[MD] Quantum Physics

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

> > 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, it would be squing somewhere. I don’t think many look at qm 
as ’known’, not even the physicists and string theory is also still in 
the making, and Hawking is now working on using the maths in quantum 
physics to show it works with the cosmos, or macro as well. (none of 
this should be taken as empirical)
     
> > 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.

IMHO, the “true self” is where you find this Quality. Pirsig said in 
qm the particles/waves choose to do what they do. This being the case, 
considering Gravity Theory, the waves/particles chose to become the 
earth, the earth chose to become the earth. Bring this down to the 
newborn child, and the newborn child would chose to be. Our Hanky 
Panky would only offer the newborn child the tools to choose to be. 

This of course goes in the face of Mythos over Logos, in that the 
newborn child would not be as ignorant as a caveman, but have an 
intelligence of their own if they chose to be, their being, huh? 

Each generation evolves, and the Moral Code, the Code of Art evolves 
with each generation. Evolution could not, in my view, come to be from 
the continuing Mythos becoming the Logos. The mythos must evolve. 

I’ll not go any further than that for now. 

> > 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. 
> 
>SA)    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.

If you can accept Gravity Theory, then it does hold for you that it 
would be sq. The earth, moon and stars choose to be. As they say 
on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire,”  “Final answer!” 

> > 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.
> 
SA)  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) Bad choice of words on my part. I was responding to “more or 
less new,” and kept “more or less.” Yes dynamic would be the more 
dynamic and less dynamic would be static -- agree. 

>     [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.

Yes, it was Pirsig’s example and I should have said so. And, yes it is 
the experience that would be DQ. 

>     [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)_Religion and/or culture influence our intellect. This would be 
immoral per MOQ. 

>     [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) But good rambling chat. If what I understand about what qm tells 
us is true, it is more than just being the white noise, it would be an 
interconnectedness between nature and our small self. It would also be 
true in the Ancient Zen teachings. Quality, Code of Art and 
Nothingness would all be the same in my view. Morality would come from 
our being ‘True’ to our nature.