Solomonick Abraham PhD (Israel)

PHILOSOPHY OF METATHINKING

This paper is concerned with one aspect of my worldview, the component I call
metathinking. Because this notion is part of a broader structure, I will begin my discus -
sion with a brief overview of my general approach, without which the reader would not
be able to fully understand what I mean by metathinking. After the overview, I will
present my ideas about metathinking itself.

My Weltanschauung
In my view, our world consists of three layers. Each of these layers is composed of
a different type of basic components, and is dealt with by a specific type of human
thoughts.

The first layer is that of ontology, which we usually call ontological reality. It in-
cludes the material substances that surround us, and our bodies themselves. Ontology
constitutes the primary layer of our world, and is the foundation of our whole existence.
Its basic components are all of the particles of the physical world and all of the natural
processes that involve them. In my system of thought, I call these basic components
things.

The material environment came into existence long before the advent and matura-
tion of humanity. Initially, it was built entirely through natural laws and processes that
were independent of our impact. When humans entered upon the stage of existence,
they began to actively accommodate themselves to their surroundings, in order to try to
make their lives more comfortable. At first, they did this instinctively, like all other living

1
creatures do to this day. Little by little, however, human physical and mental abilities im -
proved. They learned to decipher natural laws and to utilize them for their benefit, and
even began to introduce inventions.

When people began to exert their influence on ontological reality, it changed some-
what, but it still preserves most of its initial independence. The philosophers of ancient
Greece already distinguished between these two facets of ontological reality, calling the
part that has not been affected by human activity the first nature, and the part that has
been reconstructed by humans the second nature.

As individuals, however, humans were unable to achieve substantial benefits from

their activities; in order to make real progress they needed to cooperate with one an-
other. For this purpose, they began to develop languages. Initially, they only created
oral languages, but later they produced written ones as well.

Languages belong to the second layer of human experience, which I call semiotic
reality. The basic component of semiotic reality is the sign – an item that represents
some object other than itself. Every word a language contains is a sign. The science
that deals with signs is called semiotics. Semiotic reality is the collection of all of the
signs and sign-systems that have been invented by humanity in the course of its history.
In addition to languages, humans have also introduced many other types of signs and
sign-systems – mathematical systems, geographic systems, etc. Semiotic reality was
born in order to help people accommodate themselves to ontology, and it mirrors the
main features of ontological reality. Despite this, it is a sphere of our existence in its own
right; it has specific traits and laws of development, which must be formulated and ana-
lyzed separately from those of ontological reality.

The third layer of our world consists partly of thoughts, and partly of things and
signs based on these thoughts. I call this layer virtual reality, because it depends on our
imaginations and fantasies. In virtual reality, the imaginary and fantastic is somehow
transformed into components of the material world. The basic components of virtual re -
ality are virtual models.

2
 I distinguish between four types of virtual reality, based on the degree to which the
imaginary blends with the physical world in them:

a) Additions to ontology: This type of virtual reality is brought about by means

of devices, such as optical and other sensory simulators, that make us be-
lieve we are in surroundings that are different from our current environ-
ments, like various sorts of training devices. In this type of virtual reality,
the imaginary is blended with the physical to the greatest degree.

b) Additions to the semiotic world: This type of virtual reality is created by us-
ing our imaginations to add new elements to semiotic systems. Examples
of this are adding hypothetical taxons to a theory of human evolution, or
reaching a criminal verdict based on indirect evidence.

c) Mental reality with practical implications: This type of virtual reality consists
of imaginary items that impact on human life despite remaining essentially
make-believe, like crypto-currencies in modern finance.

d) Mental reality destined to always remain fantasies: This type of virtual real-
ity is a purely imaginary experience, like those generated by computerized
games, fantastic literature, and what we see in dreams. In this type of vir-
tual reality, the imaginary is only minimally blended with the physical.

The sphere of metathinking

Even the three layers of reality we discussed above do not encompass everything
in our world. What else is there, aside from all the components that we have already
enumerated? There is another mental capacity that comes into play as we attempt to
exert control over everything in the world that affects us. It is a special sphere of
thoughts that is responsible for all our interactions with the three layers of reality, and ul-
timately determines exactly what we will do in our efforts to solve our problems. I call
this sphere metathinking. A perfect example of something in the sphere of metathinking
is the work you are now reading, as will become clear in the rest of this paper.

3
 The following diagram illustrates my view of the world and its components, as they
are experienced by humans, and shows the centrality of metathinking in this scheme:

As you see, metathoughts are situated in the center of the diagram, and anchor
the three planes rotating around them (“things” in ontological reality, “signs” in semiotic
reality, and “virtual models” in virtual reality).

Properties of metathoughts
I am convinced that, among adults of normal intellectual abilities and development,
all thoughts merge two currents, one that relates to the meaning of the issue at hand,
and another that considers how best to express the thoughts that belong to the first cur-
rent. The thoughts that belong to the latter current are what I call metathoughts.

Metathoughts can be defined as thoughts about thoughts. They are governed by a

different set of rules from those that apply to what we might call “usual thoughts.” None-

4
theless, the two currents are glued together in the single, inseparable entity of thinking.
This type of thinking is characteristic of mature humans, and we implement it constantly,
both consciously and unconsciously.

We use metathinking in even the most ordinary of situations we encounter within

ontological reality. Imagine that you are walking down the street and are deep in the
most ingenious of reflections. Nonetheless, even as you do so, you are always in con-
trol of your behavior – namely, of your walking. There are two levels of this control: the
first level is your awareness of the direction, tempo, and other characteristics of the
process of your walking; the second level consists of your need to ensure your safety
during the process – making sure that you do not stumble, that you avoid collisions with
other passers-by, and the like.

Another, more complicated example of metathinking, relates to the deportments of

professionals working in their fields of expertise. We can immediately distinguish capa-
ble professionals from those who are not very adept, by observing how they prepare
their tools, whether they use them effectively and skillfully, and other aspects of their
outward behavior. Though both highly experienced and less experienced specialists
may perform the same actions, the results will differ because of the practitioners’ meta -
thinking habits, which are reflected in their bearings.

The same occurs in thinking about semiotic matters. Consider, for example, excel-
lent rhetoric, like oration in a courtroom or a well-crafted address at a meeting. Here too,
we can discern the difference between chaotic oratory and brilliantly constructed speech
– speech in which all the arguments follow one another convincingly and each one is
given its proper weight, place, and duration. This difference also lies in metathinking –
whether metathinking is used at all, and whether it is applied in each case cogently and
convincingly. The absence of correct metathinking is obvious in the conduct of children
and illiterate adults. In fact, we improve our use of metathinking throughout our lives,
because, aside from committing factual information to memory, we also internalize
habits and skills for dealing with that data under various conditions.

5
 Correlations between metathinking and regions of the human brain
It has been proven experimentally that the two mental currents of thinking correlate
with distinct functional regions in our brain. In the 1960s-1980s, a team from the I. M.
Sechenov Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry, in Leningrad, under-
took research on human brain functions using shock therapy. They neutralized one half
of the brain (the left or the right), while allowing the other half to work as usual. In this
way, they could see that different mental tasks were performed by each half of the
brain. They discovered that the right side of the brain was responsible for concrete
thinking, based mostly on visual patterns and concrete words, whereas the left side re-
lied on abstract, logic-based types of thinking.

This research shows that the division of thinking into two different compartments
has consistent physiological foundations. 1 Moreover, Vadim Deglin, who led the team,
also showed that the asymmetric functions of the halves of the brain are inherent only to
humans and are not found among animals. This fact lends additional support to my
comments in the next section.

Metathinking sets humans apart from animals and machines

The topic of human superiority over all kinds of animals and machinery is very pop-
ular among laymen and even among scientists. The question under consideration is
this: are we really superior in the world, and, if so, in what ways? My answer to this
question may be not conclusive, but I am taking a risk and proposing it anyway. I think
that it is metathinking that differentiates us from all other living creatures, as well as
from robots and other “intelligent” machines. It is our ability to think at one time on two
parallel planes, synchronously, that makes human beings the kings of the world, and al -
lows us to dominate our planet. And I do not believe our superior position on this earth
will be surpassed by other species in the future.

Our mind is so overwhelmingly sophisticated in this respect, that in nearly any type
of activity we undertake, as soon as we encounter the hint of a problem, we can re -
spond by changing course either partly or completely. This type of adjustment is not so
1
I am not providing references here because these sources are all in Russian. Readers who
know Russian can find the relevant sources on the Internet by searching for the key words Деглин
Вадим, асимметрия мозга.

6
easy to implement when an enterprise deals directly with the ontological world, because
ontology is by nature resistant to change. But, in semiotic reality, we make such modifi-
cations constantly. Think of it as akin to a lecturer writing formulas on a blackboard. At
any point, they can grab an eraser, wipe the board clean, and begin the process anew.
We do the same thing time and again in our mental efforts to formulate our ideas inter-
nally, as well as orally and in writing. (I am doing so now, as I write this paper.)

Metathinking has not been neglected by scientists in the various fields of know-
ledge, but it has been formulated in a somewhat different manner from my characteriza -
tion. In particular, we find it in linguistics; for what is syntax but another name for meta-
thinking? Syntax deals with the rules for correctly presenting words that represent ob-
jects in ontological, semiotic or virtual reality. Syntactic denotations also consist of
words, but these words have different types of meanings from those belonging to the
first group; whereas the words of the first category denote things from outside the lin-
guistic system, syntactic words denote things that are important for the proper use of
signs within the system.

In philology, we study syntax in order to learn the proper use of “meaningful”

words. But, the idea of syntax is only recognized nowadays as a feature of languages. I
believe the same functionality exists with regard to every thought that emerges in our
mind. It is for this phenomenon that I am introducing the term “metathinking.”

Metathinking on different levels of knowledge

Another quality of metathoughts is that they appear at various levels of delibera-
tion, whenever a person is working at those levels. Consider the process of writing a
paragraph in a composition. As you write, you have to think about how to build the para-
graph as a whole, which words to use, what sequence to use them in, and how to spell
them correctly. These are all different levels of metathinking, each of which requires you
to apply specific syntactic rules. And such rules abound for any type of pondering in
which you may indulge. In a word, metathinking is ubiquitous.

7
 Some implications of this notion of metathinking
The most notable implication of my conception of metathinking is that humans in
their current stage of development are destined to stand out in the world, to "have do-
minion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that
moves on the earth,” as the Bible puts it. This state of affairs will never change in the fu -
ture, and metathinking is, to some extent, responsible for this.

Another very important ramification of these ideas concerns the definition of philos-
ophy as a kind of science. There are scores, even hundreds, of definitions of philoso-
phy. They are all different, but they converge on one point: philosophy deals with the
most important matters in the universe. Still, nobody can definitively tell us what these
“most important matters” are. Do not physics, mathematics, economics, and political sci-
ence also handle “the most salient problems”? If we replace this part of the definition
with the statement that “philosophy deals with those matters that are expressed in meta-
thinking,” it becomes much clearer and more understandable.

The last, and most practical, implication is that every thought, wherever it appears,
not only includes a description of the issue at hand, but also follows certain rules that
are necessary in order for the thought to be clear and complete. This concept can be
applied to all forms of expression – oral, written, and every other form.

Let me conclude with one final reflection on this notion of metathinking. I think it
may prove fruitful to compare the dual nature of our thoughts, which is part of this the-
ory, with the scientific definition of light. For many years, the discussion about the nature
of light – whether it is corpuscular and behaves as particles, or it consists of waves –
continued. Nowadays, scientists agree that light has both of these facets, blended to-
gether; that light is both corpuscular and wavelike. In a similar way, our thoughts also
have qualities that, from time immemorial, were considered incompatible. On the one
hand, they are nonphysical in origin and are born within our brains, but, at the same
time, they can obtain physically tangible properties that enable them to interact with the
material world and change it in ways that are beneficial to us. These dual properties can
be realized because our thoughts have two layers – one that is geared more to the ma -
terial world, and one that looks after and controls the first half.

8
October 2018