Spiral Thinking

How often I have lost patience with the circuitous discussions, that swing way out around the subject, wanting to go straight to the end, to the goal of our discussion.

Could it be that I do not see the need for the spiral approach, which encompasses the copresent material that is acting within the same ambit as the subject of interest? Perhaps I am confusing eficiency and the lineal thought processes I have grown up with, with true comprehension?

Could it be as stated below, “…we go around, approaching as if drawing a spiral, collecting a lot of information,” that I need to rethink my approach to what clear thinking is?

 

Pg.17 from Trudi’s translation.

26 – About thought: (Corfu) a – When we were doing our summaries and syntheses in the patio, he commented, “There are different ways of thinking; a very common one is linear, like you are following a continuous line, directed toward the object, sometimes too direct, without much context. Then there is a delirious way of thinking that makes zigzag lines, getting farther away and nearer, and approaching and sometimes not arriving at the object. Those are not our ways of thinking; we go around, approaching as if drawing a spiral, collecting a lot of information, a lot of experience with the environment, with the object, elaborating our thinking. Neither something reactive nor anything dilettante. Paying attention to the priorities. That is our way, in a spiral, by going around, making detours (not straightforward).”

b – However, he presented (Corfu) the real contribution to the theme of thought in that brief text, “Fundamentals of Thought.” He had some notes and one evening he called JH telling him “J, let’s go (indicating to take the typewriter) we are going to make History, let’s make a final copy of this.” And there I was present to witness that dictation. Later he would say, “We say that we have assumptions, we say that, others don’t say it, they just present it…” He would make the same comment about Psychology where he said, “It might be an interpretation, but we say that, not like others who present it as ‘reality.’” On another occasion when we commented to him about how interesting the Psychology we were studying was, so broad and all that, he stated, “Yes, and that is because it is an enormous turn of the thought.” Of those Fundamentals the principle we used the most was “There is no being without manifestation,” which led us to look for the register of thinking, because if not the thinking flies away, and the phenomenon escapes from us. He told us,“Certainly a mental calculation, like 2×2=4, has its register, and that is why we know that if we say 5, it’s wrong.”

Leave a Reply