Multi-level thinking stops where? How much is too much? What infinity has a boundary? Which universe ends? Once we sector space, give it map-like quadrants and demarcations, are the invisible lines (like latitudes and longitudes imposed on the ocean) observed by the asteroids now swimming fish-like and free? Or does my passage dip into Black Holes? Metaphor and Analogy and Simile and even Warhol keep one smiling. (Did you know he painted a Barbie?)
Ideals and ideas are marriageable. They create an ‘other-than-what-is’ quality that captures the music in one’s head. Ideas engender our sculpting from clay, help us make images (however idolatrous,) and let us materialize cathedrals and skyscrapers and fly-planes. We rose from watching shadows cross our Cave Wall to watching TV. And since time immemorial we've made certain our ideas are imposed upon others; or why do we have cultures, borders, rules, and an education system? Even these thoughts of mine, transcribed here, become but part of the loose-language meteorological swirl that may (or likely not) make itself concrete in your head. After all, my house is quite different from your house, as similar as both houses may “equally lay.” (Recall the Montagues and the Capulets?)
Thing is, if Unilevel Thinking keeps one focused on Things, and if two-dimensional-thinking has one preoccupied with Others, then multi-dimensional thinking, if predominant, may have one being very ‘verstroid’; or straw-minded. Yes? Too many variables become intangible. And tangential thoughts seldom stay on track. So much so that ideas, unsubstantiated and without seeming purpose, may become a psycho-neurosis. But “psychoneurosis is not an illness,” Dabrowski wrote. What it all really takes is allowing for each Other to exist (which best translates into ‘accepting’ each other’s existence.) Now there's an idea! (Or does that become ‘a practice’?)
What am I getting at? For each of us there is a limitation to the want to understand the ideas of another. (We even hope to understand our own ideas!) We struggle with political and religious differentiation in philosophies. We struggle with a definition’s leaving things unclear. We imagine and envision and expostulate and perceive. And we prefer fact, progression, clarity, and tangibles. (At least, even in this essay one presumes my readers are hoping for us much.) Yes, abstraction and multi-level-ness can obfuscate, confuse, and be-devil. To the devil with it all!
But not just yet! If I just read one more sentence, hear one more explanation, explore one more Bay, surely I might understand the map to the thoughts, the ideas, the topography of what may at times have been a startling journey!
Thing is, multilevel-thinking, since it is not necessarily linear (with an ‘if-this-then-that-and-it- follows-therefore’ formula) involves a multi-dimensionality that can be simultaneous. It easily allows for metaphor and simile and abstraction and falsehood and indecision and impurity and the obtuse, the inordinate, and the unclear too.
So what am I saying with all of this? I'm saying that multilevel-thinking cannot 'rest' at simply naming others inferior or mediocre or stupid or fools or even idiots; the very nature of the impermanence of action and thought and being and potential is too replete with moving atoms. (And now to check up what ‘replete’ means; or is that too concrete a necessity too?) Hm?journey?ghts, the ideas, the topography of thush defenitions thinking has one preoccupied with sed on the ocean journey?ghts, the ideas, the topography of thush defenitions thinking has one preoccupied with sed on the ocean journey?ghts, the ideas, the topography of thush defenitions thinking has one preoccupied with sed on the ocean journey?ghts, the ideas, the topography of thush defenitions thinking has one preoccupied with sed on the ocean