News Reader.info

UNDERSTANDING FACULTY OF THINKING René Descartes, concluding his epistemological research on doubt, said, “I think, therefore I am” (Latin: _cogito, ergo sum_). The statement is so loaded.

From the theological critique, the statement embodies Cartesian rationalist reductionism. Nevertheless, in Descartes _substance_ argument; that which has properties, the content of the

statement stands valid. Let me use another expression to prove it. Man is the central axis of creation, at least from the Islamic theological standpoint. Inferring, rest of the creation is

linked to man through the horizontal “principle of subservience” (Arabic: _taskhir_). And, analogically, inside man’s own solar system, “faculty of thinking”; inherent ability to produce

thought, judgement, and decision, holds the central axis. Like sun – sun dominates solar system gravitationally – everything is subservient to it. There is a popular notion that humans are

superior beings, as compared to other beings, by virtue of knowledge. Nevertheless, we must be cognisant of the fact that man’s “attribute of knowledge” is directly dependent on the “faculty

of thinking”. The relation between the two has three fundamental dimensions. First, knowledge is allowed, assessed and accepted by “faculty of thinking”. Second, knowledge production

process is controlled by “faculty of thinking”. And, third, application and communication of knowledge is determined by “faculty of thinking”. Arguably, man’s superiority doesn’t lie in his

‘attribute of knowledge”. Rather, it is the “faculty of thinking” that makes him uniquely different. Remember! We are talking in horizontal terms. Vertical equation has its own referencing

method. So far all I said is about the inherent “faculty of thinking”. Now, we will talk about the “thinking process”; the interactive function of “faculty of thinking”. The “thinking

process” has a universal engagement; allowing followed by responding. Responses come in the binary opposites namely acceptation and rejection. At this critical juncture, we get ideologised

by either totally accepting or totally rejecting. The “thinking process” is infused with “thought waves” stemming from the _external_ “thinking patterns”; the entangled web of socialized

structures of thinking. As a result, thinking either becomes constructive (i.e. positive) or destructive (i.e. negative). Since we are talking about the _organic_ state of “thinking

process”, let me submit categorically, there is nothing called “in-between-the-two”. There is nothing _neutral_ by definition. Why? The answer is: because the “thinking process” won’t happen

if there is no interaction _with_ intention. Let’s explain it by way of putting an equation namely the equation of justice. Let’s assume a situation with X and Y conditions. X condition

represents “oppressor” and Y condition represents “oppressed”. In this situation, if someone claims to stand _neutral_ such claim is profoundly mistaken. The equation of justice has a core

operative principle that neutrality complements X over Y. Neutrality transmits the vibe of affirmation, silently empowering X over Y. Remember! X is “oppressor”, which means _neutrality_

brings you on the side of “oppressor”. We won’t detail the “grey shades”; manifesting human interests of different kinds, here. Precisely, “grey shades”, the way we; intentional agencies,

define them, aren’t necessarily good always. THINKING IS INTENTIONAL The claim to _think_ without being influenced by the _external_ “thinking patterns” is like claiming _life_ without

oxygen, which is never possible. The “thinking process” is basically the result of diverse interactions with the _external_ “thinking patterns”. It is here where the _subjectivity_; agency

of _internal_ “thinking pattern”, comes into play. This can be better understood through Husserlian phenomenology. At different stages of life and in different contexts, we develop different

_internal_ “thinking patterns” after interacting with the different _external_ “thinking patterns”. We apply the previous _internal_ “thinking pattern” or the _subjective_ thinking

experience to accept (construct), reject (deconstruct) or reform (reconstruct) the new _external_ “thinking patterns”. The interaction starts from the _organic_ level or call it level zero.

At level zero, when we are new born kids, we are totally organic. We reflect the basic character of our “faculty of thinking” in terms of pure acceptation and rejection. At level one, family

acts as the first _external_ ‘thinking pattern”. We start learning about those “thoughts” which fall under the “grey shades”; the space between acceptation and rejection. At level two,

school acts as the second _external_ ‘thinking pattern”. But, until now we have had already developed level one _internal_ “thinking pattern”. That means; while interacting with level two

_external_ “thinking pattern”, we take reference from the level one _internal_ “thinking pattern”. In definition we become subjective; agency applying previous judgments vis-à-vis

acceptation or rejection. Nevertheless, we are conditioned through regular experiencing of the conditions of level two _external_ “thinking pattern”. Society is level three _external_

“thinking pattern”. It is highly diverse and deeply complex. Remember! By now, we have had already experienced two levels of _internal_ “thinking patterns”. That means; while interacting

with level three _external_ “thinking pattern”, we will take references from the experiences of level one and level two _internal_ “thinking patterns”. In society, the previous _internal_

“thinking patterns” are simultaneously accepted, rejected and reformed in _certain_ ways. That means, every next level of _internal_ “thinking pattern” carries some features from the

previous level/s. Absolute rejection: total disappearance of previous features, is very much exceptional. Nevertheless, the quantum of change, from one level to another level, depends upon

the two fundamental conditions. First, the dynamism of “thinking process”; i.e. one’s willingness to correct (reconstruction followed by deconstruction) _internal_ “thinking pattern”.

Second, convincing and controlling power of _external_ “thinking pattern”. In the society we get socialised and, eventually, develop level three _internal_ “thinking pattern”. The movement

from level to level is linear. ATTAINING PSEUDO-HARMONY The process of interaction between _internal_ “thinking pattern” and _external_ “thinking pattern” reaches to the point where we get

habitual to this experience. Seemingly, a state of pseudo-harmony between _external_ and _internal_ is achieved. Nevertheless, this pseudo-harmony is destructive in nature. In this

particular state, individual’s “thinking process” gets exhausted; allowing but incapable of assessing. The response is, let’s bring something from physics, two waves (_internal_–_external_)

are “in phase”; crest with crest and trough with trough. The collective moral, social and political landscape gets exhausted too. Both individual as well as collective gets habitualised.

Habitualisation leads to “cognitive distortions”. Frantz Fanon’s “cognitive dissonance” is one such distortion. From here we can trace the roots of decline of nations, cultures and

civilisations. Let’s refer to one practical example to support the argument. Today’s Muslim societies are dealing with serious crises. In my analysis, Muslim world’s _external_ “thinking

patterns” are predominantly characterised by the four major features. First, tendency to _blame_ external factors to celebrate self-defence. Second, tendency to make _pretexts_ to celebrate

self-perfection. Third, tendency to _compromise_ to celebrate self-interest. Fourth, tendency to pass _judgements_ to celebrate self-dominance. Majority of_ _Muslims living in these

_external_ “thinking patterns” have attained the state of pseudo-harmony. Results are quite obvious. Almost all Muslim societies are suffering from moral, intellectual and political, crises.

DEHABITUALISING THINKING Probably, by explaining the _external-internal_ interplay, we got the answer of the key question: how do we think? It is important because it defines the _content_

of our thoughts. It tells us what we _think_. The mechanism of thinking is clear now. If we seriously want to change the _content_ of our thinking, we have to start with breaking off the

pseudo-harmony between the _internal_ and _external_. And, that can be done through dehabitualisation. Dehabitualisation entails not just breaking the habitual thinking but transforming it.

In a simplest statement, dehabitualisation is to _think_ before we _think_ what we _think_. The process is: when we _think_; manifested through a thought, judgement or decision, we have to

take a pause and consciously question our “thinking process” in order to invigorate the “assessment agency”. The “assessment agency” differentiates human thinking from machine thinking. The

so-called intelligent machines, for example computers, also do some sort of assessment but in a fixed pattern. They don’t have agency to change the pattern. Humans are blessed with a far

superior conscious “assessment agency”. It can accept or reject even if the whole world does the otherwise. It has been blessed with the power to create, recreate and manipulate “thinking

patterns”. External factors can affect its function but it can’t be fixed. Nevertheless, when the “thinking process” gets habitualised, the “assessment agency” too becomes habitual of its

function. Its function is reduced to “repeat” button. Therefore, to stop the repetitive functioning, it is important to press the “stop” button. Pressing the “stop” button is a conscious

act. Humans can do that conscious act but machines can’t. Let me explain it further by way of analogy. We all are familiar with the driving rule sign-boards. We all know that _green_ is for

“go and safe”. Now imagine, you are driving on highway and you saw a green sign-board. Since you are habitual with green indicates “go and safe”, you don’t pay “conscious” attention on the

inscribed SIGN. The board had STOP sign but you continued driving and ended up paying fine for breaking the rule. This hypothetical incident exemplifies habitualisation; pseudo-harmony

between _internal_–_external_. What happened actually, your habitualised experience overpassed the “assessment agency” and distorted the nature of reality. It is exactly like “judging a book

by its cover”. Similarly, in the journey of “thinking process”, we come across different sign-boards in the form of “thinking patterns”. Before we accept or reject them, we have to let them

pass through our conscious “assessment agency”. This is a moment to moment activity and needs your conscious presence at every moment. The loss of conscious presence at any moment means

impeding the function of “assessment agency” and beginning of habitualisation process. When we pause and read the SIGN, otherwise overshadowed by the colour, we trigger the conscious

“assessment agency” to guide our decision making. We will stop the car, which is exercising positive decision. The positive decision has positive implications. Simply, we followed the rule

and avoided fine. In the concluding lines, I would say that the idea of dehabitualisation is close to Nursi’s _mana-i harfi_ (other-indicative) approach. According to Said Nursi, by looking

at situations from _mana-i harfi_ approach we are able to uncover the inner dynamics and experience the reality. Similarly, dehabitualisation means to break off the habitual experience and

attain the true harmony between the _internal-external_. Through dehabitualisation approach, we are able to deconstruct the problematic _external_ “thinking patterns” and reconstruct the

_internal_ “thinking patterns”. BILAL A. MALIK WORKS WITH 5D-THINKING. _Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts,

analysis, assumptions and perspective appearing in the article do not reflect the views of GK._