Was just reading up on some web page about thinking (more of a blog format):
I think fragmented sometimes, but its generally controlled. Looking at this example, I realize that my associative/fragmented thinking, in some ways, precedes my linear thinking.
Otherwise, with all concepts treated equally, how would I know to apply the “NOT” operation to the concept of “my homework”. I need to have mapped homework in some way prior meaningfully applying the concept of “NOT”. This begs the question of how I learned what “homework” was. I assume its an example of this same process - that just happened earlier in my life.
I could assume linear thinking only when reading the full example above, but upon hearing “NOT”, (strictly applying boolean logic), It might make sense to just ignore the remainder of the sentence (the homework). You have to have heard homework, and after the fact associated the word “NOT” with the remainder of the sentence in order to comply with the instruction.
This way of thinking - fragmented or associative thinking - seems to me to be a necessary prerequisite to the idea of applying “NOT” to a concept (and by extension, boolean logic, something very fundamental in computing, and philosophy)
I think that philosophers can sometimes get too hung up on applying this concept of “NOT” to their perceptions and thoughts. Another alternative to this, perhaps, is to allow some of the associative thinking, but disallow the association of “NOT” to the newly associated constructs.
This could present as noticing coincidences, or acting on your gut, or active decisions to associate two things one normally wouldn’t associate. I use this to help me. I have a dog that is a little overweight - I’ve associated the concept of “dog” with gluttony in my own mind, so that whenever I see or hear a dog, it reminds me to not over-indulge in whatever I’m doing, including my own thinking. I think this might be all too common with the idea of magical thinking en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking (but i am not certain).
Using this too much, however, could be a bad thing. Associating everything with everything else without some concept of “NOT” could be dangerous, perhaps schizophrenic.
If you are ever stuck in a rut, it might be a good idea to try something like this - freely associate two non-related things, or even to simply ask questions about a coincidence - it might give you a new perspective of the world. Just don’t go crazy doing it