Internal monologue is actually more dialogical or multi-logical

I tend to 'correct' people on the board who mention internal dialogue, because at least the way we usually write it, it isn't a dialogue—it's a monologue. Dialogue means 2 people engaged in conversation.

I've long known that the actual process of inner thought is more like a dialogue than a true monologue, because it tends to be staged as a question and answer session, or sometimes a round table discussion I like to call Imaginal Dialogue (I know, still the wrong term—maybe multilogue would be better) where you imagine several people giving answers to your questions.

However, when we write the inner voice it's generally done in a monologue form, as if there are no questions being asked consciously and answers floating up intuitively from the unconscious, but just a single line of reasoning or thought.

Here's a fascinating discussion by 2 really smart guys about it, going into great depth. I haven't watched more than a couple minutes of it yet, I can't give a timestamp for where the relevant part of the discussion cuts off.



When these guys talk about "Propositional Logic" they seem to mean what I do by Materialism or Reductivist Rationalism, which try to understand everything strictly in terms of the physical.

Extra bonus points—the shelves over John Vervaeke's left shoulder are filled with books on Stoicism.

PS—the specific dialogue about internal dialogue only lasts a minute or 2, but it melds seamlessly and inextricably into one of the most fascinating discussions I've ever heard. It delves into many of my personal favorite subjects, like the necessity of separating creative thought and editing, and what religion actually means, which is completely different from the way modern reductive materialism characterizes it.