[MD] Buddhism and Nothingness

[markhsmit at aol.com]

Thank you for your response. I am
  sorry for the monotonous despatch of my
postings. There are several
  aspects of ths subject that may be better
treated in an essay, a seminar
  or a book, I agree and a discussion list with
limited attention spans is
  hardly a conducive place for this.

Mark:

> Whether there is a
  progressive trend which is encompassed
> by Quality is certainly open for
  discussion, provided rules
> are followed.  It is the manufacture of these
  rules that resides
> in the nature of these posts.  An amalgamation of
  disparate
> views or philosophies is certainly most useful.


Khoo:
If we
  tap into the same source of Dynamic Quality, and derive insights
directly,
  our expressions are less likely to vary and to contradict
themselves.
We
  have to keep an open mind (not to the extent our brains fall out ; ) )
but
  allow a free flow of unstructured and unresticted intepretations
  to
achieve a holistic view. If we take this view, it may look like chaos
  but
the intepretations based on intellectual rigidities easily stand
  out.

There is much more room for instance in the examination in the
  science of
the mind and consciousness where the MOQ is concerned as
  opposed to the
science of the brain and move beyond the current work on
  correlates of
mental events with neuronal firings. While the reductionist
  approach yields
so called tangible results, we need to map out the mental
  events directly
and adopt the first person approach as opposed to the
  third person.

Best regards
Re: [MD] Buddhism and Nothingness
Message-ID: <2070A39B.D163.4E60.BC18.604FF79EBDBA at aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Generated by Pantomime 1.2.0)
From: markhsmit <markhsmit at aol.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
In-Reply-To: <2fe3214f1002201233n777e5924p7350cd2b7118cea1 at mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Pantomime (ADM 351)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=_D3FE15DE.49A5.4E57.A2B0.4551DF12B192 at aol.com"

--=_D3FE15DE.49A5.4E57.A2B0.4551DF12B192 at aol.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"



Hi Mark

Thank you for your response. I am sorry for the monotonous despatch of 
my
postings. There are several aspects of ths subject that may be better
treated in an essay, a seminar or a book, I agree and a discussion 
list with
limited attention spans is hardly a conducive place for this.

Mark:

> Whether there is a progressive trend which is encompassed
> by Quality is certainly open for discussion, provided rules
> are followed.  It is the manufacture of these rules that resides
> in the nature of these posts.  An amalgamation of disparate
> views or philosophies is certainly most useful.


Khoo:
If we tap into the same source of Dynamic Quality, and derive insights
directly, our expressions are less likely to vary and to contradict
themselves.
We have to keep an open mind (not to the extent our brains fall out ; 
) )
but allow a free flow of unstructured and unresticted intepretations to
achieve a holistic view. If we take this view, it may look like chaos 
but
the intepretations based on intellectual rigidities easily stand out.

There is much more room for instance in the examination in the science 
of
the mind and consciousness where the MOQ is concerned as opposed to the
science of the brain and move beyond the current work on correlates of
mental events with neuronal firings. While the reductionist approach 
yields
so called tangible results, we need to map out the mental events 
directly
and adopt the first person approach as opposed to the third person.

Best regards
Khoo Hock Aun
Hi Khoo,
I am in agreement with you there.  Consciousness is indeed analyzed in 
the
third person, and there is more to it than the neuronal firings.  Now,
mapping it out has been done by numerous "religious" apprehensions.  To
do so in terms of Quality is a worthy effort.  It is my reason for
belonging to this forum, personal insight.  And, by the way, I enjoy 
your
dispatches.
Cheers,
Mark

--=_D3FE15DE.49A5.4E57.A2B0.4551DF12B192 at aol.com
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html><head></head><body name="Mail Message Editor"><blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: blue; color: blue; "><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000" face="monospace" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px;"><br></span></font></blockquote><blockquote style="padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: blue; color: blue; "><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000" face="monospace" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px;"><br></span></font></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times; "><pre>Hi Mark

Thank you for your response. I am sorry for the monotonous despatch of my
postings. There are several aspects of ths subject that may be better
treated in an essay, a seminar or a book, I agree and a discussion list with
limited attention spans is hardly a conducive place for this.

Mark:

><i> Whether there is a progressive trend which is encompassed
</i>><i> by Quality is certainly open for discussion, provided rules
</i>><i> are followed.  It is the manufacture of these rules that resides
</i>><i> in the nature of these posts.  An amalgamation of disparate
</i>><i> views or philosophies is certainly most useful.
</i>

Khoo:
If we tap into the same source of Dynamic Quality, and derive insights
directly, our expressions are less likely to vary and to contradict
themselves.
We have to keep an open mind (not to the extent our brains fall out ; ) )
but allow a free flow of unstructured and unresticted intepretations to
achieve a holistic view. If we take this view, it may look like chaos but
the intepretations based on intellectual rigidities easily stand out.

There is much more room for instance in the examination in the science of
the mind and consciousness where the MOQ is concerned as opposed to the
science of the brain and move beyond the current work on correlates of
mental events with neuronal firings. While the reductionist approach yields
so called tangible results, we need to map out the mental events directly
and adopt the first person approach as opposed to the third person.

Best regards
Khoo Hock Aun</pre><pre>Hi Khoo,</pre><pre>I am in agreement with you there.  Consciousness is indeed analyzed in the</pre><pre>third person, and there is more to it than the neuronal firings.  Now,</pre><pre>mapping it out has been done by numerous "religious" apprehensions.  To</pre><pre>do so in terms of Quality is a worthy effort.  It is my reason for</pre><pre>belonging to this forum, personal insight.  And, by the way, I enjoy your</pre><pre>dispatches.</pre><pre>Cheers,</pre><pre>Mark</pre></span></div><div class="aol_ad_footer" id="u2070A39BD1634E60BC18604FF79EBDBA"></div></body></html>
--=_D3FE15DE.49A5.4E57.A2B0.4551DF12B192 at aol.com--