|Subject:||Comments On Doug's Bergson Pre-Review.|
|Date:||Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:17:32 -0800 (PST)|
|To:||Doug no longer accepts unsolicited emails. If you want to contact Doug, see contact information at page bottom.|
Wanted to comment briefly on a paragraph in your
pre-review. The paragraph includes "...Bergson
tells us how classical perspectives of reality suffer
from two great illusions:
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Buddha previously
generate similar ideas? In case no.1, Buddha's
doctrine of impermanence would apply; and in case
no. 2, his doctrine of emptiness or sunyata, i.e, a
thing has no self-existence <empty> in the sense
that it does not exist independently of other things.
|Subject:||Re: Comments On Doug's Bergson Pre-Review.|
|Date:||Thu, 07 Mar 2002 10:51:10 -0500|
|From:||Doug no longer accepts unsolicited emails. If you want to contact Doug, see contact information at page bottom.|
Thank you for writing to us in Quantonics! Our response is
a tad slow. We are taking a brief respite in Yachats, OR,
From our limited perspective and knowledge of Eastern
Cultures and religions, much of what we believe and practice
here in Quantonics aligns them generally.
Pirsig's MoQ finds much of its foundation in Zen Buddhism
(especially Buddhism's Hindi roots). Yet MoQ is not
"identical" to Zen B. For example his zippered
included-middle of Subject over/and Object calling that
"Static Quality" and thence his quantum included-middle
of both Dynamic Quality (reality's first good) and Static
Quality (reality's second good).
When we compare Pirsig to Bergson we find many
similarities. We attempt to document those as we go. Our
impending review of Bergson's Time and Free Will includes
many documented comparisons. Our prereview comments there
are much more robust than those you find in our review of
his Creative Evolution.
Pirsig himself has said that some of our Quantonics views of
his MoQ are not what MoQ says. You can see that in one or
two of his letters to us. He even complained that we should
call it something else, hence "Quantonics."
We are not experts in Zen B. or any other Eastern Cultures
and religions. Yet we know that what Quantonics and quantum
science show us empirically (emergent-/evolute-empirically;
see our September, 1999 QQA) about reality both align
significantly Eastern percepts.
Those two examples you quote from Bergson are perfect
exemplars: Bergson grasps nature's quantum essence in those
If you see alignment twixt those two memes and Buddhism, we
are not surprised. However, we do have problems with any
meme of quantum 'nothing.' Our argument there is similar to
Bergson's comments that negation is subjective (see CE
topic 39). In quantum reality, there are no two anythings
which are identical. Why? All anythings are always in
quantum flux, so no thing is identical to itself longer than
a Planck moment. Too, no two different things can be equal
(they can be quantum coherent, however, e.g., common
ground-state bosons, BECs, etc.) due varying phasicities of
their quantum con(m)texts, numbers, loci, momentum, etc.
So, in this case, we would have to discuss with you quite
extensively percepts of 'nothing,' [e.g., see empty] 'identity,'
etc. in quantum comtexts and thence in Buddhist contexts.
And we sense we would find much agreement, as you
appear to suggest.
We do not study Buddhism here. We are enlightened enough to
know that would take more than several human lifetimes. In
general, we agree with "impermanence," but we are unsure we
would agree on impermanence's "source." Too, we agree no
thing [h]as self/separate-existence. First [impermanence], is,
from our view, pure quantum flux. Second [source], is, from
our view, quantum c¤mplementarity's massively associative
included-middle. Then, we must admit, candidly and honestly,
that there are unlimited views of both issues which are compatible
with our views (just as there are unlimited views which differ with
It comes down to what one 'believes.'
Our biggest problem with Buddhism is its apparent acceptance
that "suffering is an implicit" aspect of reality. We think
"suffering" is a matter of perspective. From our
perspective, having an opportunity to live, is an immense
gift. And if one reads Scott Peck's The Road Less
Traveled, one learns that life is problems and once one
understands that, one goes about eliminating problems...and
in a sense then...there are no problems...only
We are unsure whether Buddhism is one-life centric, or
practices what Bergson calls "radical finalism." See
Bergson's CE topic 8. Quantum reality shows us that life is
an iterative, fractal, quantum-included-middle-associative,
self-referent process. Apparently we flux twixt actuality
and nonactuality via an ontology like this:
We think perhaps Buddhism offers a nirvana finalism. If so,
that runs counter to what we hear Bergson, Pirsig, James,
quantum science, et al., are saying.
Our goal, rather than to learn legacy cultures and their
vast beliefs, is to show how poorly classical Western
Cultural ideas and concepts serve their adherents. As you
demonstrate in your email, and as we show vividly in
Quantonics, we are not alone: Pirsig, Bergson, James, and
many others are saying similar things as what you say and
countless others have been saying similar things for a long
We sincerely thank you for your interests in our work.
Best and many truths to you,
|Subject:||Buddhism and Quantonics|
|Date:||Sat, 9 Mar 2002 10:14:34 -0800 (PST)|
|To:||Doug no longer accepts unsolicited emails. If you want to contact Doug, see contact information at page bottom.|
Thanks for your response. Like you, I'm no expert
on Buddhism (or in my case, on any subject), but I
like to speculate from time to time.
The philosophies of Buddhism and Quantum Science
share some similarities, but also some differences,
some major. Buddhism, in its original doctrines, is
a religious philosophy espousing its founder's ideas
about reality and our relationship to it. Buddha
rejected Vedic and yogic (pre-Hindi) ideas of an
unchanging, underlying, metaphysical principle
personified or not and the idea of an individual
soul; but accepted (with some modification) their ideas
of reincarnation and karma (reinkarma). He was not
preoccupied with cosmology like the Vedic scholars
and Upanishadic sages, or with the union of soul with
Creator like the Yogis. Instead he developed a
religio-philosophy based upon a negational
"four-cornered" logic, which aimed at denying any
conceptual boundaries or delineations whatsoever,
including those posed by the negational system itself.
He constructed a confluence of vedic, yogic and original
thought, which he hoped would offer a practical system
of ethics, i.e., the Four Noble Truths and EightFold Path.
However, his main goal was attainment of nirvana, the
liberation of consciousness from reinkarmic cycles
generated by the incessant "wheel of thought". Nirvana
in sanskrit means "to blow out", interpreted in this context,
as extinguishing the "flame of consciousness"; with
"flame" further interpreted as the "ego", that part of
consciousness which mistakenly perceives itself
to be an independent entity.
Buddha denied the existence of an immutable soul,
but seemed to imply that some analogous structural
constant (consciousness) survived from life to
In his view, the aforementioned egoistic misconception
kept the functioning consciousness trapped in a perpetual
state of illusion, therefore, subject to the reinkarma. Other
interpretations of what Buddha really thought about
reinkarma, suggest that one only lived one life, but that the
goal of nirvana was equally valid and important in a here
and now pragmatic sense.
Thus, "awakening","enlightenment", etc.
metaphorical thought, means a realization of
consciousness that it has mistakenly identified itself as an
independent entity, but in reality, was "empty", i.e., no
Buddha also rejected the competing Ajivakan
philosophy of strict determinism, where the soul
reincarnated and transmigrated back and forth between
ignorance and bliss throughout endless cycles.
Hinduism focuses on the plenum or fullness and the
unity of the universe, affirmative, hence, its metaphor
of "Oneness". On the other side of the coin, Buddhism,
focuses on the void or emptiness of the universe,
negative (not a vacuum though). However, the Buddhic
corollary to Hindi "unity" is not division, rather that
any concept or conceptual relationship (dichotomous
or otherwise) is to be transcended. IOW, the motto of
original Indian Buddhic thought most exemplified through
later Chinese and Japanese schools of Mayhayana (Chan
and Zen respectively) is that all concepts, including
those espoused by Buddhism are to be transcended. In
these schools, spontaneity of insight through
introspective meditation is emphasized over doctrinal
study (almost exclusively in Zen).
In this sense, perhaps Buddhism's goal of nirvanic or satoric
realization or insight is finalistic (as I understand the term, a
sort of philosophical dead-end?), in that it seeks to snuff out
conceptualization, going beyond constructing paradigms, be
they scientific, religious, political, etc. Bliss is really a side
product of non-conceptual understanding; from a sense
of liberation from reinkarma (as the idea of reinkarma
itself is transcended as its laws are seen as only
applicable to a consciousness which still thinks it is
an independent entity).
Both Buddhism and Quantonics seem to resonate in
certain areas as concepts of nothingness (both don't
take it literally), and the related one of identity,
although I think that even here Buddhism would strive
to transcend the idea of identity versus non-identity
as defined by Quantonics' "Planck Moment".
Hopefully, this admittedly loose articulation makes
some sense to you.
|Subject:||Differences twixt Buddhism and Quantonics.|
|Date:||Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:34:57 -0500|
Thank you for your good coverage on comparisons among
Buddhism, Quantonics and quantum science.
This email is too long. We tried to both respond to your
latest email, and to make a topical assessment of Buddhism
based on a nice little book we found here near our temporary
In your most recent email, you said, "He was not preoccupied
with cosmology like the Vedic scholars and Upanishadic
sages, or with the union of soul with Creator like the
Yogis. Instead he developed a religio-philosophy based upon
a negational "four-cornered" logic, which aimed at denying
any conceptual boundaries or delineations whatsoever,
including those posed by the negational system itself." See
our widely sprinkled comments below on "included-middle"
You also wrote, "...his main goal was attainment of nirvana,
the liberation of consciousness from reinkarmic cycles
generated by the incessant 'wheel of thought'." We discuss
"either nirvana or self" below as classically
excluded-middle dichons vis-à-vis quantumly included-middle
quantons. We do not discuss pure intellect (incessant
'wheel of thought') as exclusive Static Quality, however
both Pirsig and Bergson see it as such. Bergson would say
we need instinct, intuition and intellect (I-cubed) to
escape that vicious loop. Pirsig would say that all
intellectual patterns of value (absent Dynamic Quality or
nirvana) are "exclusive Static Quality" (ESQ: MoQ reality's
only 'evil'). Latter is why we say "Truth is an agent of
its own change." Thus we deny any "exclusive" SQ
intellectual patterns, e.g., 'self' as exclusive from
nirvana. (AH, please consider "exclusive" compared to
dialectics' "excluded-middle.") We agree, ESQ keeps
"...functioning consciousness trapped in a perpetual state
You may be able to see that our goal, using Quantonic
script, is to depict quantum/animate/dynamic "inclusive"
mixings and comminglings of both DQ and SQ as quantons.
E.g. quanton(DQ,SQ), perceived animately, disallows any ESQ
to 'exist.' Thus, "...functioning consciousness (may not
be) trapped in a perpetual/permanent state of illusion."
Explicitly then if we may use 'self' to represent you, AH,
we can show 'you' as quanton(nirvana,self) and
quanton(DQ,AH). For us, we can show, e.g.,
quanton(nirvana,Doug). As you will see below, a major
criticism we have of Buddhism is its apparent, nonquantum,
dialectic depiction of you as dichon(nirvana, AH) where our
dichon's comma-space 'wall' excludes AH (self) from nirvana.
Since your first email and our first response
we found a
small book in a used book store in Depoe Bay, OR. Its title
is Buddhism: Its Essence and Development, by Edward
Relevant that penultimate paragraph, Conze writes, "Our
human nature, according to the Buddhist contention, is so
constituted that we are content with nothing but complete
permanence, complete ease, complete security. And none of
that can we ever find in this shifting world." See page
22. Conze, in our view, here adopts a dialectical
convention. He assumes, from a Buddhist perspective, we are
dichons. [Our Quantonics view is that...] If we have an epiphany
that we are quantons, we cure a classical perspective of human
nature. We cure it by adopting a convention that reality is
impermanent, uneasy, and insecure (quantum animate; quantum
uncertain). When we adopt self perspectives as animate quantons
and discard our classical self perspectives as immutable dichons,
we become quantum beings.
(Browser search <Conze> for more just below. We commence
seeing Conze's Buddhic Gnosis. Read there until you find Doug's
"That, folks, is quantum~gn¤sis!" Doug - 14Jun2007.)
You also wrote, "Buddha also rejected the competing Ajivakan
philosophy of strict determinism, where the soul
reincarnated and transmigrated back and forth between
ignorance and bliss throughout endless cycles." Our quantum
ontology is cyclic as we wrote in our first email, however,
that ontology offers no classical causal/quantitative
determinism (only quantum affective/qualitative ensemble
stochastics). Its cycles are fractal, thus self-referent
(viewing quanton(DQ,SQ) as a kind of emergent reality which
is like a "conscious multiversal" associative network).
Such cycles/ontologies are what chaos theorists call
"nondeterministic periodic flow." Good examples are heart
sinus rhythm, dripping faucets, self-organizing networks,
(e.g., Hopfield nets), [Earth's weather,] etc.
Later you said, "In this sense, perhaps Buddhism's goal
nirvanic or satoric realization or insight is finalistic (as
I understand the term, a sort of philosophical dead-end?),
in that it seeks to snuff out conceptualization, going
beyond constructing paradigms, be they scientific,
religious, political, etc. Bliss is really a side product
of non-conceptual understanding; from a sense of liberation
from reinkarma (as the idea of reinkarma itself is
transcended as its laws are seen as only applicable to a
consciousness which still thinks it is an independent
entity)." Due our own beliefs, and Pirsig's, et al's.
mentorship, it is 'obvious' to us that to be happy and enjoy
reality we need both SQ and DQ together. Isobeing in DQ is
part of our quantum ontology, but DQ still animately
commingles SQ and those who are 'being' in SQ, and who are
also quantum-included-middle commingling DQ. When we are
'isobeing' we commingle those who are 'being.' When we are
'being,' we are mostly ignorant of DQ's commingling of us.
However, we could not live/be or emerge/evolve were it not
for DQ's vital and phenomenal impetus. Where Buddhism
appears to see an "exclusive" classical either/or twixt DQ
and SQ (i.e., dichon(DQ, SQ)), we see an "inclusive" quantum
both/and of DQ and SQ (i.e., quanton(DQ,SQ)). Now we are
back to your original email to us. Bergson's two classical
illusions/self-delusions, to us, represent dichon(DQ, SQ)!
Quantonics' quanton(DQ,SQ), viewed Planck rate
quantum-animately, cures those illusions, in our view.
Bliss then becomes an epiphany that reality is a quantum
both/and animate commingling of both DQ and SQ. A recent
movie with Meg Ryan and Nicholas Cage titled 'City of
Angels,' depicts an analogue of our (I-cubed) thinking here.
As you can see, AH, much of what you write does make
to us too. Fine points tend to arise from our individual
hermeneutics for certain terms and topics...which leads us to...
More on page 22: Conze states one of Buddha's most
important 'laws:' "One should only define one's position,
and not coerce others into it." With our reservations on
Quantonics' English Language Problematics (e.g., usages of
"one," "only," "define," "position," "not," etc.), we concur.
Restart your Conze reading here: (Doug - 14Jun2007.)
Using brief scans (3-5 sessions; about one hour each) of
Conze's text and your own email comments, we have been able
to enunciate a few more concise differences among our three
'disciplines.' Allow us to list some topics for discussion,
and then briefly describe each of those, in ways that
Quantonics and quantum science apparently differ, in our
local view, from how Conze's textbook Buddhism perceives
There are many other words and phrases which Conze uses in
his text, however our brief list captures essence of
differences twixt Buddhism's ideas and concepts and
We listed them alphabetically, but we might find a different
order of discussion pedantically more useful.
If it is all right with you, AH, please allow us to discuss
In Pirsig's MoQ, dialectics are any Western belief system's
greatest metaphysical fault. Why? Dialectics are an
oppositional form of dialogue which achieves either/or
conclusions about logical sentential propositions. Using
dialectics one may arrive at ideal, oppositional pairs of
conclusions like: either true or false, either up or down,
either right or wrong, either good or bad, either black or
white, and so on...
Conze says that, "Buddhist thought is inclined toward
we may call 'Dialectics.'" See page 17.
In MoQ, Quantonics, and quantum science memetics,
rhetoric and sophism (fractal self-reference) are more
highly evolved modes of thinking than legacy dialectics. In
place of simplistic either/or dialectics, they offer 'mu,'
both/and, both-all/while/and-many, memes, et al.,
modes/instruments of think-king.
In MoQ, Quantonics, and quantum science, reality's middle is
included. Dialectics require reality's middle to be
"excluded." Excluded-middle dialectical thing-king lies at
classicism's very core of ideal, conceptual thing-king. So,
MoQ, Quantonics, and quantum science deny dialectics as a
useful think-king instrument for assessment of more general
aspects of reality. (Dialectics do work in an over
simplified subset of reality which Pirsig calls "SOM," and
Bergson calls "spatial extensity." In Quantonics we call
this subset "SOM's box." Classical thing-king and languages
are designed to keep us in SOM's box. They use "vicious
loops" and "incessant 'wheel[s] of thought'" to do so. )
Dialectics' either/or results must be separated by
Aristotelian, Newtonian, (apparently Buddhist), and Bohrian
excluded-middles. Bergson calls this excluded-middle
concept "objective independence." Pirsig calls it "SOM's
wall." Nearly all classicists take it (an excluded-middle,
objectively independent reality) for granted, and thus, in
our view, are misguided. This misguidance is what we
humorously refer as classicism's "deign to feign."
Now let's take a look at causality.
From what we have read about Buddhism in our brief efforts
thus far, Buddhism accepts causality as a basal concept.
(And if we do that, then we must accept determinism,
especially single-event, classical determinism.)
What do we mean by "causality?" From a classical
perspective, especially from a classical scientific
perspective, reality is causal. Classical science assumes
there is a one-to-one correspondence twixt a single cause
and a single effect. "What happens next" depends uniquely
upon what just happened. When a volcano erupts, classically
we may assume just one 'cause' caused said volcano's
eruption effect. When a student receives a lower grade on a
test, classically we may assume just one 'cause' caused a
lower score. When a comet plunges into Jupiter's
atmosphere, we may assume a single 'cause.' Too, classical
science assumes, in addition to 1-1 correspondence, that any
single cause is local. (See our August, 2001 QQA on
Since Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen's famous 1935
anti-quantum Gedanken experiment, which was supposed to show
quantum theory "incomplete," we now know, based on countless
experiments (mostly based upon J.S. Bell's Theorem) that
reality is non-causal. Quantum reality offers no
single-event 1-1 correspondent causality (/determinism).
Nor does quantum reality offer any guarantee of EPR local
causes (upon which classical science depends, enormously).
Bell proved that ensemble outcomes in quantum reality happen
based upon both quantum local and quantum n¤nlocal affects!
MoQ, Quantonics, and quantum science say that instead of a
classical "A causes effect B," we must substitute "Bings
prefer affective Aings." Our use of Aings in place of A
shows that quantum reality is a plural/heterogeneous,
present-participle, animate, affectings/outcomings reality.
Quantum reality assumes that ensembles of stochastic
"outcomings/Bings" are chosen based upon ensembles of
stochastic "affectings/Aings." (In Quantonics, AH, quantum
reality is proemially aware! Photons, electrons, atoms and
other sub- and meso-atomic quantons are aware and make
affective, qualitative choices! Based on our unique and
speculative hermeneutic here, most normal 'ethical'
scientists will tell you, "Those people in Quantonics are
absolute nut cases!" )
A simple way of saying this is that classicists/SOMites (and
apparently Buddhists) assume that reality has no choice in
"what happens next," and "what happens next" is always
single-event deterministic. Students of Quantonics assume
that reality chooses "whatings happenings nextings." See
our MoQ, CR, SOM comparison table in our Philosophical
Battle Winner page. (Do a Google search on 'cultural
Bottom line, MoQ, Quantonics, and quantum reality deny
classical causality. In its stead we substitute statistical
"ensemble determinism." Indeed, when we square a quantum
wave function we reap a probability distribution. In real
terms that means if we take your individual self's quantum
wave function and square it, we do not achieve a single
classical location for 'you.' Rather, we achieve a
probability distribution. You are (like all other quantons
in quantum reality) distributed, probabilistically
throughout our quantum multiverse!
A consequence of that last statement deals with several
other topics we list above. Consider "salvation." Buddhism
tells its adherents they must, in order to reach salvation,
eliminate "self," or "ego." By eliminating "self" a
Buddhist (unsure about use of caps here) may enter nirvana.
Here we see Buddhist dialectic of either nirvana or self. To
adherents of Pirsig's MoQ and our Quantonics, we are always
in nirvana and nirvana is always in us. Enlightenment is
Our thought instruments for distinguishing these two kinds
of views (Buddhist vis-à-vis Quantonic) fall under patterns
we call "Classical Thing-king Methods," and
"Quantonic/quantum Thinking Modes." We use acronyms CTMs
and QTMs respectively. We think it is good to begin a
process of learning QTMs and gradually desist use of CTMs
except when we are among classical thing-kers. [When in Rome...]
We can depict Buddhist views of salvation using CTMs as a
dichon(nirvana, self). In other words "nirvana" and "self"
are assumed to be excluded-middle separated by SOM's wall
(our comma-space) in our dichon script.
We can depict Quantonic views of salvation using QTMs as a
quanton(nirvana,self). In other words, in Quantonics,
"nirvana" and "self" are assumed to be included-middle
("inclusive") quantum c¤mplements of one another and they
commingle, coinside, compenetrate, interfuse, and are
probabilistically distributed cowithin one another. We
might say it thus, "We are in nirvana and nirvana is in us,"
or "Self is in nirvana and nirvana is in self." As a
result, in Quantonics, there is no need to extinguish self.
We only have a need to experience a "quantum epiphany" that
we are quantum quantons, 'not' classical dichons! (Our use
of 'not' here is Bergsonian subjective.)
That, folks, is quantum~gn¤sis! Doug - 14Jun2007.
Let's treat our remaining topics more briefly and quickly:
If we view Anatta-doctrine as a quantum Planck rate process,
then it is wholly acceptable in Quantonics. However, if we
view it as classical analytic determinism, it is
unacceptable for reasons previously stated.
If dharma means classical absolute truth, it is unacceptable
in Quantonics. To us, truth is quantum islandic. For
example Earth has many cultures. In each of those cultures,
what is "true" varies and is usually in some regards
different from some other cultures' acceptances of what is
true. If dharma as absolute truth 'existed' then we could
justify coercion of our beliefs on others, couldn't we?
[Please notice, readers, that this is exactly what classical
'science' claims as its goal, and attempts to accomplish!]
Buddhism denies coercion of beliefs. [Quantonics denies
any concept of one belief, one Theory of Everything, one
Grand Universal Theory, etc.] In quantum reality truth is
always an agent of its own change. All truth is tentative.
All truth is quantum uncertain.
If karma assumes that a single culture can know what is
'good' for all other cultures then we cannot accept karma as
a guiding force in Quantonics. Our argument here is similar
to our argument for dharma. AH, you may wish to read our
QQA on MoQ ethics compared to SOM ethics. It is our March,
1999 Quantonic Question and Answer.
Our discussion on morality would follow similarly.
We understand why Buddhism has no term for philosophy. But
we would argue that a term for philosophy is necessary if we
assume reality's middle is quantum-included. In other words
we need terms for all quantum actual phenomena if we are to
"understand" and 'reasonably' communicate our understandings
of quantum reality's actual c¤mplement and to be capable of
describing quantum reality's actual c¤mplements'
interrelationships with quantum reality's n¤nactual
To wrap this up, in our view, it is a more highly evolved
Value to achieve both nirvana (quantum reality's n¤nactual
c¤mplement) and self (one of quantum reality's actual
c¤mplements) together than to achieve just nirvana.
Together, there is happiness and fulfillment and
evolving/emerging understanding. We agree that "self" by
itself is a classical evil and offers 'no' salvation, but we
need self to recognize and attempt QTM descriptions of
nirvana. Nirvana, AH, from a Quantonics/quantum
perspective, would be useless without self!
Pirsig would say, "We need both DQ and SQ to describe
whole reality." He might add, "You may not ride a
motorcycle using only DQ/nirvana. Nor may one ride a
motorcycle using just SQ/self. One may only successfully
and happily ride a motorcycle using both DQ/nirvana and
Hope our words are Valuable to you and imposed/coerced 'no'
|Subject:||Quantonics and Buddhism|
|Date:||Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:45:09 -0800 (PST)|
Hi Again Doug!
Muchos gracias for the lengthy, but fun read; I
found it interesting, informative and sometimes
I like your idea of "complementarity" which
resonates with my Daoist sensibilities and with what
I've understood from Kevin Langdon's "Analytical
Tracking Notes", which is a phenomenological model
of human experience, accessible in part at
www.polymath-systems.com. There's an introduction to
AT there. I have the booklet stored away somewhere.
It also appealed to my scientific proclivities,
(Programming and Metaprogramming In The Human
Biocomputer, by John C. Lilly was my "bible"
throughout the 1970s), with stochastics, fractals, chaos
theory/non-linear dynamics etc. Incidentally, I'd
already conceived of myself as quantum wave function
back in the early 1980s - Shades of Schrödinger!
Keep in mind that Buddhism was whole only during
the lifetime of Guatama; after he died, Buddhism
brachiated into two main branches: Theravada and
Mayhayana, both of which further sub-divided into
numerous smaller branches and twigs. Some forms are
devotional such as Pure Land and Nicherin, while
others are intellectual as much of Theravada, while still
others, mainly Zen are blatantly anti-intellectual
and disdain any doctrine. The first successful
proponent in Japan, Eisai, maintained that Zen was the
essence of Buddhism. So Doug, Zen is my main resonance
I'd like to address your criticism of Buddhism's
view of me [as] a dichon. This is true of Theravada, which
maintained a separation of samsara (mundane world which
includes self) and nirvana (other world). However,
Mahayana via the sage Nagarjuna postulated the
complementary view, that samsara(self)and nirvana are
two aspects of the same reality. Hence,
"There is no distinction of samsara from nirvana.
There is no distinction of nirvana from samsara."
- (Madhyamaka Karika 25.19).
Concerning "absolute truth", the principle of
Buddha as dharma as eternal and omnipresent is
prevalent in both main Buddhic branches. Thus, would
be incompatible with Quantonics in this aspect. The
principle (Dharma-daya) elucidated in the Salistamba
Sutra. Quantonics and AH are resonant here.
Ditto for karma and morality. The Buddhic
conception of universal justice, incidentally, is
different from the Jainist view. Buddhists believe
that karma is strictly volitional and intentional,
whereas the Jains believe that even unintentional
acts can produce karmic consequences. One problem
I see with the Buddhic idea of karma, is that of
compatibility with various mundane legal systems. MLS's
make allowance for degrees of responsibility, hence,
degrees of punishment. For example, on intentionality,
I think most drunk drivers don't intentionally plan
on killing pedestrians, although they ma[y] have
considered the probability factors beforehand, but DWIs
are punishable by some MLS's as vehicular homicide.
Haven't seen anything in Buddhic karma ideation that
considers degrees of culpability and appropriate
degrees of punishment. As for the Jain conception of
karma, which it's extreme emphasis on non-violence, to
the point of avoidance of killing any living thing,
seems untenable, as our biological immune systems
periodically dispatch antibodies to kill living
creatures as virus' and bacteria, so karma generated
by "unintentionality" would seem to create such a
great karmic load that one would conceivably never stand
a snowball's chance in Hell of escaping samsara!
Buddha did accept the vedic/yogic ideas of
reincarnation, with modification, i.e., the anatta
(without soul) doctrine. Buddhists believe only
patterns of temperament, talent, etc. are transmitted
from life to life, whereas Hindi believe that an
actual soul or atman with a personal conscious
identity survives. [Note to readers, quantum reality
appears to memorize what it thinks is better for OEDC
transitions. Try thinking of quantum reality as a vast,
associative, included-middle, animate SON. Visualize
yourself as one of its animate, improving quantum
thoughts. Doug - 21Apr2002.]
The concept of reincarnation in Buddhism and
Hinduism is classically determinate, indeed,
all preexisting Shamanistic conceptions of
reincarnation worldwide are probably deterministic.
Thus, incompatible with Quantonics (and AH's)
views on the subject.
Concerning "extinction of self", I don't think Buddha
ever intended the literal destruction of the self's
noetic cyclic processes, rather a transcendent view
gained through insight into the nature of those
processes, through the meditational methodology of
temporary suspension of those processes. The nirvanic
insight was what was perpetual, i.e., Buddha in
nirvana, Nirvana in Buddha.
One closing question. How does Quantonics view
Scientology's concept of the "Thetan", as I vaguely
understand, posited to be a being that exists
beyond the physical body and spatio-temporal limits?
I've had some experience with the Scientologists
once in the 1970s in San Diego, but it wasn't a good
one. Supposedly, founder L. Ron Hubbard, created
The Science of Dianetics in the 1940s, as some sort
of analogous psychoanalytic type of therapy, then later
transformed it into the religion of Scientology, where he
became elevated to the stature of Jesus, Buddha and
That's it for now. It's been a most stimulating
- Cheers, AH.
|Subject:||Another big dialogue segment on Buddhism and Quantonics.|
|Date:||Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:23:08 -0500|
This is another long email. You stirred too many affine nexuses,
plus we shared a relevant chunk of Pirsig's ZMM with
Honestly, we have learned much from our recent dialogue. Buddhism
has fascinated us more as we mature, and this
provides us an opportunity to compare it to our own and other belief systems. Buddhism, like any belief system, has
aspects which agree with Quantonics, and aspects which do n¤t agree as you say, slightly paraphrased, "...depending
on which branches, twigs and leaves of said tree we wish to savor." Again, this, to us, is quantum reality:
qualitative-affective, plural, islandic, fluxing, emergent, included-middle-c¤mplementary, and so on...
Wish that it were, but "complementarity" is 'not'
our idea. Its etymology apparently is: complement - before
complementarity - 1628; and complementary (as color) - 1829.
Prior our Chautauqua into memes quantum, we always thought
of "complement" as "complete-ment." Since
recent quantum peregrinations, we learned of Bohr's orthodox quantum theory flavor of "complementarity." Just
recently, during our pre-review efforts on Kafatos and Nadeau's (1990 edition of) 'The Conscious Universe,' it has
become vividly apparent that Bohr's "complementarity" is classical, or what we call "excluded-middle."
Bohr was accused, by very distinguished and respected peers
like Einstein, of being "subjective" in his uses of
"complementarity." His way out, and thus his means of staying "classically ethical" within Earth's early 20th century
science and physics communities, was to declare his "complementarity" "exclusive."
In Quantonics, c¤mplementarity is quantum, thus subjective,
thus included-middle, and many other quantum memes
emerge from an included-middle view of quantum reality.
You may recall a famous quote of Richard Feynman, "Nobody understands quantum mechanics."
In Quantonics, we claim Feynman is correct. Why? Quantum reality
is 'not' an excluded-middle, objective, formal,
mechanical reality. We claim one may 'not' understand quantum reality using -mechanics, either matrix- or wave-. To
use mechanics to try to understand quantum reality ACTUALLY PREVENTS US FROM UNDERSTANDING
Note how closely this aligns our discussions on Buddhism and
classical thing-king methods, especially our prior remarks
Quantum reality, to us, is an "inclusive" included-middle
c¤mplementary reality. We
distinguish "exclusive" Bohrian
'complementarity' from our Quantonics version with use of a special "quantized" 'o' character like this: c¤mplementarity.
In Quantonics, we believe that use of "c¤mplementarity" helps our students to better understand quantum reality.
We see Kevin Langdon's "Analytical Tracking" as more
akin Pirsig's "Direct Experience," or Platt Holden's
Now," our usages of "k-now-ing" in our review of Clifford Geertz' Available Light, and Harry Connick Jr's. 'At the
Corner of Close and Soon.'
But all of those quantumesque memes, when carefully con(m)sidered, elicit a need for c¤mplementarity.
A complaint we have with Langdon is his use of 'analytic.'
'Analytic' is a classical term. Analysis (taking apart; ideal
finite element decomposition) is classically opposite synthesis (putting together; objective assembly AKA classical
'manufacturing'). There are countless issues to discuss here, but for now our most important one is that quantons may
n¤t be classically analyzed. Classical analysis/synthesis objectively denies quantum Gestalt! Bergson tells us why.
Quantons are animate, real processes. He says, "Processes may not be analyzed!" (His use of 'not' should be
subjective.) Bergson tells us this on page 219 of his 'Time and Free Will,' to which review we are just now adding our
finishing touches. Amazingly, Bergson arrives at this conclusion during an argument against classical causality.
Your self-perception as a quantum wave function is simply incredible
to us. "Quantum wave function" has several
mnemonic/acronymic appellations including: qwf (Fred Alan Wolf), quon (Nick Herbert), quanton (coined by Mario
Bunge of McGill University; adopted by us as our name and our quantum reality meme), et al. Also, Quanton is a fairly
common Latino surname.
We did not experience your quantum wave function epiphany until
our 1998 review of Dr. Irving Stein's, The
of Object as the Foundation of Physics. (Browser search there on epiphany.) Stein's approximate duals of DQ/SQ and
n¤nactuality/actuality are nonspace/space. Too, he distinguishes either nonpreferential behavior in nonspace or
preferential behavior in space, and thus like Niels Bohr his quantum middle is "exclusive." Very interestingly his
nonpreference in nonspace is a quantum both-all/while/and-many!!! Stein is a fascinating sentient. We see him as a true
polymath. Certainly he is a genius. Yet he absolutely refuses to discuss philosophical issues around an included-middle,
subjective version of quantum reality's nonactuality/actuality. He sees his version as dichon(nonspace, space)! But all of
his nonconceptuals (just/only) in nonspace are quantons!! He has shown visceral anger on at least two occasions when
we broached this topic. We understand. It is a threat to 'the French enlightenment,' and to virtually all 'modern'
science's underpinnings and beliefs. It is an enormous threat!
We have had countless quantum intuitions since roughly 1970s,
but none as profound as our much more recent
awareness of self (and of course all other reality) as quantons. Stein's nonpreference in nonspace evoked our own
epiphany, and from there we added our own Heraclitan included-middle of quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality).
By-the-way, recent quantum experiments
affirm Schrödinger's Cat, and simultaneously deny GRW theory
Baggott's 'The Meaning of Quantum Theory;' also see our 20Jul2000 Flash).
[Probably unrelated to this topic here, we like to ask our
students of Quantonics a simple Schrödinger Catesque
question, "Are you alive or dead?" Classicists always answer "Alive!" MoQites and students of Quantonics should
answer "Yes!" Easiest way to think about this from our perspective is a process of cellular apoptosis. You probably
are familiar with apoptosis, so we need go no further on this aside.]
We will add Lilly's book to our future reading list.
We lean, similarly as you describe Zen Buddhism, away from
'laws,' 'rules,' 'dogma,' 'doctrine,' and 'intellect' which are
ESQ (e.g., Catholic Inquisition). We prefer an animate and plural quantum bazaar over a classical, "status quo is the
way to go," monolithic cathedral. As we described earlier, each of those classical concepts/ideas can be perceived
both classically as immutable dichons, and quantumly as semper flux quantons. In general, those of us of any particular
culture choose which way to perceive them via our parents, peers, academia, and others' acculturation of us as
individuals in a local ESQ society. Classical Thing-king Methods teach us to view reality as dichons. Quantonic
Think-king Modes enlighten us to view reality as quantons. (And, "Yes! In Quantonics, we are con(m)sidering
innovative means to alleviate ESQ aspects of language, lingual semiotics, and hermeneutics.")
Pirsig agrees with you (though we think he has some qualifiers)
in his leaning toward Zen. If Zen is included-middle
c¤mplementarity, then we pretty much can say we agree with Zen, however, we too must qualify that we are not by
any means scholars of Zen Buddhism. We think Pirsig has mentioned also, perhaps in USnail correspondence, that
Mahayana is his preferred version.
We think it is worthwhile to note how Heraclitus also intuited
this kind of reality. (Aristotle
mentions Heraclitus in his
'Metaphysics,' and denigrates him as a Sophist for think-king this way. Aristotle's concepts are "exclusively"
anti-quantum. Too, Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Plato to some extents. AH, those are ones we know about. Sadly,
neither are we scholars of ancient Greek history, starting roughly with Homer's 'Iliad.' And prior to that, all we ~know is
what Pirsig, Kitto, and Patricia Curd (only a tiny portion of her works) have written.)
Perhaps you could recommend to us and to our community some
basic reference texts for study of all these branches
and offshoots. We have a few of them, but not all. We also think it is important and appropriate to offer a suggestion to
our community to consider further study of 'I Ching.' We have already done that, to some extent, via our August, 1999
We have made fairly detailed comparisons among SOM, CR, and
MoQ. We are now considering additional categories
of Buddhism and Taoism.
Again, we agree. Quantonics does align fairly well. We see
Quantonics as quantum c¤mplementary both Buddhism
Taoism. Jains' views as you describe them agree with quantum reality's qualitative, ensemble-stochastic, affective, both
local and n¤nlocal natures. Every quantum (measurement, special event) act has unintentional ensemble quantum affects,
both local and n¤nlocal.
On your MLS (mundane legal systems) comments,
we comsider quanton(DQ,intellect) much more highly evolved and
immediate than quanton(DQ,society). Society is evolutionarily viscous compared to intellect. In our quantum view, we
must attempt to make and allow MLSs locally as small as possible, even down to individual levels. A fairly complex
example of this appears in Garn LeBaron's use of Pirsig's MoQ to describe how to deal with euthanasia. See his paper
on our site. Con(m)sider how analogous this is with what Geertz observes as Earth's global cultures in a process of
disassembly (size reduction and cultural/national/geographic distribution/interrelationship metastasis).
It is important for you to know that we also see balancing
of quanton(DQ,intellect) and quanton(DQ,society) as a
quantum uncertainty interrelationship. AH and Doug probably should 'not' decide what to do about UbL or Saddam
Hussein, but it probably is appropriate for us to decide about drunk drivers, pedophiles, rapists, and burglars in our
community. In our opinion, society has virtually naught to say about micro issues inside family contexts, e.g., abortion
and euthanasia. But, in our view, our quanton(DQ,intellect) has a lot to say about whether government level con(m)texts
can/should control, support, and pay for abortion and euthanasia. To put it simply, there are some areas/con(m)texts
where government has n¤ authority. Only quanton(DQ,intellect) can draw that ~line, from whence society subserviently
affines. If we allow quanton(DQ,society) to do it, society will opt for total systemic authority. And thence society, as
ESQ, becomes an evil almost beyond imagination. Neandertalibanic Islam is a perfect exemplar in this discussion.
Pirsig had some large difficulties with Hinduism also. He mentions
an example involving an atom bomb in one of his
books. A Hindu insensate 'wall' perspective on goodness of use of said bomb causes him to decide to return to USA
and stop his studies of Hinduism. We are unsure, but he may have said Hindi viewed such an event as unremarkable in
Nirvana's larger scheme.
We just looked and found this text segment from near end of
chapter 12 of Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
"But this is getting out of sequence. Theres a span
of about ten years missing. He [I.e., Phædrus. Phædrus
pre annihilation-ECS self.] didn't jump from Immanuel Kant to Bozeman, Montana. During this span of ten years he
lived in India for a long time studying Oriental philosophy at Benares Hindu University. [Readers, please compare Pirsig
to Nobel Prize-winning mathematician John Forbes Nash, A Beautiful Mind.]
"As far as I know he didn't learn any occult secrets there.
Nothing much happened at all except exposures. He listened
to philosophers, visited religious persons, absorbed and thought and then absorbed and thought some more, and that
was about all. All his letters show is an enormous confusion of contradictions and incongruities and divergences and
exceptions to any rule he formulated about the things he observed. He'd entered India an empirical scientist, and he left
India an empirical scientist, not much wiser than he had been when he'd come. However, he'd been exposed to a lot
and had acquired a kind of latent image that appeared in conjunction with many other latent images later on.
"Some of these latencies should be summarized because
they become important later on. He became aware that the
doctrinal differences among Hinduism and Buddhism and Taoism are not anywhere near as important as doctrinal
differences among Christianity and Islam and Judaism. Holy wars are not fought over them because verbalized
statements about reality are never presumed to be reality itself. (Our bold. Fundamentalists all presume to know
reality and to know what reality expects of its constituents. Just ask them. Pirsig and most Eastern cultures believe
and teach that we can describe reality, but we may never define, entrap, encapsulate and imprison it. To them, animate reality is
intrinsically beyond any scope of finite sentient intellect. Doug - 21Apr2002.)
"In all of the Oriental religions great value is placed
on the Sanskrit doctrine of Tat tvam asi, Thou art that,
asserts that everything you think you are and everything you think you perceive are undivided. To realize fully this lack of
division is to become enlightened. (Here Pirsig acknowledges his understanding of a quantum included-middle.
Doug - 21Apr2002.)
"Logic presumes a separation of subject from object [i.e,
excluded-middle]; therefore logic is not final wisdom. The illusion
of separation of subject from object is best removed by the elimination of physical activity, mental activity and emotional
activity. There are many disciplines for this. One of the most important is the Sanskrit dhy_na, mispronounced in Chinese as
Chan and again mispronounced in Japanese as Zen. Phædrus never got involved in meditation because it made no sense
to him. In his entire time in India sense was always logical consistency and he couldn't find any honest way to abandon
this belief. That, I think, was creditable on his part. (Our brackets.)
"But one day in the classroom the professor of philosophy
was blithely expounding on the illusory nature of the world for
what seemed the fiftieth time and Phædrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed that the atomic bombs that
had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory. The professor smiled and said yes. That was the end of the
"Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that answer
may have been correct, but for Phædrus and for anyone else
reads newspapers regularly and is concerned with such things as mass destruction of human beings that answer was
hopelessly inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and gave up."
Somehow we feel that Pirsigean text is important to
our discussion here. It is if our heuristics of a quantum
included-middle are correct!
We really resonate with your "Buddha in Nirvana, Nirvana
in Buddha." Eugen Herrigel said, "We are in It, and
It is in
us." As we prepare each of our book reviews, we find many of our favorite authors repeating this theme. Geertz:
~"We are in culture and culture is in us." Kuhn: ~"Paradigm is in community and community is in paradigm." Except for
their active voice singularity, these are notably quantum "inclusive" memes.
AH, we know nothing of Scientology, or Thetans.
In Quantonics we use our script to show realityquanton(n¤nactuality,actuality).
Thetans might 'exist' in quantum
n¤nactuality (quantum vacuum flux, DQ, vacuum energy 'space,' et al.). We cannot 'know' quantum n¤nactuality. We
can describe experiential and empirical analogues of it. But these descriptions are always incomplete (due quantum
comtextual uncertainty). That is about all we can or should say at this juncture.
We speculate that evolution will make it possible (perhaps
in some other galaxy, it already has) for sentients to learn how
to animately "straddle/commune" quanton(n¤nactuality,actuality) much more completely than Homo sapiens do now.
Richard P. Feynman saw quantum computers achieving something like this. We concur.
We appreciate this stimulating dialogue, and we know our community will enjoy sharing it with us.
|Subject:||Buddhism, Greek Philosophers, etc.|
|Date:||Mon, 18 Mar 2002 07:24:17 -0800 (PST)|
Once again thanks for a nice read. In response
to your book request [recommended books for our
readers and students of Quantonics], I recommend
Buddhism: A History, by Noble Ross Reat; 1994;
Asian Humanities Press (Berkeley, CA), as an excellent
general introduction to Buddhism and its offshoots. It
includes a comprehensive index, glossary and a section
of Suggested Further Reading. A valuable reference
As for Zen, in particular, I suggest consulting
various D.T. Suzuki works. A Professor of English
and a disciple of the Rinzai School, Suzuki was the
primary transmitter of Zen to the West.
Quasi-scholarly popularizations can be found in the
works of Christmas Humpherys and Alan Watts - both
were highly influenced by Suzuki.
In reference to your Greek History comments:
Anaximander of Miletus (Ionian) circa 600-500 BCE,
Presocratic philosopher and polymath, successor to
Thales, went beyond Thales' methodology of simplifying
and reducing observable phenomena, adding an equally
fundamental tenet that "there was more to the world
than meets the eye", and postulated, in contrast to
Thale's idea of water being the "basic stuff" from
which all observable phenomena arouse, that the basic
"world-stuff" was "to apeiron", i.e., "the indefinite",
mostly in the sense of "indetermine". He also used the
term in the sense of "vast unboundedness", as
Homer did earlier in his description of the ocean.
What was important to Anaximander was that this
invisible, basic "world-stuff" had no observable or
identifying qualities of its own, so that all observable
phenomena could be explained in terms of it.
There seems to be some correlation between
Quantonics' "isoflux" and Anaximander's "world-stuff",
to the extent they both share the concept
There also seems some resonance with Quantonics
idea of Quantic-Special Events (becoming) coming from
some unknown process, and with Anaximander's view that
observable oppositional pairs arose from "apeiron" via
some undefined "process of separation".
We need not discuss Anaximander's successor,
Anaximenes (the last the Milesian philosophers), as
he substituted Thale's "water" with "air." He viewed
reality in toto as an unchanging process, in sharp
contrast to Heraclitus, who saw it as being in a state
of continual flux. (However, Heraclitus was
misinterpreted and misrepresented by later
philosophers, who exaggerated his emphasis on change.)
Heraclitus differed from the Milesians and the
Pythagorians in that he not only looked outwardly, he
looked inwardly too, toward himself. He was
introspective, moody and paradoxical, hence, the
appellations of "The Riddler", and "The Dark".
Consequently, his "Weltanshauung" appeared murky
and contradictory. [Note to readers: quantum memes
appear to classicists as paradoxical, "murky and
contradictory." Doug - 21Apr2002.] Aristotle complained
of Heraclitus' ambiguous syntax. Heraclitus, if possible,
would have probably responded by saying that
this was because "the world itself was ambiguous".
To keep this short, part of Heraclitus' world-
view appears to me to have consonance with a major
Hindu tenet: that beneath the apparent conflicting
interplay of opposites, "all things are one" (though
the Hindi would capitalize the "o" in "one"). [AH
just described quantum holism! Doug - 21Apr2002.]
Finally, Quantonics belief about "sub and meso-
atomic quantons as "proemially aware"...making
choices...etc." galvanized AH's nexial tendrils.
The idea seems to resonate with Blatvaskys
Theosophical notion of "elemental essence", alleged
to possess some rudimentary awareness. Supposedly,
EE form combinant/recombinant structures found in
nature. However, to go further in this area would
Till Next Time, Best Regards, AH
That ends this brief dialogue. Not to worry!
AH continues to offer challenging novel memes for
us to consider. Watch for more AH-Doug dialogues
on our top page under Letters.
The Quantonics Society
"To behave according to caprice... is merely...bending [our] will to imitate [our] mechanism of [our] intellect. A conduct
that is truly our own, on the contrary, is that of a will which does not try to counterfeit intellect, and which, remaining
itself--that is to say, evolving--ripens gradually into acts which the intellect will be able to resolve indefinitely into
intelligible elements without ever reaching its goal."
Henri Louis Bergson, 'Creative Evolution,' Page 48.