Subject:	SODV
Date:	Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:32:24 +0000
From:	FlameProof@hotmail.com
To:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT

Hi Doug,

Today, I just re-read Pirsig's SODV...May I ask a question as:

[Are] there any differences between Doug's Quantonics and Pirsig's MoQ?

Thanks and Regards,

Henry

Subject:	Re: SODV
Date:	Thu, 05 Dec 2002 17:01:31 -0500
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@hotmail.com

Hello Henry!

Before we forget, please let us know when your ZMM and Lila books arrive.

Are there differences twixt Pirsig's MoQ and Quantonics?

Yes! Many, too numerous to describe here fully.

We have liberally "quantum-extended" Pirsig's MoQ.

Places you can look to see us explicate some of those differences:

1. Problematic Pirsigean Memes
2. Our table of comparisons in our review of Stein's The Concept of Object as the Foundation of Physics
3. Pirsig-Bergson on Monism-Pluralism (This is perhaps best of all, since it shows Pirsig's (mostly English language dependent) latent and lingering classicisms.)

Throughout our website you will find areas where we see MoQ as problematic from a quantum perspective, and that is why we have offered our own extensions to MoQ. We have done this without Pirsig's blessing. His only request to us was to call it something else besides "MoQ," thus our more appropriate name, "Quantonics."

As you read ZMM and Lila, you may wish to list what you perceive as "differences." That would be a powerful study guide for your QCSG2002 students. And it would be independent of any, ostensibly biased, spoon-feeding we provide.

A major problem with Pirsig's works is his use of classical English language. Were we to just/only Quantonics English Language Remediate (QELR) both his texts, many issues would dissolve/evaporate. We are considering doing extended publishable reviews of both texts with selected remediated text analogues, but we shall ask his permission prior.

An example here is that Pirsig not infrequently uses "truth." In Quantum reality, there is no such concept as "absolute classical truth." Why? Quantum reality is probabilistic/stochasitc and thus quantum uncertain. Any quantum truth is, at best, islandic. So we must ask, "What does Pirsig mean when he speaks of truth?" We are confident he agrees that "truth" is Static Quality, and as such is an agent of its own change under Dynamic Quality's absolute change impetus AKA Bergson's "élan vital." But often he uses (appears to use) "truth" classically, and that concerns us.

Similarly he uses "either," "or," "both," "and," etc. Does he intend those as purely classical? He claims classical dialectic is inferior to sophist rhetoric. To us that means we must forgo any uses of dialectical terms when we talk of reality in general. But he does not do that. Why? We understand that he needs to use 'normal language' so that he can reach a vaster audience, and it is (as you can see on our site) a huge job to remediate English language to better describe quantum reality. Had he done that, he would not have sold any books! (In Quantonics, we are not trying to sell books, rather, we are trying to find diligent folk like you who will help us help Pirsig better describe and extend his works. He has never asked us to stop doing our extensions and doing our difficult work, only to rename it.)

Pirsig's thelogos is atrocious also. Ours was too until about 3-4 years ago. But that is just more classical legacy.

We did not think of it when we mailed you ZMM and Lila, but you also need to read Eugen Herrigel's Zen in the Art of Archery. Herrigel was a student of a Zen Master for several years and his book was Pirsig's inspiration for ZMM and Lila. Pirsig instructed us to read Herrigel's book to better understand both ZMM and Lila. We did. Guess what? Herrigel's book is even more quantum than Pirsig's two texts, and it sold a lot fewer copies. In fact, Herrigel offered us, as his readers, one of our greatest epiphanies! "We are in It and It is in us!" Taken literally it forces all of us to renounce Aristotle's syllogisms!

"We are in It and It is in us," is a nearly perfect description of what we call quantum reality's "included-middle." Nearly all classical thing-king, logic, mathematics, science, philosophy, culture, etc. depend upon an ontology whose middle is Aristotelian-excluded! That is why Irving Stein said, "We have a Newtonian ontology for classical reality, but we have no ontology for quantum reality."

As we described for you earlier, Pirsig says "Lila has quality," and "Quality has Lila," but he never says, "Lila is in Quality and Quality is in Lila." As a result, we think Pirsig's ontology still harbors some excluded-middles. His uses of classical negation, similar to Henri Louis Bergson's, uncovers some of Pirsig's legacy dialectics. (One of our greatest enigmas is how Bergson taught us that classical negation is subjective and then he went ahead and wrote most of his books using negation classically, as objective!)

We are omnifferent MoQ in that we, in Quantonics, try to view quantum real co(n)mtexts as absent, in general, any dialectics and their objective detritus. We keep it only as a means to talk with SOMites (in SOM contexts) and to help students like you to fathom vast omnifferences among quantons and dichons.

I just took a walk along Oregon's rocky coast line, and it is sunny (~noon time) and about 20C. Fabulous. We are enjoying it immensely. Makes this work here relatively easy after refreshing and clean pacific air tousles one's hair.

Best and kind regards,

Doug.
================

Subject:	Re: SODV
Date:	Fri, 06 Dec 2002 03:51:06 +0000
From:	FlameProof@hotmail.com
To:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT

Hi Doug,

Your books not yet arrive, I think it will take four weeks normally. Surely, I
should inform you then.

You said in last mail: As you read ZMM and Lila, you may wish to list what
you perceive as "differences." --Why differences in " "?

Eugen Herrigel's Zen in the Art of Archery, I have read its Chinese edition
few years ago. Maybe, I should re-read it.

When I study your website, often, I notice that your comments and
reviews (judgments) on others or books are not static, but
changing, refining, self-calibrating...This really impress me. But, does this
mean that your changing reviews (judgments) will never arrive to a stop? If
it is a unending process, how can I catch something from this flowing? And, is
there any unchanging in your changing?...I think this is one of difficulties
studying your Quantonics, seems nothing to catch. But, how can one know in
advance he can eventually catch something before he catches?...

As for MoQ, are there any different interpretations? As for interpretations, is
it possible to catch what Pirsig really mean? And, is it possible for me to
catch what Doug really mean?

Thanks a lot.

Enjoy your fabulous holidays,

Henry

Subject:	Re: SODV
Date:	Sun, 08 Dec 2002 17:31:10 -0500
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@hotmail.com

Hello Henry!

We want to publish our dialogue. It is turning out to be quite helpful for our students. May we publish your side of this dialogue? If so, do you want us to use Henry, or HGO or some other appellation?

See our comments embedded below -

osho G wrote:

Hi Doug,

Your books not yet arrive, I think it will take four weeks normally. Surely, I
should inform you then.

You said in last mail: As you read ZMM and Lila, you may wish to list what
you perceive as "differences." --Why differences in " "?

Unsure what you mean here... Are you asking "Why?" there are differences twixt MoQ and Quantonics?

If that is what you are asking, and you are doing so sincerely, then we can expose/uncloak another SOM delusion: no two 'things' are ever identical in quantum reality; neither is any 'thing' identical to itself longer than a Planck 'moment.'

Henry is different from Henry from Planck moment to Planck moment. Ditto Doug. Ditto all humans. Ditto all living 'things.' Ditto our multiverses.

Some have said, we believe correctly, "The map is not the territory." Words you read here are not Doug. Words you write to us are not Henry. No Static Quality symbol like "horse" can represent (in a quantum real way) its significate! But those SQ Value symbols (map, horse, words) can be played animately like music on our quantum stage minds. And certainly music made by Henry's quantum stage using Doug's SQV word-notes is not identical to Doug's music which is playing in his own quantum stage and hermeneutically transformed into text which is sent to Henry as email. Just latency in messages from when they originate to when they are played again on another quantum stage makes their hermeneutics 'different.' So we are in need of a more Venn (John, i.e., a Vennesque-) quantum analogue of real quantum communications using SQV symbols. Further comsider (vis-à-vis classical 'consider') how reality's music is/appears 'physical' to us. Earth is an example of part of quantum reality's music. One of its notes is Earth's rotation rate. Another is its solar orbit rate. And lots of living things are making complex "music" on Earth's surface. Ocean waves just outside our window are making thundering music. And so on...

Doug

Eugen Herrigel's Zen in the Art of Archery, I have read its Chinese edition
few years ago. Maybe, I should re-read it.

When I study your website, often, I notice that your comments and
reviews (judgments) on others or books are not static, but
changing, refining, self-calibrating...This really impress me. But, does this
mean that your changing reviews (judgments) will never arrive to a stop?

Yes! In quantum reality, we must answer affirmative. (Quantum reality never stops! See never. See stop. See our recent Zeno's Paradice on 'stoppability.')

Quantonics is a living, evolving web site. It is emergent! It is many heterogeneous emergings, including its interrelationships with you, Henry, and so many other quantum beings (AH, Jared, Gina, Bert, Josh(es), Jon(s), Mitch, Beth, Bret, Dan(s), Robert, Lance, Eric, Melanie, Linda(s), Maggie, Matt, Cheri, Rita, Ken, Len(s), Paul(s), and so on...) who share dialogues with us.

Unlike books which are "stuck" our text is living. We repair our DNA as we go, and it incrementally gets 'better' and more well. Pirsig calls this incremental Quality improvement, "Moral." We are a living example of Pirsig's DQ and SQ balancing and li-la dancing twixt 'the divine,' and 'the actual.' We are DQ/SQ complements of both better and capable of animate growth and improvement. As Pirsig says it, paraphrased, "Edge-of-now's SQ is Nature's most recent [quantum] increment of Her ever-changing and tentative judgment." Classical SOMwits hate that perspective of reality because it evaporates any possibility of their desired exercise of absolute hegemony over Nature. Classicists want to CONTROL Nature, but to imagine that is naught but self-delusion. No finite sentient intellect may CONTROL Nature! Control and hegemony are delusions of SOMwitted "cause and effect." In quantum Nature, in general, there is no such intellectual construct. (Our negatives are quantum-subjective.)

A fundamental philosophical question is, "Is a perfect utopia stoppably inanimate or unstoppably animate." Classicists believe utopia is stoppable. MoQites and students of Quantonics and folk who grasp quantum reality's essence k-now reality is animate and unstoppable. We never stop learning. We never stop growing. We never "arrive." Quantum reality is an unending adventure, ever full of surprises — both delightful and irritating. Think of how a violin makes music. Bow's hair "irritates" violin strings. :) That is a nearly perfect analogue of a quantum 'utopia.'

But ponder some fine issues. Quantum change is not just uncertain, it is both tentative and viscous. Paint peels, but it happens too slowly for us to see it happening 'real time.' Humans age, but we can only see its accumulation after a year, or so, of separation. Cars wear out. Earth will wear out. Our galaxy will wear out, and our known universe too. In all cases, 'when' is quantum uncertain. (Note how our last sentence denies utopian classical deterministic cause-effect outright.) J. C. Maxwell refers this "wearing out" as 'entropy,' but his naïve classical version of entropy only acknowledges what quantum scientists call "fermionic reality." Quantonics shows us that there are 'really' (at least) four kinds of entropy: negentropy (isocoherent DQ, QVF, nonactuality, etc.), zeroentropy (coherent SQ, actual bosons, condensates, etc.), posentropy (decoherent SQ, actual fermions, J.C. Maxwell's "entropy," etc.), and mixtures of those: what we call "mixentropy."

Decoherent quantum actuality "ages." (e.g., paint peeling) But its aging processes are quantum variably, tentatively persistent (QVP, QTP), as we describe above. And ensemble quantum uncertainty (EQU) guarantees possibilities of persistency rates changing unexpectedly and nonlinearly. This fermionic "aging" is what deludes classicists that reality has what they SOM-unilogically (vis-à-vis polylogically (CR) and pragmalogically (MoQ)) call "time's arrow." It deludes some observers that there is one global time which fits all (reality) and that time flows unidirectionally (although Newton's 'time' could be either plus or minus; Maxwell's posentropy later said it could only be plus). We call this "classical time." (Einstein believed in and adhered this classical unitime. That belief is foundation for all of his Special and General Relativities' axiomatic manifestations and hermeneutics. As an example, a key ingredient of his SR and GR is that unitime is classically stoppable and thus analyzable.) Unitime (uni-, homo-logical time) is what classicists use as their one (Irving Stein calls it) "decoherent" metaphor of 'change.' They measure it using a space proxy of delta-space/space and call it time. This is what Bergson calls classicists' "spatial extensity" delusion of time. Axiomatically-deluded-Einstein calls it "space-time" identity. It is deluded because space is (and all 'scientific' measurables, e.g., m, l, and t are) inanimate! But quantum reality is animate. (It's rates of animation vary from Planck's rate as fastest, to almost unchanging as slowest.)

Simply then, classical change is an objective, excluded-middle space metaphor/proxy/concept. Quantum change is a quantonic, included-middle animation/duration meme. Why? Isocoherence/DQ is absolute 'classically directionless' all-'directions'/isotropic change. (See Irving Stein's Buridan's Ass metaphor in his [Stein's] [iso-]nonspace.) Coherence/SQ is reversible (i.e., adiabatic) change where any of boundless heterogeneous timings can/are reverse/reversings. (Reversible coherence manifests itself in our macro world as tsunamis, solitons, electron tunneling in transistors, water wave tunneling in thin sea walls, Rolf Landauer's zero loss (reversible) read/write cycles in RAM, Bénard convection, many bistable self-auto-reversing chemical processes, etc.) When we mix these together, as quantum reality routinely does, they are meaningless viewed from any naïve SOM mechanical perspective(s).

J. C. Maxwellian classicists do not 'know' about: coherent, isocoherent, and mixcoherent quantum reality! So they do not 'know' about real, heterogeneous quantum timings. And so they do not 'know' about real quantum change and change reversibility and isoflux as absence/undetectability of change... See entropy. See ensemble.

And that brings us back to what we wonder about what you are asking about why "differences?" But we may be misinterpreting your words.

Another way to ponder this: look at A — what is that? It is 'the' letter 'A,' capitalized. How does a classicist view A? As an immutable object, right? Said classicist assumes A, 1) is stable/holds still, and 2) is independent of any other classical object, say B, or another A. (There is no other identical A, though, is there?)

Classicists say 1) A = A, 2) A is either A or not A, and 3) A cannot be both A and not A. Those classical 'laws' are Aristotle's three syllogisms (sillygisms): identity, contradiction, and excluded-middle.
 

Aside:

Allow your mind to make an enormous leap. Imagine A as if it were alive and capable of evolution and quantum interrelationships with other characters and words in its both local and nonlocal comtexts. (I.e., imagine A as memetic. Doug - 16Jan2003) Now imagine that text evolving as your quantum memetic thoughts evolve on your quantum stage. We (e.g., Henry and Doug) could now come closer to sharing our individual memes. We predict this technology will become available during Earth's Millennium III. What you/Doug are thinking will/may appear on a screen (when we WANT it to) and will/may adjust and stay coherent with y-our quantum stage's memes as they ontically emerge, evolve and change. Now can you see how QTMs are so very important for y-our futures? Quantum physial computing will make all this possible, probably sooner than later.

Astute students of Quantonics will probably query, "But Doug, if we can do that (share thoughts), why do we need screens and text? Aren't screens and text both classical too?"

Imagine Earth humans confronted with Capellans capable of that!

How could we deal with Al Queda if they could do that?

End aside.

See our various 'Connections' under our G.E. Hughes' on Buridan review.

Students of Quantonics simplify Aristotle's three 'laws' into a single, simple description of any quanton in quantum reality: A is both A and n¤t A, where our negatives are quantum EIMA coobsfective/qualitative/subjective.

Since quantum reality is always changing (quantumly), students of Quantonics may only "describe" quantum animate processings, not classically 'define' them to make them 'hold still' for all time as immutable 'laws.' And unless we allow our quantum stages to memetically animate those descriptions, they become stopped by our classical thoughts. When we thingk using CTMs we allow words to stop in our minds. When we think using QTMs we keep all words in our quantum stages as animate EIMA memes. We have to use our quantum stages to animate words and enable their quantum memeticity (See Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene for his historic coining of meme.).

Henry, when you grasp these epiphanies, yours will be a shout of joy heard 'round our world. And when you can assist others to experience similar epiphanies you may then know how we feel.

Doug

If it is a unending process, how can I catch something from this flowing?

Precisely! That's Bergson's whole point! We cann¤t (subjective negation). Quantum reality is a Bergsonian duration. An unstoppable, nonanalyzable (classically), unending process.

Our CTM words apparently (to SOMwitted classicists) do "catch something from this flowing," but those static concepts are then n¤t quantum real (they are classical idea(l)s/concepts they are n¤t quantum memes/quantons.).

So what do we do? We QTM-ride said processes (like we ride a horse, which is, indeed, a quantum process J). We go with their animate, massively heterogeneous, EIMA ensemble proceedings.

How? How can we measure quantum reality scientifically? Richard P. Feynman figured this out several decades ago. We have to use quantum computers to do quantum computing with qubits whose Values are animate and monitorable!

But all of reality already IS a quantum computer. You are, we are... We already use qubits in our quantum stage minds. Our minds, as Mae-wan Ho so eloquently showed us, are capable of massive ~neural-networking coherent quantum association-ings.

We cannot 'catch/stop' quantum reality, but we can/do "ride/monitor/watch/co-here" her!

This is another POWERFUL quantum epiphany! (You will/shall grasp and fathom it soon...)

Note that genuine AI is impossible without it. (See that movie, AI, and ask yourself how those 'dolls' can be so apparently 'human.')

Doug.

And, is there any unchanging in your changing?...I think this is one of difficulties
studying your Quantonics, seems nothing to catch. But, how can one know in
advance he can eventually catch something before he catches?...

See if above paragraphs satisfy those two queries. Methinks we have already answered them, but if not, keep pushing.

Afterthought:

Quantum reality is stindyanic. It is a quanton(apparently_stable_apparently_independent,dynamic_animate). To answer directly, "Quantum reality is both apparently_unchanging and absolutely_changing."

End afterthought.

Let's use our Quantonics script to show this:

Doug.

As for MoQ, are there any different interpretations?

In our view yes, and they are unlimited and changing.

Aside: Quantum reality is an interpretive/hermeneutic reality. Quantum reality tends toward pluralism, multicomtextuality, animacy, uncertainty, included-middle, EIMA, subjectivity, Quality, etc. Classical reality is a paradigmatic, noninterpretive reality. Classical reality tends toward monism, moncontextuality, stability, determinism, excluded-middle, EEMD, objectivity, quantity, etc. "...interpretati¤n involves according primacy to subjectivity over objectivity." By Philip R. Wallace in his Paradox Lost, 1st ed., ch. 34, p. 151, Springer, 1996. (Call it I2APTSO2. J) MoQ: Quantum reality accords primacy to subjectivity over objectivity. (~Heraclitus, ~Protagoras, Hamann, Renouvier, Bergson, James, Pirsig, Renselle, etc.) SOM, CR: Classical reality accords primacy to objectivity over subjectivity. (Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Peirce, Dewey, Einstein, etc.) End aside.

Doug.

As for interpretations, is it possible to catch what Pirsig really mean?

Yes! A great example is that he tells us DQ is absolute: change is absolute. But we cannot static-symbolically catch it. We must use quantons, memes and qubits to monitor and ride what Pirsig really means. Concord/concurrence now means animate synchrony, not classical symbolic stoppage on a know-ledge. As Tom Petzinger writes in his The New Pioneers, we must become one (i.e., quantum coherent) with our tools/reality. When we do that we appear to those observing us similar to a pair of dancing grebes mating. When we do that we are like Zen Masters or mystical Samurai warriers.

Another is that DQ absolutely changes SQ and SQ (when it is good) acts as an agent of DQ's change impetus. DQ is 1st good and SQ is 2nd good.

More difficult is to view DQ and SQ with included-middles (Herrigel, and Pirsig himself to a more limited extent as we described prior; too, this included-middle theme recurs throughout literature's history and quite intrinsically in biology, biochemistry, nanology, etc.) and quantum extended with Quantonics' EIMA (i.e., everywhere-associative).

Henry, it took Doug about 18 years of casual effort and about 2-3 years of concentrated effort to 'understand' all this in ways that are possible for Doug's mind/quantum stage to 'understand.' It is important to see all as animate process and simultaneously see all as compenetrating(s). It is important to understand that quantum reality is coobsfective via its EIMA quantonic and recursive interrelationships with itself. It is important to understand that quantum reality's intrinsic self-awareness via coobsfection, permits an evolutionary avalanche of quantum uncertain, heterogeneous ensemble, and animate: choices, chances, and changes. It is important to understand how vastly omnifferent this process is from classical 1-1 correspondent, cause-effect determinism.

Doug.

And, is it possible for me to catch what Doug really mean?

Your query is classical in that it evokes a binary response. Were you to ask that question without losing your Quality you might query, "Is it possible for me to both catch what Doug means and for me to not catch what Doug means?" (Essence of necessarily ambiguous classical communication.)

Our answer to your question is Mu, tertium non datur, both yes and no, and quanton(no,yes). (using subjective negation) It is very worth your while to study very carefully Pirsig's answer to Rigel's query, "Does Lila have Quality?" Ponder Pirsig's deferred (many pages later) solution to his initial "Quality-losing" Sheffer stroke binary alternative denial answer: "Yes!" Then further ponder how classicists, posing questions and answers dialectically and thus dichotomously, always lose their Quality, but folk who understand quantum reality almost never "Lose their Quality." Lot's of Buddha co-here...

Our answer to our version of your question is a quantum-inclusive "Yes!" But that isn't a Sheffer stroke binary denial alternative dichon. It is a quanton. It is subjective. It is qualitative. It is affective. (Why? Our "yes" is a quantum "yes." It's quantum c¤mplement is a quantum "n¤." That quantum "n¤" is Bergsonian subjective, affective, Qualitative, interpretive (I²APTSO²), heter¤gene¤us, included-middle, everywhere-ass¤ciative, etc., and thus so is our "yes," given our belief in quanton(n¤,yes) vis-à-vis our self-taught, self-learned, self-heuristic disbelief in dichon(no, yes). Doug - 14Dec2002.) (Quantum yæs issi quanton(n¤,yæs), again, lots of Buddha here. 16Jan2003 - Doug)

To use a classical example, imagine Doug and Henry are a Venn diagram of two circles. Our "included-middle" overlap is our degree/extent of mutual understanding. Part of Henry which nonoverlaps is his nonunderstanding of Doug and part of Doug which nonoverlaps Henry is his nonunderstanding of Henry. Now extend that Venn to omni-iso-flux. Roughly, an animate EIMA ~Hilbert space composing quantum actuality and compenetrating quantum n¤nactuality. We are in It and It is in us. It animates us and we are agents of its vast impetus for massive multiversal EIMA processings/changings. Seeing this is y-our most omnifficult accomplishment. It means that we view ourselves as quantons(n¤nactuality,actuality).

Happy Holidays, Henry, to you and yours,

Doug.
========================

Subject:	Re: SODV & How koan.
Date:	Mon, 09 Dec 2002 04:06:39 +0000
From:	FlameProof@hotmail.com
To:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT

Hi Doug,

When publish my side of our dialogue, you can use Henry. Hope any help for
others.

As for your comments, I am still reading...the response may come later.

Thanks and Regards,

Henry.

and

Hi Doug,

When reading your comments, I ask myself what I think about it...I try to
grasp something, any epiphany...seems not yet shows up...

Maybe, from CTM perspective, to understand QTM is impossible. But, on where I am
standing now is CTM, how (how again and again) can quantum-leap from CTM to QTM
possible?...such like a Koan as, how to transcend CTM from CTM? or, how can CTM
transcend CTM itself?...

Another how, why CTM dominate most people and cultures till now (maybe and
on)? How can QTM deny CTM?...

Maybe Doug ever had the similar problem as I stated above,what happened to
you then?

You said, "it took Doug about 18 years of casual effort and about 2-3 years of
concentrated effort to 'understand' all this in ways that are possible for
Doug's mind/quantum stage to 'understand.'"

During Doug's those years, any experience to share with us?

Thanks and Good Luck,

Henry.

Subject:	Re: how koan.
Date:	Tue, 10 Dec 2002 18:03:35 -0500
From:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT
Organization:	Quantonics
To:	FlameProof@hotmail.com

Hello Henry!

Our remarks in this email are very direct. Please do not confuse our directness with offense. We intend no offense. We are asking you some questions which are difficult for most folk to answer in any forum. We are totally willing to answer these same questions, regarding our own beliefs, for you, Henry.

Interesting you choose that word in your subject line: koan... Our MS Bookshelf says this about koan, "A riddle in the form of a paradox used in Zen Buddhism as an aid to meditation and a means of gaining intuitive knowledge." Paradice can only exist in a monocontextual belief system.

Quantum reality is (our Quantonics version of quantum reality is) multicomtextual. Paradice cannot survive in multicomtexts!

Why? Assuming paradox(dyad₁,dyad₂) represents a bivalent paradox, then, given quantum reality's multicomtexts, each dyad in that paradox has a separate home comtext (a quantum island of local truth) in which that dyad holds. In a quantum ensemble of multicomtexts an island of truth may have a culture, laws, rules, definitions, languages, mores, and axioms of local truth which support a specific dyad, while another island of local truth may have a different culture, laws, rules, definitions, mores, and axioms of truth which support another paradoxical dyad. It is really fun to realize that a home comtext may not even exist until its dyad emerges. When that happens, in Quantonics' version of quantum reality, all we need to do is create/emerscenture a n¤vel home comtext (in quantum reality there are ~unlimited ones which will 'fit') for that emergent dyad. From that emerscent comtext's birth its culture, laws, rules, definitions, mores, and axioms will evolve quantum-animately, -associatively, -uncertainly. Notice how close this notion is to what we already call intuition. We call this quantum phenomenon "Many truths." Classicists, some of whom refuse to accept a quantum notion of multicomtextuality, call it "incommensurability," "counter factual definiteness," "contrafactual definiteness," etc. See our Two Local Truths graphic. Paradoxes in any paradigmatic classical monoculture are indicators/tells that a novel intueme is attempting genesis. Classicists, CTM thing-king as he did and, as Buridan called his sophisms, call these intuemes "FALSE" because they do not fit their local OGC mono-culture, -laws, -rules, -definitions, -mores, and -axioms. QTMs teach us that it is not necessary for any meme to fit our local culture. They teach that it is OK for a novel meme to not fit our culture. Rather than reject a novel meme as FALSE, we celebrate and nurture its birth. If it is better, it will grow and flourish. If it is worse, it will become extinct. Notice how better and worse are alway quantum relative to current ensemble conditions. Ultimately better memes may fail now due absence of appropriate nourishment. Good memes have a tendency to reappear due their quantum animacy and capability for parthenogenesis and other-geneses. Eventually they find a foothold and grow. Learning to see reality as multicomtextual is part of escaping any single context's (e.g., SOM's) box of laws, rules, etc. Learning to see reality as multicomtextual is a prerequisite of solving paradice. Doug - 14Dec2002.

Using unicontextual reason disables epiphany. Clifford Geertz says it like this, "...absolutism removes judgment from history..." from his 2000 Available Light. See Shweder's Review. What do we mean by unicontextual? SOM's one global truth in one global context, where one set of classical axioms fits all hypotheses and theories. What do we mean by 'reason?' We mean classical scientific reason based upon a scientific method which says that truth is provisional based upon absence of contradiction. But Cultural Relativism's polycontextual reason disables epiphany too! Again, Clifford Geertz says it like this, "...relativism disables judgment..." from his 2000 Available Light. Why? See our huge AL Review. (We are assuming Geertz' use of judgment presumes ideal, dialectical, classical either/or judgment. In Quantonics it is incredibly important to understand omnifferences among classical judgment and quantum ensehmble ch¤¤sings/choice. See our Quanton Ensemble Quantum Interrelationships. For those of you, similar to Henry, who are concerned about how Quantonics views this issue of judgment when compared to Pirsig, we offer a relevant Pirsig quote, "The Metaphysics of Quality says that if moral judgments are essentially assertions of value and if value is the fundamental ground-stuff of the world, then moral judgments are the fundamental ground-stuff of the world. It says that even at the most fundamental level of the universe, static patterns of value and moral judgment are identical. The 'Laws of Nature' are moral laws." Page 156 of 410, Lila. And, "When inorganic patterns of reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so because it's 'better' and that this definition of 'betterness'—this beginning response to Dynamic Quality—is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based." Page 157 of 410, Lila. Here, MoQ and Quantonics' version of quantum reality agree. Quantum judgment is ensehmble Planck rate incremental.

Aside 16Jan2003 - Doug:

Our Quantonics coined usage of "ensehmble" is a great way to compare CTMs to QTMs. CTMs presume that judgment is classically analytic and thus objective and thus Aristotelian 'stable' and 'bivalent.' Classical reality permits only one context, at-a-'time.' Classical reality denies anihmatæ quantum multicomtextualism and so it denies quantum reality and we infer it then must deny our QTMs. Classical reality, when it assumes reality is bivalent, thus assumes that EOOO true or false judgments can be made about classically 'normal scientific' properties and events. Classical bivalence depends upon 'normal scientific' objectivity of two properties or events being compared to resolve classical either verity or falsity, i.e; classical 'bivalent' judgment.

QTMs nævær bivalently di(two)-fferentiate classical homogeneous/homological/state-ic/mechanical 'objects' to make choices. Why? Classical propertyesque objects do not 'exist' in quantum reality. QTMs tell us that all quantons aræ b¤th anihmatæ amd interrelati¤nally partial- and mixed-cohesive (in a host of incredible quantum ways). QTMs selectively juxtapose/superpose omnifferent quantonic ensehmbles of interrelati¤nships: omnivalently, omni(many)-fferentially.

So here is a simple epiphany:

• CTMs presume classical judgments are naïvely, classically EEMD binary alternative denial bivalent;
• QTMs putatively assume that anihmatæ quantum judgments are always EIMA omnivalent.

As Geertz hinted, and we agree, classical judgment demands both homogeneous, unitemporal history and predicable determination. Classical judgment, AKA "absolute judgment" says it can decide bivalently every historical event and all events as they occur in uni-time. That is how Geertz was able to say "absolutism removes judgment from history." He means that CTMs declare that there can only be one history and thus there is no judgment in any classical history. To SOMites/Classicists there is only one TRUE history (no other alternatives possible) and further, there is only one TRUE future: their past, and their future — the TRUE past and the TRUE future. And we see how, to classicists, even past and future are binary alternative denial bivalent. Either the TRUE past or the TRUE future! OGC with OGT. To a classicist, using CTMs, past and future are excluded-middle independent of one another. (That Aristotelian belief has countless anti-quantum ramifications.) If there may be only one past and future and it is classically y=f(t) determinate, then Geertz is correct (paraphrased), "CTMs remove quantum-heter¤gene¤us omnivalued alternative judgments from history."

All quantum judgment(ings) issi unending process of ensehmble selective ch¤¤sings. QTMs and their quantons aræ anihmatæ and alive/aware. CTMs and their classical objects are stable/state-ic and dead. CTMs AKA classical 'normal science' only works artificially with an inanimate/immutable/dead uni-world. QTMs AKA quantum 'extraordinary science' really work(ing)s with living/aware omniverses.

End aside.

In Quantonics's version of quantum reality, we refer "judgment" as ensehmble (~democratic) ch¤¤sings. Our version of quantum reality, like MoQ, enables Natural/physial historical judgment. And it enables quantum judgment if one believes that ensehmble quantum ch¤¤sings amount to judgment. Indeed, that is our, currently, best description of evolution as anihmatæ, heter¤gene¤us, EIMA, quantum pr¤cessings. )

Both SOM and CR, at their core, are objective. SOM is an objective monism. CR is many SOM's, an objective pluralism. Geertz' use of judgment in both SOM and CR contexts is a huge clue for us. Judgment depends upon classical contradiction! SOM's monism — by classical one time one context good for all judgment based upon one set of global rules for assessing general contradiction — is predetermined — a big mechanical clockwork. CR's pluralism is naught more than many SOM's, and thus still based upon classical contradiction. Doug -14Dec2002.

Quantum reality denies (our Quantonics version of quantum reality denies) any possibility of classical contradiction. Why? How? Negation is subjective, not rationally/logically/predicably objective. Without ideal classical negation, science has no means of establishing contradiction. Without classical contradiction one may not falsify a hypothesis. Without falsifiability one may not provisionally 'prove' a scientific hypothesis/theory.

But if you want to believe that negation is objective, then we say that is fine, but we respectfully disagree with that/your specific belief. Sadly, your quantum neighbors will extinguish your beliefs, not offensively/maliciously, but by evolute novel memes which surpass your classical concepts.

Do you know what you believe, Henry?

Can you list your beliefs for us? What do you believe regarding yourself, others, time, mass, space, etc. What is time? Can you classically define time? What is mass? Can you classically define mass? What is space? Can you classically define space? And perhaps most important of all: "What is change?" (Assuming change is 'real.') Can you classically define change?

Do all those classical ideas/constructs require a classical conceptualization of spatial extensity? Do they require Descartesian dimensions? Do they require Newtonian immutability, stasis, idealization of zero (e.g., can volume 'be' zero while mass is nonzero?) and idealization of one?

What IS zero? Is zero animate, inanimate, etc. Define zero for us Henry.

What IS one? Is one animate, inanimate, etc. Define one for us Henry.

What IS one minus one? What is one divided by zero? What is one minus one divided by one minus one?

Does it 'matter' whether we believe reality is only animate, only inanimate, either animate or inanimate depending, both animate and inanimate, both animate while-and inanimate, and so on...?

Does it 'matter' whether we believe reality is only heterogeneous, only homogeneous, either heterogeneous or homogeneous depending, both heterogeneous and homogeneous, both heterogeneous while-and homogeneous, and so on...?

Does it 'matter' whether we believe reality is only actual, only nonactual, either actual or nonactual depending, both actual and nonactual, both actual while-and nonactual, and so on...? (Our use of 'non' here is quantum Qualitative, subjective, affective, etc.)

Does it 'matter' whether we believe reality is only causal, only uncertain, either causal or uncertain depending, both causal and uncertain, both causal while-and uncertain, and so on...?

Does it 'matter' whether we believe reality is only contradictory (ideal Aristotelian classical negation), only quantum complementary (an epiphanous, for Doug, quantum meme), either contradictory or complementary depending, both contradictory and complementary, both contradictory while-and complementary, and so on...?

Which of these do you believe, Henry? Does it 'matter?'

What happens when one of your basic beliefs changes radically, suddenly, as a Quality Event, as a surprise to you, totally unexpected? We call that an epiphany! Epiphany is radical change! How can we have epiphanies if we do not change? Cannot change? Will not change?

Does SOM believe in change? Only as predicable unitemporal motion. SOM objects are axiomatically incapable of emergent, epiphanous change. Axioms and rules are anti-quantum-change, anti-emergent-change. SOM objects are both immutable and impenetrable and have 'stable' 'static' properties. If SOM objects could emerge they would break SOM's 'laws.' If SOM objects could compenetrate one another, they would break SOM's 'laws.'

Yes it does 'matter' what you believe! Depending on how we view reality determines our de facto ontology, thence metaphysics, thence philosophy for reality.

But does it matter that we all think only one of those ways, as classical science tells its 'scientists?' Classical dogma insists that 'scientists' believe, fundamentally, most of what Aristotle, Descartes, Newton, Einstein, et al., have told us. And that we should believe that it is important for all 'normal' scientists to share a Kuhnian paradigm.

SOM thingks it DOES 'matter' that normal 'scientists' think alike. (In Quantonics, we do not!)

We believe that all of us will find both similarities in our beliefs and dissimilarities in our beliefs. That quantum irritation of EIMA omniffering dissimilarities is like an orchestra of bows' horse hair irritating instrument strings (for wind instruments, their embouchures as irritated by musicians' lips and tongue). Quanton(dissimilarities,similarities) as quantum interrelationships whose Values may be quanton(irritating,soothing) are Pirsigean agents of real emergent/emerscenturable change for 'better.' That agency of improvement toward 'better' is what makes reality's (realities') quantum music event-ually harmonious. That is what helps reality make/choose Pirsigean better and more harmonious, more affective, more qualitative outcomes. So, in our view, it matters that we DO NOT all think and believe alike. Else how could we get out of SOM's box? How could we get out of any box? (In essence, getting out of any box is what we mean by emergence. To get out of any box one must be capable of emergence.)

SOM thingks we should all objectively share 'common sense.' Quantonics thinks we should all possess and cohere exegetic extraordinary sense. 'Common sense' is a proselyte of status quo. Extraordinary sense is an agent of absolute change.

Which is 'better' Henry? Is status quo better? Is emergent change better? You decide. It's up to you. But we get to decide for us too, and we may not necessarily agree. Is that bad? No! It is irritating! Change emerges from irritation. Quantum pragma/action guarantees we act to reduce irritation, though when is always quantum uncertain. But novel and emergent irritations always arise to induce and thus evoke novel and tentatively better improvements. (See QVP.)

So is SOM better? Is MoQ better? Depends upon what one believes.

To us SOM is a paradigm which is stuck and is only capable of Kuhnian shifts to other SOM paradigms.

In our view any paradigm is just another SOM box. And a whole bunch of them all running in parallel to one another (CR) is only more of same.

But, again, all of your answers depend upon what you believe. What do you believe, Henry? If you are happy with what you currently believe, why are you searching for novel memes?

If you believe in SOM you will achieve "different" answers from whether you believe in Quantonics. If you believe in MoQ you will achieve "different" but some more analogous answers than if you believe in Quantonics.

Do you believe Aristotle's syllogisms?

1) A is A, (identity)
2) A is either A or not A, and (contradiction)
3) A is not both A and not A. (excluded-middle)

Do you believe in emergence? SOM disallows and denies emergence!

If you believe "You are in It and It is in you," then you already have a key epiphany. But SOM's excluded-middle denies such belief.

When you live in SOM's Box you have limited/no horizons. That is why we DENY SOM as a valid belief system while simultaneously stating that you have a perfect right to believe in SOM if you want to.

We find MoQ and Quantonics superior (for now) to SOM, so we choose them as foundations for our beliefs.

It's a personal adventure, a personal journey; no one can do this for you; however, some may assist you to make progress in your journey. That fits Quantonics to a 'T.' We help you make some of those steps in that journey — unless you disagree that what we are doing here is "helpful."

Doug

See briefer remarks embedded below -

osho G wrote:

Hi Doug,

When reading your comments, I ask myself what I think about it...I try to
grasp something, any epiphany...seems not yet shows up...

You mean you do not have changes of perspectives as we described as epiphanous above?

Personally, we have them almost daily. We are changing, and aware of our own changings, almost as fast as we experience life itself.

Doug

Maybe, from CTM perspective, to understand QTM is impossible.

We are (Doug is) doing it!

We believe anyone who wants to can be doing it too.

Doug

But,on where I am
standing now is CTM,how(how again and again)can quantum-leap from CTM to QTM
possible?

It is called a bootstrap mode.

It is a lot like a tiny hole in a dike which grows as more water flows through it. SOM is a dike. All we need do is pierce its wall(s) with a tiny hole and just keep forcing water through it.

Doug

...such like a Koan as, how to transcend CTM from CTM? or, how can CTM
transcend CTM itself?...

Find a flaw/hole in CTM.

Push water through it.

Doug

Another how, why CTM dominate most people and cultures till now (maybe and
on)?

Reality appears on simple examination, self-evidently objective.

To most, it is so obvious that reality is objective that anyone who questions reality's objectivity is "insane." When a peer tells you that you are insane if you think reality is subjective, you quickly run back to SOM.

It has been like that until about 150 years ago.

Johann Georg Hamann fought 'The French Enlightenment' but his 'hole' was spiritual rather than quantum scientific. Aquinas had already 'objectified' Christianity, so Hamann was unable to force enough water through his 'hole' and it closed for another ~100-200 years.

Doug

How can QTM deny CTM?...

QTMs 'deny' CTMs based upon what we, in Quantonics, believe are notably 'better' quantum descriptions of reality. We believe that we have shown, based upon our unique beliefs, that CTMs are anachronistically/parachronistically inferior to QTMs.

We will accept any anti-QTM gauntlets which you throw down.

Doug

Maybe Doug ever had the similar problem as I stated above, what happened to
you then?

Doug has experienced little tells since he was about six years old. Until Pirsig arrived in Doug's life those little tells were inexplicable.

Here is an example of a 'tell' which bothered us: is architecture good or bad?

SOM should, if it is viable itself, be capable of answering that question.

But SOM cannot answer that question unambiguously with absolute truth (which it, in general, claims it can do).

We were working as a Director on a USA Fortune 200 Company's System Team when we asked that question.

Notice how it ("is architecture good or bad?" is) so close to Pirsig's questions. Is a student's term paper good or bad? Does Lila have Quality? Does Quality have Lila?

Can we 'see' one hand clapping in 'the' dark?

Also comsider Buridan's sophisms...

Oh, yes, Henry! Doug has had these problems in spades, for decades Doug 'had' these problems.

Now Doug has a novel and unexpected problem which Pirsig knows OH! so well.

It is: How to help people like Henry move from where he appears to be now to where he thinks/believes Doug is now. Certainly it is nontrivial.

We persist...

Doug

You said, "it took Doug about 18 years of casual effort and about 2-3 years of
concentrated effort to 'understand' all this in ways that are possible for
Doug's mind/quantum stage to 'understand.'"

During Doug's those years,any experience to share with us?

Hopefully that is what I am and have been doing since about 1992,

A clarifying aside - 17Jan2003 - Doug:

We feel that we owe Henry a more extensive answer than what we offered as an apparent brush-off one-liner. This email was already way too long, and we felt that we should cut it short. But we missed an opportunity to give some genuine experiences which may be telling (for many others of you who, surprisingly, are now showing great interests in this email dialogue).

We decided to offer one of our most affective life experiences. We have countless others, but this one offers hues of many of our other personal experiences.

Is life/death a classical dichotomy?

Doug recalls vividly pondering this enormous question at age six sitting on a concrete stoop adjoining our poor front porch, on west 21st street in then and now lowly, then nurturing countless General Motors plants and factories, now self-exsanguinatingly liberal, nonevolutionarily stable Anderson Indiana. This question has dogged Doug more, perhaps, than any other. It caused him, early in life, to question carefully and thoughtfully any anthropocentric notions of organized religion.

A Quantonics assumption: Yes! Either life or death to classicists is a dichon. It is a Pirsigean "platypus." But we gained that assessment n¤t quickly n¤r easily. We offer a heterochronous backdrop of what led us to it.

At heart of this societal dichotomy is any classical societal system SPoVs' constitution/desires/rules/mores/axioms for:

• monistic...
  (i.e., "only one set of rules is good for all sentients, and we
  (often self-annointed CTM individuals)
  know and decide what they are")
• univalent...
  (i.e., "rules is [sic] rules," and "our set of rules are the rules")
• global control.

Those societal system SPoVs are called "laws." More often, "the law."

If any society can afflux and proselytize our minds with fears: first, of only one life and dichotomously/necessarily one death and then only one heaven and one hell, then that society has metastatic intellectual control over all of us as individuals. It then has classically (presumed) absolute means for absolute, including extrasocietal, judgment (a good current example: GWBush administration decision to attack Iraq rather than surgically remove "shoe leather" Saddam), one truth fits all, castigation and reprisal of members of any society/culture/tribe/nation. "Our law is the law!" And society, as Pirsigean social Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs), wants to do that absolutely. In its ultimate evolutionary condition, Society wants to control all individuals' intellects (what we think) absolutely. And of course, then, it becomes vividly clear that society is antithetical individual freedom (e.g., PRC bureaucrats' outright murder of families' second children; US 'legal' 'liberal' abortion of ~40 million fetuses since Roe-v.-Wade).

Elsewhere in Quantonics we talk about many ills of classical mechanics. One major ill is what classicists refer mathematically as modular induction (Peano, et al.). It is close kin of historical cause 1-1 correspondent current effect. It tends to assist adherents in an illusory belief that what works for our community, works, and thus is good, for all societies/communities. Given that illusory belief, classical mechanics tend to impose their beliefs on other communities, whether other communities Value those beliefs or not. "Misprize respect," a classical mantra.

But Pirsig teaches us that it is, in general, immoral for society to control or impede intellectual freedom. So if we view communities as groups of individuals, then harmony may not be imposed by thought control, rather is garnered in respect for other communities' beliefs. That respect permits better to evolve mutually among ensembles of omniffering societies.

Pirsig teaches us that individual intellectual SPoVs are more highly evolved than social/societal SPoVs, and thus have a moral right and duty to rule (evolutionarily stably guide) social SPoVs.

Our culture wars today, especially Western culture wars, are about this battle for control. Society is being forced to give up many of its SPoVs while intellect builds more freedom for more individual SPoVs. (Not wholly true in USA today, since 911/2001. Social anti-Iraq and local homeland security SPoVs have regained a tentative foothold with great loss of individual freedoms here.)

Geertz' "disassembly" is a piece of this massive cultural change which appears to be underway across our globe. Al Queda's striking out against "The Great Satan" is another piece. Surgical strikes is another (hunting down only responsible individuals vis-à-vis WWI, WWII, and prior attempts to destroy whole nations). All these reflect strongly society's rapid loss of control over individuals and individual intellectual freedoms.

There are countless examples here, including many hypersocietal changes occurring in USA and the Americas. Corporate downsizing, outsourcing, individual contracting, open-sourcing, bazaar marketing (vis-à-vis ex cathedra, pull vis-à-vis push, browsing vis-à-vis force-feeding, etc.), downsizing/disassembly of big three television networks, downsizing/disassembly of labor unions, virtual sales of everything from fresh oysters and Columbian coffee to new/used/exotic cars and homes in vacuo distributors and middlemen, steady losses in print media, virtual and home/self education with concomitant losses of social academic infrastructure, and except for EU, governmental disassembly over most of Earth as documented in Geertz et al., etc.

Similarly, we see Deming's TQC as an attempt of social SPoVs at "Total Quality Control." But TQC is about classical, radically mechanistic objects. If we are thinking well here, TQC will fail massively sometime during 21^st and perhaps 22^nd centuries. Why? TQC is inviable (does not work with) emergent/emerging quantum systems.

Ditto MBO. Its name is, on its face, classical. "Management By Objective" says MBOists believe that objectives have determinate or at least contingent outcomes: firm belief that classical cause and effect is viable. Development methods to MBOists are analytic, 'not' quantum pr¤cess-evolutionary-emergent. They believe classical reproduction (~cloning) of classical objects is possible.

Is life/death a classical dichotomy? - What does this have to do with radical mechanism and radical finalism? Simply, classical reality is radically mechanical and quantum reality is n¤n-mechanical. Henry, we spent most of those 18 years figuring that one out. Classical dichotomies tend to delude adherents that dichon(begin, end) and dichon(alpha, omega) exist. Can you see how that leads to dichon(life, death)? And, extended, how that leads to derived notions of one-life, one-death?

Now you may experience another epiphany that this is how societies have great power over those who believe they only get one go at life and after that, depending on how well we did in Santa's eyes, we achieve 'unending' dichon(heaven, hell).

When you believe that, societies can tell you exactly how to behave to achieve heaven which oh-by-the-way is unending...? How is it that heaven (and hell) is unending (not radically final) and ordinary life is? Not to mention Catholic purgatory whose radical finality for, among others, priestly child-molesters, is 'uncertain.'

So societies can tell us what to believe about any aspects of reality. Organized 'science,' often organized religions' nemesis, acts just like societies and religions. It tells us what and how we should believe about reality. But modern science still adheres dichons. Modern sciences' predicate and formal logic yet adheres Aristotle!

And from this one apparently simple question, like a volcanic eruption, more of our largest questions emerge:

What are ethics?
What are morals?
Who decides?

Is it moral to teach societies that life and death are a dichotomy? Is it ethical to teach societies that what we do in this life causally determines which binary alternative we 'enjoy' in death: either heaven or hell? Who decides? Can they decide? On what basis? Logic? Does logic work? How? What assumptions drive logic? Classical negation? Classical contradiction or its absence, based upon classical negation? Hypothetical falsifiability based upon classical contradiction? Whose ethics/morals are either TRUE or FALSE? What classical SOMwit has enough hubris to decide?

Society, religion, and science — among others — assume/presume they can decide as groups for individuals what is ethical and what is moral. But what is moral? Who decides? What is ethical? Who decides? Are morals global? Or are morals di(two-)verse/omniversal? Are ethics global? Or are ethics di(two-)verse/omniversal? Who decides? Can Christians decide what is moral for sunni Muslims? Can sunni Muslims decide what is moral for Christians? (List of questions extracted and slightly modified from our review of Clifford Geertz' Available Light.) We add to our list: In general can groups decide for individuals? In general can individuals decide for groups? In general can individuals decide for other individuals? In general can individuals decide for themselves?

Classical 'logic' claims it has TRUE/FALSE, GOOD/BAD, RIGHT/WRONG, either/or eminence over ethics and morals via social static patterns of value. It believes first of all that ethics and morals are dialectically analytic. But, in our Quantonics view, that classical concept is ludicrously naïve. Ethics and morals are subjectively, qualitatively, affectively, rhetorically quantum-n¤nanalytic. Ethical and moral decisions are n¤t about 'logical' social SPoVs. They are n¤t bivalent dichons. They aræ omnivalent quantons.

This topic is what Pirsig's Lila addresses, in spades:

"The Metaphysics of Quality says that if moral judgments are essentially assertions of value and if value is the fundamental ground-stuff of the world, then moral judgments are the fundamental ground-stuff of the world. It says that even at the most fundamental level of the universe, static patterns of value and moral judgment are identical. The 'Laws of Nature' are moral laws." Page 156 of 410, Lila. And, "When inorganic patterns of reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so because it's 'better' and that this definition of 'betterness'—this beginning response to Dynamic Quality—is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based." Page 157 of 410, Lila. These quotes are taken from Lila, 1st ed. hardbound, 1991, Bantam.

Ch¤¤sing/selecting better is, at all scales of reality, a quantum n¤nl¤gical, n¤nmechanical, anihmatæ, ensehmble, both l¤cal and n¤nl¤cal, EIMA pr¤cess.

But ch¤¤sing/selecting, Pirsig tells us in Lila, is hierarchical in authority with authority based upon most highly evolved SPoVs/quantons. Most highly evolved ESS SPoVs, in MoQ, represent Nature's most advanced and recent tentative judgments for better.

Pirsig's moral hierarchy is alluringly simple and looks like this (he asks us to imagine these four major SQ SPoVs embedded in and commingling DQ; in Quantonics we can represent this as one of Nature's most general quantons, i.e., realityquanton(DQ,SQ)):

Intellectual - highest
Social
Biological
Inorganic - lowest

You have to have a major epiphany here to grasp depths of Pirsig's proems: MoQ/quantum reality is moral, n¤t logical! MoQ/quantum reality is about quality over truth vis-à-vis a classical edict of truth over quality. If you grasp essences of bold green vis-à-vis bold red, you have foundation for understanding all of Pirsig's works, William James' Some Problems of Philosophy, and all of Henri Louis Bergson's works (ItM, CE, TaFW, etc.). Thence, with much more effort, you have foundations for understanding Quantonics' version of n¤nclassical, n¤nmechanical, n¤nl¤gical quantum reality.

For some legacy Quantonics web pages on Pirsig's hierarchy of Static Quality SPoVs and their animate interrlationships with his Dynamic Quality see our: MoQ Architecture, MoQ Moral Codes, Four SPoVs Interrelationships, MoQ Definitions, MoQ Primer, and MoQ Essence, etc.

Perhaps now you may be able to see how nations and cultures with omniffering social SPoVs of ethics and morals, and resultant omniffering judgments, who believe in classical dichotomy, would find it rather easy to commence wars with one another. And that has been Earth's history at least since Homer's Iliad, "Sing oh Muse of Achilles' [dichotomous] wrath."

Is life/death a classical dichotomy? - More generally, does Nature offer any classical dichotomies as exemplars? This is another question, Henry, which we only answered adequately for ourselves since about 1998. Prior that, for roughly two decades, this one was only a shadowy intuition. What we learned since 1998 is that Aristotle blew it. Reality's middle is included!!! Given that, Nature has n¤ real means of demonstrating via exemplars any classical dichotomies.

What are some examples of quantum reality's included-middle?

• Bosons (coherent integer/zero-spin quantons, e.g., spin-one photons; zero-spin nucleic phasicities) are our easiest example, plus their analogues like BECs and Cooper pairs.
• Gravity is our second easiest example.
• Unbounded probability distributions of all quantons in reality is our third.

Explaining those, which serious students of Quantonics should do for themselves, will uncover other candidates whose descriptions here probably would fathom encyclopedic depths.

Is life/death a classical dichotomy? - Do classical dichotomies 'exist' in Nature? There aræ n¤ dichons in quantum reality!!!

End aside.

Best,

Doug.

Thanks and Good Luck.

==

---

7 of 7 — Acronyms used in these emails. Unique Quantonic terms used in these emails, see: Coined Terms, English Remediation, English Problematics.

Subject:	Books' Coming
Date:	Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:15:26 +0000
From:	FlameProof@hotmail.com
To:	To contact Quantonics write to or call: Doug Renselle Quantonics, Inc. Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730 USA 1-317-THOUGHT

Hi Doug,

Today, I've just been informed of your book's arrival by local post
office, I'll go get them in days.Thank you for all!

I have read your last two mails, and I think your comments and teaching will
help not only Henry, but also many others on and on...

I take all your mails as parts of my studying on Quantonics, I believe that
I'll come back to these words often.

You ever said "Please do not confuse our directness with offense." in your
last mail's beginning. Actually, not at all!

And if any questions from mine may ever sounds offensive, please give forgiving
for them, for asker's confusion.

Why has Quantonics been catching Henry?

I think that's because Doug's site and mails often give henry some subtle
feelings which though elusive so far, do mean something valuable...that's
also why I keep going even confusion...

Why so much confusion from Henry?

So far, I think, maybe one reason is the language problem. For English is not
Henry's mother tongue, many Quantonics terms do demand Henry of more
digesting, of course, more time and more patience.

One of other reasons may be, Henry's most-bothering question is different
from Doug's. You said yours is "is architecture good or bad? " which is
similar to Pirsig's. Though I can not yet put out my own most-bothering
question in word clearly, I think it'll be a different version.
...
That's Henry need more endurance, sure, I'll take it easy also.

You ever put a question as "How to help people like Henry move from where he
appears to be now to where he thinks/believes Doug is now. Certainly it is
nontrivial."--OH!

Thanks and Best,

Henry

We wish you a hyperfine journey in this life iteration, Henry!

Doug - 14Dec2002.

---

To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
Suite 18 #368 1950 East Greyhound Pass
Carmel, INdiana 46033-7730
USA
1-317-THOUGHT

©Quantonics, Inc., 2002-2014 — Rev. 20Apr2010  PDR — Created 14Dec2002  PDR
(25Dec2002 rev - Minor typos and a missing Geertz possessive. Add qualifier to Geertz' use of judgment.)
(25Dec2002 rev - Minor clarifying hyphens, edits and links to our "paradice cannot exist in multicontexts" 14Dec2002 paragraph.)
(16-17Jan2003 rev - Repair minor typos, e.g., 'Hen[f]y' to 'Henry.' Add link to our Zeno's Paradice on 'stoppability.')
(16-18Jan2003 rev - Add 'memetic' parenthetical. Add CTM vis-à-vis QTM epiphany aside. Add emphases as apropos in hindsightings.)
(27Jan2003 rev - Correct misspelling of 'judgment.')
(29Dec2003 rev - Add 'thingk' links.)
(4Jan2004 rev - Repair legacy email addresses for noflame and nospam.)
(21Jun2004 rev - Change 'Bur[]dan' to 'Buridan.')
(21Aug2006 rev - Minor reformating. Massive respell.)
(19Oct2007 rev - Reformat and spell.)
(16Dec2007 rev - Reformat slightly.)
(9Mar2009 rev - Correct 7 year old typo of 'had' to 'hand,' see "one hand clapping.")
(Make page current.)

Arches