[MD] Quantum Physics

[Heather Perella]

> Chin -- It would come down to whether it is accepted
> or not. In the 
> analogy of a society of professors, it would depend
> on whether it was 
> the latest theory that was considered most factual. 

     What I is difficult about this, is the timeline. 
Who's on first and What's on second?  String theory is
the newest, so, it is dq, not quantum physics, yet,
quantum physics is newer than Newtonian, so, does this
make quantum physics dq now.  This is too much
bouncing around.  Quantum physics is static quality
due to it being defined.  Is there 'something' we
don't know about quantum physics?  Sure, and what we
don't know about it, is no-thing.  I say no-thing or
nothing, because I'm not sure what it is we don't know
about quantum physics.  I'm not comparing what I don't
know and what I quantum professor doesn't know.  I'm
just saying overall, what is not defined in quantum
physics, is dynamic quality.  But, dq can be sq
depending on somebody's knowledge of quantum, in
comparison, but as long as something is being defined
by anybody somewhere that is sqing.  It doesn't matter
who knows more, or if something is more new or not. 
If it known, if it is a static pattern, due to the
'it' being defined, then static quality is being
pointed out.

 
 
     
> Chin -- Yes, for society (on that scale) once it is
> accepted it 
> becomes sq. 

     Hmmm, on that level, once something is accepted,
it is sq, hmmm, I'm agreeing with you now, unless
somebody else brings up a good differing point.  So,
on the social level, if something is not yet accepted,
even though it is an intellectual static pattern, on
the social level it is dq?  Hmmmm, I'm agreeing.  If
this is correct, and I would want others to jump in
and differ, if they don't, then I guess I can't see it
any other way.  This really changes my perspective of
the levels, but it does help bring more definition to
how I see the code of art being an event on each
level.  The code of art, I feel more and more
confident about this, is the true self of Quality.


> Chin -- Yes. I might see Gravity Theory as DQ, as it
> appears to me to 
> be the most likely theory of creation, and if my
> perspective of 
> Gravity Theory changed to the point I thought it was
> ‘The’ creation 
> theory, then it would become sq to me. 

     Is the 'most likely', thus, a not fully defined
aspect of 'is Gravity Theory the theory for somebody
or not' thereby giving this 'most likely' a 'hint' of
dq.  Is that why it is dq?  When Gravity Theory is
"The" creation theory, then your saying for you this
Theory is now defined as the 'The' creation theory,
thus, sq?  So, the 'likely' is a static pattern, I
think.  The 'The' is a static pattern.  I'm not going
to get into ranges of dq and sq.  The definitions
'likely' and 'The' are still static patterns.


> Chin -- I am not trying to define, but simply use
> examples to show how 
> DQ might become sq. Once we considered what we
> viewed as DQ, an idea 
> worth considering became accepted as fact or the
> latest theory that 
> would change the way we viewed something, such as
> MOQ or quantum 
> physics proved more believable than SOM, then MOQ
> and/or quantum 
> physics would then become sq, whether personally or
> as a society.  

     On the personal or societal level I understand
the example here in whether something is dq or sq.  



> Chin -- It would not necessarily be more or less
> ‘New” per se, but 
> more or less dynamic, but generally what would be
> new thinking would 
> be dynamic where our old way of looking at things
> might become 
> questionable.

     See, this, I don't get.  More or less dynamic? 
Dynamic is nothing.  More or less nothing is also,
nothing is more or less.  Dynamic quality is not more
or less.

     [Chin]
 Once what we believed is replaced by a
> new belief, the 
> new belief would no longer be dynamic, it would
> become static. The old 
> static way of looking at things, say SOM would no
> longer be in the 
> picture, or considered inadequate. The best analogy
> of this on the 
> personal level would be the old song you had
> forgotten about, then 
> heard it one day and loved it so much you ran out
> and bought the 
> record -- it had DQ. Then you started playing it for
> all your friends 
> until the new feeling you got from the old song was
> lost -- then it 
> went back into the sq slot.

     Hmmm, this is Pirsig's example, too.  I don't
think the song is dq.  It is the experience that is
dq.  'Something' about the experience with the song is
fresh and new, but literally undefined.  Once the
experience is defined too much, as it is such a cool,
fresh song, and I say that over and over again.  It
wouldn't be so new, at least to me.  Hearing it over
and over again, same thing, now sq.


     [Chin] 
> Maybe it would help if I said that on a personal
> level society might 
> influence, but does not determine DQ or sq. 

     Naaa, that didn't help me understand.


> Chin -- Thanks. I’m still working on finding my true
> self. I wonder if 
> anyone is capable of doing so. 

     SSSSSSSHHHHHHHH, be quiet.


     [Chin]
> BTW, I do share your views on nature. My pilgrimage
> would be a trip to 
> any small creek isolated from the noise of the city.
> It is the 
> atmosphere I am most comfortable in finding my true
> self and stripping 
> away some of the sq that has managed to latch, and
> the false self 
> starts trying to take over. 

    Isn't it interesting, that for most, maybe all,
the true self is more identifiable as dynamic quality?
 As you said here, stripping away sq that managed to
latch.  You even say that is the false self.  This is
how I see the code of art, dynamic morality, to be so
true as a self.  The code of art is so firm, but
nothing at all.  It is not morality, but it is
morality being nothing.  Nothingness is moral.  Gives
new meaning to being quiet, eh?  Even noticing quiet,
clear perspective, and clarity - all bottomless,
empty, nothing, yet, moral.  The white noise that is a
loud, roaring waterfall.  To call a loud, roaring
waterfall - white noise, that dims the loudness, for
the loudness of a waterfall is pleasant, and as sweet
as peace and quiet.  Somebody might say city streets
are white noise, but I've never heard it put that way.
 Yet, the Way would dive in with the deviling suffrage
and pain, and feel refreshing as compassion is moral,
and the depth of the Way has a white noise, a quiet,
that is nothing, and how can you take nothing away
from nothing - it will still be nothing.  Just some
rambling chat.  


     [Chin]
> You think the self-reflection in Buddhism and
> Pirsig’s might be close?

     yes

     [Chin]
 > You think Pirsig found his true self or may have
> lost himself once he 
> started answering the questions asked of him on
> Quality?

     I don't know, but the true self of quality being
art of code is working for me.  


     [Chin] 
> You think it possible we may lose our self more than
> gain it when we 
> enter into discussions? 

     I don't know.  I guess if it is all chit chat,
then I'm not hearing the quiet, and the quiet is
everything.  Thinking chit-chat is everything provides
a false notion of answers, that will never truly
satisfy.  But knowing quiet, experiencing code of art,
and then chit-chatin is to have the chit-chat be code
of art, at least for me, so I am able to practice
being myself.  


     [Chin]
> You don’t have to answer any of this. I’m just
> thinking to myself. 

     I did have the answer for myself.  It is drink
green tea, now, before it gets cold.  And I finish
typing with three more words.

woods,
Spiritual Adirondack


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com