"Spectral" Thinking

  Some of my favorite thinkers when it comes to 'thought' itself include David Burns, David Bohm and Alfred Korzybski. What I most appreciate about these thinkers is that they specialize in a kind of metacognition: ways to think "about" thought itself which go beyond traditional ways in which we are taught to think, such as through problem solving exercises or the command to 'concentrate'. If there is one thing which characterizes all three, it's that they try to steer away from thoughts which polarize into fixed categories. Burns refers to this habit of polarizing as 'all or nothing' thinking, while Bohm has described mind as a field instead of a space of fixed qualities and characteristics. Korzybski also rejects the Aristotelian emphasis on a fixed identity, arguing instead that the "A" I thought was true has since then changed as a result of many conditions. Korzybski even makes me wonder whether two points in time could ever be compared, given that the conditions that act upon them may be radically different from each other.
   Korzybski's work suggests that one of the deepest and most malignant sources of conflict is that of trying to take two things which appear to be the same in space or in time, and trying to stuff them into one category which simply cannot apply to both. I may behave one way in one situation, but it's never a guarantee that I can stay this way given other factors. Conflict arises when I confuse my present conditions with the previous ones, and thus give rise to a belief that I should 'return' to the previous state in order to be happy. In fact, I am positive that many philosophies have arisen from this false struggle to achieve a Golden Age that actually never really was golden. It is like feeling nostalgic for yesterday's dropped ice cream, under the false belief that there is a way to preserve it eternally as it is, without the effects of nature, heat or weather.
      What I also admire about these thinkers is their ability to think "spectrally"; that is, to see that thinking is always a process deeply rooted in relative conditions and lies on a spectrum rather than extremes. Thinking is not a pristine category of doing, but it has its roots in lived experiences such a long walks, meditation, preparing food, eating food, and so on. Under the conditions of messy, lived experience, it's unrealistic to try to achieve the 'best' thoughts imaginable, given that all thoughts come from a subjective and impermanent existence. Yet, it's worthwhile to put thinking on the table, knowing that thoughts can often evolve into something that is useful to others. Not clinging to 'good' or 'bad' as categories can let go of the tendency to judge ones thoughts, and thus allow a more free-flowing exchange of ideas, which can prove to be quite fruitful.