> Ian wrote:
>
> "Critical thought, free thought and independent thought, as used in the
> thread all seem to presuppose the unproblematic referential univocity of
> the term *thought*. One need not be an eliminative materialist to assert
> there are serious problems with the presupposition. "
>
> Well, you tell me. If you take thought to be that unending blather that
> goes on in your noggin, show me how it is anything other than the trace
> of your conditioning or a reaction to that conditioning. Either way,
> unfree.
>
> Not useless, mind you, just limited. And it is best if we are aware of
> those limitations.
>
> Joanna
===============
I wasn't alluding to whether the stochastic storm of neurochatter was critical or free or independent, I was just questioning the presupposition as to we can even get a decent, coherent and agreed upon definition/explication of thought as a term of reference or whether it's yet another interminably contestable term. I for one reject Heidegger's attempted project on the issues [and Descartes' and Hegel's and...] and am simply wondering while sharing sentences with the readers on/of the list.
Ian