But can this instrument itself be examined? And from what "non" thought perspective can the credibility of thought be challenged? Surely if thought is very cognition itself, then by definition it's nature is opaque and a veritable mathematical limit to intelligence.
Superstition is "swallowing something whole", it's making straw dolls which we abracadabra into gods. Perhaps thought has become our species wide superstition. Perhaps other dimensions of intelligence are waiting for us to outgrow this foolishness.
Raising such questions is rocking the ultimate boat, but beginning at this beginning is the ONLY beginning since thought is the beginning of everything.
One way (the only way?) to avoid the infinite regression of thinking about thinking about thinking, etc., is simply to LOOK at the raw actuality of thought, i.e., minimize theory and analysis (those long arms of past/conditioning) and pay attention to the "origin" of thought.
Does thinking come from thinking? Do we think about what we think about before we think about it Said that way, it's obvious the answer is no, since the alternative is infinite regression.
But if we DON'T think about what we think about before we think about it, then "where does it come from"? And how do we answer such a question? Easy, we LOOK, we "find out", we directly experience reality process. So let's table the philosophers, forget the neurologists, and toss the paperback books. It's time to honor the miracle of untheoretical living.
And isn't it extraordinary that we keep forgetting (or ignoring) that the already ongoingness of being alive ISN'T theoretical? Certainly, we can (and do) get theoretical about the givenness of being alive, but that "about which" we're being theoretical is never ITSELF theoretical. None of this is hard to see. It's obvious. Theoretical living is a contradiction in terms.
However, thought equates reality with models, simulations, theories, and concepts. As opposed to what? As opposed to what all that theoretical jabber is jabbering ABOUT. Plus, there simply ISN'T any thinking about point of view from which to put reality into perspective.
Axiomatics is a subject from of the Foundations of Mathematics which consists of a set of axioms or postulates from which theorems are derived. Axioms are claims whose truths are (allegedly) self evident and proving a theorem is making explicit what's logically implicit in the axiom set. Mathematics is also strewn with undefined terms, e.g., the notion of a "point".
Thus, axiomatics can be seen as a formal microcosm of the human mind set -- a mind set which is our "living our life from place". Here are Kant's a priori modes and categories. Here are the alleged time and space absolutes seen through by Einstein -- who once said, "Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live." And most generally, here is the orient's "maya", which is the death of intelligence, the death of creativity, and the very Procrustean Bed of God (metaphor or otherwise).
Thought dominates our lives more than death or sex. It is our true Lord of lords. We are glimpsing a dimensional continent here it would take lifetimes to explore. No human institution/puppet is unanimated by the hand of thought. Even gods and I/myselfness are the creations of thought.
And yet thought's limitations are as close as the realization/discovery that thinking doesn't come from thinking. Thinking is the "coming into form" of that which is more real than thought. And just as waking up from a nightmare is the self experiencing of that which is more real than the nightmare, so can the delusional thought/flame of the human condition be "blown out" . . . a root meaning of nirvana.