think versus thought 6/10/15

In terms of time, it would appear that I am splitting very fine hairs but seriously, I mean to say that there is a vast chasm between the procedural mechanics of think and the ritualized recognition retrieval patterns of thought. While there is an assumption that thought is the past tense of think in its experiential receivership, I do not perceive that to be so. The skill sets are amazingly different for think although not as accessible as those that there are for thought. The time elements involved are very small but the activity in articulation for think is very different than it is in the summation of thought. I imagine that think has a different origin then thought. Thought is a culturally developed process with massive socially assigned methods in its full development and these cultures of the world are highly focused on retrieval with those techniques. For me, the premise is that think is pre-content while thought is post-content. Think, during the course of one’s life, is exposed to a set of assumptions and a correctness in supplying thought with the results it gets for thought. Think is subjected to these results, justification and accounts. Think is also vulnerable to the stampede or overrun that comes from memories. Think can eventually succumb or be strongly stifled by the thick forest of comparative truth ever consciously at hand. Think, in its absence of thought, struggles at the cutting edge of inquisitiveness and curiosity, committed to leap into an unknown void and yet eventually yields to all the techniques of thought that tend to over run and preoccupy one’s awareness within familiarity. Think, on its own, can feature void, vastness, unfoundedness, pre-identification, emptiness, unquantified, and unclaimable vagaries of perception. There is a seemingly internal pressure in consciousness to submit to conclusions and or a clarity that resides in cognition as is represented by words and familiarity. Yet fresh thought is prized by audiences with imprinting approval. Think actually has no rewards of that nature in mind. Think is potentially open to a grander scope or dimensional range than common sense retrieval provides. Think has venues that result in intuition, or in telepathic or inter-species communication, or even subtler sentient awarenesses then thought is prepared to have committed to words in logical or common sense ways. The initial training of think is generally in the form of familiarity, reductionism and a logical sense that is already enculturated and therefore becomes the method of teachings available on a daily ongoing experiential habitual basis. Consciousness does not go to think. Think is harvested into thought. Much of momentum of initial think is spent on efficiently getting to thought. Not that original think is not somewhat appreciated in special environments of interest or in-depth study. But usually it is already in a retrieval stage when acknowledged. How does one teach think when thought is the primary provider? When is think allowed that does not immediately suffer from self-elimination because of its apparent uselessness in the immediacy of rational account. What special environment would be necessary for think to be allowed? Everybody is really their own think-tank but few have ever realized or been appreciated for those efforts even by themselves. The warehouse of experience and its style of conscious existence will bury think from ever having a working presence unless there is a cutting edge of curiosity and an attention span that thrives beyond the virtuosity of conclusions and the steadfastness of answers. Think versus thought, and think is so vastly invisible in the presence of the elocution of thought . . .