The problem with thinking, which I've alluded to many times, is that the internal dialogue creates the illusion of correspondence.
For example, let's say that we've left some clothes at a dry-cleaning company and we know that they'll be ready to pick up in two days. Two days later, we remember our clothes and think, "I need to go pick up my clothes from the cleaner." This thought may occur two or three times before we get in a car and go get the clothes. (In some cases we may not get the clothes for several days after thinking this kind of thought)
Because the thinking corresponded to what the body subsequently did, we conclude that we "chose" to do something and then did it. We imagine that without our thinking the clothes would not have gotten picked up, which is not true.
One of the advantages of being free of thought is that this idea of volition is seen to be illusory. The body is intelligent. It knows what's going on non-verbally and non-conceptually. In the total absence of thoughts the body will go get the clothes at the appropriate time. What is the appropriate time? When it actually goes to get the clothes. Ha ha.
Many times I'll tell Carol that I'm getting ready to go do xyz. She'll come back to the office, see that I'm still here, and say, "I thought you were going to do xyz." I'll laugh and say, "Yeah, so did I. As it turns out, I was wrong. Reality had a different agenda, and it is always right on schedule." Ha ha. IOW, the internal dialogue sometimes corresponds with reality and sometimes it doesn't. It's like we're laying down imaginary tracks for the reality train to run on, but the train isn't paying any attention to our imaginary tracks. It's going where it's going to go regardless of where our thoughts go.
The choice-no/choice debate is very funny because it is like being late to the party. The mind is always way behind the action or way out in front of it, but it is never where the action IS.
For example, let's say that we've left some clothes at a dry-cleaning company and we know that they'll be ready to pick up in two days. Two days later, we remember our clothes and think, "I need to go pick up my clothes from the cleaner." This thought may occur two or three times before we get in a car and go get the clothes. (In some cases we may not get the clothes for several days after thinking this kind of thought)
Because the thinking corresponded to what the body subsequently did, we conclude that we "chose" to do something and then did it. We imagine that without our thinking the clothes would not have gotten picked up, which is not true.
One of the advantages of being free of thought is that this idea of volition is seen to be illusory. The body is intelligent. It knows what's going on non-verbally and non-conceptually. In the total absence of thoughts the body will go get the clothes at the appropriate time. What is the appropriate time? When it actually goes to get the clothes. Ha ha.
Many times I'll tell Carol that I'm getting ready to go do xyz. She'll come back to the office, see that I'm still here, and say, "I thought you were going to do xyz." I'll laugh and say, "Yeah, so did I. As it turns out, I was wrong. Reality had a different agenda, and it is always right on schedule." Ha ha. IOW, the internal dialogue sometimes corresponds with reality and sometimes it doesn't. It's like we're laying down imaginary tracks for the reality train to run on, but the train isn't paying any attention to our imaginary tracks. It's going where it's going to go regardless of where our thoughts go.
The choice-no/choice debate is very funny because it is like being late to the party. The mind is always way behind the action or way out in front of it, but it is never where the action IS.
