Bridging by thought not what it seems?
May 13, 2006 § 1 Comment
A thought, idea or insight “we” explain isn’t the thought “others” hear. Even as a single individual, my “own” understanding of a concept will change as I learn more about it by implementing it in different contexts. Most of the natural differences between different contexts will be simple to bridge, but whenwhere does a thought change into a variation of itself, or even into a completely different “original” thought?
It all depends on what significance people assign to a particular “thought”. Maybe we need/have an authoritative source to refer to, to call it “truth”. Maybe we work from our own related recollections of experiences which can be rather vague, or hard to distinguish well enough, and hard to explain, for becoming (re)useful in an other context, to call it “grounded knowledge”.
The latter way requires allowing such recollections. When naming those “internal babble” or “irrelevant”, in order to more easily ignore associations and messages bubbling up, we become even more unbalanced and stressed. In the flow, these messages do not need to be blocked.
I grew up learning to associate particular symbols to particular states for distinguishing internal parts involved. Such translation of perceptions into symbolic code does not guarantee perfect reproduction of original perception. Even within a gestalt perceptive field of an individual each distinctive part in a perception can and will take on new qualities as the field changes. And field changes can give birth to imperceptible alternatives.
What if there is (no) continuity between distinguished parts?
What if field changes create different perceptions?
Can a particular snowflake, seen on the level of detail where no snowflake seems the same, ever be reproduced exactly the same again in some future?