[MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...

[Ham Priday]

Hi Chin --

You were on MD some time ago, am I correct?  (I recall some enlightening
comments from you in the past, but had trouble associating your name with
Phaedrus-Wolff.  If I'm not being too nosy, I would assume that you are of
Chinese ancestry.  Do you reside in the U.S.?

I had asked how the uncertainly principle quantum physics related to our
notion of Nothingess.


> It would not be “velocity and mass” that I would think
> pointed toward the validity of nothingness, but that the
> protons and neutrons are sometimes a particle and
> sometimes a wave, which would not point toward solid
> matter. On top of that you have to consider the size of
> the protons and neutrons. Consider you blew up the
> proton to the size of a grain of sand on the beach.
> In this analogy the atom would be the beach. What
> everything is made up of, blown up to scale which we
> could measure it is vast space.

In my on-line thesis, I pointed out that there is vastly more nothingness
than matter in the so-called "physical world" of subjective experience, and
infinitely more in the theoretical world of quantum physics.  I cited an
estimate by Australian astronomer John Peacock that the universe has a
density of "next to nothing": he described it as "about 300 x 10[27th] times
less dense than water, or one ten-thousandth of an ounce in a volume the
same size as the Earth."  I commented that because nothingness cannot be
experienced, it has no value for man: he is oblivious to it, and instead
perceives reality as beingness.

I think this may be the point you've illustrated in the enlargement of an
atom to the size of a beach and the "expanded bridge".  The problem I have
with sizing analogies is that everything in the universe is relative except
the size of the universe itself.  Some cosmologists consider it finite,
others say it's infinite.  Also, I should think that as we "technologically
expand" micro particles/waves to even larger sizes, we will find even
smaller constituents, which may refute your premise.

> There would be nothing distinctive of our make up,
> other than probability patterns, memory or what might
> be called the cosmic dance.

This sounds a bit like the Orientalist Alan Watts who wrote a book (while
under the influence of LSD) called "The Joyous Cosmology".  I have no
problem with the notion that nothingness is the ground of existence, since I
believe that what we experience as existence is the intellectualization of
the mind (also nothingness).

What troubles me is the inability or unwillingness of intelligent people to
see beyond this illusion, this cosmic dance, and realize that it must have a
more "substantive" source and purpose.  For me, the source is Essence and
the purpose of existence is to make being aware of Value.  Man fulfills that
purpose daily, yet he is largely ignorant of this fact.  And the
philosophers have not demonstrated much more wisdom.

> The use of “No-thing” would be from an explanation
> that was offered me sometime back from someone here
> I may very easily misrepresent. But, if you think about a
> concrete thing, everything is either in space or time, and
> space and time are not concrete, so there is no concrete
> thing. The MOQ gets around this in that there is value
> in everything -- everything is Quality, either SQ or DQ.

Ham - Regarding some of the comments you made previously ...

> Am I mistaken, or does Pirsig not see Quality in
> place of a supreme being? I’m not ready to make
> any statements in this nature other than it seems
> to me Quality works as well as God, Nothingness,
> The One, Atman, &c. The small self, big Self,
> Atman/atman, could fit into Contemplative
> Christianity as well as Quantum Physics, and it
> would seem to me Christianity evolves as
> understandings change, at least to some extent ...
>
> I would have to admit that it would be speculation
> on my part, as there is no way other than possibly
> predetermined prejudices on my part, or maybe a
> lack of need to delineate, or qualify an eternal
> principle, but to see the similarities of each. Eastern
> Mysticism, spirituality or religions have no need to
> bend, and Quantum Mechanics is only bringing
> (IMHO) physics up to the Ancient Teachings. I doubt
> Western religions have even considered Quantum
> Physics, as theology in the West is currently taught as
> opposed to contemplated (as far as I can see from
> the traditional churches). I do see some advances in that
> at least the Catholics are observing the universe, and
> Easterners are joining in the churches and creating their
> own Christian churches.

I can't speak for Eastern Mysticism, but I would not expect the Church to
adopt Quantum Mechanics for any reason.  Regious faith is not based on
Science, nor should it be.  At the same time, I don't think Science will
ever learn all the answers, because it is founded on objectivism which
dismisses the subjective half of the dichotomy.  If intuitive reasoning and
logic can encompass the physical world of appearances, it is Philosophy that
holds the key to cosmological understanding.

[Ham, previously]:
> We are the true "choicemakers" of our world;
> we select the values by which we act and are
> limited only by finitude and the operating principles
> of Nature.  Human beings are free to organize,
> explore, create, change society, design/invent/build
> new things, develop original concepts, manipulate
> and control the environment, and discover the
> pleasures and joys of the universe in accordance
> with their chosen values.

[Chin]:
> We are in agreement here, except I would think more
> than 99.9% “Human individuals” sleep through life
> making only those choices that have been programmed
> into them by society, culture, religion, education, with
> only an illusion of actual choice making. The choice
> making may be more based on what others would think
> of them or maybe what they see others do. ...

Couldn't agree with you more.  We have traded common sense and
discriminative judgment for celebrity worship and the playthings of
technology.  Western Society has lost connection to its core values.

> . . . And I might add ego, violence, and perversion
> beyond what we could attribute to animalistic instinct.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. I am neither for or against
> Nothingness, as I offered prior, the word is only to
> point toward something.  Quality works fine, and
> probably works as well for those who contemplate or
> self-reflect, maybe better than it does not need the
> qualification Nothingness does.

I think Quality is a weak substitute for Essence, but I also I don't think
either term signifies Nothingness.  What I can't understand is why you,
Case, and a few others here insist that Nothingness is the ultimate reality,
yet claim that you are not nihilists.  Perhaps you can explain this to me.

Great to chat with you again, Chin

--Ham