Hi, Dan Glover -
Yes, but Michael... there are different ways of "knowing" without verbal
cognition.
* nods, enthusiastically *
I'm not attached to "knowing," though. I see consciousness as a subjective
field whereby we're in touch with an objective field. There are solid stuffs
in the subjective field and the objective field, and non-solid stuffs in in
the subjective field and the objective field. Some of each kinds of stuffs
move, and some of each kinds of stuffs are still. The felt body, the soma,
is the magic meeting point of it all. Knowing is awfully important - without
knowing, I wouldn't have this nice computer to type to you on. But it's not
all there is to consciousness.
What I worry about is getting caught into reducing awareness to verbal
knowing, or finding verbal knowing the crowning form of awareness such that
other things get neglected. I want to make sure the stuff behind, below, and
around verbal knowing get nourished. I came on this list shaking a fist
against perceived starkness - thanks for hearing me out. : )
Understanding that still requires interpretation though, just as the
people who understood what Horowitz meant by making non-verbal sounds.
Well ... understanding in what sense? Are we not coming close to a
circularity - if knowing is verbal knowing, then verbal knowing is verbal
knowing?
Otherwise, it is just noise.
No?
No! * laughter * Mu!
MRB
http://www.fuguewriter.com
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
