~~ I think maybe I think. Or not.
Nov. 30th, 2003 03:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaSo how do I know anything? How can I be so certain (and when will I stop being so uncertain)? What gives me the right to proclaim the so-called truth about anything? Why am I so confusing and elliptical and when am I going to start making actual sense? Don't I fear my own chutzpah?
Er. No? Also, I don't know. I was actually asking myself how in the world I figure things out (or pretend to for the span of about an hour or two, much to the mystification of any listeners)... and in the end, it's just that things... come to me. If one thinks about some confusing or interesting aspect of human behavior or words or any set of ideas long enough, it's like one's brain becomes a laboratory for the natural workings of the universe. Things start to coalesce just because one's really -thinking- about them. Does that make any sense? So the answer to people asking me "how do I know" would be "because I think".
I realize there are no certainties in matters of opinion which isn't backed up by experimentation and testing, and even then things are arguably entirely subjective (and therefore at least somewhat useless). I suppose I've always trusted my essential vision, even if the direction of my thought suddenly changes direction. I've always been able to focus on any philosophical or language-related question and suddenly I saw a number of concurrent threads leading to and away from it, as well as some possible conclusions. I don't know how to explain it, even-- it's just that by the process of thinking about something, I automatically get a sense of direction. It's like walking around in a vaguely familiar town, and at some point getting a strong tug that tells you that the place you're looking for is -that- way. And then things start getting more and more familiar, and it's like more and more puzzle pieces are falling into place exponentially.
This doesn't always happen. Sometimes I just have a number of dangling threads, and none of them feel any more strongly vital to me than another. I feel sort of blind in this, because without much of a traditional mental logical grid, I cannot predict where I'm going and I'm dependent on sudden bursts of enlightenment to tell me. Basically, I almost never think-- or at least, I rarely write-- in a linear progression. That's part of why I ramble, too.
I don't think linearly and I'm effectively blind during the process, yes, but at some point I -do- "see", and when that happens I figure I've stumbled upon what passes to me for the truth. Until next time.
It's a question of creating mental structures. I can consider a fanfic in a fandom I know virtually nothing about, and just by that act of perception, I see new connections form both within the story and leading from the story to other concepts and stories. I'm sure most people make connections subconsciously, with any set of data-- the only difference is that I'm more aware of what I am thinking. So it's not so much certainty as the actual fact of my perception. It's -there-, and sometimes I'm almost blinded by how clear and blazingly obvious it all seems.
Am I even saying anything decipherable right now? I can't quite tell.
People have implied I'm over-confident, obnoxious in my apparent certainty. On top of that, one can't even tell what my point -is- half the time, not to mention I keep changing my mind mid-way. It gets irritating. I can understand that.
It's not a matter of some particular truth, for me. It's more a matter of seeing an overall structure to things, something that's like another sense to me. I think meaning itself is something I constantly struggle with, but also feel I can -touch-. It's not that I generate it, even, it's more like I gather up all the little bits I pick up from here and there-- second-hand sources, mostly-- and recombine them in ways that suddenly seem to -work- for me. That's what everyone does, of course.
For instance, how do I have any clue what "real" teenage boys are like? I mean, I really don't, because well-- I never personally knew any very well. No one gets more shocked than me when someone tells me boys "act like boys" in any fic I'd written. And yet I do get told that. What gives?
A number of people form opinions based on what they see as "evidence", yes?
They can tell you what this "evidence" is, they can point at A, B and C and walk you through step-by-step to the conclusion, so that you can reach it together. That's what teachers do, that's what good academics do, that's what people that actually make some -sense- do. Well, clearly I'm not a very good teacher, and I never actually feel certain I'm making sense to anyone but me. And yet... I do make sense to people (sometimes). Why? How?
I've often thought that the only people I make sense to on a deeper level are people who agree with me to start with. So they don't have to follow my mental processes-- they can look at my end result (if such exists) and say "oh yeah, I think so too". Usually they haven't arrived at the result in anything resembling "the same way", but it seems to be enough that we reach the same end-point. Which is good-- I don't mind being agreed with. Too much. Generally, I like being questioned more, 'cause it forces me to overlay a layer of linearity onto my thoughts. It's good exercise.
I can -translate- my thought process to linear form because I do form opinions based on "evidence", too. It's just that I'm not naturally aware of what this evidence is. I don't synthesize it in a conscious manner, generally. As far as I can usually tell, it's just... there, kind of. It seems to be based on years of observation and supported by a range of mental associations that are unpredictable even to myself. So I can "know" what real boys are "like" even though I don't -know- any mostly by reading things and listening to a selection of different sources and kind of re-processing all this data for my purposes.
I realize this method (if you can call it a method) isn't going to gather me any respect in academic circles. One needs actual evidence, and I don't even bother -looking- for it most of the time. One also needs evidence drawn from first-hand sources, rather than gathered over an indeterminate period of time from sources one has largely forgotten by this point. I know this. And yet, I'm not actually writing academic papers, am I. I'm just rambling in my journal, and if people choose to take me seriously, then what can I do?
I'm a philosopher by disposition, wanky as that sounds, though I'm not nearly as rigorous as I could/should be-- not about Harry Potter or fandom stuff, shockingly. Or not-so-shockingly.
You know that stereotype of the philosopher sitting on top of a mountain and spewing out proclamations about... well... everything. That's pretty much me :>
I like being argued with, but as far as changing my overall nature... not so much.
Er. No? Also, I don't know. I was actually asking myself how in the world I figure things out (or pretend to for the span of about an hour or two, much to the mystification of any listeners)... and in the end, it's just that things... come to me. If one thinks about some confusing or interesting aspect of human behavior or words or any set of ideas long enough, it's like one's brain becomes a laboratory for the natural workings of the universe. Things start to coalesce just because one's really -thinking- about them. Does that make any sense? So the answer to people asking me "how do I know" would be "because I think".
I realize there are no certainties in matters of opinion which isn't backed up by experimentation and testing, and even then things are arguably entirely subjective (and therefore at least somewhat useless). I suppose I've always trusted my essential vision, even if the direction of my thought suddenly changes direction. I've always been able to focus on any philosophical or language-related question and suddenly I saw a number of concurrent threads leading to and away from it, as well as some possible conclusions. I don't know how to explain it, even-- it's just that by the process of thinking about something, I automatically get a sense of direction. It's like walking around in a vaguely familiar town, and at some point getting a strong tug that tells you that the place you're looking for is -that- way. And then things start getting more and more familiar, and it's like more and more puzzle pieces are falling into place exponentially.
This doesn't always happen. Sometimes I just have a number of dangling threads, and none of them feel any more strongly vital to me than another. I feel sort of blind in this, because without much of a traditional mental logical grid, I cannot predict where I'm going and I'm dependent on sudden bursts of enlightenment to tell me. Basically, I almost never think-- or at least, I rarely write-- in a linear progression. That's part of why I ramble, too.
I don't think linearly and I'm effectively blind during the process, yes, but at some point I -do- "see", and when that happens I figure I've stumbled upon what passes to me for the truth. Until next time.
It's a question of creating mental structures. I can consider a fanfic in a fandom I know virtually nothing about, and just by that act of perception, I see new connections form both within the story and leading from the story to other concepts and stories. I'm sure most people make connections subconsciously, with any set of data-- the only difference is that I'm more aware of what I am thinking. So it's not so much certainty as the actual fact of my perception. It's -there-, and sometimes I'm almost blinded by how clear and blazingly obvious it all seems.
Am I even saying anything decipherable right now? I can't quite tell.
People have implied I'm over-confident, obnoxious in my apparent certainty. On top of that, one can't even tell what my point -is- half the time, not to mention I keep changing my mind mid-way. It gets irritating. I can understand that.
It's not a matter of some particular truth, for me. It's more a matter of seeing an overall structure to things, something that's like another sense to me. I think meaning itself is something I constantly struggle with, but also feel I can -touch-. It's not that I generate it, even, it's more like I gather up all the little bits I pick up from here and there-- second-hand sources, mostly-- and recombine them in ways that suddenly seem to -work- for me. That's what everyone does, of course.
For instance, how do I have any clue what "real" teenage boys are like? I mean, I really don't, because well-- I never personally knew any very well. No one gets more shocked than me when someone tells me boys "act like boys" in any fic I'd written. And yet I do get told that. What gives?
A number of people form opinions based on what they see as "evidence", yes?
They can tell you what this "evidence" is, they can point at A, B and C and walk you through step-by-step to the conclusion, so that you can reach it together. That's what teachers do, that's what good academics do, that's what people that actually make some -sense- do. Well, clearly I'm not a very good teacher, and I never actually feel certain I'm making sense to anyone but me. And yet... I do make sense to people (sometimes). Why? How?
I've often thought that the only people I make sense to on a deeper level are people who agree with me to start with. So they don't have to follow my mental processes-- they can look at my end result (if such exists) and say "oh yeah, I think so too". Usually they haven't arrived at the result in anything resembling "the same way", but it seems to be enough that we reach the same end-point. Which is good-- I don't mind being agreed with. Too much. Generally, I like being questioned more, 'cause it forces me to overlay a layer of linearity onto my thoughts. It's good exercise.
I can -translate- my thought process to linear form because I do form opinions based on "evidence", too. It's just that I'm not naturally aware of what this evidence is. I don't synthesize it in a conscious manner, generally. As far as I can usually tell, it's just... there, kind of. It seems to be based on years of observation and supported by a range of mental associations that are unpredictable even to myself. So I can "know" what real boys are "like" even though I don't -know- any mostly by reading things and listening to a selection of different sources and kind of re-processing all this data for my purposes.
I realize this method (if you can call it a method) isn't going to gather me any respect in academic circles. One needs actual evidence, and I don't even bother -looking- for it most of the time. One also needs evidence drawn from first-hand sources, rather than gathered over an indeterminate period of time from sources one has largely forgotten by this point. I know this. And yet, I'm not actually writing academic papers, am I. I'm just rambling in my journal, and if people choose to take me seriously, then what can I do?
I'm a philosopher by disposition, wanky as that sounds, though I'm not nearly as rigorous as I could/should be-- not about Harry Potter or fandom stuff, shockingly. Or not-so-shockingly.
You know that stereotype of the philosopher sitting on top of a mountain and spewing out proclamations about... well... everything. That's pretty much me :>
I like being argued with, but as far as changing my overall nature... not so much.
