The Knife of Thought
Confessions of a wannabe Non-Entity
“I think X”.
Whenever one thinks of something (e.g. X = “I had a good breakfast”), one cuts the universe into two parallel universes.
1. The universe where breakfast was good
2. The universe where breakfast was not good
In the simplest of cases (e.g. “I think 1 + 2 = 3”), one or the other might be true. But in most cases, one or the other, or both or neither might be true.
Hence, the process of ones thought “cuts” the universe into two parts, and disposes of one in favour of the other. In a sense, it shrinks (or narrows) ones universe.
Example: Cogito Ergo Sum (René Descartes)
“I think, therefore I am”
This statement should actually be, “I think, I think, therefore I think I am” — because it is the same thought process that supposes “I am” — not some other, absolute, independent logic.
There are at least two cuts happening here.
1. Cutting the universe into one where 1.1) René thinks, and 1.2) René does not think
2. Cutting the universe into one where 2.1) René is, and 2.2) René isn’t.
Hence, the universe is cut into four parallel universes, of which one is favoured, while discarding three. Note, the world where “René is, but does not think” (whatever that means) is also discarded.
[Note, this process need not stop here. “I think, I think X” could be expanded to “I think, I think, I think X” and so on. Hence, the fallacy of Descartes and the fallacy of thought is this innate recurssiveness. This “thought” would never conclude anything.]
Binary Logic
Thought is bound to binary logic. For a cut to be successful, the negation of thought (E.g. “I did not have a good breakfast”) has to be completely discarded. The possibility of the thought and its negation co-existing is not possible.
Before “I thought”, the universe could have accommodate both “good breakfast” and “not good breakfast”, or even neither. But not after thought.
Binary logic is dangerous because it misleadingly implies that the thought and its negation are somehow equal in volume and scope. Too often we only understand one (thought) and assume that the other (the negation of thought) can be understood completely through thought.
For example, when we say “He is a terrorist”, we assume that this thought is completely sufficient to explain the world. We are happy to reinvent the world to match our thought. We don’t stop to think of the implications of “He is not a terrorist” and the implications that might have at also explaining the world.
Hence, when we choose “to think”, we choose to identify with a simplification of the world. Too often, we call this simplification “knowledge” (and sometimes other things like “belief”). Somehow the respectability and profoundness of words like “knowledge”, seems to confer some respect to our thoughts. However, this is misleading. Whenever we choose to identify with knowledge, we are choosing to identify with a simplification.
Identity
Identities like religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender etc, all require thought. I have to think I am a Buddhist or Sinhala. Without this thought, it does not “occur” naturally. I don’t “feel” my identity the way I see, or hear, or smell, or feel.
Hence, all forms of identities are also cuts of thought. When I say “I am a Hindu”, I’m actually saying “I think, I am a Hindu”. There is no other way of making sense of the phrase (I think). The universe is cut (and shrunk) into one where “I am a Hindu” — the remainder (in my mind) is discarded.
Non-Identity
To belong to an identity, we need “to think” certain things. For example, the Catholic Apostles’ Creed has a set of beliefs starting with “I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.”.
[The line between knowledge and belief is a fine one, and for the purpose of this article — they are one and the same]
Whether it is the Catholic religion, or any other identity, we choose to identify with knowledge (or one of its many equivalents, like belief). What if we could identify with everything that we don’t know instead?
Such an identification cannot be expressed in a creed, or set of rules, or theorems, because if it could be, it would itself become knowledge or belief. Hence, this “Non-Identity” consists of an openness of mind to everything that is not known — which is (rounded for practicality) 100% of the universe.
A Non-Entity’s creed
1. I will think as little as possible (most thought is useless anyway)
2. When I do think, the thought process will be governed by loving kindness, compassion, empathy, and equanimity.
3. When I do think, I will not “identify” with that thought. I.e. it’s a thought. Not “me”.
Update 5/31/2019: On the inclusion of Buddhist Values
“2. When I do think, the thought process will be governed by loving kindness, compassion, empathy, and equanimity.”
When I first wrote this, I too was aware that the unexplained inclusion of “Buddhist Values” would be somewhat jarring. I was also aware that I was not writing down what I intuitively wanted to convey. Hence, I spent some time contemplating this point, and have come to a slightly different conclusion.
I started with trying to understand the relationship between “thinking” and these “buddhist values” which are also known as the Brahmavihara [1]. The all seemed to follow from the Buddhist “three marks of existence”[2], namely impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-self. For example, the realisation of non-self helps one realise that all other beings as are ones self, leading to unlimited loving kindness. An appreciation for another beings impermanence and unsatisfactoriness leads to compassion. Empathy and Equanimity are similarly driven by a realisation of a combination of these makes.
The key connection with “The Knife of Thought” is as follows: Not to realise impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-self, necessarily requires thought. For example, to identify with self, requires thinking about a “me”; to see something as permanent is an assumption of thought, as is the assumption of satisfactoriness. Freeing oneself of thought necessary frees one from ignorance of the marks, and whatever remains would be consistent with loving kindness, compassion, empathy, and equanimity.
Hence, I should have said:
“2. When I do think, I will be mindful of any thoughts which oppose loving kindness, compassion, empathy, and equanimity.”
