Thoughts and ideas

Thoughts and ideas are as common as breathing. They impact us in profound ways. They can be helpful to us or harmful. Therefore, are we victims of them? Do we control them or do they control us? Maybe you don't care. Thinking about thoughts and having an idea about ideas may just be too stressful? or useless to you! But, you know what ponderers do, THEY PONDER

First, let's start with the difference between thoughts and ideas. You may find it difficult to define either, must less distinguish between them. My old trusty authority on words, the 1828 Webster dictionary, says that a thought is "a object produced by the operation of the mind". The mind thinks and thoughts are the outcome. Then, what is an idea? Webster kind of beats around the bush on this, sometimes seeing idea as the same as thought, but sometimes extending the notion of an object produced by the mind to the understanding or meaning of the object or thought - the object's purpose or intention.

I am sure many of you by now are worried about me. Why would I spend any THOUGHT on this? While hardly anyone thinks about thought, what we assume about thought and ideas is very important in living an abundant and virtuous life.

First of all, what causes the mind to produce the particular thought it produces? Why do some people have "better" thoughts than others? Do we have some skill that affects our thoughts? Are thoughts more a product of morality than ability? Are humans even authors of their own thoughts?

Second, once we have a thought, what provides us the understanding? Would two people always have the same idea from the same thought? If not, what would cause the difference? Is it skill or moral goodness that makes the difference?

One serious flaw in our humanity may be that we think we are responsible for our thoughts and ideas. By being the source, we are in control. We just need more training or discipline or some kind of personal development to have the thoughts and ideas that produce a better life.

Let's consider another possibility - REVELATION. Maybe thoughts, the object produced by the mind, and ideas, the meaning of the object produced by the mind, actually comes to us from outside our selves? What if the process of the mind is more like a receiver than a generator? Does that matter?

If this is true and the mind is a receiver, then there is a very important question to ask - who or what is the sender? Maybe the ultimate quality of our life is not training our mind to produce, but to submit our mind to the right sender?

The Christian understands this theologically. We learn through Scripture that the Holy Spirit "bears witness" to us many things. We can't even produce the object of our prayers - this is revealed to us by the HS. The HS told Philip to witness to the Ethiopian Enuch and told Paul to go to Jerusalem. Most Christians accept revelation THEOLOGICALLY. But, to what degree do we accept it PSYCHOLOGICALLY? Can this Kingdom idea of thoughts and ideas have primacy in your life every moment and in every situation? Can we submit our minds to revelation as a matter of practice, or will we continue to think we are in control of producing our thoughts and ideas when we are not thinking theologically?  

I just happen to think that the return on an investment in revelation is "out of this world" ....

Do you understand?

How often in your discourse with others are you faced with the question, "do you understand?" Seems like a simple question. Usually you say you do, but you still have lingering questions. You may even fail to be as empathetic as you should be because you really don't fully understand.

How can this be?

Consider this

What may be going on is that you may understand WHAT the other person is feeling or experiencing, but you cannot really understand WHY they feel that way or HOW you can help them feel better or WHO is really causing them to feel threatened or fearful.




One problem with "understanding" are the complex set of questions the human brain seeks answers to. We usually only settle one of those in our discourse with others. Shouldn't we make an effort to explore or probe all of the dimensions of understanding when we engage others in communication?

Maybe "walking the brain" with another about important issues will truly help us listen and understand each other better?

Another issue with understanding is the frequent use of ambiguous or imprecise language. For instance, recently I listened to someone teaching young people about principles of good financial management. For illustration purposes, consider two of these principles:

1. save
2. avoid foolish debt

These sound reasonable, but how instructive are they? Does the audience really understand what the expert speaker is saying?

For instance, is saving merely a practice of putting money away? Maybe, maybe not. Putting money under your pillow during times of high inflation is not prudent. Sometimes saving can look like spending. What? Yes, spending can be either consumption or investing. If I buy something that will appreciate in value, then I am saving. Saving is much more complex than just the activity of setting money aside, SO simply instructing others "to save" can be easily misunderstood.

What makes debt "foolish"? Is this description of debt sufficient to guide anyone to prudent financial management? Is the idea of "foolish" too incomplete to provide good guidance? Suppose we advise others to avoid being too leveraged with debt? Is "foolish" debt really debt we have with risk in our ability to pay if and when adversity arises? If so, to help another understand the issue with debt, shouldn't we use the notion of leverage?

These are just examples, but they all illustrate why we talk and talk and talk and think everyone understands, BUT THEY DON'T.

Those that know me often roll their eyes when I push for more clarity. It may be a curse I live with but the absence of completeness and precision in our words too often leave us all frustrated or naive that others understand when they REALLY don't?

Just something to ponder ......