Most thoughts that we think are of our description. Upon observation of the world, our focus begins to take it apart, by locking into a thing and thinking of what it is. Clearing the mind, is as simple as not having to describe the world that is encountered by the mind.
If the mind stops describing the world, and one continues to look at the world, they might still be processing what things are at a subconscious level, but it seems to have a consciousness of the world, that it requires description of things.
Upon not describing the world, there is still the possibility of internal thought. Internal thought is not always description. It can range from comparing subjects, to think about the future, to asking oneself a question. A task that might be taken up by a person is to watch there thoughts and categorize them, much like thinking of your thoughts as descriptions. If one were to do this, they might be able to form a categorization of the mental activity.
Why do we describe things? "That is a rock." The thing itself is given a name, and that name has mental associations wherein there are properties in the mind that are alike the object that is being observed. Description, is as if to be in the world, or to be conscious of the world, which brings into itself the emergence of the thought.
These descriptions, like the categories of thought, have categorizes of themselves, linked back in the mind. When a thing is seen, there is often a category that it falls into. The way that it looks, stimulates the categorical contents of the mind. Description is about ontology, of being. A sufficient mode of contacting the ontological world, is through the description process of physics. Size, shape, volume, area, can tell us what a thing is. The thing is, that we observe things easier just by a simple description of properties, and some people are not inclined to observe the world through the eyes of the physics, or mathematics, of it.
Most have a view that I would call "extracting the properties" or "denoting with category." The word rock tells us enough about the rock, since we do not require to understand or think of the rock in any more context than the denotation.
When suddenly we are aroused to description of a thing, that description becomes relevant to our reactions.There are some things which do not have as much as potential to react with as other things. With a rock we might think of moving it, breaking it up into pieces. With a person we might think of asking them not to do or to do something. Thus, the description of things prepare us to react toward the thing.
It is hard to think of how to react to an external phenomena if we do not first describe it at some level of conscious activity. This is to say, when something is not in a person's focus it is harder for them to react towards that thing.
When we have described the ontology of something, we can go onto describe the future or our reactions with the object. Thus the object of description becomes an object of ends which too can be described.
Describing the possible ends of the object, is to impute the object with movement of a categorical kind. For anything to be a teleological description one must think of the objects movement or self's movement in relation to that thing.
This connection isn't always how things happen. Description without teleological reactive thoughts is possible. It is possible to have an aesthetic judgment as part of a description, or to judge things based on "secondary" descriptions. For example: A denotation is "trees" description of parts would be "branches", "color" and secondary description would be "complexity", "isolation."
The denotation, the first and second description might tell us what might be done to increase or decrease the parts or the properties of a thing. We can thus have an idea of these descriptions as an imaginary state where the properties or parts exist in a less or more extreme. For example: The denotation of object x, in space y, we can think to have more object x, or to increase or decrease any of the physical properties that we can describe the thing to have.
Imagined property endowment, is a mode of thinking of how to react and change a thing as envisioned by the mind, brought on by combing a non-existing property x of y, to a possible state where x becomes part of the ontology of y. This kind of thinking, as to act, works so by use of the imagination. To of what is not, and to think of how that not can be.
Our actions tells us we can stay in a condition or we can change the conditions. This means we can keep things as is or change things from the not into the is. The is is always the present, and is brought into existence by the "will be."
No comments:
Post a Comment