[MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics

[MarshaV]

Sorry Mark, 

I thought there would be room in this exchange for both of us to 
express our experiences.   My mistake.   


Marsha  






On Oct 9, 2010, at 9:26 PM, 118 wrote:

> Hi Marsha,
> 
> I hate to step into this again, but...
> 
> I see a lot of twisting of words that contain no real meaning.  A pattern
> forms repeating motifs, what does an unpattern do?  Is it like white noise?
> Are you talking about chaos theory (which can be patterned).  Or are you
> talking about being spaced out on the way to work.  If you have time, give
> me an example of an unpattern.  Your pattern could be somebody else's rug.
> If you look at the backside of a rug, what do you see?  Now that is your
> unpatterned which forms the pattern.
> 
> And no, not entanglement, that is way too Buddhist for me.  If physicists
> get insight out of that then more power to them, they are approaching it
> from a highly organized stratum.  Quality is that which actively separates,
> it does not wait passively for the Yin and the Yang to get together and
> entangle.  Quality is active, dynamic.
> 
> My reason for asking for a metaphor was to try to understand your position.
> Now if you claim that Quality is a branch of the literary tool of
> metaphors, then I am disappointed.  But then again, some people do not want
> to express themselves for fear of ridicule.  Stop taking these things so
> personally, express yourself.
> 
> So, backatcha, Quality is a raccoon.  There, deal with that metaphysical
> concept.  Can't argue against it can you?
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 12:31 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 2:50 PM, 118 wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> 
>>> Mark:
>>> Perhaps first cause is not the right concept.  What came first the
>> chicken
>>> or the egg?  I would have to say, that even cyclical existence (and I
>> prefer
>>> the static universe to the big bang, based on data interpretation),
>>> encompasses cause.  Perhaps driving force is another term which could be
>>> used for the question.
>> 
>> You'll work it out however you do.
>> 
>> 
>>> If there is indeed a move towards greater freedom, then how do you
>> explain
>>> the harmonization of levels?  Any systems approach limits freedom.
>> Indeed,
>>> this is thwarted by Pirsig by claiming Quality is undefinable, which is
>> all
>>> good and well until we try to communicate on the subject.
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Static patterns of value are definable, but ther may be different
>> definitions
>> depending on the occasion.  Communicating about Quality is
>> to use static patterns of value, which is not Quality but words about
>> Quality.  To say Quality is unknowable, indivisible and undefinable is
>> to say something intellectual about Quality, but it is still only words
>> about Quality.  To me there is a big difference between words explaining
>> and the experience.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Mark:
>>> As I have posted before, Quality can be seen as that which lies in
>> between.
>> 
>> Like entanglement between self and object.  Like John mentioned.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Mark:
>>> That which defines the properties of static or dynamic patterns (as you
>>> say), but not held by them.  This type of concept is only useful if it
>> leads
>>> somewhere.  For me, such a sensibility has useful consequences.  Once the
>>> object is defined (as it were) the structure can be investigated.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Yes, investigation is a good.  And I have never stated that static patterns
>> are
>> bad; they too are good.  The scientific method is good.  The problem is
>> to believe that these reified objects are the way things really are.
>> 
>> 
>>> Mark:
>>> Perhaps it is all quantum foam (just wanted to use the words quantum
>>> foam to see what google will try to sell me on gmail).
>> 
>> Marsha;
>> I rarely give the ads my attention, but I have noticed they seem to be
>> stuck on
>> advertising yarn.
>> 
>> 
>>> Generalities with words with multiple subjective meanings does not help
>> me
>>> much.  I work better in metaphors.  Give me a metaphor for Quality based
>> on
>>> something simple.  I won't hold you to it and try to find flaws, but I
>> may
>>> try to expand on it.
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> Quality is a metaphor.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 10:27 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 12:29 PM, 118 wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Mark:
>>>>> My take on the Buddhist side is that things do not exist, period.
>>>> Perhaps a
>>>>> good analogy would be a wave on the ocean.  If one breaks it down, does
>>>> it
>>>>> really exist?  This speaks to your posts concerning patterns.  The
>> notion
>>>> is
>>>>> that it is a composite of many tendencies.  And those tendencies are
>>>>> composites in themselves.  Thus no inherent existence.  Is there then a
>>>>> first cause tendency?  Can that be described as Quality?
>>>> 
>>>> I think Mahayana Buddhism would say that things exist conventionally,
>>>> dependent on multiple causes and conditions that are in turn dependent
>> on
>>>> multiple causes and condition that are in turn dependent on multiple
>> causes
>>>> and conditions.  Do you mean Quality as the relationships, or events, or
>>>> process
>>>> between and conditions?  -  There doesn't seem to be a need for a first
>>>> cause;
>>>> maybe a cyclical view of existence.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Mark:
>>>>> Interesting posts below concerning betterness which I liked.  This
>> would
>>>>> imply direction in some way, the arrow of Quality.  To get away from
>> the
>>>>> relativism and subjective (if it is possible) for a second, can we ask
>>>> about
>>>>> that direction?  To start with, is that direction absolute?
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> Personally, I do not know what is absolute, though one may theorize.
>>>> Within
>>>> the MoQ, there is a movement towards greater freedom and that would be
>>>> towards betterment.  That is my understanding.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Mark:
>>>>> Are we being pushed in that direction or being pulled?  Is the path
>>>> already
>>>>> formed, like a canyon which a river travels down in pure Quality?  If
>> so,
>>>> what
>>>>> is the metaphysical shape of that canyon?  I believe that is one
>>>> metaphorical
>>>>> way of describing this structure we are creating.  The boundaries so to
>>>> speak.
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> I have no experience that might address your speculations, but they seem
>> to
>>>> be forming an object-like pictures of a process.  Personally, the most I
>>>> can say is
>>>> that Quality may be experienced as unpatterned and patterned.  After
>> that I
>>>> might
>>>> try to understand how the MoQ fits together according to its
>>>> presenter/author.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Mark:
>>>>> Now, I'm sure that this is answered all the time in this forum, and
>> that
>>>> I
>>>>> am but a neophyte.  And it is clear that the answer to such questions
>> can
>>>>> result in religious or scientific solutions which have meaning.  Those
>>>> would
>>>>> appear objective (in some way) to me.  Now if we return back to the
>>>>> subjective and try to reify it with such a concept what are we left
>> with?
>>>>> Betterness indeed, but what does that mean?  Maps within maps, quantum
>>>>> enigmas, all tools towards providing meaning.  And what makes things
>>>>> meaningful to the subjective?  Perhaps the shape of Quality could
>> answer
>>>>> that.
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha:
>>>> Static patterns of value are goodness moving towards betterness.  Again,
>>>> the mostly I can say of Quality is that it is unpatterned experience and
>>>> patterned experience.  I don't think that objectification within science
>> is
>>>> bad,
>>>> but to think it represents the way things really are is mistaken which
>>>> results in
>>>> the loss of recognizing Value.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Mark
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:02 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From the Buddhist side, things exist interdependently.  For example,
>> all
>>>>>> things
>>>>>> depend upon being designated or imputed by consciousness.  From a MoQ
>>>>>> point-of-view, this is why I am so interested in the nature of
>> patterns,
>>>>>> all patterns.
>>>>>> And I have determined that they are ever-changing, impermanent,
>>>>>> interdependent.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Isn't the reason we're in this forum is to discover the nature of
>>>> reality?
>>>>>> What it is:
>>>>>> Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience.)  What it is not:
>>>> an
>>>>>> independent existing self and independent existing objects.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Oct 9, 2010, at 1:08 AM, 118 wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I guess it depends on how you define existence.  So, what kind of
>>>>>> existence
>>>>>>> is left, non-essence, acquired existence, extrinsic existence,
>> relative
>>>>>>> existence, codependent existence?  Maybe we are all enabling each
>>>> other,
>>>>>>> give me a cigarette this is too heavy.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 9:36 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> To further expand:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Emptiness is the concept that self and all phenomenon are empty of
>>>>>> essence,
>>>>>>>> inherent existence, independent existence, intrinsic existence and
>>>>>> absolute
>>>>>>>> existence.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Oct 8, 2010, at 2:13 PM, MarshaV wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> To expand:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Emptiness is the concept that self and all phenomenon are empty of
>>>>>>>> essence, inherent existence, and independent existence.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 8, 2010, at 1:47 PM, MarshaV wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Emptiness is concept that self and all phenomenon are empty of
>>>>>> inherent
>>>>>>>> existence.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 8, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> John to Marsha:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Meditate.  But don't meditate upon nothingness, or you will
>> obtain
>>>>>>>>>>> nothingness.  Meditate upon truth and you will know truth.  It's
>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>> simple.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Andre:
>>>>>>>>>>> John, I'll be honest and say that I have not followed the entire
>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>> but this caught my attention.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Prey tell, what is your understanding of 'nothingness' (in
>>>> Buddhism)
>>>>>>>> and what is 'truth'(in radical empiricism)?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I think you need to be clear on these two concepts before you
>>>> burden
>>>>>>>> Marsha with meditating on them.
>>>>>>>>>>> Trying to follow Marsha's frame of mind it sounds like an eternal
>>>>>>>> condemnation into reified and at the
>>>>>>>>>>> same time relativized sq....she'll go nuts!!
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me John, is this your true hidden agenda in all this?...get
>>>> rid
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the bitch!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> ___
>>>>>>>> 


 
___