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: <[email protected]> MIME-Version: 1.0 (Generated by Pantomime 1.2.0) From: markhsmit <[email protected]> To: [email protected] In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> X-Mailer: Pantomime (ADM 351) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="[email protected]" [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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> [email protected] 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/
