review text responding to a philosopher's key thermodynamic phrases
from pp. 91-92 of Suares' Cipher of Genesis. Genesis is a book
of creation, and thus a book of Big Bangs, and thus a book of
In script Doug may write:
- Thermodynamics issi quantons(Aleph,Yod),
- Thermodynamics issi quantons(n¤nexistence,existence).
- Thermodynamics issi quantons(open,closed).
- Thermodynamics issi quantons(dynamics,statics) issi stindyanics.
- Thermodynamics issi quantons(isocohera,cohera).
- Thermodynamics issi quantons(isoentropa,entropa).
- Thermodynamics issi a straddle, a quantum~straddle of reality's
- Thermodynamics issi quantons(scin,quan),
realityings' viability which depends upon,
- Thermodynamics issi quantons(Aleph,T[h]av), complementary
antinomialism of both vital impetus and vital resistance
without which there would be n¤ existence (Yod), n¤
life (Hay). (JC Penny's five and ten...)
Vistas of th~ought unboxed, unmoored, unwrapped, uncaged and
freed from thani's
web... via that quantum~view of thermodynamics are so telling
and provocative they tend to exceed any limited imagination,
be it classical, be it quantum.
We call it "wonder." Aleph issi wonder~full. William
James as paraphrased by William James Durant, wrote that wonder is hyper
its absence, and paraphrased, "...any [uncertain, Aleph~borne]
multiverse has infinitely more wonder than a universe."
Those who want "A New World Order" are simple-mindedly-retarded
in their hypocrisyc. Aleph will off them, period.
Doug's opine. (Roughly, hypocrisy means, "bottom-dwelling
But, but, but, perhaps they (the demiurgic powers that
bec) mean "A New World Awrder." If they
did, they wouldn't be demiurgic (theyc [cw]ouldn't
They miss crux (crucial~exegesis) that Aleph
wedded with Raysh is multiversal AWRder! (light, logos,
n¤væl g¤ldæn~wayves of livingsq...A
Quantum Life Motif) We already have what demiurges
want to state-ically, hylically-hypocritically impose. AQLM
is already t~here, but it isn't 'in' their 'orderc'
AWR ciphers as Aleph~Waw~Raysh: 1.6.200. (A Qabalic
Life Motif (AQLM)) Recognicence of Jung's
Libido, his Amor Triumphat, what Doug coined as quantadulation.
Something hasn't been clear to Doug until he started working
on this ensemble of very challenging paragraphs (pp. 91-92 CoG).
Doug never (cosmically) understood Qabalically Autiot's semiotics
100 to 900. Suares appeared to refer them Archetypes' 1 to 9
"exalted n¤nexistential projectionsq."
Doug took that literally, but it isn't that simple.
Qof, Raysh, Sheen, and Thav (100 to 400) all
thermodynamically straddle both existence and n¤nexistence.
By comparison, finalKhaf, finalMem, finalNoun, finalPhay, and
finalTsadde are semiotics of (more like Aleph's) pure n¤nexistence
absent that thermodynamic~straddling (both being and
n¤n being) qua
of Qof thru Thav. Doug isn't sure about this yet, but that seems
to be "how it is." For n¤Wings, Doug assumes
that heuristic hermeneutic. Doug offers his own illeatic
creative rendering of quantons(N¤wings,Wings). "To
fly and n¤t to fly, that is a question?" Shakespeare,
Doug used Pov-Ray to render those quantum~complementary~antinomial
wings fourteen years ago. Nostalgia!
Quantons(is¤wings,wings) issi a quantized wayve
of showing quantum~thermodynamics.
Saying quanton(Aleph,Yod) and quanton(DQ,SQ) is quoting
both Suares and Pirsig and their autsimilar portrayals
of stindyanic quantum~reality. This to Doug, is astonishing in
its brevity and eloquence of reality's
everywhere and everywhen both~anding of antinomialq
and complementaryq c¤mplæmænts
Aleph,Yod and DQ,SQ.
Suares' "(...as infinite animation and as its own
physical casting...)" frightens
me a little. Since Yod is existential, but it isn't just classically
'physical.' Again, I sense Suares (and his translators) were,
at least partially, locked-in ( Sabakah-ed
and Thani-ed) to a classical and thus objective, formal, mechanical,
etc., view of actuality. This bulwark of classicism has affected
had this same omnifficulty with his implicate order (nonmechanical)
vis-à-vis explicate order (mechanical). Problem here,
again, is SOM's wall
imposing itself 'logically,' 'scientifically,' twixt them. David
Albert made this problem apparent to me in his book on David
Bohm. See Quantum Mechanics and Experience, David Z. Albert,
1992, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts and London.
It's a huge problem. Suares' subsequent uses of 'physical' should
be treated in this 'light.' Jungians consider it the psychological
problem. Pirsig refers it, "A genetic
defect in human reason." Heraclitus
calls it "war."
Doug calls it, "classical social hegemonicc retardationc."
Suares' "AWR is the equation of their symbolic wedlock"
is very Chaldæan. Chaldæan cosmic emerscitecture
looks like this in script:
which we may also show as
Doug - 4Oct2015.
Observe comma-space twixt Living Father and dead father.
Living Father sides with Aleph. 'dead father' denies Aleph. Doug
uses comma-space (,[ ]) as a dialectical SOM
'wall' twixt Living Father and dead father.
Those compound quantons always make Doug think of Aut~iot
as "two lives." I.e., quanton(pneuma,quanton(psyche,quanton(living,dead))),
where quanton(living,dead) represents hylic, dialectic choicec.
Two lives then become quanton(pneuma~psyche,psyche-hyle), simply
Life 1: Living issi quanton(Aleph,Yod)
(quantum~middle~inclusion of Aleph and Yod as wave~functional).
Life 2: Dead, SOMitic, Mawt~Hamawt is, classically,
dichon(Aleph, Yod). (Aristotelian middle-exclusion of Aleph and
Yod as objective, a choicec to deny Iht.)
See Doug's list of Church's
Perceive Life 2 and its Thomas Aquinas like (basis Aristotelean)
dialectic is what drove (in Doug's view) Irenæus,
Constantine, and Hippolytus to take a strong stand against heretics
(those who believed in freedom to choose). Cathars, Merovingians,
and witches suffered massively from this, let alone Ç
a t h o l i ç hatred (then and now) toward women in general.
This is one strong reason why Doug hates 'the church.'
Two lives! ([Again in Doug's opinion:] Actually, this
is a strange phenomenon borne of pair wise 'dialectical' antinomialism
(usually referred classically as 'opposition.'))
Two trends! Yavdel! Voila! Another way
to say, "antinomialism pairwise." Compare Autiot's
We observe Suares here describing light (Awr, Yin) and dark
(Layla, Yang) in a very similar manner. Light as Jesus. Dark
as subconscious, unconscious, allegorical cave-dwelling. [I love
Clapton's Unplugged version of Layla.]
Made apparent, Yavdel of Awr and Yin. We have to fathom too
Nasha of Awr and Yin. We see complementaryq~antinomialismq
of hologra[[il][lex][m][mma[r][t]][ph][view]]icq quantonic~twoness
(Yavdel: n¤n exclusivec (n¤n
dialectical) bivalencyq) and manyness (Nasha:
EIMA omnivalencyq which may be pondered "many
Yavdels." See many Yavdels
as fractal~recursive 'pipes' among EWings
Reservoir of Wave Functions.).
Memes here attend a huge entourage of philosophical challenges.
E.g., maths' uses of conjugation
as excluded-middle, e.g., Abelian groups and Hermitian conjugate operations. Issues involved
beyond conjugation include
all middle-excluding equivalence
relations, plus all middle-excluding association
relations (bivalent comparison, stability, negation, contradiction,
proof, etc.). See Foulis
and search for <Abelian.>.
Suares' "In Genesis I, 6-8, which we are now considering
this entire process is seen as from the point of view of BAYT.2,
so-called the second 'day';" answers many self~questions.
An apparent relevancy is Day one as millennium one, Day two
as millennium two, and Day three as millennium three. Suares
writes about Second Coming during millennium three:
cosmic chronological, temporal sway of nigh re dialectic. If
we ostense this approach to all Aut archetypes, perhaps only
Doug sees this, great potential for an 10 millennial ontology
unfolds. Unsure that is compatible thinking with Qabala
and its Sepher Yetsira. (Please be aware that heritage
of Autiot, Gematria,
Qabala, Sepher Yetsira, etc. all have two traditions:
Oral and Written. Oral histories are ancient compared to Written
histories. Written tradition of Sepher Yetsira, for example,
is fairly recent, roughly during first millennium. Comparing
Qabala and Sepher Yetsira, then can be problematic, if
you don't re cognize what Doug just wrote.)
Doug has used Hofstadter's fractal~recursive population logistic
equations to estimate (a Doug uncertain guess) arrival of neo
Sapiens replacing homo Sapiens. It happens, per Doug's guess,
during millennia three through ~five. See Hofstadter's Gödel,
Escher, Bach, and his Metamagical Themas. Hofstadter
regularly published via Scientific American. Some of his
narrative resonates quantum memes well. He had much to do with
contemporary evolution of computer viruses, etc. 'Effective'
viral behaviours depend heavily on fractal maths, self~other~referencings,
recursion, etc. Viruses actually can do good stuff, not all are
bad. Mechanical version of 'artificial intelligence,' depends,
again, heavily on those classes of 'technology.'
I am disturbed by Suares' unwillingness to do middle~inclusion
with Aleph here. I may be confusing what he means by duration.
I think he thinks of duration as continuous-linear. But we may
choose to think of duration as quantized. For Doug this is a
serious issue. Maybe it's a translation problem again.
Clearly when Suares writes "keep Aleph with Yod,"
at least to Doug, he is (appears to be) implying middle~inclusion.
I agree with his using Qof as a replacement in this situation.
We already covered Qof through Thav as straddling existence and
nonexistence. I agree that Yod is existential. But I view Aleph
as capable of middle~including all via quantum~memes of middle~inclusion,
as I see Jesus meaning, "I am in God and God is in me, therefore
God is in you." Farewell Discourse.
Re Raysh and Aleph as protagonists, scripted quanton(Aleph,Raysh),
and using Second Coming jargon (8
prop's.) quanton(Inspiration,technique). Since 'technique'
may be conceived as
dialectical, we may use a comma-space twixt Aleph and
Raysh. Similarly Aleph and T[h]av.
Again, I take issue with Suares' uses of continuous
vis-à-vis durational. Doug chooses (heretically)
to view continuous as classically
linear. Doug thinks that when we take a quantum~view
of Suares' general tenor, his general tone, we must admit quantization
and scintillation of all transmutative (including spiritual)
interrelationshipings. Without quantization and scintillation
of quanta there is no coaffectation of wave packets (which, technically,
would deny QED).
So to Doug duration is quantized in order to accomplish these
non classical phenomena Suares is attempting to describe using
classical lingo (again, an issue of potential translation semantics).
Thinking more about Suares' use of duration, he apparently
is viewing duration and continuous both as temporal.
If so, that is putting time in SOM's linear One Time Fits
All Box. Now I get it. Suares' timec is continuousc
and durationalc, but n¤t quantizedq.
quantized. All flux in quantum~reality is quantized.
Above graphic attempts a depiction of howq
quantum multicursal, hologral, quantization~scintillationings~EIMA,
stochastic~wayveic~uncertain, waviculate~qualitative, omnivalent~quantadulative~expectant (OQE) thinkqing
It illustrates ubiquitous stindyanic
quantization of all cosmic flux. Quantized and openq
Therefore when we take a quantum~view, we say, "There
is n¤ classical-time n¤r -continuityc
n¤r -durationc in quantum~reality, wave~function~quantized~reality."
Above graphic attempts a depiction of howc
bogus classical monocursalc, dialectical, mechanical-EEMD,
dialectic-formal-determinate, particulate-objective, binary-alternative-denial (BAD)
It illustrates stable, linearc, conservativec,
We shall see this issue tautologously throughout much of Suares'
writing, his opus. We have to learn to trans[mu]late as we read
and write. We have to learn to adapt our hermeneutics and semasiologies
of Suares' opus. This applies to all n¤n quantumesque
authors, which means most of them. See transmute.
To finish Doug's narrative on this set of CoG quotes,
Doug keys on Suares' quantons(timelessnessq,timeq)
and paraphrased, "energy cannot cope with its own con[m]tainment,"
[Doug's brackets] a phenomenal metaphor to use is a nuclear bomb
explosion (possibly, too, a supernovæ, too a Big Bang...).
Those phenomenaq, one earthly, two cosmic cann¤t
without avalanche (analanche) runaway, cascading (rapidly, very
rapidly, chaoticallyq) atomic and subatomic quantons(scin,quan)
enormous scales of massq and energyq. Partsq
of those phenomenaq are reallyq timelessq
since they tap (via quantons(scin,quan))) into negentropyq
and atemporallyq transmuteq all matterq
and energyq in their quantum~locales.
Thermodynamically a Big Bang lowers isoflux energy (QCD:
TBSCUD) ihnto a quantum~realm of
flux actuality. Thermodynamically a Black Hole inverts that process
and hides lower energy actuality (QCD: DUCSBT) ihn n¤n actuality's isoflux (unlimited
energy: Zaynesque~Hhaytesque energyings as 'isoflux quanta').
Doug - 30Nov, 2-5Dec2014, 28Feb2015,