I hold thought in high regard, especially (the potential for) enlightened thought. When people come down really hard on thought (a frequent occurrence in ‘nondual’ circles) I often think: That’s 'cause you don’t know how to do it! (Not that I do to any wondrous degree, but I’m learning.)
Well given our working definition of intelligence, seeing things as they are, perception free from the known is quite good.
Perhaps you can enlighten me about what you mean by enlightened thought?
The only way this phrase makes any sense for me is if we say - as Krishnamurti and Bohm used to say in their discussions - that intelligence can use thought.
Intelligence is different from thought, but it can use thought to express itself in some limited way: to write or speak words, to gesture, to paint or make music, etc.
I wouldn’t call this “enlightened thought” - it is still just thought. The only difference is that it is being used in this case by intelligence.
Thought is still essentially memory, is limited, fragmentary, etc.
For me intelligence is synonymous with a heightened awareness or attention, in which things can be perceived clearly, accurately, holistically, without judgement or bias.
Well, grasshopper … I don’t know exactly what enlightened thought is (or even if it is), but I’d guess I mean something like thought that doesn’t fall for the nasty tricks that are endemic to unenlightened thought: delusion, misunderstanding, hyperbole, logical fallacy, groupthink, servitude to authority, self-deception, self-aggrandizement, projection, neurosis, usw. The items in the list are a mix of psychological and practical thought, both would need to be ~100% to qualify as ‘enlightened.’ I see thinking as a potentially miraculous ability, I’m interested in optimizing all its aspects. I’m also interested in that which is not thought (awareness, attention), but working with thought comes more naturally.
In order for the brain not to fall for all these “nasty tricks”, doesn’t it make sense to inquire into the nature of intelligence, awareness, attention, etc, rather than thought?
One can optimise an algorithm, or one can hone the intellect through logical, precise, objective and clear thinking. But you cannot turn coal into a diamond. Thought is thought. You want to make a miracle out of thought, but you seem to be unable to say precisely, clearly and logically what this means.
Perhaps we need to ask the question: what is the nature of thought?
For me everyone’s invited to the party: all of mentation, all of mind.
Are we framing the exploration into the nature of thought around Krishnamurti’s view of thought? Or exploring freely?
What, to you, is the nature of thought?
For me, going straight to the whole is a good starting point:
Thought is the totality of mental processes, all of mentation, all of mind.
I know that’s quite different from Krishnamurti, that’s why I asked about whether we were framing the exploration around Krishnamurti’s view.
Are awareness and attention thought, in your view?
I’m rethinking what I said about the all-inclusiveness of ‘thought.’ It may be better (more useful for the exploration) thinking of thought as an aspect of the whole. A kind of multi-aspect monism: The mental whole (all mental activity) manifests in multiple aspects: thought, awareness-attention-consciousness, emotion, feeling. If we call the whole ‘mind’ we could say:
Thought is an aspect of mind.
Work for you? How would you refer to the totality of mental processes?
What does the word “thought” mean, when you say that “thought is an aspect of mind”? What is this specific aspect of mind? What is its nature?
I feel that we must first clarify what is meant by thought. Then we can look at what is meant by the mind or consciousness as a whole.
Brainstorming: Thought-thinking is a process that takes place in the brain. Thought divides the world into manageable chunks, and manipulates these chunks. Thought draws upon memory. Thought is largely driven by patterns. Thought is subject to ignorance, misunderstanding, bias, illusion. Thought is often mechanical, a bit computer-ish. Thought can be trivial, nonsensical, thrilling, powerful, imaginative, realistic, slow, fast, profound, superficial.
Please supplement, modify, question.
Yes. Thought is a neurological process that takes place in the neurochemistry of the brain.
Yes. That is, thought is a mental representation, taking the form of images, ideas, symbols, words, which stand in for actual things, events, or which relate to other images, ideas, symbols, words (which also stand in for actual things, events, etc).
Yes. Thought is essentially memory. It is the retrieval or revival or recognition or recollection of previously stored representations (in the form of images, ideas, symbols, words); these being the abstract mental representations of experiences and incidents that have occurred in the past.
Yes. All thought is conditioned by previous thought, and exists in relation to a whole network of interrelated thoughts and memories (which make up one’s knowledge, language, psychological conditioning).
Thought is goal-oriented. Thought can be conscious or unconscious. Thought works with images, symbols, representations. Thought pushes you out of the stream of actuality. (Though when you are thinking, the thinking process is the actuality.) Thought takes time (objective and subjective). Thought simulates time travel (via memory and anticipation). Thought invents, recombines, modifies. Thought transforms. Thought fixes, breaks, creates, destroys. Thought designed a large part of the world. Thought is instrumental in creating and maintaining the self. Thought tells stories.
Yes. Thought is the mental anticipation or imagination of the future, as well as the mental recollection of the past. This movement can be called mental or psychological time (which is distinct from physical time, the time of the sun rising and the sun setting, etc).
Yes. The representations of thought (i.e. the contents of an image, idea, symbol, word) are not actual; but the neurochemical process of image-formation (i.e. the representation as an object in the brain) is actual.
That is, the memory of an apple is not a real apple 
, even though the memory itself is an actuality taking place in the neurochemistry of the brain 
.
Another aspect of this is that thought can never capture the wholeness of a situation, event, or experience. A representation - in the form of an image, a symbol, an idea, a word - of what took place yesterday, or a minute ago, is a highly limited and fragmentary abstraction of the situation as it occurred in its wholeness.
Sounds interesting please elaborate.
What are things that thought/thinking cannot do, but that other aspects of the mind possibly can? We have looked at what thought is, what is it NOT?
Could we continue with looking at thought itself Rick, rather than go off into fanciful territory?
We have been saying, to summarise:
Thought is a neurological process that takes place in the neurochemistry of the brain.
Thought is a mental representation, taking the form of images, ideas, symbols, words, which stand in for actual things, events, or which relate to other images, ideas, symbols, words (which also stand in for actual things, events, etc).
Thought is essentially memory. It is the retrieval or revival or recognition or recollection of previously stored representations (in the form of images, ideas, symbols, words); these being the abstract mental representations of experiences and incidents that have occurred in the past.
All thought is conditioned by previous thought, and exists in relation to a whole network of interrelated thoughts and memories (which make up one’s knowledge, language, psychological conditioning).
Thought is the mental anticipation or imagination of the future, as well as the mental recollection of the past. This movement can be called mental or psychological time (which is distinct from physical time, the time of the sun rising and the sun setting, etc).
The representations of thought (i.e. the contents of an image, idea, symbol, word) are not actual; but the neurochemical process of image-formation (i.e. the representation/thought as an objective movement in the brain) is actual. So, the memory of an apple is not a real apple , even though the memory itself is an actuality taking place in the neurochemistry of the brain .
Thought can never capture the wholeness of a situation, event, or experience. A representation - in the form of an image, a symbol, an idea, a word - of what took place yesterday, or a minute ago, is a highly limited and fragmentary abstraction of the situation as it occurred in its wholeness.
Before looking at other aspects of ‘mind’, if we look at the points that have already made about thought above, does it not become clear in which ways thought is significantly limited?