Thinking about Thinking

 February turns out to be milder and even a bit stranger in climate than expected at this time of year. There have been times during this past week when the weather has fluctuated between very warm (like a spring day) to winter chill. In fact, I was quite surprised to see all the green grass on Thursday, after an unexpected winter thaw had taken place that day. With the strange weather, our bodies are bound to feel confused, with a few animals coming out of premature hibernation.
   I was thinking today, what is the relationship between spiritual practices (such as meditation) and cognition? Can meditative practices make a person 'think better', and how would that be accomplished? I have heard a variety of answers to this question, the main one being that meditation practice can  clear a space where there is non-attachment to thoughts. And this can allow the possibility for more creative opportunities or interesting thoughts. But I would like to step back a bit and ask the question, what does it mean to question and interrogate the quality of one's thinking? Under whose or what standards would a person evaluate the freshness, originality or 'overall quality' of thoughts? And who (or what) does such a venture serve?
     The reason I ask this question is that there is something somewhat paradoxical about inquiring into the conditions of a 'good' thought. Many books abound out there (particularly in the business field) which suggest that people can improve their abilities to think productively and generate original or new solutions to existing situations. Rather than trying to mindlessly reproduce the past thoughts. "Productive" or "original" thinking is designed to create new or unexpected solutions. As elegant as this distinction sounds. it makes me wonder a lot of things. Firstly, is there such a clear, black-and-white delineation between 'productive' and 'reproductive', thinking, as Tim Hurson suggests in his book Think Better? While Hurson suggests that the two processes are different, I am almost inclined to think that thinking operates from a mixture of existing habits and new insights. The two seem to interact with one another dialectically, since it's unlikely that thought can spontaneously arise from that which one hasn't experienced in some way or another in previous thoughts or habits.
   My second point is that I sense thinking itself to be something that can't be pinned down, because the 'productive' thinking that Hurson describes is a kind of spontaneous process. To try to pin it down would be to change 'production' into a kind of 'reproduction' or a trace of something that can be fixed or made into a measurable formula. But thinking itself is exactly not like that at all. Thinking seems to operate in a liminal space, between pre-formulated notions or hypotheses, and that which is not known or established as known yet. To try to 'figure out' what thinking is (and is not) seems not entirely productive in terms of how to think. Thinking seems to defy technique of any sort.
    Because thinking itself is always happening in a spontaneous or fresh moment, perhaps a more productive question might be to ask, what are the conditions or prompts for fresh, moment-to-moment thinking? What motivates such a process to occur, and what inhibits this process? I am afraid that the very pursuit of cognitive 'boundaries' to define thinking is exactly the kind of thinking that inhibits thinking,because it pretends to be able to locate thought in some kind of flex-able muscle in the brain. In other words, the process of thinking becomes a kind of calisthenic exercise that can be commodified and measured in some way. But does thinking actually really operate in this way? Is the effort to 'map' thinking not precisely the form of self-consciousness that actually ends up inhibiting thinking itself?
   To put it another way: even if I know the map, does that knowing enable me to become a 'better' or 'fresher' thinker? I believe this is the dream of cognitive science: to map the mind in such a way that people can become naturally better thinkers. But is it ever possible to map in precise detail all the ways that original thoughts arise in mind? I think that project is not only futile, but ends up sabotaging its own effort, because it reinforces the view that the mind is a 'box' with various measurable variables in it.
    To go back to the question of what conditions motivate thinking: I believe that curiosity about how one relates to a process is perhaps the best way to stimulate thinking that is one's  own. Rather than asking, for instance, 'what is the problem', a better way might be to ask, 'what is my relationship at the present moment to this problem or process?' In this way,I can truly enter into a dialogue with the object  of study, rather than trying to subordinate my mental processes in 'awe' of that object. Meditative practice is exactly about engaging this natural curiosity, because it asks that practitioners bracket the kinds of conceptual 'traps' that might inhibit one's ability to relate in the present moment with what is happening. And this is also more motivating than trying to squeeze oneself into the mold of how others think or relate to a situation. It puts the thinker into the proverbial driver's seat, by asking how they specifically relate to the causes and conditions they face.

Hurson, Tim, (2008) Think Better: Your Company's Future Depends on It. Toronto: McGraw Hill