Claudio: There is a big IS and and standardized word thought adequately expresses it. So stay away from recombining and connecting word meanings because they will lead to confusion, subjective experience of "your own" meanings, and thus limited vision. Stay with the established meaning units to get bigger picture.
Odd how people can arrive at the same conclusion with different routes isn't it?
These are not conclusions. You altered the words I wrote. You are doing what I was mentioning. You are creating this, I didn't write that, that way. Also, words are descriptions of thoughts. You cannot get the exact thoughts from the words.
Will: In fact maybe both could work, depending on the approach, eh? But I seriously see and feel a habituation scenario going on with word meaning that can be worked with. Too many pat, tacit meanings. Not a problem if you're not prone to that, and Claudio you're probably reasonably free thinking. But still, THERE IT IS. What we need is a much better balance of the current "states of meaning" and a readily evolving, provisional approach. Just the awareness itself that word thought is provisional and in process is all that's really needed.
Will: New thought forms on its own if given adequate freedom. It's not necessarily consciously invented. Poetry is word art and it could help massage your mind out of old patterns. But its not poetry per se that I'm talking about at all.
Claudio: Actually I liked what you wrote: "New thought forms on its own if given adequate freedom". This is a key in NPMR exploration and I use this a lot. It is curious that I consider myself very analytical. I actually like being analytical, but at the same time while in NPMR I am very free and super creative. I can create super beautiful art. I didn't know how artistically good I was able to be when practicing that in NPMR.
I gotta say, "subjective component" has to go. Subjectivity is, if anything, an angle, a viewpoint, a self-relational state, not a component. There is no point where "subjectivity" ends and "objectivity" starts.
It can also be a component if you analyze the structure of Consciousness. Subjectivity can be analyzed (potentially) with great detail (complying with my toe being MBT). If everything is information, subjective information is a subset of an IUOC that is interpreted information. That subset can be studied in great detail. In MBT model you can separate where "subjectivity" starts and ends and "objectivity" starts and ends.
Again, like some people like to say: "Don't confuse the map with the territory". We may not be capable right now of determining a separation, but it is potentially possible. At our present evolution it is hard for us to do it but I can notice some improvement that can be achieved by practicing NPMR accessing. I think it is also a characteristic of more advanced beings to be able to better distinguish "objective components" from "subjective components". I think Tom is way more capable of doing this than me, but eventually we may get there. If a kid sees the world in a certain way it is the kid's version of the world. Aren't we in a kindergarten school? The fact that our capabilities are limited does not mean that some things are not possible.