[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[118]

Hi A,
I agree, language is for expressing one's awareness of things.  We turn the
awareness into thoughts and then into language.  Language is useful for
storing thoughts and for reawakening an awareness.  Kind of provide a tag.
 Awareness can also be brought forth without thoughts or language.  Music or
smell can do that.  I believe in Dutch what you term begreep (sp?) means
understand.  Andre would know.

In terms of control, that is a good one.  There are some so called spiritual
teachers that claim that very little is under our control.  This would
include Gurdjieff who was later followed by Ouspenski.  The claim by them is
that if you practice then a modicum of control can be had, but it takes
practice.  Gurdjieff was famous for startling his pupils to create this
awareness.

Others subscribe to more of the witness aspect of the mind that is outside
the brain.  It would seem that for personal meaning one would have to
consider some kind of free will since this also creates responsibility.  I
suppose it is all in what one finds meaningful.  Some are just adrift on a
carnival ride.

The use of microelectodes in the brain has been said to stimulate thoughts.
 Perhaps there is something controlling our thoughts, some beam from a
distant planet,

Mark

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Alexander Jarnroth <
alexander.jarnroth at comhem.se> wrote:

> Hello again Mark.
>
> I would, myself, term language a social pattern, in the spirit of
> semiotics.
> But of course, what language does, is often "expressing" intellectual
> patterns, but then language is nothing but a vehicle for these patterns.
> Sometimes you know what you wish to say, but you don't really know how to
> express it to get it right. Perhaps you finish by saying "But you know what
> I mean, don't you? And you know me, you know I would never say something
> like THAT" (and then pointing to some particular interpretation).
> But often, when you can't express a thought, in your own mind, you don't
> really have a "grasp" of the thought. As I mentioned earlier, the word used
> in Swedish and German is "begrepp"/"begriff" and the word being
> "begripa"/"begriffen". This root grepp/griff is semantically and
> etymologically the same as "grasp" and "grab". A "begriff" is a "term" or a
> "concept". So you can't really get hold on a thought which you can't
> express. But when you don't know how to express it, you can't really force
> yourself to. It's first when suddenly your mind tells you - that you know.
> And it could tell you anytime.
>
> One interesting thing concerning consciousness, is: can it control anything
> going on in the mind at all, or is just passive? I'm not at all sure about
> this. Sometimes I think "Yes, like a governor in a cybernetic feedback
> control system" - but sometimes not "No, it's just a passive beholder".
>
> /A
>
>
>
> 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
>