Language is fun. Do our words convey what we are really experiencing? Are words connected to, or related to, reality? For example, linguists say that there is probably no word we use now that did not begin its life as a metaphor ; as a colourful figure of speech ; not ‘literal’ or ‘concrete’ at all.
We’re all familiar with the word sunbeam ; also we all know, when we think about it, that a beam is a plank of wood. But no-one believes that the sun has planks of wood radiating from it. And then there’s one of my favourites – understand. Who really believes that, to understand that 1 + 1 = 2, we must either stand it under us or we must stand under it? It must have been a mind-boggling metaphor when it first appeared from the quill of a scribe. It was a word that first needed to be explained to us, and then became a word that we had to think about when we used it ourselves.
But that’s the point. A metaphor may be so arresting, so staggering, and also so unlikely that it becomes popular quite quickly. Thereafter, its use becomes a habit ; and then we forget that it is a metaphor ; we take it as ‘literal’. At this stage, the word is something that is no longer thought about consciously. Meanwhile the original literal word is oft forgotten completely.
We do a lot of thinking automatically, without realising it. We do a lot of thinking without consciously thinking about anything.
Imagine I hear a section of Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata that just happens to be playing on the radio. As soon as I become aware of the sound, I say, “Oh, yes, that’s the Moonlight.” Almost instantly, I have formed in my mind a figuration of the sound. And I do not stop to think what a curious thing this figuration is.
For what is really happening is something like this. First the radio emits some vibrations in the air ; then the vibrations fall into my ears. What I hear in my consciousness ought to be just a noise. But it isn’t just a noise ; I recognise it as noise I have heard before, so it is has meaning ; it is really a sound. And, not only that, but I recognise the sound as a particular piece of music – the Moonlight. All this happens in an instant.
But, in order to recognise the noise, I must have referred it to my memory. And when my memory has located it, it informs me what the sound means – or do I infer the meaning? Whatever, there is a lot of thinking going on here. We can guess how much thinking by imagining hearing a little-known sound ; we have to comb our memory to try to recognise it ; and sometimes it eludes us. But, in the case of a familiar sound, our complex thinking has become automatic through practice.
So, merely to be able to use a word like sunbeam, we have to think about it ; and merely to recognise a piece of music, we have to think about it. But that thinking is so sublime that we do not even know that we are doing it.
It can be interesting to reflect just once in a while, as we gaze upon a familiar object such as a teacup, that we have done a lot of thinking simply in order to see it – to make a picture of it in our minds.
Jamie
You are inimitable and ever remaining the incorrigible thinker or you are doing this for our pleasure; please note that these things are all highly positive and endearing traits in my book. And you do no harm with your thinking; you intend no harm to anyone; indeed you are a blessing to mankind.
Why is it then that I differ from you on the subject of thinking? I love thinking and do it all the time but I don’t analyze it at all.
My view on this remains as on many other clever observations; it’s a wonderful World created by a wise and benevolent Being. Some call Him God; others call Him Allah; and others Jaweh … it’s just a matter of language. I am blissfully contented with what He handed me. And that is all I need to know.
But you also remain a beautiful sunbeam in the dark sphere of blogging.
Ike,
I never really bothered with what thinking was about, either ; I used to just take it for granted without analyzing what is going on. I still don’t do that much analyzing.
But, I simplify things by distinguishing between ‘thinking about’ things and ‘imagining’ things. The thinking about is analytical and the imagining is synthetic. Of course, there is no sharp dividing line betwixt the two.
And then there is ‘contemplating’ – and here I don’t think at all – which is most of the time
Jamie
Aha, now you are into terrain I know about because we did a lot of thinking when we were in the early twenties. We even thought that we could solve all the problems of the World and often declared that we had just done that.
I went over to contemplating when I turned 50 and today I believe that we should have a law against thinking by anyone under 50. Whereas it is not supposed to be visible when or what a person is thinking you can see it in his/her eyes in any event.
It should be declared a felony deserving of severe punishment even if you try to think [which very few people are capable of doing anyway] and an obligatory exam at 50 should have to be passed before anyone is allowed to think.
You and I shall be the tutors and have sole responsibility and rights of approval for all examinations.
PS: I almost forgot. Some professions should be barred from thinking for life. At this stage I have lawyers, politicians, modern scientists/philosophers and most of the clergy on my banning list. Cows, to me the noblest animal on earth, should take over all thinking from these professions. Let us proceed to discuss this with haste.
You’re right all the way, Ike, especially about cows. I grew up surrounded by cattle on two sides of the house, and I can testify to a cow’s wisdom. Cool, calm and collected at all times ; and utterly disdainful of interruptions. I liked the way they used to form a committee if I dared to cross their meadow – they were checking my credentials, I suppose.
Jamie
You have a way with words I wish I had. To say “they were checking my credentials, I suppose” is so beautiful.
Allow me Just another small point. Did you know that the gestation period of the lady cow is exactly [to the day] the same as the female species Homo sapiens? And that all cows make good mothers? The chicken various literally from one to the other, from excellent mother to entirely useless.
You must by now know that I find the entire idea of Darwin’s Evolution theory little more than mirth on a good day. The cow and the chicken illustrate quite magnificently that many things of similar species evolve differently, if they ever did evolve. Naw, Darwin was just an idiot.
Remind me one day to tell you about the free range cow’s ability to find food underground. It’s quite uncanny, and based on personal experience as a young boy.