This week I have had some very fundamental dialogues on two subjects,
inner peace, and quantum multisimultaneity, with really serious folks. I have
also had interesting discussions on what really happens when an electron jumps
an energy level, but that I save for other venues. Item 2 will be quantum
multisimultaneity, but my response to that also refers to Christianity and
Islam. Republican politics also figure in both.
1. Inner Peace, and link to Buddhism
=========================================
======================================================================
1.A: my memory of the first part of the dialogue (at Quaker Meeting)
Last Sunday, our Quaker “drop in” discussion began from a two-page
extract from the writings of Howard Brinton, who for many years had a
leadership position at Pendle Hill, the number one center for Quaker
publications (and many other activities) in the US. “It’s just a ten minute
drive from Swarthmore” towards the west. (My mother once lived in Marple Newton,
also about ten minutes west of Swarthmore!) Many, many traditional Quakers were
religious about keeping spiritual diaries (not unlike this blog, but less
censored?), and Brinton had access to hundreds and hundreds of them – a rather
interesting resource to think about.
The title of this extract made me interested but nervous: “The Quaker
doctrine of inner peace.” DOCTRINE? But
inner peace has been a core theme in true Christianity (Yeshua’s family talks a
lot about it to this day), and it is certainly not absent from some good things
in Buddhism... where people sometimes meditate on the experience of sitting
next to a moonlit pond surrounded by woods in a calm vibrant evening in the
forest. (I remember the intense feeling WALKING by such a pond in very late
evening, dragging a suitcase, walking through a deep park on my way from New
Carrellton metro stop and my house, when my ex-wife forgot to pick me up. Such a
mixed melange of strong inputs!)
The first paragraph asked: “How can we expect to create peace and
harmony in the world if we do not have it within ourselves? No matter how hard
we work to create peace and harmony in the world, it will all end in failure as
we project the chaos in ourselves out to the world, if we do not achieve inner
peace.” That was pretty persuasive to me. It resonates with a lot of my own
personal experience. One of the factors nudging me towards retirement last February...
was a hope for straightening out some of these things.
Before we discussed the rest of the reading, we did get deep into
analyzing what that first paragraph says. Should we REALLY aim to reduce the
chaos in our lives, with such priority? Is that like the folks who want to
eliminate fear, or pain, or aberration caused by memory (the cause of scientologists)?
But we shouldn’t take pain-killing drugs under normal circumstances; that is
like shooting the messenger! The natural sane approach is to fight the source
of the pain or fear, or to reduce the confusion and ignorance which causes a
lot of mental turbulence, NOT the phenomenon of mental turbulence as such. Like
painful memories, it is an important tool, which should not be repressed but
should be managed carefully. I think we
mostly agreed on this.
But then – after the commercial, Brinton argued for a very specific WAY
to achieve inner peace. I wish I could just post the reading, but it came on
paper (and I have even lost the paper!).
Basically, he said that we should listen quietly to hear the voice of
God, learn what our life’s mission is, and then be calm and steadfast in simply
focusing on that mission for the rest of our lives. He did cite noble and
notable activities by Quakers built on that foundation. He extolled his choice
of “RELIGION” as primary leading – but then showed respect for others who feel
real meaning and purpose and inner peace by suffusing spiritual calling into
whatever role in life they have gravitated to.
There was less of a feeling of immediate consensus here than on past
meetings in this series, so we continued a bit by email.
1B. My Initial email follow-on ******************************************************
Good
morning......!
We discussed the
important selection from Howard Brinton a bit more after we left meeting.
His first paragraph
was very meaningful to me, on more levels than one, but we still feel some
discomfort with the rest. I am reminded of some Eastern people who say "be
here now" or scientologists who just want to ditch the power of associative
memory in human life, or Ayn Rand, or folks who try to be fearless, and so on.
There are many many concepts about life which can be exciting at times and very
useful in the right context, but also unbalanced and dangerous if taken too
far. It is really vital to put such things into the right context, to preserve
the benefits but avoid the downsides.
In fact, a whole lot
of my own life has been intensely "mission oriented." Crudely, I
think of this as a kind of "yang" style of life, which is vital to
life, but which strongly needs balance with the "yin" side. In fact,
this month, as I came to understand more and more the limits of Zen Buddhism as
it emerges from the Shaolin Monastery in China (which we have visited), I have
joked to myself: "This was NOT so Chinese as Shaolin claims, to get money.
Maybe the Chinese need to invent a third Buddhism, Yang Buddhism.... to create
balance with the extreme yin which makes China strong in some ways but very
weak in others."
So yes, mission
oriented life is an important PART of life, but....
In my case, the
mission I have felt most called to address in my life is: "Try to minimize
the probability that the human species does not go extinct within just a few
millennia." That is a clear mission, much better defined in principle than
most,
and it does allow a
kind of integration and one-mindedness as Brinton describes.
But it does not really
avoid chaos and turbulence in the mind, and does not create calmness. Indeed,
understanding the various threats to human existence in anything but calming!
There is a kind of chaos of mind which is a natural, healthy way to consider
multiple hypotheses and multiple approaches, always readsy to adapt to changing
circumstances.
Sometimes that is too
much for me. For example, I am recently interested in the challenge of
"formulating MQED," a model of physics as proposed at the end of my
recent paper with Luda. That is much smaller, and much more focused... yes even
there, it is essential to open up to chaos, to uncertainty, to hundreds of
viewpoints, to have a real chance of success.
What worries me most
about Brinton's description is HOW he would in effect choose a mission for
himself. I do not believe that God gives just one
clear well-defined
simple mission for each person on earth, for their entire lives.
In a way, I think of
God as more like a teacher in a Montessori school, who offers choices and is
aware of the need to make it not too hard and not too easy.
Brinton's emphasis on
peaceful thinking is biased towards too easy, in my view.
Much of my own life
has been TOO yang, probably biased towards to hard,
inhumanly hard. Yet...
we are called to push ourselves to our limits -- not beyond, but enough... a
bit like "no pain, no gain."
I really liked an old
Quaker woman I once heard from at Adelphi meeting, whose testimony was: "I
really listened to the thoughts about getting rid of unimportant things, to
make room for what is more important in life. My life was so overcluttered with
things which were not really important. Now I got rid of those things... and
now my life is even more cluttered with important things, where I know it will
cause real harm if I do not keep up..!!" I believe we are all called to
follow her path, one
way or another... but lately I am drifting towards a bit more yin to balance
things. To some degree. Not pushing things so hard that I break myself or
others. I think. (I am reminded of some neat things people said about Kasich,
"He sounds so moderate and in the middle but actually he drives everyone
nuts...")
Best regards,
1C. His Initial Response
************************************************************
Thanks for your
thoughts. I think Brinton's experience
is that God does communicate (if we listen). And if that really is the case
(not hypothetically, but actually), then that experience puts everything else
in a distant second place. The important question has been answered:
there is a God who loves me and has something for me to do. Now, get to work
and do it. That really does have the effect (at least, for me) of focusing and
putting all other matters into proper perspective. It becomes possible to live
"single mindedly." Which is what I think Brinton means by "peace
of mind." No conflicting motives and purposes. All for His glory.
I do not see how to
frame this idea, of a personal God with whom I have a direct relationship, into
(say) Buddhist or Taoist terms. No Yin
or Yang. Just one-on-one relationship with God. You know, somepeople really do have
such an experience of God. Yeah, yeah, I know. I've been talking to my
imaginary friend again. But, hey, to me God is not imaginary, or just an idea.
The other quibble I have
is your choice of the word "mission." It seems to me freighted and
not really how I experience much of my relationship with God. For example, what
God calls me to do might only last for two minutes (say, speaking a word of
encouragement to someone). And then the next instruction. And the next. etc.
I'm not saying that some people don't experience a call to mission (that
might last years); but much of the communication (in my experience) fits much
more into the minute to minute, daily rhythms of life. IMHO.
1D. My First Reply
*************************************************************
>You
know, some people really do have such an experience of God. Yeah, yeah, I
know. I've been talking to my >imaginary friend again.
Ah, but am I the
imaginary friend?
The Greeley piece
suggests many people have had experience they would not discuss in public. This
fosters a situation where ever so many people imagine that they as individuals
have seen so much more than all or 90% of the world.
To be honest, when
Brinton suggests that God acts like a marine sergeant, handing out orders and
saying "just do it, stupid, no questions," that suggests to me that
his experience was substantially modulated by what he himself asked for and
wanted, based on his own fears and limits. (Another theme Greeley probes quite
well.) If one ASKS God for simple, stupid orders, he may provide what is asked,
but the request from the person who asks really drives that outcome.
> But, hey, to me God is not
imaginary, or just an idea. The other quibble I have is your choice of the word
"mission. It >seems to me freighted
That's pretty much
what Brinton was saying, no? Isn't that what focused and specific and single-minded
MEANS, especially when one views it as exactly representing what God is asking
of one?
>and
not really how I experience much of my relationship with God For example,
what God calls me to do might only >last for two minutes (say, speaking a
word of encouragement to someone). And then the next instruction.
Yes, that was part of
what I was saying, in contrast with the pure single-minded approach. To some
extent, it is a matter of one thing at a time.
>And
the next. etc. I'm not saying that some people don't
experience a call to mission (that might last years); but >much of the
communication (in my experience) fits much more into the minute to minute,
daily rhythms of life.
Perhaps that is closer
to the real thing than Brinton's more formal statement of it. But again, it is
a matter of balance.
Of course, there is a
very deep and fundamental challenge of discernment. Many people on earth have
asserted very strongly that God wanted them to do things which you and I would
agree are not really that. My brother recently talked to me about the lessons
he has learned about being very careful to manage what LEVEL one listens to,
and there are many levels, and many ways the process can be biased by ego.
Brinton clearly rejects the idea of tuning into the earth as a whole, in the
spirit of de Chardin... yet did his mind really reach out beyond the earth, or
do we see more reflection of his personal needs? In many ways, it reminds me of
what Greeley says about people who recoil from the ongoing dialogue, by saying
"Please God, I'll be a good boy, I will be loyal and perseverant in
(whatever tradition they grew up in), if only you will please not do THAT again
... please be satisfied by my being a loyal (X)..."
1E. His second reply
***************************************************
Hi, Paul --
Your choice of words (marine
sergeant; handing out orders; just do it, stupid, no questions;
substantially modulated; simple, stupid orders) does not accurately capture my
own personal experience. Here is my attempt to rephrase your concern. You
seem to be worried that people like Brinton (and me?) actually have a personal,
hidden agenda that they may not be fully aware of themselves, and are using the
excuse that "God told me to do it" in a kind of narrow, neurotic way
to justify what are in fact selfish motivations. You may also be worried that
people like Brinton (and me?) cannot easily handle complexity, and therefore seek ways not to
have to deal with it (simple orders). Again, the motivation is self-serving.
God is being used as a psychological justification for a hidden selfish agenda.
I respond: I think that
both these concerns are realistic, and occur widely. Whether they occur, in
fact, for Brinton (and for me?) requires more careful analysis. I observe (something you already know) that
the fact that some people mis-use grace does not mean that others may not use
it well. I think we ought to look more
closely on a case-by-case basis; "one size fits all" doesn't work
here, IMHO.
For what it's worth, I
think you are a sensitive, thoughtful person. It's likely that I am over-reacting
to some words that don't have the same emotional overtones to you that they
have to me. I apologize.
1F. My second reply
************************************************************************************
Yes, I did note a
difference between the fully single-minded approach advocated by Brinton
and
what you said towards
the end about your experience.
>Here
is my attempt to rephrase your concern. You seem to be worried that people like
Brinton (and me?) actually >have a personal, hidden agenda that they may not
be fully aware of themselves, and are using the excuse that "God >told
me to do it" in a kind of narrow, neurotic way to justify what are in fact
selfish motivations. You may also be >worried that people like Brinton (and me?) cannot easily handle
complexity, and therefore seek ways not to have to >deal with it (simple
orders).
I certainly did not
want to raise questions about your own practice. My concern was simply with the
lack of balance in Brinton's recommendations for us all, which were labelled as
THE Quaker doctrine on inner peace.
>>Whether they occur, in fact,
for Brinton (and for me?) requires more careful analysis.
All of us who are
serious about our spiritual practice must always be vigilant about the effects
of normal human psychology. Normally, I should put much more effort into
critiquing my own limits (as Jesus suggested... removing the beam, from my own
eye...)... but written formal doctrines do require that we evaluate such
doctrines carefully, to keep ourselves in the right context.
Just as I see Brinton's
"solution" as one-sided (good but bad if pursued too far and too
completely), I would also criticize the "be here
now" Buddhists and Taoists in the same way. It is very good to be here now
sometimes, energetically, but it is also very important to be somewhere else
far away at times. More enlightened Buddhists are serious about
being somewhere else at times and taking a middle way, and more enlightened
Taoists call for a yin-yang kind of balance, but in all major cultures people
do sometimes forget the larger picture, to their loss.
>I observe
(something you already know) that the fact that some people mis-use grace does
not mean that others >may not use it well. I think we ought to look more
closely on a case-by-case basis; "one size fits all" doesn't work >here,
IMHO.
Yes, we agree
completely. In a good Montessori school, the teacher works hard to meet the
distinct needs of individual students, and to be sensitive to what they need
and what they can handle. There are many forms of Buddhism, some as decadent as
the most decadent forms of Christianity or Islam, but there is also some kind
of higher form, which seriously views the world as a school. I see no
inconsistency between that and what Yeshua was teaching.
2. Quantum Multisimultaneity:
What Does that New Experiment Tell us? ===============
==============================================================
2A. A friend in the
quantum field
asked***************************************************************
Transactional
Interpretation
Physical Review
Letters - Experimental Test of Multisimultaneity http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.120404
Jenny Lorraine Nielsen: Attention all physicists – Does this result
take out the transactional interpretation?
Sabine Hossenfelder
Jes Scott Paul Erlich Nick Herbert – It's curious I do not see it cited very often despite it
being a big name paper with an interesting result. (I don't personally endorse
a conclusion that all forms of the pilot wave interpretation are ruled out, but
also do not have a firm opinion in re: Bohmian interpretations.)
2B. My evaluation of this:
************************************************************
Just yesterday, I was
considering joining APS primarily for the sake of journal access (which I had
at NSF but no longer I think)... but the web page was a bit fuzzy.
"members pay $50." Per issue? Per journal? For full access?
But
"multisimultaneity" is a good google term. As I understand it, they
are philosophers looking at the way reference frame effects change predictions
for Bell's Theorem experiments. The new empirical result is that they DON'T
change those predictions, just as Copenhagen would say, more or less.
But: so far as I know,
I am the only on earth ever to demonstrate local realistic models which correctly
predict the Bell experiments. (Not just in arxiv, published also in SPIE, QIP
and IJBC.) Of course, I know how those models work. Change in reference frame does
not change the predictions. Thus it is simply incorrect in logic to say that
the new experiment does anything to invalidate the class of models I have
developed (and am working on-again off-again to extend).
What about "pilot
waves"? Well, there is a lot of stuff done in the name of De Broglie and
Bohm (like stuff done in the name of Jesus or Mohammed) which would have really
horrified the folks who developed the original version. Perhaps the new
experiment invalidates a lot of that, but perhaps it was already logically
invalidated, depending on which instances of Bohmianism you pick. However, in
my view, the basic concepts of the linear and nonlinear wave discussed in the
book by De Broglie and Vigier are still quite tenable, at least if one allows
for some chaos in the dynamics of the "pilot wave" (the linear wave).
'tHooft claims that he believes that, just as Jeb Bush and Cheney claim to be
Christians and the Koch brothers claim to be fighting for freedom...
but I don't see him
having any interest in the type of mathematics needed to make it real.
===========
Maybe I will write
more on that, or maybe not.....
(By the way, I kept
the letters I received from DeBroglie long ago, and included them in my scans
from the time I retired.)
No comments:
Post a Comment