Subject: Re: [Quantonics}: Dynamic Quality Pinned Down.
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 06:55:29 -0700
From: Doug Renselle
Organization: The Quantonics Society & Quantonics, Inc.
To: Quantonics - Quanto

(To post to our email list, you must subscribe. See instructions on our top page.)
(Minor edits, red above, book title to italic below.)
(Caveat: Our muscle cell count estimate below is too high. It is based upon ATP molecular count, not human body cell count. Recent human body cell counts are ~1014 total; unsure that includes total microbes in a human body. There are 10 times as many microbial cells in a human body as there are human cells! See 2007 Science News Article. An arm has less than 1/10th a total human body's total cell count. Doug - 14Aug2007.)

Hello Dan and Quantos,

See embedded remarks below -

Acronyms used in this post:

DQ - Dynamic Quality
MoQ - Metaphysics of Quality
O - Object
S - Subject
SOM - S-O Metaphysics
SQ - Static Quality

Dan Glover wrote:

Quantonics Email List Message

Hello Everyone

Doug wrote:

Hello Quantos and Dan,

Dan, you wrote:

"I have tried but probably failed in attempting to point out
what I mean. We simply cannot pin down Dynamic Quality into
relationships for when we do "it" is no longer Dynamic."

Doug wrote:


Are you "pinning DQ down" when you use 'Dynamic Quality'


Dan, you wrote:

Doug, most certainly that is what I am doing, and that is my folly.


Then Doug wrote:


Do you not see what you are doing?

If I am misinterpreting your words please say so.

You are saying that you assume this:

1. DQ is separate from SQ.
2. SQ is separate from DQ.
3. A wall twixt DQ and SQ prevents SQ from any relationships with DQ.
4. Any relationship SQ attempts to have with DQ pins DQ down.

Don't you see what this does? This is pure Aristotelian SOM (division all over again; dividing SQ and DQ vis-à-vis dividing S and O). You have taken us back to SOM!!! This is identical to Bodvar's classical Boole. It takes us back to SOM.

You created a scission between DQ and SQ which is impenetrable. You have transferred SOM's S-O schism to MoQ's DQ-SQ.

You have said DQ and SQ are either/or, not both/and. You have said DQ and SQ must obey Aristotle's syllogistic laws.

You remove any opportunity for epiphany. You subtract both Pirsig's and Herrigel's Zen master interpretations.

Here is a Herrigel quote:

"As in the case of archery, there can be no question but that these arts are ceremonies. More clearly than the teacher could express it in words, they tell the pupil that the right frame of mind for the artist is only reached when the preparing and the creating, the technical and the artistic, the material and the spiritual, the project and the object, flow together without a break." Page 43, Zen in the Art of Archery, by Eugen Herrigel, Vantage Press, Softbound, 1989, 1981, 1953. (My bold emphasis.)

Here is another quote where Herrigel makes it unambiguous that we can learn to sense/experience directly:

"The pupil must develop a new sense or, more accurately, a new alertness of all his senses, which will enable him to avoid dangerous thrusts as though he could feel them coming. Once he has mastered this art of evasion, he no longer needs to watch with undivided attention the movements of his opponent, or even of several opponents at once. Rather, he sees and feels what is going to happen, and at the same moment he has already avoided its effect without there being "a hair's breadth" between perceiving and avoiding. This, then, is what counts: a lightning reaction which has no further need of conscious observation. In this respect at least the pupil makes himself independent of all conscious purpose. And that is a great gain." Page 75. (My bold emphasis. Herrigel's age apologizes gender bias.)

Here, in my interpretation of Herrigel three years ago, I commented in sidebar, "This is zero latency awareness. Quantum superluminal communication." PDR 14Oct96.

Today, I would say additionally Herrigel describes intentional unification of DQ and SQ with enormous gain for those who learn how to do this.

Actually, we do it continuously, but we just do not think about it that way. Our minds are locally quantum coherent (Some quantum biologists say our minds/muscles/other localize Bose-Einstein Condensates which is a unification of many atoms into a single atomic, zero entropy state. Zero entropy means lossless, nonclassical energy transfer.). Our minds cannot think without local quantum coherence. Our muscles cannot flex without local quantum coherence. Our bodies would not even be capable of doing what Herrigel describes were we not intrinsically capable of DQ-SQ unification.

We have been carefully taught to think classically. Yet classical thinking is grossly incapable describing how a single muscle flexure of one's arm can happen. Try it. Flex your right arm as quickly as you can. Explain how >1020 muscle cells were told to act in unison over half a meter spread, from a brain which is another half-meter away? Using Einstein's light speed limit, it cannot be done! Using formal, classical analytics it cannot be done.

We are quantum beings. We perform quantum miracles every day and filter out their beauty and mysticism with our crude, blunt, mendacious SOM-blindered thinking methods (CTMs).

Throw those damned things away. Or stay in SOM and wallow.

Here is what my interpretation of MoQ and quantum science says we can assume:

1. DQ is inseparable from SQ.
2. SQ is inseparable from DQ.
3. Unlimited 'included middle' interrelationships twixt DQ and SQ enables SQ-unlimited-interrelationships with DQ.
4. Any interrelationship SQ has with DQ may create Value.



Doug Renselle
In Quantonics

"Our current modes of rationality are not moving society forward into a better world."

By Robert M. Pirsig, p. 102, 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,' Bantam paperback.


To contact Quantonics write to or call:

Doug Renselle
Quantonics, Inc.
484 East Carmel Drive, #353
Carmel, INdiana 46032-2812

©Quantonics, Inc., 1999-2008 Rev. 14Aug2007  PDR — Created 17Aug1999  PDR
(17Jan2000 rev - Change "thinking methods" to "thinking modes.")
(23Dec2002 rev - Correct above change and make minor HTML upgrades.)
(Aug2007 rev - Reformat. Add caveat on muscle cell count.)