Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00309)

Malcolm:

>An observation of mine is about the relatioship bewteen thought and its
>translation into words. The observation is that the 'thoughts' are
>independent of thier translation into words; that thoughts exists before
>their translation.

This is true. Words express a thought but cannot fully contain it. We
could all have the same idea about a chair for instance but come up
with entirely different words to describe it. It's much harder when we
are trying to come up with words about metaphysical realities.

>Thoughts seam to appear in a whole lump it seems to take time and
>concentration to make the transistion into words.

The same is true with feelings. We could have a feeling and then try
to put it into words. The words partially describe it but always
fall short.

A thought as you say comes in a flash. Then it takes time to describe
it. But as we are attempting to put it into words we are also working
out its relationship with other thoughts and working on fitting it into
the big picture of how we understand life. The greater the concrete
expression that we give to the thought the more real more self-conscious
more lucid it becomes.

>I am not not multilingual so would like input from anyone that is - "Do
>thoughts exist independantly of the language you are thinking in?".

It would seem so. How else would we understand Eastern ideas like
reincarnation and karma? How else would there be universal principles
of life found in the various great philosophies and world religions --
regardless of the language they are clothed in?

>Also there is the experience of 'not being able to find the word' ie
>the thought exists before its linguistic expression.

This is a good example of the thought coming first before it is
clothed in words. But the thought becomes much more real when we
do find the proper words for it.

>I don't know how to analyse this in terms of higher mind / lower
>mind / brain etc. Does anywone haeve any input?

I'd say that in both the higher and lower mind there is the ability
to know things directly to have flashes of understanding that come
before the words. And there is the ability to put into words these
flashes. The distinction between the higher and lower minds has to do
with abstract versus applied thought. The lower kama-manas deals
with the mind engaged in specific acts and activities in the external
world. The higher buddhi-manas deals with the mind engaged in pure
thought in abstract mathematics and philosophy in words about the
inner nature of life.

I'd say that both higher and lower mind have the ability to put things
into words as well as to know things directly or be lucid and transparent
and understand things in a flash. One deals with the inner nature of
life; the other deals with the life in the external world.

>Anyway I have used this as a technique of meditation:- to try and stay in
>that space where thoughts are thoughts but before they become words. I
>found it a very effective way to 'quiet the mind' and gain insites into the
>mind's working.

Another technique might be to leave the mental voice alone. Ignore the
mind's narration. Look to the *flashes*. Rather than thinking of it as
a space before thoughts become clothed in words consider it as fireworks
that are always going off regardless of the narration. Look at the
brilliance of the ideas. There's no need to silence the narration since
you'd be paying attention to something else it would appear quiet due
to your lack of attention.

>You can gain also gain an appreciation of the 'problems' of the translation
>service. There is certainly and reduction and compression happening.

The purpose of the translation is not to completely represent the thought
in words because that would not be possible. Rather it is to associate
enough of the thought with the words that the words by sympathetic magic
evoke the same thought in the reader/listener. It is more like an act of
magic than like literal communication.

>This also opens up ideas about communictaion and its limitations - great
>communicators seem to transmitt the thought as a whole to their audience and
>communicate more than the sum of their words.

These communicators are therefore powerful magicians! They evoke in the
audience things that remain otherwise hidden. And it's the very same thing
that we try to do with ourselves as we read the theosophical books! We
attempt to evoke the grand thoughts that remain hidden behind the words on
the printed page to perform the same magic upon ourselves!

-- Eldon