Chuck,

Those are good questions. I'm afraid I don't have a great explanation of 'circular' thought processes as it relates to ancient Hebrew thought or Native American thought. That's partly why I said, "Please don't dwell on that analogy too long, or try to take it to far." But it is probably worth exploring.

I'm not sure that type of 'circular' as opposed to 'linear' thought is the same thing as 'circular' reasoning, but they may be related, so I think we can start there. Circular reasoning is basically when you assume your conclusion is true in one of your premises, and use that to prove your conclusion. As an informal logical fallacy it is known as 'begging the question.' But we think of circular arguments as 'fallacious' and don't give them the credit they are due. It isn't without merit, sometimes, to have a circular argument because it can show that your position is consistent, or it can help you restate your conclusion in another way, which might help someone else understand your position better. Where a circular argument falls short is when you are claiming to 'prove' that your position is true by way of a circular argument.

Here's a real life example of circular reasoning:

"The healthcare system in the US is not as good as in other countries because it is not socialized. Therefore, since socialized medicine is better, the US should change it's healthcare system to be more like other countries."

The World Health Organization actually does this. They rate the US low for it's health care and claim to show the US needs to become more socialized. But the rating process is designed to give high marks for socialized systems and low marks for those that aren't. So are they are really saying is, "We like socialized medicine!"

I'm not so sure the Greeks were purely linear in their thinking. I think they were more comprehensive than that. The fact that they consider 4 causes instead of 1 or 2 is an example. Linear thinking shows up both in logical progressions and cause and effect relationships. An example in cause and effect is 'cue stick strikes cue ball, which strikes another ball, which gets to a pocket, then is acted on by gravity...' The more comprehensive explanation of cause and effect would mention the intentions and purposes of an agent with a mind and a cue stick who has in mind some strategy (why did he hit that ball that direction), along with things like 'entertainment.'

So, a linear thought process is like a chain. Each proposition (in logic) or each event(physics) is just connected to the next like links in a chain. It's just 1-dimensional. Circular reasoning (whatever that is) might be like the chain looping around back on itself. It's 2-dimensional. But a more comprehensive process wouldn't involve just a chain with links, but each link being attached to links above and below it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Chain mail is a whole fabric made of links that support each other in many directions, and the fabric can be wrapped around and connected together to be 3D.

Here's an example using the ontological argument. Some people claim there is a circular nature to the argument because, so the argument goes, the only people who would agree that "It is possible that a greatest possible being exists," are people who are already prone to believe there is a God. So you are assuming what you are proving. But that's not true. There are an enormous number of other things in life that support the idea that God is at least possible. There are other arguments based on natural theology like the cosmological arguments, design arguments, moral law arguments, personal experiences of many people, historical arguments, etc, etc. All these things, and more, point to the fact that the existent of God is 'possible' at a minimum. So the ontological argument isn't really circular after all. The first premise is just one ring in the chain mail shirt that has support from several other rings.

There is no one point of view of reality that removes all doubt or all mystery. Whether you are a Christian, an atheist, a Hindu, Muslim, or whatever, there are going to be some difficulties at some level. For a Christian, the Trinity is a mystery and difficult to understand. As David Stove, the atheist who wrote Darwinian Fairytales, says, "Or rather, to tell the truth, it's "triune" God has been its Achilles' heel all along, and a perpetual source of scandal, ... to the countless sensible Christians who cannot help thinking that 3 and 1 are different numbers." The problem is that rejecting the Trinity causes countless other problems, and at the end of the day accepting that as a location of mystery, and recognizing that "3 in 1" is just a metaphor, answers far more than it brings into question. So the point isn't to have a system of thought that removes all doubt and questions, but one that answers things better than all the rest. Christian thought is a shirt of mail that has far fewer weak spots than any other. Besides, a good shirt has a few holes it for your head and arms. (Maybe that's what God means by 'holy'. Sorry, just a bad joke.)

I know my explanation of circular thought leaves something to be desired. If anyone else can explain that better please post it. Michal gave me a book for Christmas about a Norwegian commando who was hunted by the Nazis in WWII. He ended up escaping with the help of the Lapps, the reindeer herders in northern Scandinavia. They apparently also have a sort of circular way of thinking. When I get a chance I'll go back and look at that.

The more I think about it, maybe circular in this case just means, "not linear."