[MD] Quantum Physics

[Heather Perella]

     [Chin]
> The jury is still out on this for me, but I feel the
> MOQ well worth 
> considering. I have been considering it for sometime
> now, and it still 
> holds my interest. 

     Holds my interest, too, and I don't know if I use
all MoQ or part MoQ in my thinking.


> Chin) This is one of the problems I have with MOQ,
> the intellectual 
> level, and what would be considered to be the
> intellectual level, or 
> what might be accepted as the intellectual level.

     Me too.  The distinctions are still to be made,
for instance, the intellectual level has been debated
at Length, with a capital L, meaning for months on the
MoQ.org.  It has been mainly a debate of whether the
intellectual level is individual, collective, both, or
a manipulation of symbols.  As for the later, many
still go back to the mode or the carrier of these
symbols that are manipulated and then again, argue if
the intellectual level is individual or collective or
both.  I'm also wondering about the content, the
'what's being manipulated', thus, the kinds of
symbols.  This brings up direction.  Some like to go
from the static quality direction and then place sq
thinking as their 'top' quality thinking.  Others will
venture from the dynamic quality direction and then
place dq thinking as their 'top' quality thinking.
     Maybe it's a 'when does intellectual level
appear' kind of issue.  For instance, it does not
necessarily have to be directional.  Why the dq
leaning, or the sq leaning is an issue?  Maybe, that's
coming at this with too much discriminating-mind.  To
go at this with a beginner's mind, might help.  The
code of art, the first split and quality realizes
itself, that latter, put into those words says
something.  Quality realizing itself.  Thus, dynamic
quality is static quality.  Static quality realizing,
aware, being conscious, all synonymous for definition
is applied here in static quality.  Yet, to be aware
of itself is to notice that consciousness is dynamic
quality (Ham might get a kick out of this one, for
what I'm saying here is consciousness is nothing.) 
Let's remember, we're not talking about a nothing as
in the absence of, are we?  We're talking about mu,
right?  If so, then dynamic quality with static
quality is just stating that particulars, the concrete
of static patterns, are always involved in negating
each other and at the same time firming each other. 
For instance, without getting into a long, long
explanation, for this is something at the tip of my
tongue right now, so, I don't want to say too much at
this time, but for instance, we say static patterns
change.  What is changing the static patterns?  It is
not dynamic quality, for dq is nothing.  It is the
static patterns themselves, changing themselves. 
Dynamic quality, when made distinction with static
quality, is the only aspect of quality clearly outside
of static quality.  Thus, dynamic quality is firming
static quality by putting all the change on static
patterns themselves, for nothing is outside of static
quality to change these static patterns.
     So, why even notice dynamic quality, since it has
nothing to do with static quality?  For one, dq is
emphasizing that nothing is outside of static quality.
 Secondly, quality can't be totally defined.  So,
since static quality is defined, then 'something else'
called 'nothing else' or mu, as in not this and not
that, is making quality somewhat obscure.  Even this
firming of static quality when it comes to change. 
Nothing is changing static quality.  Well, if nothing
is changing static quality meaning can be derived from
that statement when compared to this statement: 
Something is changing static quality.  Well, the first
question that might pop to mind is 'What something is
changing static quality?' and that is exactly what MoQ
tries to avoid.  But, since we've stated that static
quality is changing itself, then how is definition
changing, in other words, if static quality is
supposed to be defined, then how can something
defined, change, and then define itself all over
again?
     The intellectual level would come up with an
answer to this, but this does not mean all the other
levels will not be incorporated with the answer.  This
is one reason why reflection in the woods helps.  This
is why so many people find answers for their intellect
by studying rocks.  This first split known as the code
of art where quality is realizing itself, this is
playing out in the woods, in the sun, in our hearts,
and our minds.  Sure, the code of art has become more
defined between each of the levels and that's why
inorganic-biological code exists, and
biological-social code, etc...  Yet, as we've been
stating all along, this is all quality, and the first
split is involved on each and between each of the
levels.
     So, back to the question.  How does something
defined, change, and define itself all over again? 
Static quality is being negated (Ham, another one of
your words, uh, oh.) by dynamic quality, and that's
how we have Pirsig's first question:  "What is
quality?" still being thought about.  How can nothing
negate something?  By making something - nothing.  In
other words, something defined is no longer defined as
such, changes, and is no longer existing, thus, it is
nothing now - dynamic quality.
     To summarize, static quality and dynamic quality
with the code of art are both firmed by each other and
negated by each other.  This is quality.  


     [Chin]
> Philosophy and 
> science are accepted, but I concern that Art may not
> be accepted as 
> intellectual. I’ve heard much as to what
> philosophers say, but not 
> much of what artists, such as Shakespeare, Shaw or
> any others who do 
> not fit into the philosophy/science realm have to
> say. What was it 
> Pirsig said about using the word ’Art’ in Code of
> Art?

     "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."
     So, he's saying that art is usually seen as being
on the sidelines, but art is creativity.  Any
philosopher is to be an artist.  I'm using the
language of the MoQ for communications sake, but this
does not usurp or undercut my ability to reflect upon
myself for understanding.  We use methods, or even
already exposed ideas, but as long as this doesn't
become stale.  At times, we are to be artists beaming
a fantastic new color. 


     [Chin]
 Theology is 
> also denied as intellect, as at the moment
> Christianity seems to have 
> taken a wrong turn from the intentions of
> establishing the USA. 
> Dynamic Quality would be what comes in the future. 


     As it might seem.


> Chin) This is something else I would be concerned
> with in the MoQ.  It 
> would not be realizing the true self, unless the
> true self comes from 
> intellect; intellect being the highest order.

     Our intellect, yes, our intellect would need to
be true.  A true intellect, thus, be itself.  I would
also say a tree is a tree, and its' true self cannot
be denied.  I don't know if this is what you were
getting at here or not.

     [Chin]
> One definition of 
> intellectual might be “given to study, reflection
> and speculation.” If 
> I felt more comfortable this would be the meaning of
> intellect, I 
> would have no problem with it. Reflection you see,
> but I am not sure 
> most here would. Speculation would be a strange word
> considering what 
> most here seem to consider intellectual.  

     I gave a lengthy talk on intellectual definition
above, but I want to add I agree with you on your
defining of intellect.  Intellect might include much
else, as I stated above, some like to harp on who has
intellect or who does not.  For some reason the 'who
incorporates intellect' must be defined as part of
what intellect is, for some on the MoQ discuss.  Yet,
I am rather inclined to use your definition and the
manipulation of symbols, as also intellectual.  This
would place, to use beginners mind again, the code of
art:  Nothing is moral:  dynamic morality.  This is an
intellectual latch.  An intellectual latch
describing/defining the first realization, or in other
words, the first static latch and it is being
intellectualized and intellect reflects upon itself
and realizes that this is its' own first static latch,
intellectuals' first static latch and thus,
realization and all else is defined, changed, yet,
really saying this:  Nothing is moral.  Could this
really be true?  Hmmm, I don't really know at the
moment.


 [Chin]
I agree this is how Zen sees it, but does the MOQ? My
main 
thought here is “The tree chose to be.” It was not a
happen-stance 
of biological latch, but a choice. If the electrons
‘choose’ to be, 
why cannot a tree choose to be? 


     Good point, but are electrons choosing to be, or
just choosing.  The first implies choosing existence,
while the latter doesn't imply they pick and choose if
they want to exist or not, they just choose.  How do
you see this?


 [Chin]
What I am saying about systematic would be the levels.
One 
problem as you may have already realized I am saying
is with the idea 
the intellect is always superior to social, and social
always superior 
to biology. Art and religion (spirituality) in
intellect, and sexual 
desire in biology being lower than sexual oppression
in social as 
examples. 

     Yes, and this is a problem for me at times, too. 
But, between the levels, those moral codes, are
"struggling".  Therefore, it is not an automatic that
intellectual values will always override social
values, etc...  That would be foolish anyways, for
arguments and debates on the intellectual level can
come fast and slow.  What I mean is, I see the lower
levels as being more stable, and without this
stability, degeneration and change would come too
fast, but if it did come that fast we would not be the
creatures we are.



 [Chin]
I would agree quietness is a way to enlightenment.
But, where I 
feel this enlightenment comes is from within. It would
not necessarily 
come from only experience, or knowledge gained from
outside sources, but from intuition. This is what I
was saying earlier about the 
electron ‘choosing’ to do what it does. The child
chooses to be, 
the tree chooses to be. The Mythos over Logos argument
does not fit here.

-----
     I'm not for the quietness necessarily being
outside.  I'm saying, when I am quiet, thus, I'm
quiet, a firm quiet that involves Non-thinking where
the Mind, but not the discriminating-mind, but all
discriminates, so, I just be quiet, and try to say
something when it doesn't disturb me, thus, I'm not
disturbing all else, but maybe I do disturb, oh, I
don't know, so I just be quiet and I surely do
realize.
 

     [Chin]
Would Pirsig agree with the Mythos over Logos argument
that the child 
is born as ignorant as the first caveman? 

-----
     What does that mean?  A child can't discriminate,
and some say that's original mind, the
mind-present-now.  Child lives this mind, but doesn't
realize it.  As to if cavemen realized this or not, I
don't know, but I'm sure they noticed how quiet
strolls in the woods are, or the quiet present in the
hunt.

     [Chin]
And, yes I do have a “Way to notice these deeper
implications.” For 
me, it is just simply self-observation, you might call
self-
reflection, and you could say it is a concentration on
Quality that 
leads me. We know what Quality is, and we know what
Real is, so when I say the Real-self, I am saying the
Quality-self. This could be as much 
as stripping away the intellectual prejudices imposed
on us by society 
as the cultural, artistic and religious. 

---------
     When I'm quiet, I self-reflect.  I don't like to
emphasize 'I' self-reflect, for I've experienced
meditations where the 'I' seems to disappear and I'm
wondering 'who' exactly is reflecting.  Also, to
reflect can be a hang-up, if I'm not realizing that
'reflecting' is NO different from what is in the
Mirror.  The Mirror can reflect 'something' but to
think that that something is 'out-there' being
reflected into the Mirror is to get away from a true
self-reflection.  A true self-reflection, for me (oh,
and I say 'for me', but don't get stuck on that), is
not only observing oneself, but this observation comes
with an actual experience that has been able to live
the self and then talk about the self that one is
living, that's true self-reflection.  Also, I don't
like to get caught in homocentric, that is,
ego-centric reflections that bottom-out with me as a
human being reflecting upon this universe.  I like to
live and realize to such a position that I'm not sure
if it is me or this universe or whatever-it-might-be
that's realizing.  This kind of experience happens in
meditation, and I don't like to try to figure out the
who's, what's, where's, and when's while I'm
meditating.  Through practice, I've come to rely upon
relaxation as a guide.  Maybe this relaxation, the
sense in which I find myself most comfortable, is not
just how I choose to allow my mind, my sitting
position, and all else involved (thoughts, maybe) to
be, but this also seems similar to 'the flow', being
in the flow as the MoQ likes to call it.  The flow the
quality or live the quality, might be what I've
learned earlier on in my meditation experience as
'just relax': let that be your guide.  This guide,
'just relax', is only during sitting meditation.



 [Chin]
Meditation is a good way to get there, but as I
offered earlier, 
chopping wood would also be a way to get there. It is
simply a 
stripping of the false identities we have built in the
ego, the ego 
that does not understand Dharma, Arete, Quality.  

----------
     True.  And we need ways.  Ways in which practice
this clarification, so, we may always be able to have
those moments in which we may clarify for ourselves
our true identity.  Chopping wood is a good one. 
Walking in the woods, helps, too.  Something that
doesn't involve distractions.  We may clarify
ourselves enough that we may involve ourselves with
distractions, but from my experience, I can't involve
myself with distractions too long, or I lose clarity.

 
 [Chin]
I was looking at this differently, or possibly sanity 
differently. The shock treatments were given in an
attempt to bring 
Pirsig back to a sanity as society defines it. I must
ask the 
question, Was Pirsig or Phaedrus more dynamic? It is
my concern Pirsig 
may have lost something in the attempt to become sane,
a sanity 
society says is acceptable. Sure he is much more
acceptable as Pirsig, 
but I would ask is that our culture inflicted view?


-------------------
     Good question.  Yet, the MoQ has not been in the
field of play enough for us to notice any changes the
MoQ might bring into society or not.  So, the lack of
change from when MoQ first hit the scene, so to speak,
would not so much be the MoQ fits right in, as it
would be more of the MoQ has not stirred the pot
enough to notice differences between the MoQ and
current culture.  That would be the only way I might
notice if the MoQ is culturally inflicted or not.

 


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