[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

Sat Nov 21 11:59:50 PST 2009

Hi Marsha,
Thank you for the interest.  I was into Buddhism back in college,
at the same time I was reading ZAMM for the first time, over 30
years ago.  I traded Buddhims for Taoism since it seemed more intuitive
(to me), then I got into physics with the help of the Tao of Physiscs.
>From there I became enchanted with science and its applications
to metaphysics.  I became intoxicated with the possibilities and
became lost in science, ultimately pursuing the almighty dollar.
My first graduate studies were in studying the biochemistry of
the brain, again purely for philosophical reasons.

I was taken by ZAMM since it had so much in common with what
I was thinking at the time.  It was kind of a synthesis and brought new
ideas.  Now that I am back, I still have some difficulties with it
from a broad perspective, and from some smaller contradictions
with my observations.  However, that is purely from a 
viewpoint of interpretation by my brain.

Buddhism is great, except that it takes a lot of discipline
and cannot be grasped as a side project.  There are a
variety of other philosophies from the East that also work
for me.  MoQ is a Western branch of such things, heavily
dependent on current science for its depiction and dispersion.
That is not a flaw, simply a product of its time.  I can see
flaws in the underlying science, but realize that this is
only an expression of the emptiness (if you will).

Love your posts,
Mark

On Nov 20, 2009, at 9:36:02 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
From:   MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
Subject:    Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness
Date:   November 20, 2009 9:36:02 AM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

Greetings Mark,

I've never heard or read a Buddhist say that man is responsible for all
creatures. Never. Maybe they mean in the sense of caring and compassion.
This I have read and believe is right action. I think that caring is an
important part of the MoQ too. 

I have read many, many times, that within Buddhism there is no independent
self and no independent entities; that both self and objects are empty of
inherent existence. So I do not know what to say of your reading statements
stating otherwise. I see such a wonderful fit between Buddhism and the MoQ.
Conventional truth equating to static truth; Dynamic Quality equating to
Emptiness. My struggle to understand Emptiness helped me understand the
MoQ. At least I think I understand it, to a degree at least. I haven't
received a special MoQ Decoder Ring in the mail, though. It's a world-view
that seems the best available. So simple: unpatterned experience and
patterned experience. 

I learned to meditate many years ago through practicing yoga and visiting an
ashram in Pennsylvannia. I'd go as often as I could. Meditation is
important. It is from meditating that I first became aware that I could
watch my thoughts move through awareness. It was a mind-blowing
realization, and my thoughts were so stupid that it became easy not to pay
attention to them, at least to ignore many of them. Geez, I'm no genius
that's for sure. 

How long have you been interested in Buddhism?

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of markhsmit
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 1:25 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

Hi Marsha,

My understanding of Buddhism is that man is responsible for
all creatures great and small.  At least that is what the last
recognized Buddha said.  I don't think we are responsible,
in a divine sense, for them any more than they are for us.

Buddhism also speaks of us humans as being at the top
because we can self-reflect.  I think such self-reflection is
experienced at every level of existence.  We only know our
type.

I myself am no Buddhist, and of course interpret what I read and
hear through untrained sensibility.

Yes, meditation is pretty cool.

Mark

On Nov 19, 2009, at 8:39:41 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness
Date: November 19, 2009 8:39:41 PM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

Hi Mark,

I don't see Buddhism putting man on top, because there is no self in
Buddhism. Self and objects are not as we think, but are empty of inherent
existence. 

Yes of course, when you meet _a_ Buddha, kill him, but I think Buddha can
also mean the dharma. And maybe is another way of saying "kill all
intellectual patterns". I'm not a Buddhist, so I'm never quite sure that I'm
not talking nonsense when I state my understanding of their philosophy. I
do admire what I've read, tried to understand, and the emphasis on
meditation. 

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of markhsmit
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 9:05 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

Hi Marsha,
Thanks for your answer.  I am of the same persuasion, that is
patterns do not make patterns. My approach is that nothing exists
alone or separate.  Everything we are is due to everything around
us.  It is constant flux, and the body as defined is more of a
distraction than a reality.  Patterns make sense in the day to day
walk through life, but they disappear for me in the metaphysics.
The patterns described by MoQ are useful to convey an unpatterned
experience.  The way I see it, unpatterned experience is converted
to thoughts then to language then to thoughts in others and finally
in unpatterned experience in another.  The notion of hierarchies of
betterness does not necessarily give me the right experience.  Indeed
I do not think my intellect, as it were, if of great significance, and is
only a tool for exchanging the experience.

I think what you mean is when you meet a Buddha, kill him.  Better
yet, a Boddhisatva.  Buddhism is another philosophy that puts
man at the top of the ladder, something I can't quite fathom.

Cheers,
Mark

On Nov 18, 2009, at 1:10:52 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness
Date: November 18, 2009 1:10:52 AM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

Mark,

Is a pattern made by my brain? Are you asking if a pattern makes a pattern?

Your point is not my point, unless it's that when you meet the Buddha, kill
him. (English is wonderful for free verse poetry.) The nature of patterns
seems to evaporate into an empty everything, at least in my investigation.
How about you? If you're hot on the trail of the nature of patterns, what
are you finding? 

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of markhsmit
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:47 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

No problem Marsha.  My only point was that what you
choose to believe is no different from the God pattern.
I don't know if you find this offensive since I do not
know your relationship with the so called God pattern.
Obviously it brings up negative connotations.  So,
I'm fine with the categorization of experience into
patterned and unpatterned.

What is it that creates the pattern?  I think I know
what Ham's answer to this is.  Is this pattern
made by your brain?

Thanks,
Willblake2

On Nov 17, 2009, at 12:01:08 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness
Date: November 17, 2009 12:01:08 AM PST
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Willblake2,

Embrace the God-pattern if you choose. I will not argue against your
decision, but neither will I support it. I reject it, and have explained
that for me the concept of God is not meaningful. The definitions and
connotations attached to the word 'God' makes it, in my opinion, gibberish.
- Shall we next discuss whether the earth is round or flat?

I am inclined to think that the MoQ-Quality is a genius-made construct. It
is, of course, an analogy or pattern, but one with very little baggage and
an analogy which the MoQ expressly states cannot be properly conceptualized,
divided or defined. Quality represents reality as unpatterned experience and
patterned experience, and of course I experience 'experience'. 

All beliefs are relative to a frame-of-reference and when the
frame-of-reference changes so does the belief. Isn't that what the Lila
character said in Chapter 14? The MoQ representing unpatterned experience
and patterned experience is my frame-of-reference, and represents for me a
more sane world-view. 

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
markhsmit at aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 5:46 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

Hi Marsha,
Man-made constructs, huh? Is Quality a man-made construct?
I do not see the difference. Do you believe in Quality? What is the
basis for this belief? How is it that you separate that belief from
the belief in any other God? Can you feel Quality? Perhaps it
is God you are feeling.

To think that our belief today is anymore real than a belief of
3000 years ago is simply silly.

I am speaking of the legend of Christ, not the person.

Cheers,
Willblake2

Marsha:
RMP has stated that the MoQ is athestic and anti-theistic. Buddhism is
atheistic religion. I am an atheist. My defintion of an atheist is:
Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other supernatural
beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these
concepts are not meaningful. 
Quality is unpatterned experience and patterned experience. How could I
deny quality? 
Who is Christ? Did he leave something in writing? I don't think so.

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Mon, Nov 16, 2009 12:20 pm
Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

illblake2
am continually surprised by you anti-theism position. Yet
ou believe in Quality. I suppose if theism denotes the presence
f a supreme being, then I get your point. But what if it is
omething entirely different from that. What if these religions
re only providing a metaphor for what is going on?
Christ spoke of a father in heaven. What if what he meant
as: the feeling he got was similar to that of a loving father?
e all have different fathers, so its hard to relate, but it was
is attempt to relay his mystical experience (then abused by
he rising Church). You may claim that you are athiest, but
an you deny that the feeling of God does exist? I believe
ll you can deny is that you have never had it.
Just my opinion of course, and I am no God worshiper in the
raditional sense.

arsha:
MP has stated that the MoQ is athestic and anti-theistic. Buddhism is
theistic religion. I am an atheist. My defintion of an atheist is:
theists are people who believe that god or gods (or other supernatural
eings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these
oncepts are not meaningful. 
Quality is unpatterned experience and patterned experience. How could I
eny quality? 
Who is Christ? Did he leave something in writing? I don't think so.

arsha

Moq_Discuss mailing list
istinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
ttp://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
rchives:
ttp://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
ttp://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/