Gvildenu | Mintys / MąstymoMatai

Mąstymo matai

Minčių sode sustačiau šešias darbo grupes skirtingais matais puoselėti mąstymo gebėjimus.

{{Andrius}} [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/322 June 22, 2003]

I devoted the day to coming up with a defintion of "thinking" that would make sense of the taxonomy that I use at our lab. We have working groups to foster thinking - sensitively and concretely, powerfully and simply, energetically and relevantly.

I will write here a bit about this taxonomy, and how it came about, and then explain my solution in my next letter. Andrius, ms@ms.lt

About four years ago I made a list of the many kinds of examples we might accumulate to understand thinking. http://www.ms.lt/ms/results.html I came up with twelve different projects, which I organized as the "kinds, features and uses" of the "reasons, tools, structures and formats" for thinking.

Then I made a list of various kinds of endeavors that we might pursue at our laboratory. There were two different kinds. Some fostered "caring", and we should pursue them through "material loss". Others fostered thinking, and we could best pursue them through "material gain".

There appeared to be four kinds of endeavors to foster caring - about God and others, and relationships with God and others. How might I relate them. Possibly...

reasons are Why we think? caring about God rekindles Why we care?
tools are How we think? caring about others rekindles How we care?
structures are What we think? caring about our relationships with others rekindles What we care?
formats are Whether we think? caring about our relationships with God rekindles Whether we care?

I will have to consider this, though.

Anyways, I looked at various endeavors that fostered thinking, such as "interconnecting software tools for organizing thoughts", and they each seemed to draw on two different levels. For example, tools and formats. So I reasoned that they were given by the pairs of levels, and that the purpose was to elevate our thinking. That is why originally our working groups had names like "whetherwhat" and so on.

Then I found another way to look at these six kinds of endeavors. They seemed to each have their own object of thought that they focused on.

think sensitively with regard to our own actions
think concretely with regard to other actions
think powerfully with regard to our own thoughts
think simply with regard to other thoughts
think energetically with regard to our own stands
think relevantly with regard to other stands

In summary: think as you would for yourself, and as you would for others. This made sense, so I changed the names of our groups to "ourownthoughts", etc. And then I changed them again to "thinkingpowerfully", etc., just so it would be more self-evident.

I have been making progress in the big picture of how the many structures all fit together. And it has this basic construction of ten equals four plus six pairs from the four. So I thought I should ask myself, what is thinking, anyways? And get a definition from which I could generate these six different kinds.

[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/323 June 22, 2003]

What is thinking?

I started with some observations. They were originally in Lithuanian, and it is funny how they are not so straightforward to translate into English. Because in English it is hard to talk about "the one who is thought about".

Thinking lets us separate the the worlds of the thinker and the thought. That is, the one who thinks, and that which is thought about.

So that which is thought about is circumscribed, encapsulated. So we have a "thought". As thinkers, we can hold this bound, we can change the circumstances that we dictate within. We can step in or step out, engross ourselves or pull back. We can let loose an idea, let it unfold, evolve, with increasing slack, and release its spirit. Alternatively, we can concentrate, keep a thought within bounds, with decreasing slack, and give it form.

Here I thought of our member David Kankiewicz's most original outlook, a key part of which I think is the centrality of generating thoughts that are ever new.

So there is this tension between defining a scope, and letting a thought unfold beyond it. The thoughts bring each other forward through associations. We can hold on to a thought, we can look for new connections, and we can let it jump outside everything.

I feel that central to thinking is this channeling, this allowing of thoughts to spread in a given direction. Our thoughts appear to have a natural desire to spread in scope: from whether to what to how to why.

As thinkers, we choose which levels to contain our thoughts, so that they do not make associations, and at which levels to allow for the natural spreading, which happens on its own terms.

we accept How and Why as given let scope drift from Whether to What then we think sensitively

we accept Whether and What as given let scope drift from How to Why then we think concretely

we accept What and Why as given let scope drift from Whether to How then we think powerfully

we accept Whether and How as given let scope drift from What to Why then we think simply

we accept Whether and Why as given let scope drift from What to How then we think energetically

we accept What and How as given let scope drift from Whether to Why then we think relevantly

This may seem abstract, but it is quite vivid to me, so that is very good. The model nicely captures both the discipline and the patience involved in thinking. And that there can be multiple streams of thinking occuring in parallel, at their own pace, as we mull them. I hope it might tap into David's intuitions. It shows how, behind the scenes, we guide our thinking, sort of like milking our minds. It also plays off this enormous force that wells up through our thinking, has us keep looking broader, distinguishes and orders the levels of reflection. It lets us interpret these as expressions of the will! (which they should be). It shows the very partial control that we have of our thinking.

Additionally, thinking is structurally identified with the change of state from being to doing. (And being, doing, thinking interdefine each other as a representation of the division of everything into three perspectives.) So the drift can be interpreted in this regard - that with regard to thinking, being drifts into doing, and that is how we can tell the former and the latter scope.

I can relate the kinds of thinking to the expressions of the will (the representations of anything). And also, I think, to the six issues, the six doubts. But let me just list out the connection with the expressions of the will:

when I engage - I think sensitively
when in suspense - I think powerfully
when I believe - I think energetically
when I rely - I think concretely
when I love - I think simply
when I suffer - I think relevantly

I think that is a good fit. Also, there are connections here to think about with the data from the "good will exercises", and how pairs of levels come up there in the relationship between the doubts and counterquestions.

Now there is a lot that I can pursue from here.

I want to define "caring about thinking". I should think more, what is caring? Also, I should look at internalization. And "caring about thinking" seems to raise the question, what is good thinking, what is bad thinking? It seems related to open thinking and closed thinking, good will and bad will, the way that good will keeps us open to the good heart, makes way for it, and bad will denies it.

Also, I would like to consider the connection between the different kinds of thinking and the structural families. There should be very clear direction here how the clarification of the structural families might advance the application of the associated kinds of thinking. That would be quite practical. I should also do this for the kinds of caring.