From: MarshaV (marshalz@i-2000.com)
Date: Wed Aug 11 2004 - 16:19:44 BST
Ilya
My praise was for bringing to this discussion such a beautiful description
of FIRE. And making the example a Feminine point-of-view.
MarshaV
At 05:01 PM 8/11/2004 +0400, you wrote:
>Hi MarshaV, Joe, Chuck and all.
>
>
>MarshaV wrote:
>M> I don't recognize the gender of the name Ilya.
>M> If you're a woman, then: Bravo! Bravo!! Bravo!!!
>M> If not, still: Bravo! Bravo!! Bravo!!!
>
>Well, I am a little embarrassed, MarshaV. What have I done deserving
>your praise?
>I am a man, by the way :-)
>
>
>
>
>Chuck wrote:
>CR> Are you saying that when you're "coherent" you're not undifferentiatedly
>CR> conscious?
>
>Chuck, I am not sure what you mean by being not undifferentiatedly
>conscious. I wanted to say that when a person is coherent, there are
>no conscious "self", no inner observer, "homunculus" that is aware of
>what this person feels. You see? When a person is aware of what he
>feels it means split personality: one self that feels and the other
>that looks at the first. Coherence means that there are no split
>personality. You JUST feel, JUST see, JUST do what you do.
>
>
>
>
>CR> If I understand you correctly, "awareness" is something to be shunned or
>CR> transcended.
>
>Well, it depends on your purpose :-) I simply pointed to the root of
>awareness (as I see it).
>
>
>
>
>CR> "Undifferntiated consciousness," or "being" - without all the
>CR> arbitrary lines that have been drawn from Adam's initial labels on down
>CR> through history - isn't that the point? Stripping away that which divides
>CR> in an effort to understand unity or "coherence"? Is that not why we
>scratch
>CR> and claw at the side of the MOQ Everest, scaling rocky levels of
>CR> progressively higher Quality to eventually jam at the apogee and
>groove with
>CR> the cosmos? (or kosmos for any K.W. adherents in the house) I
>thought that
>CR> was "awareness" up there, among the frozen corpses and empty oxygen
>CR> cannisters.
>
>
>I am greatly perturbed at the way you seem to equate undifferentiated
>consciousness and awareness. Awareness means differentiatedness to me
>almost by definition. Maybe I don't understand something, Chuck?
>Language barrier may hinder understanding. (I am Russian.)
>
>
>
>
>CR> Someone around here asked: "who am I?" and then responded to himself,
>"who's
>CR> asking?" That's the whole enchilada for me. I think the answer is
>the guy
>CR> at the controls, behind the curtain. Whoever said that, by the way, I've
>CR> thought of little else since; thanks, I think. (Who thinks!?!)
>
>Chuck, may I recommend you a book? It is one of my favourites. (I have
>read it 3 or 4 times.) I hope you will find answers to many of your
>question there.
>
>"Nature, Man and Woman" by Alan W. Watts
>
>
>
>Wim wrote:
>WN> I meant the substitution of 'being open to Dynamic Quality' for
>WN> 'experiencing Dynamic pressure' as simply another way of describing
>the same
>WN> phenomenon that didn't require introduction of a new term ('Dynamic
>WN> pressure'). Another way would be to simply substitute 'Quality' for
>WN> 'pressure':
>
>Well, maybe you are right...
>
>
>
>
>WN> I realize now that 'openness to' indeed suggests an explanation for
>WN> 'experiencing', but I didn't mean to suggest that.
>
>I hoped you did.
>
>
>
>
>WN> You want to 'build a new scientific psycology based on MOQ
>assumptions' but
>WN> not 'slave to the MOQ'. You want 'both [to] take root from one common
>WN> ground'.
>WN> I would say that such an alternative psychology should take root in a MoQ
>WN> (possibly a slightly adapted version, because applying to new terrain may
>WN> make clear some needs for change), but not be fully determined by MoQ
>WN> assumptions: a new scientific discipline adds assumptions of its own.
>
>It seems to me, psychology don't necessarily need to be based on metaphysics.
>Metaphysics, as you said in your article, "is understood to mean our answers
>to three questions:
>1) How can we know? (epistemology)
>2) What can we know? (ontology)
>3) How can we know what we should do? (meta-ethics)"
>
>Psychology, on the other hand, have to consider these three questions:
>1) What do we have? (The possible answer is: experience.)
>2) What can we say about it? (How can we conceptualize it?)
>3) What can we do about it? (How can we become more happy, more
>harmonious and so on.)
>
>As you see, the questions are similar, but they are not the same.
>
>
>Best regards,
>Ilya
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archives:
>Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 11 2004 - 16:28:08 BST