So, yay.
The Review's gone to press, and hopefully it'll be out to-morrow... if the press doesn't screw up, that is.
To-day during Philosophy - we were talking about random things - Sirignano suddenly turned to me and said, "Oh, Chris, before I forget, I want to speak to you later in private."
I said, "Okay..." and then started to worry. Did I do something wrong? I didn't have to worry about anything, though, because all Siggy wanted to talk about was something I'd said last week, about thinking: basically, there are apparently only two people in Philosophy class who do not think principally in images or words, and I am one of those. Siggy said that he wanted to know more because the topic fascinated him. I was pleasantly surprised; thought patterns fascinate me, too, mostly because I can't figure them out.
He asked me how exactly do I think, and I said that I think that I think in sensations. As I wrote in a comment to Anjali, in a friends-locked post,I think that my thought pattern is more linear. I kinda zap back and forth between different thoughts, blazing a complicated albeit linear path of thoughts that, if I'm careful, I can trace back after a while. As for the way I actually think... I don't know. It's hard to explain. I guess I think in sensations. Like, if I were to think of pizza, I don't see a pizza or think with the word "pizza"; rather, I smell it and taste it and, as you said, apply language to it only if I'm trying to express my thought. If I think about reading The Lord of the Rings, I remember what I was thinking while I was reading this passage or I remember what it was like to read the book for the first time. But those memories don't come in words; they come in actual memories, like film reels, but not in a visual sense. I don't think the words "Lord of the Rings" or "Frodo" or anything; nor do I visualise the physical book itself... I'm not sure if I'm making sense.
But even that's only half-accurate.
Siggy started out by asking me if I think in images. I said kind of. He recalled a discussion the class had had last semester: if you think in images and you think of a "tree," don't you think of a specific kind of tree? Like, an oak tree or a pine tree? I remember that I'd answered that no, I don't; when I think about "trees," I have a general idea of a tree but I have no idea of what it looks like.
(This is one reason why I have difficulty with drawing, a lot of times. When I want to draw something, I make myself think in images, and I see exactly what I want to draw, but I can't put it down on paper because the images don't translate well from my mind to my hand. This is not about technique - I'm sure my hand is physically capable of depicting the image in my mind. Rather, it's the smaller details that I cannot pinpoint. Like, if I had an image of a mountain with trees, I'd be able to "see" in my mind, quite clearly, what kind of trees I want to depict; but I won't be able to do so... and it's not due to lack of familiarity, either.)
"For example, if I were to think about my ideal friend," I said, "I'd kinda visualise him or her. That is, I wouldn't be able to use words to describe him or her, but I also wouldn't be able to describe him or her physically. But I'd still be able to see him or her."
"I don't understand," he said. "You're using all of these image-related words, like 'visualise' and 'see.' What's the difference between thinking in images and what you're doing?"
"It's like this," I answered, fumbling around for the right words. "If I were to see my ideal friend, like in passing and without knowing who he or she is, I'd be able to recognise him or her, because I have this vague idea of what he or she would look like. And yet, if you were to ask me if he or she has blonde hair or brown hair or black hair, I wouldn't be able to say. I have a feeling as to what this person looks like and is like, but when I think about it, I don't put it in words or in a specific image."
"So you think in feelings?"
"...I guess... Well, not really... it's so hard to explain!" I said in frustration with myself.
"Is it a kind of subconscious thought?" he asked.
"I think so..." and I thought for a moment. "Yeah, sometimes it is, because I'll know something, but I won't know that I know it until someone points it out to me and I recognise it... as opposed to realising it."
That's all I remember of that conversation.
And then I spent five hours in The Review - starting with eighth period, that is, since I actually spent before-school time and lunch in there, as well - so that this issue would be ready for the press. I'm so glad that the April issue is over. 'Tis a good feeling.
So now I just need to pass this USAP term quiz and start knocking out this paper... yikes.
Ooh, and I have a 95 average in calc right now. :D
To-day during Philosophy - we were talking about random things - Sirignano suddenly turned to me and said, "Oh, Chris, before I forget, I want to speak to you later in private."
I said, "Okay..." and then started to worry. Did I do something wrong? I didn't have to worry about anything, though, because all Siggy wanted to talk about was something I'd said last week, about thinking: basically, there are apparently only two people in Philosophy class who do not think principally in images or words, and I am one of those. Siggy said that he wanted to know more because the topic fascinated him. I was pleasantly surprised; thought patterns fascinate me, too, mostly because I can't figure them out.
He asked me how exactly do I think, and I said that I think that I think in sensations. As I wrote in a comment to Anjali, in a friends-locked post,I think that my thought pattern is more linear. I kinda zap back and forth between different thoughts, blazing a complicated albeit linear path of thoughts that, if I'm careful, I can trace back after a while. As for the way I actually think... I don't know. It's hard to explain. I guess I think in sensations. Like, if I were to think of pizza, I don't see a pizza or think with the word "pizza"; rather, I smell it and taste it and, as you said, apply language to it only if I'm trying to express my thought. If I think about reading The Lord of the Rings, I remember what I was thinking while I was reading this passage or I remember what it was like to read the book for the first time. But those memories don't come in words; they come in actual memories, like film reels, but not in a visual sense. I don't think the words "Lord of the Rings" or "Frodo" or anything; nor do I visualise the physical book itself... I'm not sure if I'm making sense.
But even that's only half-accurate.
Siggy started out by asking me if I think in images. I said kind of. He recalled a discussion the class had had last semester: if you think in images and you think of a "tree," don't you think of a specific kind of tree? Like, an oak tree or a pine tree? I remember that I'd answered that no, I don't; when I think about "trees," I have a general idea of a tree but I have no idea of what it looks like.
(This is one reason why I have difficulty with drawing, a lot of times. When I want to draw something, I make myself think in images, and I see exactly what I want to draw, but I can't put it down on paper because the images don't translate well from my mind to my hand. This is not about technique - I'm sure my hand is physically capable of depicting the image in my mind. Rather, it's the smaller details that I cannot pinpoint. Like, if I had an image of a mountain with trees, I'd be able to "see" in my mind, quite clearly, what kind of trees I want to depict; but I won't be able to do so... and it's not due to lack of familiarity, either.)
"For example, if I were to think about my ideal friend," I said, "I'd kinda visualise him or her. That is, I wouldn't be able to use words to describe him or her, but I also wouldn't be able to describe him or her physically. But I'd still be able to see him or her."
"I don't understand," he said. "You're using all of these image-related words, like 'visualise' and 'see.' What's the difference between thinking in images and what you're doing?"
"It's like this," I answered, fumbling around for the right words. "If I were to see my ideal friend, like in passing and without knowing who he or she is, I'd be able to recognise him or her, because I have this vague idea of what he or she would look like. And yet, if you were to ask me if he or she has blonde hair or brown hair or black hair, I wouldn't be able to say. I have a feeling as to what this person looks like and is like, but when I think about it, I don't put it in words or in a specific image."
"So you think in feelings?"
"...I guess... Well, not really... it's so hard to explain!" I said in frustration with myself.
"Is it a kind of subconscious thought?" he asked.
"I think so..." and I thought for a moment. "Yeah, sometimes it is, because I'll know something, but I won't know that I know it until someone points it out to me and I recognise it... as opposed to realising it."
That's all I remember of that conversation.
And then I spent five hours in The Review - starting with eighth period, that is, since I actually spent before-school time and lunch in there, as well - so that this issue would be ready for the press. I'm so glad that the April issue is over. 'Tis a good feeling.
So now I just need to pass this USAP term quiz and start knocking out this paper... yikes.
Ooh, and I have a 95 average in calc right now. :D