Let us now consider the nature of thinking.
A Self can be doing something, or having something done to it. In logical terms it can be a subject or an object.
All thinking presupposes the existence of a subject, a being with some kind of awareness and mental activity who is doing the thinking. The subject exists in a world with other things that are not them.
The subject may never be certain of the ultimate nature of this world – it may not be as it appears to be – but there is something that is ‘not Self’. There is some kind of push back.
The world, however ultimately composed, consists of other subjects, who are presumably also thinking, and a range of different objects (including the other subjects from the point of view of the subject).
So what are the three possible kinds of thinking?
First, the subject can seek to remove the influence of their subjectivity on their thinking. They can deliberately seek to put aside the personal and emotional elements of their subjectivity as they engage in a search for an understanding of the objective nature of the world they are in.
They search for an objective truth. It does not matter if this search will be wholly successful or not: there does not have to be a proven objective truth to see that there is such a thing as objective thinking.
With objective thinking the particular features of the subject doing that thinking are of no interest or consequence whatsoever.
Second, it is possible to think in a way in which the subjectivity of the Self – its ‘story’, its emotions and preferences – is actively engaged. The subject is relating to the world. The world is perceived as object (or a series of objects) and the subject’s personal and emotional responses are engaged.
With this subjective thinking the particular features of the subject doing that thinking do matter. It is about ‘the world as it relates to me’.
An alternative name for this kind of thinking is emotional thinking. This highlights its difference from objective thinking and how the presence of the subject means that emotion is likely to be present, whether obviously expressed or not.
These names carry no value judgements. Subjective thinking is natural and normal – even a very ‘cerebral’ mathematician trying to solve a complicated logical conundrum is motivated by subjective thinking to want to make the effort.
They may take pride in solving a difficult problem, or find beauty in the harmony exposed by mathematical rules. Alternatively they may be afraid that if they cannot solve the problem a rival will do so and usurp their status. All kinds of emotions could be engaged!
There is a third kind of thinking.
With objective thinking there is a kind of ‘flow’ from the world to the subject who is recording the nature of the object (by measuring or reasoning). With subjective thinking the flow of information from the world is changed as it goes from the subject back to the world. The subject is responding to the world.
But sometimes the world answers back.
When a subject encounters another subject the thinking can change according to the response that is received – which in turn will then influence the next piece of communication.
The term I suggest for when the subject relates to another subject, who is in turn relating back to them, is inter-subjective thinking. The nature of the thinking can change moment to moment depending on the response (verbal and non-verbal) that is received. (A less technical sounding name is relational thinking.)
Of course I can treat another person as an object. I can worship them, despise them, use them, see them only as how they can be of service to me (eg for practical help or to improve my social status). In such a situation I am still engaging in subjective or objective thinking.
In everyday life our three kinds of thinking are intertwined, mixed together. It is not always obvious which of them we are engaged in.
It is time to unpick the three kinds of thinking in a little more detail.