A thought on ‘the thought’

Albert Einstein mentioned somewhere that ‘Imagination is more important than knowledge’. I think communicating ones imagination effectively is as much important as the imagination itself. The job is only half done if either of the aforementioned is neglected. One of the most important thing which give rise to the birth of an idea is the ability to wonder. Wonder, according to some philosophers, is a logical outcome of ignorance, and it is purely up to an individual to construct a thought through ‘a wonder’ and further venture into it at various depths. This venturing again depends on interests, and interest further depends on how your thoughts have been influenced before. As you may observe, the process of wonder and thought is cyclic in nature. But thinking, according to me, is a non-linear process. Most of the times, thinking is like constructing a building with in your mind, where its bricks are piled from different sources within the mind itself. So if you are trying to understand something, it is never that you grasp a point without taking a round about path; and many a times, you realize the shortest path to an idea only after you have seen the complete evolution of an idea itself. Another important aspect is that the birth of a thought need not always arise from silent pondering, but also can emerge from an argument over an issue with an external source; here I presume the source to be a human being, a book, an image, or any of the information which can be detected via the five senses. Surprisingly, new ideas do evolve as and when we communicate a thought. When I say ‘communicate’, I mean, not only I put forth a thought to the outer world, but also I should be grasping an idea into my mind from an external resource, and this communication can be duplex, i.e., it can occur simultaneously. My personal experience is that every time when I communicate a thought, my understanding of it improves, no matter whether I have done this before or not. This also provides me an opportunity to get a feedback from the source with which I argue up on the same thought. So this brings me to the concept of ‘argument’. Now, imagine a world where every human being agreed with each other on everything. That would be a dull one, isn’t it? The essence of communication is to effectively exchange thoughts between two minds. When this exchange occurs, the thought might interfere either constructively or otherwise. The highest level of attainment in thinking is to agree to disagree. This is a mechanism where you grasp an idea, and when you realize that it destructively interferes with your pre-conceived notion on the same concept, then you create a different space in your mind, where you store the though of the external source. This, in a sense, is like enlarging your memory space on the computer hard disk, where you still maintain your old data, but you create new space for the new data, no matter whether you use the new data or not. Why should a mind agree to disagree ? This is like asking why a coin should have two faces. In most of the arguments which a mind involves itself, it comes across a new concept. At that moment, it immediately compares it with its own database, and if the new concept is in phase with the old one, it constructively interferes and ‘yields’ to make a belief stronger, where as, if it is out of phase, instead of destructively interfering, it takes in the thought and stores it. This storage is what we see as tolerance, control, resistance of mind etc., and is a more complicated process than yielding to a thought.

     In this blog, I have just tried to highlight the complications in understanding the process of thought. Countless philosophers are pondering about it, so it is worthwhile for us to give a thought on ‘the thought’….after all everybody is a philosopher in their own sense….