Re: 'Then how does the writer know when the words he's mulling do not articulate his thought? Obviously the thought already has to be there.'
But in what form could the idea even *exist* if you deny it language - or for the painter colour etc, or for the composer, sounds. The same goes for everyday thoughts: how could we - including the thinker - know what the thought is if is not expressed in any way. What could give it form? Re: '> And how do you accommodate the fact that some writers do NOT struggle? A > thought comes to them, and they immediately "jot it down". As I'm writing the > short paragraphs you're now reading, these thoughts are coming to me in effect > instantly. I' Very simply. The ideas we are expressing are relatively straightforward. So the words come easily. Re: '> I think Dostoievsky would rebel at your assertion 'C&P' is "just one > thought". I don't. I think every great artist is at least vaguely aware of this. It is key to what we call the unity of a work of art - which is not some 'structural' unity as some critics say, but essenatilly a unity of thought - in fact a unified thought - a thought free of inner contradictions. RE: ' How > conceivably could he be searching for words unless he already knew what he > wanted them to say?' Again, how could he *have* the thought if you deny him in form to have it in? It would have to be a kind of 'contentless' thought. Shades of Zen. I know you have made more points but as i said I don't like to do long posts. DA On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:36 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wrote the following posting: > > Derek writes: > "On the other hand how do we know what the thing is until we have found words > to describe it? Are there wordless thoughts? I don't think so." > > [For openers, I'd like to hear you describe what you have in mind with the > phrase "what the thing IS". > > [Meantime, I suspect you'll respond to Mando that pain is not a thought. Or > love, or terror, or fatigue, or... > > [The assertion that all thought is in words is flat-out nonsense. > > [Writers struggle to choose the best words -- how could that be if their > thoughts are in words? > > [How could you ever mis-speak yourself? > > [Rock-climbers, chefs, chess-players, even tennis-players -- they're thinking > all the time, just not with words. > > [But then you, like Hannah Arendt, may resort to a circular justification for > the assertion that all thinking is in words: "What those people are doing -- > the chefs and chess players, and Mozart while composing, and painters while > painting, et al -- it isn't thinking." "Why not?" "Because thinking requires > words, silly!"] > > > Derek now answers: > > [Cheerskep writes in part: 'Writers struggle to choose the best words -- > how could that be if their thoughts are in words?' > > [I think the answer is they struggle precisely because the thought only > emerges fully once they sense the best words have been found. Until then, it > is a > kind of embryo of a thought. 'Crime and Punishment' is in a sense just one > thought - which needed all those words to fully reveal itself. Dostoyevsky > was > not writing down a pre-thought 'language-less' idea - like an amanuensis > putting someone else's ideas on paper. He was exploring - discovering - his > thought, as he wrote. > > [Like all artists. I think we all do much the same in everyday life in a > less developed way. > > [Wordless thoughts would be like 'a painter' who had never painted anything.] > > In this posting I'll comment only about the specifics of Derek's answer. In > the next posting, I'll remark about his answer in general. > > "They struggle precisely because the thought only emerges fully once they > sense the best words have been found. Until then, it is a kind of embryo of a > thought." > > Then how does the writer know when the words he's mulling do not articulate > his thought? Obviously the thought already has to be there. > > To use William's image, the writer already has the foot (the thought), now he > has to find the shoe (the words) that fit. > > And how do you accommodate the fact that some writers do NOT struggle? A > thought comes to them, and they immediately "jot it down". As I'm writing the > short paragraphs you're now reading, these thoughts are coming to me in effect > instantly. I then begin the time-consuming task of "putting them into words". > > Look at my two-line paragraph above beginning, "Then how doesb&" I knew > instantly what I wanted to "say". Finding the word to say it took time. I > mulled the > words 'mulling', and 'articulate'. "Will they convey what's on my mind?" I > asked myself. The "what's on my mind" was already there. > > Recall that one of the four characteristics of human notion is that it's > transitory. As we "think about" our idea, we refine it, or change it basically > as > we see it doesn't square with other convictions of ours. Looking for the words > to articulate what's on our mind is a happy aid to forcing us to "think about > our thought". But the thoughts always precede the words. And they persist as > thoughts without words until we find the words. > > What you call "the embryo of a thought" is merely a STAGE of thought. Calling > a notion an "embryo of a thought" suggests it's not a thought yet. But it is. > It may change, but it's equally a thought at every stage. > > To say that "THE" thought "emerges" is wrong. It is merely succeeded by > another thought. In physics, string theory has changed and changed, and now it > seems about to die. But most thinkers would say it was a thought at every > stage. > > You say: > "'Crime and Punishment' is in a sense just one thought - which needed all > those words to fully reveal itself. Dostoyevsky was not writing down a > pre-thought 'language-less' idea - like an amanuensis putting someone else's > ideas on > paper. He was exploring - discovering - his thought, as he wrote." > > I think Dostoievsky would rebel at your assertion 'C&P' is "just one > thought". And I guarantee that, at each turn, his notion of what he wanted the > next > sentence, or scene, or the whole novel to "say" preceded his choosing the > words > to say it. > > Writing down an "a pre-thought (i.e. already-thought) 'language-less' idea" > is precisely what Dos was doing. His thought did not "need words to reveal > itself" -- maybe to readers, but not to Dos. You mistake his THINKING UP THE > WORDS > to "say" the thoughts FOR THINKING UP THE THOUGHTS he wanted to say. How > conceivably could he be searching for words unless he already knew what he > wanted them to say? > > Again: finding the right words forces us to focus on the thought, and > sometimes that makes us refine or alter the thought. It can make us "think > about our > thought", but we won't choose the final words until after we've decided the > thought finally. > > I am into the dictionary and thesaurus perhaps ten times a day, even at my > age. I do it because I have a fairly firm grip on a notion, and I want to find > the most serviceable words to "say" it. I can try literally dozens of > sentences > to articulate a notion I have in mind -- and throw them all out because I > realize each of them fails to put into words the notion I have in mind. > > Derek concludes with:
