary, defensive, choosing every move, is a pain to themselves and everybody else, they're on a wrong footing right from the start. No wonder our lives are so awful.

The perceived order of the brain and daily events is to sit and sort through the events and place them in some order to be retained or forgotten. This is stressful and the cause of anxiety in many.


But that can't be done as the events are taking place. You can't suddenly say to your boss - or your wife or friend - 'Just a sec, I've got to sit and sort my brain out'!

We don't know how to live, that's the problem. We don't know how to live without tension, conflict, worrying, choosing. Obviously that way of life is a nightmare.

you can't review a day while it progresses


You can't review it, no. Reviewing it means to view it again, to go over it after it's gone. But if one is awake at the moment these things take place and our responses are correct, born of attention, then problems don't arise. It's only when we become inattentive and do or say the wrong things that we need to review them later.

So daily living means full attention. It's probably like driving, one has to pay serious attention to the road. It's the inattentive driver who causes accidents. Similarly, the daily living needs just as much attention otherwise things go wrong.

That attention isn't something one practices; it can't be practised. Someone 'practising attention' isn't paying attention at all. So attention has to be there as a natural state, and it is there inevitably when one sees the necessity of it.

Meditation becomes like a time-out. Stop your mind from thinking of anything but the basics. Twenty minutes is equal to a whole night's sleep.


You said that before and you're repeating it. So, for you, meditation is separate from the living. You live, go along, then have to meditate later.

Is that meditation? Is meditation stopping your mind from thinking? CAN you stop your mind from thinking?

Why is your mind thinking? Not how to stop it, you can't, but why? There's usually just a general sort of superficial activity but, when there's a real worry, it's pointing to something wrong, surely? And that something needs looking at, like a cut finger needs looking at.

But we don't look, we practice, which is completely irrelevant. Looking means listening, finding out what's going on so we can understand it. That's the way of intelligence, not practising something. That's idiotic.

My proposal is this can be practised to expand the way we think. Following a system is what we do everyday no matter the work we do, even if it is to fill a ledger at one point you learnt through practice and then eventually you understood.


No, we already think like that. We think in terms of systems, techniques, methods. They are all 'how's' - how to quiet the mind, how to do this and that, how to become a millionaire!

I wonder if you see that it's all based on acquisition? As we want to achieve success in our business life so we want to achieve or acquire serenity, a quiet mind, or some other such thing. And is that really the point of meditation?

If mediation is just a method to achieve success then it's not meditation at all, is it? Like I said at the beginning, it might be all right for those with stressful lives to compensate by 'meditating' - which is really just a different way of having a drink or taking a pill - but let's not call it meditation in its true sense.

So what is meditation in that case? This may not interest someone who just wants to get de-stressed but one should know the difference so one isn't fooled by these things.

Have you any interest in that? Or are you so certain about what you consider meditation to be that you look no further?

I'm not trying to sell you something, by the way, it's not like that at all. Meditation is the attention we pay to life. It's intrinsic in the living itself, not away from it.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby BadgerJelly on October 7th, 2020, 12:12 am 

Charon -

I have a suggestion ... read your above post as if it was written by someone else and then offer a rebuttal ;)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5755
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby charon on October 7th, 2020, 1:23 am 

Why should I rebut it? What's wrong with it?
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby neuro on October 9th, 2020, 7:15 am 

Interesting post, Badger

maieutic and socratic, eh?
Not kidding, given the topic of the thread: "try and look at things from a different perspective"...

Still, I think charon is playing a nice role here, a role opposed to that of JohnD: charon adopts an existentially RELATIONAL perspective - we are and live in relations and relations are the important part of our life, so how and what we think afterwards is not what matters - whereas JohnD adopts an existentially speculative, philosophical perspective - we are because we think and revising our ideas is the important part of our life...

Is anybody here surprised that Badger the philosopher asks charon - and not JohnD - to try a different perspective...? :°)
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2641
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby charon on October 9th, 2020, 7:55 am 

so how and what we think afterwards


Before, during, and afterwards. How and what we think is important at all times. What we think is what we are and if we think wrongly that's the world we create.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby BadgerJelly on October 12th, 2020, 4:01 am 

neuro wrote:Interesting post, Badger

maieutic and socratic, eh?
Not kidding, given the topic of the thread: "try and look at things from a different perspective"...

Still, I think charon is playing a nice role here, a role opposed to that of JohnD: charon adopts an existentially RELATIONAL perspective - we are and live in relations and relations are the important part of our life, so how and what we think afterwards is not what matters - whereas JohnD adopts an existentially speculative, philosophical perspective - we are because we think and revising our ideas is the important part of our life...

Is anybody here surprised that Badger the philosopher asks charon - and not JohnD - to try a different perspective...? :°)



See here:

Why is everything based on thought? Mediation isn't thought, meditation is the ending of thought!


Followed later by ...

Not at all, I'm saying categorically that anything like that is absolutely not meditation in its right sense at all. The word means to think over, ponder over, and so on, that's all.


There is another instance from months ago that relates to another thread I started. The pattern isn’t promising so I made a request ... it will be ignored now though due to reasons of the ego (or maybe answered due to reasons of the ego) >:{l
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5755
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby JohnD on October 16th, 2020, 11:32 pm 

Hi Charon, Badger and everyone else who has or may have input into this discussion.
Philosophy considers questions not answerable otherwise. Whether it is of physics, life, genealogy, biology or whatever field of science we ponder. It is not always evidence based, or at least it should not be, because if it were then a lot of ideas are missed. Philosophy is not to be confused with debating, it is about considering, questioning and expanding on the idea of one to hopefully be a subject for discussion by others that follow. We should never qualify it with boundaries pertaining to the style of argument and consider proposals only on the grounds of a person being pro or against a particular school of thought. We need to consider ideas on their own merit. With due consideration, questioning and possible input from others a rational comes to being.
So now lets get back to my original proposal of expanding human thinking.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)
BadgerJelly liked this post


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby BadgerJelly on October 17th, 2020, 12:32 am 

Pluralism seems to be a place to start - rather than siding with some ‘pure’ relativism.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5755
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby charon on October 17th, 2020, 4:03 am 

John -

So now lets get back to my original proposal of expanding human thinking.


What do you mean by 'expanding' thinking?

You said at the start:

Spatial thinking is delimiting the direction of our thinking. Like a 3D hologram, spatial thinking is seeing the problem in its 3D form.


Let's say we see 2+2 = ? on a page. We might puzzle over what those symbols mean. But if we envisage a room with two people in it, and two more come in, then there are four people. We see the whole thing like watching a film.

Is that what you mean? Let's be clear.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby BadgerJelly on October 19th, 2020, 5:37 am 

JohnD » October 17th, 2020, 11:32 am wrote:Hi Charon, Badger and everyone else who has or may have input into this discussion.
Philosophy considers questions not answerable otherwise. Whether it is of physics, life, genealogy, biology or whatever field of science we ponder. It is not always evidence based, or at least it should not be, because if it were then a lot of ideas are missed. Philosophy is not to be confused with debating, it is about considering, questioning and expanding on the idea of one to hopefully be a subject for discussion by others that follow. We should never qualify it with boundaries pertaining to the style of argument and consider proposals only on the grounds of a person being pro or against a particular school of thought. We need to consider ideas on their own merit. With due consideration, questioning and possible input from others a rational comes to being.
So now lets get back to my original proposal of expanding human thinking.


Just to be clear. The term ‘pluralism’ (funnily enough) has a plurality of meanings within specific areas of philosophical interest.

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(philosophy)#Logical_pluralism

I’m not sure which use you’re talking of or what it is you’re suggesting exactly?

I completely agree that ‘expanding human thinking’ is important. You seem to have framed this as an item of ‘pluralism’ - the question is what you want to discuss, where you wish to discuss it (within what field of interest) and how you personally are making claims of what possesses ‘merit’: as well as what ‘merit’ within the given context? I think the latter question is probably the most tricky as you seem to be saying that ‘expanding’ is ‘better’ (ie. has greater merit than limited investigation).

Of course we all well know that there is a fine balance. Such is what I find of interest. The ‘optimal’ and the very idea of an ‘optimal’ approach.

There are a number of ways this line of thinking could branch off.

To sum up, it would help the discussion - from my perspective - if you were to use some specific examples (although I do appreciate that maybe you’re actually trying to avoid such so as not to lead into too confined a discussion on one specific aspect of heuristics).
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5755
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby JohnD on November 6th, 2020, 3:11 pm 

Hi Charon, we need to go beyond your example and think of the consequences of two people being in the room then the consequences of two more people joining them. We need to consider the scientific argument of when is the sum of 2+2=4? Then we consider the practical view that 2+2 does for all intents and purposes equal 4. Also, consideration is to be given to the idea that we don't exist in a vacuum and there are consequences to our existence that go beyond our being and includes all other existing matter.
Badger, I tried following your link however Wiki says it doesn't have an article on the subject. I'm not sure where within my writing I mentioned pluralism however to answer your question yes I am trying to keep it as open as possible and invite others to participate and put their own arguments.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby charon on November 6th, 2020, 3:34 pm 

JohnD » November 6th, 2020, 8:11 pm wrote:Hi Charon, we need to go beyond your example and think of the consequences of two people being in the room then the consequences of two more people joining them. We need to consider the scientific argument of when is the sum of 2+2=4? Then we consider the practical view that 2+2 does for all intents and purposes equal 4. Also, consideration is to be given to the idea that we don't exist in a vacuum and there are consequences to our existence that go beyond our being and includes all other existing matter.


Okay, but I just want to be clear first that this idea of spacial thinking means seeing things in a sort of 3D, hologramish way. Then, presumably, by building or expanding on that, bringing in the other things you mention.

But, of course, consequences and scientific arguments aren't the same as seeing something spatially. Spacial presumably implies space, no?
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby BadgerJelly on November 9th, 2020, 2:41 am 

For some reason the link cut off the last part of the text. You can most certainly find a page on “pluralism” (just look).

Other than that, I still don’t see what YOU are saying? Do you have an argument, or are you just looking for suggestions of possible arguments vaguely in this area?

You mentioned an ‘original proposal’ you spoke of earlier, but I honestly don’t see what you were proposing?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5755
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby JohnD on November 19th, 2020, 3:24 pm 

Hi Charon, thinking spatially implies expanding your thinking base, thinking beyond a narrow field of focus, giving your thoughts space in the philosophical sense.
Every problem has more than one level. Yet, when doing analysis, we concentrate our attention on that one level that proves most obvious. An example is COVID 19. From the start, the concentration of thought has been on finding a vaccine while other implications are being waylayed. Now, those other issues are seen as paramount. This hasn't been by design rather it is a symptom of reactive thinking.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby charon on November 22nd, 2020, 2:54 pm 

John -

Sorry for the delay, I wasn't ignoring your post. Thanks for the answer.

expanding your thinking base, thinking beyond a narrow field of focus, giving your thoughts space in the philosophical sense.


Well, let's think carefully. Thinking is always based on knowledge, right? In fact, it's entirely limited by its knowledge because we can't know everything. So, presumably, expanding the thinking base means acquiring more knowledge. Would that be right?

You say 'thinking beyond a narrow field of focus'. I'd go for that. If one's myopically concerned with only one thing one misses everything else. Like concentrating only on one part of a picture, one doesn't see the rest properly.

So, presumably, one has to step back, as it were, to see the entire picture. That seems reasonable.

Every problem has more than one level.


Yes, inevitably. It's always related to other issues as well, it doesn't just exist in isolation.

when doing analysis, we concentrate our attention on that one level that proves most obvious.


Yes, that's what I was saying above. Analysis in particular is a limiting process. One's examining one cause after the other and that takes time. It's very slow.

From the start, the concentration of thought has been on finding a vaccine while other implications are being waylayed. Now, those other issues are seen as paramount. This hasn't been by design rather it is a symptom of reactive thinking.


I'm not sure the other issues have been overlooked. I mean they were hot on distancing, masks and travel pretty quickly. But the search for some kind of prevention, like a vaccine, was always the bottom line. But vaccines take a long time to discover and make, of course.

I think what we're saying is we need to know more about the subject, whatever it be, and try to see as wide a picture as possible. As you would say, give it space. Then, out of that, come far greater insights.

Would that be about right?
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby JohnD on November 26th, 2020, 3:23 pm 

Hi Charon, it's OK I understand. I work on a tight schedule and in a highly secure environment. When I converse on these sites I prefer to be relaxed.
If only a pandemic only involved wearing masks, isolating, and finding a vaccine. Unfortunately, there is so much more to consider. The rudimentary building blocks of society have been and still are under threat. The construct of society depends on social contact and during the pandemic this is absent. Added to this are the psychological implications of isolation. Everyone considers isolation differently, for some underlying mental constraints are brought to the surface. Included in this is the disruption to normalized routines. For many work is more than earning an income, it is a routine that allows an individual to live a 'normal' life. Added to this is the use of stimulants including alcohol and coffee as a boredom disrupter when it should be well known by now that if you're confined to a small space stimulants should be the last thing you have.
News and media are full of articles relating to demonstrations and false news about the pandemic, yet this is to be expected with isolation comes disbelief and any news must have some possible truth to it.
But, it isn't just people, it involves all creatures. The disruption has caused so much stress in the animal kingdom. Strandings of whales and dolphins are common, shark attacks have become more frequent, zookeepers report animals are missing human contact and are showing signs of anxiety.
There is, of course, another factor that is demonstrated by our immediate reaction to the pandemic which is to kill as many of the creatures we associate with the disease as we can. We can't seem to be bothered to take the time to think of other solutions that don't involve the destruction of so many lives.
I think the psychological effects will be felt for a very long time.
Yet, this is just one topic that we should be thinking more about and yes what we are saying is that we need to see a much wider picture when looking at any problem because the implications are far greater than we allow ourselves to think about.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby charon on November 26th, 2020, 9:28 pm 

John -

First of all, all thinking at any level is limited. That has to be understood. It means that however much we expand it, it will still be limited. That's first.

Then do we start with the general or the particular? The general is the whole mess the world is in. The particular is our own locality. Also, going further, ourselves, you and I.

Who is responsible for the mess which is the world? Outer space? Aliens? Or us? As human beings we are responsible for it because we're totally irresponsible and destructive.

Then, are we also like that? Or are we free of that so we can criticise the world?

So the problem isn't the world, it's ourselves, you and I. As long as we are destructive so the world will be.

So then what is the place of thinking? Just to do a job? Or a shopping list? Or prattle on about politics? Or philosophise about life?

What is thought for? Not much, is it? Whatever it does, it's still limited. It may produce good technology and medicine but it's only a tool along with knowledge.

So what's the real problem? We can think till doomsday, invent spacial thinking, or lateral thinking, or upside-down thinking, but the mess carries on.

So what's the real issue? You tell me.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby JohnD on November 27th, 2020, 4:59 am 

There's an old proverb, 'a river starts with just one drop.'
It is the cry of all those who are frustrated by a world they find difficult to change, who is responsible? Those that make the errors are responsible for what they do, our responsibility is to seek to fix what we can. It is difficult to fix all that has been done wrong. There are too many people on a very small planet and each has their needs. What has been done has been ingrained over millennia. Of course, there are as many views as there are people in our little corner of the universe. But that is why we need to expand our thinking so we don't keep making the same mistakes.
You ask if we would start with the general or the particular, which would make more sense to you? The point is to start thinking and to expand that thinking as far as you can. What happens after that is dependent on how far you manage to expand your thinking and what you choose to take into consideration.
The danger lies in our unwillingness to do what we find has to be done and in our excusing ourselves of responsibility. We must be ready to rip apart all that we hold dear, history is not always something we should preserve.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby charon on November 27th, 2020, 11:47 am 

I understand, but what do we mean by expanding thinking? Let's be clear.

Apart from a very few, most peoples' thinking centres round themselves, their own immediate environment, their own lives, family, jobs, worries and problems. That's very limited, isn't it? And most people would say it's inevitable and justify it.

Of course we can read books, travel, explore unexplored areas of knowledge, science, art, and all the rest of it. That will expand our thinking to some extent. It may even be a good thing. But, in itself, it's still limited, right?

My point is, can thinking ever be anything else but limited? There's no whole thinking, it's always tied to something or other. So I'd ask what is a free mind?

A free mind is surely one that is not tied. It's not bound by any belief or ideology. It's not the prisoner of its own conclusions. It's not a mere reflection of its environment. It doesn't respond from prejudice or bias. It's not a petty, local mind, a provincial mind... and so on.

Such a mind, being free, will resolve the problems of the world because it's not causing them. But I doubt if anyone's really interested in that because we're too invested in things as they are. There's profit in it, both financially and in personal terms.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby JohnD on December 12th, 2020, 3:59 am 

Hi Charon, of course, you're correct on all points. Maybe, we're not average so we can't see it in an average way, however, any person should be able to do it. That is why I have mentioned meditation as someone trained in it can clear their mind of all obstructions. Clarity can't be achieved by a single experience, that is why meditation must be practiced. Then the more practiced the quicker one can achieve clarity.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby charon on December 12th, 2020, 8:51 am 

I think we've been through all that :-)
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby charon on December 12th, 2020, 11:01 am 

...

John, if you don't mind a bit of a lecture, do you see how repetitive you are? I'm not being rude, I'm just pointing it out. You asserted that stuff about mediation at the beginning and we've gone through all that.

Weeks later and you're still repeating like a machine, the same assertions and conclusions, repetitively.

Look at your post. It's all about repeated effort, achievement and success. Do you realise how we're conditioned to this? It's what we're taught and it's what we repeat.

This isn't thinking, is it? It's just trotting out a line, a formula, a dogma. And that's what we do. A mind which only repeats is mechanical, like a robot.

You want to improve your thinking, hence this idea of spacial thinking. The idea of spacial thinking is really just more thinking in the form of an idea. Thinking has produced the idea, right? So the idea isn't anything new, it's born from the same repetitive, mechanical process as before.

I know you won't read this properly and I doubt if you'll really apply it to yourself, your own thinking. But you should.

Why have you allowed your thinking to become so worn, running in a groove, repetitively? Is it tiredness? Is the way of your life wearing you down?

How are you going to get out of it so your mind can be sharp, alive, creative? That's what you're really after, isn't it?

Ideas, however clever, aren't an answer. Nor is any repeated practice of something. You can call such practice meditation but it's not, obviously, it's just a trick, a formula.

So, if you realise all this, what happens? Of course, you may not want to see it because that involves disruption, questioning, disturbance. You may not want to see how utterly mechanically repetitive you've become. Or you honestly think that repeating, repeating, repeating, is productive and worthwhile.

Only you can answer it, it's up to you. But, if you do begin to see it, you'll probably start looking for an answer through more thinking, ideas, formulas, which aren't the way at all.

So less thinking and more looking! Thinking is exhausting anyway. Real thinking is looking, seeing, perceiving, examining, not repeating. And the moment you look clearly, objectively, something creative happens because you've stepped away from the habitual patterns of thought.

You know, our whole problem is that we're not creative. We don't know what it means. We think it means writing poems, painting pictures, or dreaming up new ideas.

That's part of it but really it starts with a mind that's constantly examining, questioning. Not just the outward things but itself. That is intelligence and it's that which will make it come alive.
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby JohnD on December 12th, 2020, 7:34 pm 

My apologies Charon, yes it is repetitive.
The problem I'm having is to convey the fundamental reasoning for expanding our thinking to look at more than one level. We do it well at times when we have a group of people discussing an issue, which is great, however, most times decision-makers in their respective fields tend to make decisions according to their own singular view of the subject.
It is apparent our way of thinking has been instilled in all of us over the last 6000 years of civilization including, but not limited to, our consideration of humanity being supreme on this little planet as well as the very strong, undeniable, powers of all religions.
I believe we all have the capacity to expand the way we think to include other considerations that ultimately affect all living things.
The world needs us to do better. When listening to arguments in opposition to decisions made it is obvious we are capable of thinking beyond a singular level. The greatest mental block we have to think spatially is that we have this insistence that our vexed interests need to be applied to any solution. Instead, we should be looking at the possibility of changing the direction of our interests.
It's not really about inspiration, there's plenty of it in all corners of the world and, as for myself, I'm more a practical thinker. That's really the point though in expanding thinking, it's to take in more of the practical considerations that affect day-to-day decisions.
You are right on another point, I am very tired of late. I have been inundated with work and looking to learn new things. So, my apologies again for seeming repetitive.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby charon on December 12th, 2020, 8:32 pm 

John -

Well, you've previously described your working life in rather stressful terms so I suspected that might have something to do with it. I'm sorry you're in that state.

Spacial thinking isn't a new thing, of course, it's already established as a useful skill in mathematics and the geosciences, etc. And, apparently, even if it doesn't come naturally to some of us, it can be improved with training.

Personally, I'm brilliant at packing suitcases but useless at maps, they just confuse me!

You don't need to stress the importance of expanding our thinking. And when you say:

most times decision-makers in their respective fields tend to make decisions according to their own singular view of the subject.


Absolutely right.

The world needs us to do better. When listening to arguments in opposition to decisions made it is obvious we are capable of thinking beyond a singular level.


Quite. Then do you see the radical importance and value in not just developing a particular type of thinking, i.e. spacial thinking, but understanding the whole way we think at all?

I wish I could really get this over, and not just to you. If we understood the limitations of thought as a whole we'd get so much further generally.

Thinking, as I keep saying, is limited. It is in itself a limitation because it's confined to its own knowledge-base and therefore it's bound to operate in a limited area.

Consider what it can do and can't do. It can analyse, isolate, and break things up. It can speculate, imagine, invent. It can calculate, compare, interpret, modify, rearrange, divide, add, subtract, and so on... all limited processes. What it can't ever do is see the whole picture of something.

Once a whole picture is established then it can think about it - but that very thinking becomes another limitation because things never stand still.

So thinking, although we place such importance on it, has very little significance beyond communication. What has far more importance is perception. After all, it's only in quietness that one sees, not when the mind is busy with something. Then those insights can be communicated.

Thinking has a useful and necessary place but it can never discover anything new. So, when a subject comes up, people, as you've noticed, will merely repeat what they know within their own understanding. But it's the quiet, thoughtful mind that sees much greater things. When the limited activities are quiescent then there's no limit to perception.

Now that is giving real space, do you see? It's not the small space of a certain kind of thinking. Such space is still limited and tied to what it already knows. When the limited space ceases the mind then is free to discover new things.

Does any of this make sense to you?
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby JohnD on December 25th, 2020, 4:58 am 

They say life is a journey, one that we make and discover along the way. Nothing is set in stone, not even our morality. The only thing we have we can be sure of is the chemical make up of our bodies and even that is liable to change from day to day. Yes, of course, most of us take the safe road and follow societal guidelines of how life should be lived however, we don’t have to we can make our own path. There will always be comparisons for us to draw and some things we wouldn’t ever change.
After 40 odd thousand or so years of civilization, it's hard to recall what things were like before. What was it like to live without a doctrine to guide us? I'm sure we lived in such a realm as science tells us we've been around for a million years or more. Of course, we, probably lived-in family groups so there would have been some form of law or moral code in existence even then. It would be too difficult to try to forcibly remove ourselves from our past and present obligations to society.
I know with some groups, meditation involves chanting a mantra, I wasn't thought this way. The way I was instructed was to focus my attention on a distant point and listen to my breathing and heartbeat. Then slowly look to taking control of them. This shuts out most other thoughts allowing the mind to be free of obligation.
Trying to shut our eyes and convince ourselves not to think only encourages us to think of something. Fact is, even when we aren't thinking we are thinking, we have to in order to keep breathing and our heart beating, plus our body has so many facets to it that require thinking and problem-solving. Therefore, the only thing we can look to achieve by not thinking is to slow our rate of thinking. This allows us to focus on one or more thoughts.
In the story of Jesus and the fishermen, when the fishermen were having a difficult time catching fish, Jesus stood up and called on the fish to go into the nets. This is always seen as Jesus being the provider, that if people believe God will provide. I look at it another way.
The current situation between the USA and Iran is tense and it is said Iran has long term goals of producing nuclear weapons. The USA is doing what it can to stop them. What if instead future President Biden said to them “if you ask nicely, we’ll give you all the nuclear weapons you want and the technology to be able to use them.”
Not in a million years? Maybe, however, if you think about it, God is the creator and carer of ALL living creatures and as the story would have it, he sacrificed the lives of all those fish to prove a point. I cannot see that point being ‘I am willing to sacrifice everything so you humans can satisfy whatever whim you choose’. More likely, it's ‘I acknowledge your desire knowing you could ultimately destroy all, but pray you develop the wisdom not to do so’.
Quoting the Bible on a Philosophy forum is controversial however, my point is the same as I’ve been making throughout. If you open your mind and think spatially you will find there is more than one level for every what if.
Today is Christmas day so it's right to wish everyone an incredibly happy and blessed day. As I said to some of my colleagues: I wish you a Merry Christmas and hope that Santa brings you all you desire if he doesn’t drink the longest drink and forget about it at least for another year. There, now I’ve not only quoted the bible but partook in current fictional events. All science taboos have been torn down.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby charon on December 25th, 2020, 9:38 am 

They say life is a journey, one that we make and discover along the way. Nothing is set in stone, not even our morality.


Morality is complex because different cultures, governments and religions invent moralties. But invented morality isn't morality.

The only thing we have we can be sure of is the chemical make up of our bodies and even that is liable to change from day to day.


And death, of course. We can be sure of that!

Yes, of course, most of us take the safe road and follow societal guidelines of how life should be lived however, we don’t have to we can make our own path.


Some things we have to do.

After 40 odd thousand or so years of civilization, it's hard to recall what things were like before.


I think you'll find that they were much like this with a different backdrop. What is called human nature hasn't changed at all.

What was it like to live without a doctrine to guide us?


Probably better. Why do we think we need a doctrine to guide us? What's wrong with our own sense of right and wrong? Isn't it fear that makes us cling to a doctrine?

Of course, we, probably lived in family groups so there would have been some form of law or moral code in existence even then.


Definitely. That's my point, people were aware of right and wrong right from the beginning. But when governments, religions and law took over, right and wrong was what they said it was.

It would be too difficult to try to forcibly remove ourselves from our past and present obligations to society.


What is your obligation to society? I'm talking psychologically, not about paying taxes, and so on. Do you have any obligation to society? What if that society is immoral and chaotic? Because most are, aren't they?

There, now I’ve not only quoted the bible but partook in current fictional events. All science taboos have been torn down
.

I think you're safe enough in the Philosophy section!
charon
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2636
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Spatial thinking

Postby JohnD on December 25th, 2020, 7:51 pm 

Politicians are mostly reactionary and are likely to highlight their philosophy and moral values in their decision making. Sometimes their decisions become long-standing but mostly they are overturned.
Do we have obligations to our society? It has to do with relationships, we oblige and feel obliged in order for us to stay involved in our social circle. It's why we wear clothes, have parties, invite friends, etc... This then involves a social order outside the realm of the laws of the land. Even when we are rebelling we are complying with our own and our group's social order. We can let go, we can even join a different social group but we can't stay for an extended period of time without having some form of rules to govern us whether we create them or someone else does. In this, I agree with what you have said earlier, however, in acknowledging this we can assert that we can in fact form our own rules that will supersede those others that interfere with our endeavors.
JohnD
Member
 
Posts: 786
Joined: 31 May 2012
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (2)


PreviousNext

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests