[MD] Quantum Physics

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

----- Original Message -----
From: Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, December 7, 2006 0:06 am
Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum Physics
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> 
> > Chin) -- Quality would be like Dharma. 
> 
>     What is dharma?  I've heard of it, and looked it
> up before, I can't remember, could you fill me in and
> compare it to quality, please.
> 
> 
> > Chin) I agree with what you are saying, Nothingness
> > is the same as 
> > Quality, and as long as you stick with ZMM,
> > nothingness and Quality 
> > would pretty much mean the same. 
> 
>     Also, the code of art, which is the realization
> of quality by quality itself.  The dynamic morality
> stating nothing is moral.  Nothing IS moral.  It is
> firm and open.  The realization in Zen is
> enlightenment, the 'original nature', 'original mind'.
> One lives Zen.  One lives quality, and then realizes
> this living of Zen, of quality, and that is the path
> to enlightenment, and the return home.

Hi SA,

You just described Dharma. Dharma would be the same, you live Dharma, 
and you reach Dharma by living Dharma. 

>      [Chin]
> > The difference between Zen and MOQ, or any
> > spirituality and MOQ would 
> > be in this Code of Art. In the Code of Art, morality
> > is built through 
> > the levels, systematically.
> 
>SA)    The levels have moral codes, such as biological
> level over inorganic, social over biological, and
> intellectual over social.  Yet, as I quote here as
> follows:  "Finally there's a fourth Dynamic morality
> which isn't a code. He supposed you could call it a
> 'code of Art' or something like that, but art is
> usually thought of as such a frill that that title
> undercuts its importance."  This is the 'split'
> between dynamic and static quality.  Dynamic quality
> splits each of the levels, yes, and that 'split' is
> code of art.  Yet, once the levels are established,
> the moral value push-pull (conflict) is moral codes,
> thus, not the "there's a fourth dynamic morality". 
> The other moral codes are between static levels.

 Chin) This is what I meant by built systematically. In Zen, would 
there be a recognized difference in inorganic, biology, social or 
intellectual? 

>     [Chin]
> The intellect would be
> > responsible for 
> > defining morality in the social level -- correcting
> > the morality of 
> > the social level over cultural, spiritual
> > influences, where Zen would 
> > use spiritual traditions to lead to enlightenment
> > correcting false 
> > intellectual influences.
> 
>SA)  Are you putting Zen on the social level of
> spiritual traditions?  That would be incorrect.  Zen
> is a philosophy, and a dynamic way, that allows Zen to
> not be just a philosophy, but a practice, too.  Zen is
> nothingness, thus, Zen is dynamic quality, and also,
> Zen is intellectual, a static quality, also social.  I
> would say a difference between Zen and traditional
> western philosophies has been how Zen does not focus
> on discriminations and realizes 'non-discriminative
> Mind'.  Quality might be taking Zen and taking the
> practices of the western philosophies that have lead
> to the sciences and technologies of today, hand and
> hand, thus, the 'oneness with nature' and the beauty
> of Zen Mind and Practice and applying that bridge of
> East meets West.  Quality might be that bridge.

Chin) This was how Pirsig saw it in ZMM. In the East, would 
spirituality and philosophy be the same?  

>      [Chin]
> > Zen would lead to spiritual, artistic and moral
> > development through 
> > meditation and enlightenment, where MOQ would lead
> > to spiritual, 
> > artistic and moral development through the
> > intellect, being science, 
> > philosophy, metaphysics. 
> 
>SA)   Zen is philosophy and a metaphysics.  Zen has a
> deep, codified tradition of thought.  Zen is very
> intellectual.

Chin)  Yes, Zen is philosophy, metaphysics, religion, “a way of life.” 
Would there be a split between intellectual and social here, or would 
intellectual and social all be one level? 

>     [Chin]
> > So even though I see nothingness, Quality and Code
> > of Art as the same, 
> > you follow different paths to get to the small self
> > or the real self, 
> > per MOQ. The Code of Art, morality, would already be
> > built into the 
> > levels.
> 
> SA)  Code of art establishes the levels in the dq-sq
> 'split', but once established, these levels are
> distinguished as moral codes of their own.  Code of
> art is the original 'split' where quality realizes
> itself.

Chin) I do not disagree. This is how MOQ works. Would Code of Art not 
simply be Quality, or Dynamic Quality, which would be the same? It 
would be the same Quality that created the world we live in, and the 
same Quality that allows us to recognize Quality, and the same Quality 
that allows us to find the Real Self, that allows us to Quality 
thought, Quality action, Quality life? What the MOQ does not say is 
that the lower forms, or lower levels are equally capable of 
recognizing this Quality. The tree did not choose to be. 

This is the MOQ. It is what the MOQ says. The MOQ has become 
systematic. 
 
>     [Chin]
> Biology would already contain moral codes
> > higher than 
> > inanimate nature, society over biology, and
> > intellect over society. 
> 
>      Sure.
> 
>     [Chin]
> > Maybe what I am trying to say might work better if I
> > say MOQ searches 
> > for spiritual, artistic and moral development
> > through intellect and 
> > Zen through spirituality. 
> 
> SA) Zen is very intellectual.  Using the mind and
> thus, thought, is a very active practice in Zen.  For
> once one realizes nothingness, or as I like to say,
> quietness, then in Zen the practice is to apply
> nothingness everyday and night in all activities,
> including speech.  To speak Zen.  To speak
> non-thinking, nothingness, to speak quiet, is
> compassion that is a pinch on the nose and saying that
> is nothing.  This is sharing enlightenment.

Chin) But, is this not also becoming enlightened? It is what I am 
saying about Dharma, or at least Dharma as Hinduism which is many 
varying traditions. The one important thing I see in Hinduism as well 
as pretty much all Eastern philosophy, spirituality, religion, would 
be the suspension of the ego. Anything that leads you away from your 
small self. 
 
>     [Chin]
> > But, then looking at how Pirsig got here was through
> > self-reflection. 
> > Self-reflection, or self-searching? Hmmmm?  
> 
> SA) Code of art is self-reflection.  This is quality
> realizing itself.

Chin) Yes, this is Quality realizing itself, and it is Pirsig becoming 
enlightened. There are many paths to this enlightenment; meditation, 
the pure love of Buddha or Christ, as Pirsig did with his trip to 
the “High country of the mind,” walking through the woods, or just 
simply chopping wood. 

And pretty much all this involves finding the true self, the real self 
or beginning mind prior to the influences of our culture, or the 
influences of our culture including religion, politics and education. 

>     [Chin] 
> > We came away from Quality, Arete, Dharma somewhere
> > down the line? 
> 
> SA) How do see Arete and Dharma being quality?  

Chin) Without looking back through ZMM, it may have been Phaedus that 
said this. Arete was a word that offered the definition of Quality 
before the Greeks invented mind/matter, subject/object, forms and 
mannerisms. He asked if the Hindu word Dharma could mean the same as 
Quality. The Ancient Greeks did not have to ask “What is the good?”, 
Indians do not have to ask “What is the good?”, Arete, Dharma, Quality 
do not need to be defined. 

Whether it was meant to be or not, Pirsig’s self-reflection through 
ZMM appears to me to be an analogy to self remembering; stripping away 
the influences of society, in Pirsig’s case, Phaedrus prior to society 
bringing him back down to his ‘Sane’ self, his socially acceptable 
self, through shock treatments.