From: Ilya Korobkov (korobkov_ilya@mail.ru)
Date: Wed Aug 11 2004 - 14:01:28 BST
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 11 2004 - 14:37:51 BST