I have been asked several times during my life whether I think in “words or pictures”, or “in black and white, or color”. I have always found these to be intriguing questions, because they imply that at least some other people out there think in either words or pictures, and if in pictures, some think in black and white, while others think in color. I have never been able to give a satisfactory answer to either of these questions because none of the options seem to describe how thought works for me. I wonder sometimes whether this is because I think differently than the folks who invented these questions, or whether the questions merely represent seriously flawed thinking on the subject of thought. All of which is more or less irrelevant to practical everyday life, since we cannot experience what goes on in other people’s heads to compare. However, the questions have given me opportunity to ponder the nature of thought, which can itself be an interesting exercise.
I have not come to any earth-shattering conclusions, of course, but in thinking about thinking, I would have to say that rather than thinking in words and/or pictures, I tend to think in clusters and connections. The clusters are formed of little bits of related data–words, pictures, sounds, tastes, textures, temperatures, scents, pressures, emotions and other things for which I do not have words. When I think of a thing, the amount of its cluster that comes to the forefront of thought depends on how focused I am on that thing. A passing thought of an “apple”, to take an example, might bring up the way the word sounds, a generic visual representation, the crunch of biting into a good apple, and the way an apple smells. Focusing on apples would bring additional bits of the “cluster” relating to apples–varieties of apples, apple trees with their roots reaching down into the earth and conducting life into the fruit, things apples are used for and made into, quotes relating to apples (”an apple a day keeps the doctor away”), and lot of other tidbits relating to apples. The more I focus on any one part of the cluster, the deeper and richer the detail. Describing a cluster like this in words is dicey, completely inadequate, and takes far, far too long. I’m not sure how to do it. It’s like a picture being worth a thousand words, only different and on a much denser scale. At any rate, each of these clusters also has multitudes of connections linking it to other clusters. The connections are each different, a different weight, thickness, intensity, texture….something. And each carries something that is a little like a tonal pitch. I dunno…I write it out and it looks kind of irrational…lol. Nonetheless, there it is. Clusters and connections. New information forms into new clusters or gets absorbed into existing ones. New information also triggers new connections, both between the new bits, and between new and old bits, coiling out and winding amongst the clusters, or snapping taut from here to there with a magnetic sort of twang. Not that space or distance is at all relevant. Huh…hard to describe. And sometimes bits of information that have been floating around in the back of my mind for years and years suddenly bump into each other and spark a new connection.
All of which is to say, in the random sort of way I’m feeling today, and with very much more personal detail than anyone wants to know about me I’m sure, that I made a new connection just the other day that has really gotten me noticing things in a new way, now and then. I am not sure yet how to put it into words, but I’m going to try because sometimes condensing things into words and sentences helps me sort out the clusters and clarify the connections.
I have been doing a bit of reading recently, in preparation for next year’s earth and space science course. The passage I was reading was about the formation, life cycle, and final destiny of stars. There’s a lot of interesting stuff there, I must say, but the thing that has me pondering life was a small bit in which the writer pointed out that a star can only exist when two tremendous opposing forces are operating in the proper balance.
A star forms in a nebula, which is an immense cloud of dust, debris, and gases (mostly molecular hydrogen) floating around out in space. Something (scientists are not yet certain what, but likely a shockwave from a supernova or the gravity of a passing galaxy or black hole) causes a part of the dust and gases to clump together. If the mass of the clump is sufficient, the gravitational force it generates causes the material to begin to collapse into itself, getting denser and denser (and rounder, incidentally). But as the density of the stuff increases, hydrogen atoms begin colliding at pressures that cause their nuclei to fuse together to form helium atoms, which results in the release of subatomic particles, and in the conversion of a minute amount of matter into a tremendous amount of energy. This happens over and over and over within the star, as lighter elements are converted into heavier ones over the life of the star. The explosive expansive force generated by the nuclear fusion reactions within the star balance the force of gravity so that as gravity pulls the material in toward the center of the star, nuclear explosions simultaneously force the material outward. It is the opposition between these two immense forces that causes the star to be able to achieve a form of stability in which it will remain at a consistent size and level of energy output for hundreds of millions, if not billions of years. If the gravity is not sufficient to counter the nuclear fusion force, the mass flies apart in a huge explosion and turns into a cloud of cosmic dust and debris. If the amount of fuel for nuclear fusion is insufficient to counteract the pull of gravity, the material collapses into a cold, dark, inert body. A star can only be a star, a self-luminous celestial body that generates its own energy, when the two forces are operating within it in proper balance.
Also of interest is the fact that life as we know it on earth–from minute bacteria to the great blue whale–is powered by the energy from our star, the sun. That’s a whole other complex and fascinating subject, but right now we’ll just leave it at that. Life is only possible when these two opposing forces are properly balanced, and when the power generated through that balance is effectively utilized.
It occurs to me also that both gravity and nuclear fusion exist independent of the star. They are present in the star because of the conditions in which the star was formed, but they did not come into being when the star was formed, rather they helped to shape the star. Further, it occurs to me that gravity and nuclear fusion both operate in a set, consistent way, according to previously established natural “laws”. An energy-generating, life-powering balance can only be found within the star because these two forces consistently operate according to these timeless, unchanging natural “laws”.
And this is the point at which something back in the mish-mashy conglomerate of clusters and connections within my mind rolled over and thrust out a new shoot that flipped around and stuck to something else waaaaay over on the other side somewhere in the “religion” super-cluster. It’s still in the process of forming connections and sub-connections and sending shoots out to other clusters, and I’m not sure what the end result will be once it all settles back down again, but I am finding a distracting number of connections associating the idea of balance between opposing forces in stellar celestial bodies, and a well-known (to LDS persons) passage in 1 Nephi in the Book of Mormon:
For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God. And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
“It must needs be that there is an opposition in all things.” Hmmm……