[MD] Quantum Physics

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

Thanks for clearing mu, I understood the concept of no-thing, but 
hadn‘t heard it called mu. 

> > Chin) My point was that he was pointing to the word
> > Art as viewed as 
> > inferior, romantic, not classic intellect. 
SA) 
>  I agree.  He did state that, I guess, he was
> perceiving the cultural view of art, maybe?

Chin) I should have made it clear he concerned over the word Art as 
viewed by Western culture.

>   [Chin]
> > I think everything is moral, except us, or at
> > least us without a 
> > connection to our true self.
SA) 
>     This is tricky.  To make a distinction between
> true self and those not of true self is clearly to
> fall in step with delusion and what you stated above,
> "I think everything is moral, except us..."  By saying
> except us, you've affirm immorals.  In Zen, our self
> is seen as a dilemma.  We are the dilemma.  I, this
> human being, am the dilemma.  The whole dependent
> origination, back and forth, positive-negative,
> life-death, these all are dependent upon each other
> for their origin.  In Zen, neither is better than the
> other.  Thus, static quality is no better than dynamic
> quality.  Dynamic quality is no better than static
> quality.  They are quality.  This is quality.  So if
> negative and positive are no better than each other. 
> Both are the same in force upon each other, then what
> of morals.  MoQ explains this well.  Nothing is moral.
> Moral just is.  What of this dilemma I mentioned? 
> Well, in Zen, since the dilemma is this human being
> (self), then that's where no-self comes in.  Negate
> self.  Don't affirm self into the final answer.  True
> self in Zen is no-self.  Rid the ego.  Rid the human
> judgement in what is to be right and what is to be
> wrong.  For us, to put weight into one or the other is
> to not understand that as long as right exists, wrong
> will too.  What of being moral?  Zen is very moral,
> but how can Zen be moral if it just says negate-self,
> no-self and true self is such.  Can we actually go
> beyond self and not be human?  Of course not, thus the
> dilemma.  So, compassion.  Help others.  Empty one
> self of ones' self as suffering is this dilemma and
> compassion is here as the enlightenment, the
> understanding for this suffering.  As for MoQ, and how
> we make mistakes, we aren't perfect in our morality. 
> MoQ states Nothing is moral.  Thus, what I do is be
> quiet.  I stick with this Nothing and all will be as
> moral as it gets.  My effort in being moral is a
> practice.  The MoQ states to practice the levels and
> intellect is to not be controlled by society.  We are
> still trying to decide what exactly that means.  Will
> we ever have the intellect to know?  I say we do now. 
> Do we always use our intellect in being moral?  Hmmm,
> this is the current dilemma.  How do we rid this
> dilemma?  Well, this answer, might not be what I'm
> looking for or what your looking for, but Nothing is
> moral.  Death is nothing.  Death is dynamic.  Are we
> all to commit suicide?  Heck no, do not degenerate
> static patterns.  We thus struggle.  Is this struggle
> between dq and sq, is this struggle the effort?  As
> long as we are struggling and haven't given up, and we
> practice with gumption, is this the suchness as in
> such-as-this-is?  Or else, I can cop-out, as I do at
> times and be quiet, for I don't know.  This tiny skull
> just doesn't know.  Therefore, maybe it's as Pirsig
> compared mu with quality.  I plead the fifth and mu
> and say don't look at me:  no-self.

Chin) The answer I offered when I was here some time ago was 
simply “Suspend the ego.” It is the ego of man, not man where this 
dilemma arises. Being real, not pretentious or concerned, gumption 
comes naturally as you follow the simple rule “Right thinking, right 
action, right life” from being as you say no-self, I said then no-ego. 
The “us” that is not moral is the Ego. The ego is in constant need to 
affirm itself. When we live in Quality, when we are real, enlightened, 
we go against the ego and the culture that builds this ego in us. The 
media Ham pointed to earlier ‘Is’ a strong influence, as is religion, 
as is the accepted intellectual sources he mentioned more recently, 
Webster’s and Wikipedia. If Wikipedia says chaos is random, but it 
means there still is a cause, most successful intellectuals who 
managed good grades throughout their schooling years would find it 
difficult to believe otherwise. Webster’s and Wikipedia are viewed as 
intellectual sources, authority figur
es. When we suspend the ego, we go against society and even 
intellectual society, as we are not following the easy paths. We are 
headed in a totally different direction -- against the crowd. 

>     [Chin]
> > 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) 
>     I see what you mean, but even if intellect is
> highest moral, what is intellect to intellectualize? 
> On this highest level, I'm sticking with code of art. 
> Nothing is moral.  Thus, the first static latch,
> maybe, and this might be synonymous with the
> 'suchness' in Zen.  This first static latch that I can
> intellectualize:  Nothing is moral:  code of art: 
> dynamic morality; these all to me are saying be quiet
> SA and morals latch onto this quietness.  The 'is'
> means 'latch'.  Nothing latch moral:  Moral latch
> nothing.  Hmmm, maybe.

You do not have the Ego, or affirming the Ego, and once you pay the 
price in both time and money to the Grade & Diploma system, you don’t 
want someone coming along and telling you what intellectual means; you 
earned it. 

> > Chin) I would see it as they just choose, to be or
> > not to be would 
> > still be a choice.  
>SA) 
>    Are they just here?  They are here and then
> choose.  Can they really choose to be here?  This
> implies a beginning.  This is getting into the
> pre-intellectual primary reality where the intellect
> might not be able to latch static patterns for
> pre-intellect precedes intellect, right?

Chin) -- Pre-intellectual, intuitive intellectual, social intellectual 
and scientific intellectual would all be intellectual. I honestly 
don’t see how we can claim to be more intellectual than the universe 
in which we are only a small part. If as Pirsig says, particles and 
waves choose as opposed to being caused, this runs through everything. 
We are physically interconnected to everything through the cosmic 
dance of the universe. We are made of nothing special that makes us 
the center of the universe. We are made up of the same atoms that run 
through the cockroach and Saturn, and the same atoms that run through 
us run through the cockroach and Saturn. 

>    [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) 
>     My wife and I have a 3 month old boy.  I don't
> remember this age and never have lived this long with
> such a young one.  Each person, also, has his/her own
> path in life.  So, each is different, and this stage
> in his life is very different for the both of us.  He
> let's us know when he pooped, he is hungry, he wants
> to be moved, wants to be held, and etc...  He is
> letting us know about his life, and yet, since this
> early on so many babies might be the same, I've never
> been the parent and had to help a baby live.  He's
> helping me understand what to do.  

Chin) It is my belief, and a few others, George Bernard Shaw comes 
first to mind, but Ralph Waldo Emerson commented on their inherent 
intelligence as well. I have learned more from my children than I ever 
thought of teaching them. If I may offer a little advice, do not let 
the school system convince you the child has ADD or ADHD; it’s just an 
excuse to medicate them so the class is easier to control. IMHO, these 
and a few other developmental disorders are simply another word for 
character. If the teacher hasn’t enough imagination to keep them 
interested, find another teacher, and/or school if need be. 

>     [Chin] 
> ...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.
> 
> SA) -------
>     Interesting.  Your most likely correct.  But
> where does intellect mean ego-driven?  To rid ego,
> with intellect, is to recognize Nothing.  How to
> recognize nothing?  Well, you know what I do... 'I' be
> quiet.  When I am quiet, what might you experience of
> me?  What is this quiet-living?  This quiet-living is
> thus deeper implications. 

Chin) Grade & Diploma education. Western society does not 
understand “quiet.” They would have to accept those heather Easterners 
spirituality over their Christianity. Don’t think PhDs don’t go to 
church. 

>     [Chin]
> 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. 
> 
> SA) ---------
>     Probably true.  I don't doubt what your saying. 
> This dilemma -  what is order:  what is chaos, hmmm,
> such is this dilemma.

Chin) Maybe not if we recognize what we know today can and most likely 
will change tomorrow. Change is Quality. 

>    [Chin]
> 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). 
> 
> SA) ----------
>     As Pirsig stated, intellect is to help society. 
> This knowledge, is it knowledge just to gain, or
> knowledge to help society?

Chin) -- If he must pander to the intellectuals, what makes him think 
he can appeal to society by denying their God? -- denying their 
romantic notions? Would the knowledge of the theologian and scientist 
not both be Quality if there are no moral superiorities in the MoQ? 

SA)   >     Exactly.  the I don't know where the I is quiet,
> and the first static latch may shine through the
> intellect and we may all see morality latching upon
> nothing.  This is the intellect that is a static
> pattern shining dynamic quality as nothing shines
> everywhere.  This is quality revealing itself upon the
> 'highest' moral level - sq and dq non-dualed, and sq
> and dq living the same place, at the same time;
> quality through and through.  But, I don't know.

Chin) Your exposure to Eastern culture helps you, but speculation 
doesn’t cut it for those Bred & Raised Intellectuals of the West. 

>     [Chin]
> Quality fits, Dharma, Arete, it?s just ?A way of
> life.? Quality 
> is easiest to understand in a modern Western view.
> 
> SA) -------------
>     Unless, I translate to a Zen monk that is sitting
> quietly how, "Nothing is moral."

Chin) Yes, as I have stated a few times here, Nothingness is the same 
as Quality.