Paul N. has taken up guitar in the last several years. He had played for our group once before, and decided to play for us again today. He composes music himself, but in this case he chose to play and sing a song by Neil Young, called "Harvest Moon" in celebration of the harvest moon, which is the first full moon after the fall equinox. Below are the words for this song. We enjoyed hearing the song to open our session.
Come a little bit closer
Hear what I have to say
Just like children sleepin'
We could dream this night away.
But there's a full moon risin'
Let's go dancin' in the light.
We know where the music's playin'
Let's go out and feel the night.
Beause I'm still in love with you.
I want to see you dance again
Because I'm still in love with you
On this harvest moon.
When we were strangers
I watched you from afar
When we were lovers
I loved you with all my heart.
But now it's gettin' late
And the moon is climbin' high
I want to celebrate
Se it shinin' in you eye.
Because I'm still in love with you.
I want to see you dance again
Because I'm still in love with you
On this harvest moon.
Paul then asked the group: Why do we human beings question everything? What purpose does that serve?
Inquiry is important; in fact, inquiry and mindfulness are one and the same thing, just coming from different directions.
But we do question all the time. And there is a certain futility to the questioning. Our world is always a little bit off from the way things are and how we perceive them, so we always question.
Paul presented a handout with various quotes about questioning:
"With perception there is deception" by Thich Nhat Hanh. We know that everyone perceives things slightly differently. We are all deceived by our perception.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was discussed briefly. The below paragraphs are from Wikipedia's definition of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle:
In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured. The principle states that a minimum exists for the product of the uncertainties in these properties that is equal to or greater than one half of the reduced Planck's constant (ħ = h/2π).
Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. Moreover, his principle is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics.
In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the position of a particle. It could be anywhere the particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet. To obtain an accurate reading of position, this wave packet must be 'compressed' as much as possible, meaning it must be made up of increasing numbers of sine waves added together. The momentum of the particle is proportional to the wavenumber of one of these waves, but it could be any of them. So a more precise position measurement–by adding together more waves–means the momentum measurement becomes less precise (and vice versa).
The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength (and therefore an indefinite momentum). Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position. So in quantum mechanics, there can be no states that describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. The more precise the position, the less precise the momentum.
Paul discussed the fallibility of memory. Everytime you reboot a memory, you corrupt it. So your memories change. When we live things over and over again, we change them, or they become wrong, unreal, altered by our emotions. Fear, anger, and righteousness make us believe our wrong memories more.
We all live by certain unprovable truths or assumptions. (Is this what is meant by faith?) But given our distorted memories, we all come to a place where we have to make things fit together based on these assumptions that we have. Memory is subjective and the main point of our memory is to support the ego. Whatever we see is not really the way things are. The ego is a me versus you type of thinking process.
We want to be certain. Most of us don't live comfortably with uncertainty. There are real things that are fairly certain -- we drive on the right side of the road, and others do also. But if you apply this to political beliefs and try to arrive at the same degree of certainty, it doesn't work. For example, assume Democrats are better than Republicans. Our assumptions don't work here, and we get into trouble.
Someone said, "Being uncertain is uncomfortable, but being certain is ridiculous."
And yet we question: Socrates said: "The unexamined life is not worth living."
"People with opinions just go around bothering each other" Buddha said this.
A study was done at UW. A group of people who believed that Saddam Hussein planned 9/11. This group was given the truth and shown evidence to prove that this was not the case. They then realized and admitted that they had been wrong about this information, but they still did not change their opinion about the war in Iraq. They still maintained that the war was necessary though the main reason they had used to back it had been proven wrong.
We would rather be ruined than changed.
We would rather die in our dread
Than take up the cross of the moment
And let our illusions die. by W.H. Auden
The superego beomes involved here. It is judgemental and self observing. It's sort of a higher level or exagerated ego. For a person grounded in self, groundlessness is very fearful. So ego protects us from this. Yet the truth is that ground is an illusion, so we are basicly groundless.
Belief allows change of the idea. Dogma can't be changed.
There is always questioning. What is the alternative to always questioning? Various answers came from the group: 1) Being a bliss ninny. 2) accepting 3) proselytizing 4) preaching. Some of these results of not questions are not for the good of humanity. There has to be a dialogue. When we conduct a monologue with out ego we are defending our dogma because it cannot be changed. This has led to great uncivility in our time from the interaction on the street corner all the way to political campaigns and the reaction of those in the highest offices of power.
The last two quotes are from Paul himself:
" Being uncertain and even being wrong is inevitable. Being open is a deep practice, essential to the Fourth Noble Truth" (a viewpoint).
"Questioning when there are no answers, or even worse, when it leads to self-deception, can be a problem. Spiritual growth or ego?"