Hello everyone On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Michael R. Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Dan: I tend to view the world (consciousness) as a collection of quality patterns. Physical patterns correspond to inorganic/biological patterns. We can examine these... put them under a microscope, look at them through a telescope.Non-physical patterns correspond to social/intellectual patterns. We cannot examine them under a microscope or look at them through a telescope. But these patterns are just as "real" as the physical patterns. When you say solid stuffs in the subjective field I think you are mistaken. And visa versa. At least so far as the MOQ goes... Michael: >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. Dan: Of course. >Michael: > 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. : ) Dan: As a writer, I am sure you're aware of the power of words. And it isn't just in the verbal knowing that the power resides, is it. That is really what good writing is all about... to be able to show others things that sometimes get neglected. If I could paint pictures with oils and water colors on canvas, I would. But I cannot. So I paint pages with words. But I am saying the same thing as the painter is saying. Only differently. >Dan: >> 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? Dan: There are different levels of understanding. Verbal knowing would seem to fall under intellectual understanding but non-verbal sounds would seem to be a more Dynamic form of understanding... something we all know but don't define. For me, the sound of drums at a pow wow drew me in until I was sitting in the circle drumming along... a stupid white man confronting a compelling force beyond his understanding. I smell a honky, the Indians would say. But they'd say it laughing so I laughed right along with them. >Dan: >> Otherwise, it is just noise. >> No? > > No! * laughter * Mu! Perhaps. Thank you, Dan 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
