[MD] Quantum Physics

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

SA)
>     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) I left the bulk of your excellent thoughts out, as it might get 
a little long. In terms of negation, I would think it to be dynamic 
quality or Quality that negated sq, or in the analogy of the train, 
the sq cars just being dropped off as DQ was picked up. 

BTW, what is mu?  
 
>     [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?

SA)
>     "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) My point was that he was pointing to the word Art as viewed as 
inferior, romantic, not classic intellect. 

SA)
>     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) I was getting more at where does the intellect come from. 
 
SA)
>     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 think everything is moral, except us, or at least us without a 
connection to our true self. The universe, the world, is moral, and we 
are born moral, and lose this as we lose ourselves, but the intellect 
as it is spoken of often here, as the scientific intellect as the 
definition of intellect seem to mean the bulldozer going through all 
available data, and this is where morals come from? -- or the highest 
morals? 
 
SA)
>     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) I would see it as they just choose, to be or not to be would 
still be a choice.  

>     [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) It doesn’t have as much to do with quietness, but whether or not 
a child is born with more intelligence than the caveman. If a child 
were born void of all senses, would this child have a thought. Is 
there an inherent evolvement in man? Is it possible the child could be 
the teacher of the parent? 


SA)
>     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) This is getting away from the subject, but in self-observation, 
it is also good to observe how you relate to others, how you are not 
real, or how your character has changed to fit your environment 
influenced by non-real politics, culture, religion, intellect, &c. 

> [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?
> 
SA)
> -------------------
>     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.

Here I was speaking in particular about Pirsig/Phaedrus, but MOQ may 
be a result of Pirsig becoming more sane, less Phaedrus per se. This 
is what I meant by culture inflicted view, or the influence of 
society, of philosophers or would-be philosophers in general. 

Either way, I see the MOQ as a good systematic approach for the 
Western born intellectual. By putting intellect at the highest level, 
and allowing the ego driven intellectual an opportunity to define 
intellect for themselves, it may offer an opportunity for the more SOM 
based intellectuals who see science as their religion, or 
spirituality, to look at the world in a different view. 

Though I do appreciate science and what it has done for us, I think 
Chaos which Marsha was asking about is simply a statement that we 
cannot know beyond our limited intellect, either in the macro or micro 
worlds. What we know is no more than a collection of what we already 
know, and the continuing mythos simply adds to what we know. 

Nothingness, IMHO, says the same. Where 8.6 billion years, a day of 
Brahma, came from in Ancient Hinduism, I don’t know, but it is odd, 
possibly just coincidence that they may have hit it this close to what 
science has found as the beginning of our universe in the Big Bang 
Theory. I also noticed in some Christianity the thought that a day for 
God can be millions of days in our calendar days. Another example of 
how East and West seem to have met in spirituality is that the Father, 
Son and Holy Ghost are now considered the same deity in Christianity 
and some of the Buddhist traditions have developed their own Father, 
Son and Holy Ghost (of course not called that). 

Either way, this is speculation, and much of what I have offered here 
is speculation, but at least I know it is speculation. At least I know 
I do not know. 

Quality fits, Dharma, Arete, it’s just “A way of life.” Quality is 
easiest to understand in a modern Western view.