Arches

If you're stuck in a browser frame - click here to view this same page in Quantonics!

— The Quantonics Society News for 2003 —
TQS News Archive of Prior Years' News

Latest update: 10Sep2012, 8Feb2015 - Affectation. (add 'quantum~ensemble' link)

(Need extra HTML fonts to view this page: MT Extra (h-bar, etc.), rtf (quantized 'o,' etc.),
Wingdings (happy face, arrows, Tao, etc.), and Symbol (pi, delta, psi, etc.).)
(Recently, we changed some of these fonts to GIFs for compatibility sake.)

This is our year 2003 editorial

Go directly to 2003 News

Please re-read this:
for your preparation to read our August News available 1Sep2003.

"The things that will destroy America are:

  • prosperity-at-any-price,
  • peace-at-any-price,
  • safety-first instead of duty-first,
  • love of soft living, and
  • get-rich-quick theory of life."

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919),
U.S. Republican politician, president.
Letter, 10Jan1917.

"The whole history of civilisation is strewn with creeds and institutions which were invaluable at first, and deadly afterwards." ('Homeland ~Security;' 'The Patriot Act')

"Under a Presidential government, a nation has, except at the electing moment, no influence; it has not the ballot-box before it; its virtue is gone, and it must wait till its instant of despotism again returns."

"A bureaucracy is sure to think that its duty is to augment official power, official business, or official members, rather than to leave free the energies of mankind; it overdoes the quantity of government, as well as impairs its quality. The truth is, that a skilled bureaucracy . . . is, though it boasts of an appearance of science, quite inconsistent with the true principles of the art of business." (Doug's bold and color.)

"One of the greatest pains to human nature is the pain of a new idea." (Virtual threat begs virtual defense.)

Doug's parentheticals.

Walter Bagehot (1826-77),
English economist, editor of renowned Economist, critic.
Physics and Politics,
ch. 2, sct. 3 (1872).

The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations
Columbia University Press.
Copyright © 1993

Honestly, these are Bagehot quotes with which we agree. Bagehot importuned countless classical either/or concepts of war and national conflict with which we have quantum-heuristically learned to hermeneutically disagree. Doug - 2Feb2003

...

We ask you, readers and students of Quantonics, to compare these two world views and choose one or invent another which you believe is better for Millennium III:

  • A quantum world view offers a (John Forbes) Nash equilibrium win-win of both cooperation and n¤ncooperation/defense with multiversal respect for individual cultural omniversity.
  • A classical world view offers a hegemonist, status quo, one-size-fits-all, lose-lose oppositive mutual denial: "our way or the highway," Neandertalibanic/Ruby Ridge/Waco disrespect for acultural mores (i.e., "you are outside our culture").

    Borrowed from legacy text in our Coined Quantonics Terms description of obsfect.


What is Value?

"I would rather have had — one breath of her hair, one kiss of her mouth, one touch of her hand — than an eternity without it."

Seth, about Maggie, near movie's end...

• • • • City of Angels • • • •

From a Quantonics Perspective

How can we quantumly Add Value?

See our n¤vel July TQS News Quantonics HotMeme

as it applies to music

and discussed first time ever with AH:

Putting DQ back

November, 2003 News:

2003-2004
Feuilleton Installment:

  October,
2003
November,
2003
December,
2003
January,
2004

February,
2004

March,
2004
  a prerequisite to: a prerequisite to: a prerequisite to:  a prerequisite to:  

Move to any Installment of our feuilleton Chautauqua
(
says, "You are here!")

One more month to 2004... What a ride... Oregon is dek and fab...

Why are we doing this quantum feuilleton Chautauqua?

We want, from a Quantonics quantum perspective, to omnistinguish, omnifferencings, omnivalencies, and omnifluxings among:

We have been under not-so-subtle pressure from students, since Quantonics' very beginnings, to do this, and ~finally here we are. This work is huge! It will take our students many hours of study to come abreast of our efforts. Do not shy! Tackle it. Rewards are countless and Value-added is palpable.

Notice our uses of two terms above and from our previous month's (October's) News: individualism and socialism. We need to ask and attempt to answer many questions about those two terms. Let's use November's (this) feuilleton Chautauqua to ask a series of questions and start a list of answers and observations regarding them:

  1. What is an individual and what do we mean by individualism? (either-or individual? both-and society? mu?)
  2. What is a society and what do we mean by socialism? (either-or society? both-and individual? mu?)
  3. Are individuals and societies natural organizations and if so, how does quantum nature appear to create, grow, change, diminish, and discreate individuals and societies?
  4. How may we omnistinguish among individuals and societies which are more natural and those which may be less natural?
  5. Are quantum individuals and societies more natural than classical individuals and societies?

During October's feuilleton installment (a prerequisite for this installment), we developed some quantum-remediated Pirsigean SP¤Vs amd ass¤ciated QELR v¤cabulary. Now in our November, 2003 installment we want to provide a shallow start on those four bullet items above and that list of questions. To do those we need more vocabulary, especially two co(n)mparative, classical vis-à-vis quantum vocabularies. Allow us to make a minimal table, of terms we need for our November feuilleton installment, co(n)mparing terms we need to describe omnifferencings among classical and quantum analogues of individualism and socialism. Readers, unless you are familiar with our QELR dictionary, should review these terms in preparation for what is to follow. We shall offer terms with brief con(m)textual descriptions:

©Quantonics, Inc. 2003-2028

Classical
Term

Classical
Description

Quantum
Term

Quantum
Description
absolute

truth is absolute

semper fi

abs¤lute

changæ issi abs¤lute

semper flux

action

y=f(t)

action is y's objective unitemporal posentropic motion

f(t) is classically analytic, deterministic, causal, 1-1 correspondent

one global time fits all classical actions

pragmafluxings

any quanton issi abs¤lute changings

all quantons aræ ensehmbles ¤f anihmatæ, heter¤gene¤us, EIMA, quantum n¤mbæred ihnterrelati¤nships

quantons' bæhavi¤rs aræ quantum c¤¤bsfective ensehmble st¤chastic (acausal, n¤nanalytic, n¤ndeterministic, nonlisr, massively ensehmble c¤rrelative)

add

synthetic analytic integration

classical sums are manufacturable

classical sums are reproducible (Key question here: What is reproduction? (Students of Quantonics, that link is crucial to understanding our feuilleton Chautauqua efforts. See page 13 comments at that link. Also Google search on <Quantonics+Creative Evolution+reproduction>) Omnifferentiate mechanical reproduction thence biological reproduction. Which is more quantum? Why? What is synergy? Is mechanical reproduction synergetic? Why? Why not? Is biological reproduction synergetic? Why? Why not? What is quantum production? What do we mean by quantum emerscenture vis-à-vis classical reproduction? Why is an included-middle emersenturable when an excluded-middle is not? Dichons are reproducible. Quantons are non reproducible. Why? H5W?)

superp¤se

emergent ensehmble EIMA mixings ¤f arbitrary spacings-tihmings distributi¤nings b¤th with amd with¤ut:

  • ihnterference
  • lisr-n¤nlisr
  • hera
  • entr¤pa
  • gradihents
  • etc.

quantum mihxings aræ anihmatæ emerscenturings

quantum superp¤siti¤nings aræ emerscenturable

analytic radical mechanism, radical formality, radical finality, stoppability, lisrability, predicability, memetic

viral/metaph¤ric/OEDC/changæ-bæaring quantum n¤ti¤nalilty

quantons aræ memetic

and

classically 'and' is nonsynergistic objective conjunction

see transformation

amd see and
architecture

classical architecture is objective, analytic

architected buildings, except for intrinsic aging of materials, are incapable of morphing, and self awareness and self-morphing; they are essentially, classically 'stuck' structures

classical architecture assumes reality is ideally stoppable

emerscitecture see emerscitecture
cause

all classical events are caused by analytic, determinate, 1-1 correspondent effects

classical cause is:

  • both inductive
    • finite historical evidence putatively 'predicts' future
  • and deductive,
    • finite and local historical facts putatively solve problems globally-generally
  • both analytic
    • reality is objectively lisr
    • reality may be objectively disassembled (differentiability)
  • and synthetic
    • reality is objectively lisr
    • reality may be objectively assembled (integrability)

cause drives out conscious awareness and choice while denigrating latter as "heresy"

latter sentence allows classical judgment and classicists who use it to run ideally on automatic; see judge and SOM's Bases of Judgment

classical causation postpones and retards judgment to retrospect

as Clifford Geertz says in his Available Light, "absolutism removes judgment from history," and regarding culturally relativistic causation, "relativism disables judgment"

(If reality is really classically causal, why do 'accidents' only happen sometimes?)

(If reality is really classically causal, how can reality be ideally objectively independent? Classical causation demands strict monotemporal, 1-1 correspondent non objective (i.e., non independent) dependence! (We assume classical negation in our usage of non.) How can an ideally classical objective reality manufacture dependent causation? - Doug.)

affectati¤n

quantons quantum ensehmble select "whatings happenings nextings"

quantons aræ quantum ensehmble ch¤¤sings "whatings happenings nextings"

quantons quantum ensehmble affect "whatings happenings nextings," amd thus can quantumly amd radically-st¤chastically redirect any classical historical retroflective-apparently-causal-dependencies with abs¤lute

(quanton(nonlocal,local) with emphasis on quantum locality of free will; viz. quantum locality here as kin of mode of quantum likelihood omnistributions; see our 3D Fuzzon)

quantum free will

quantons aræ c¤¤bsfectively self- amd ¤ther-aware

quantum affectati¤n advances quantum jihudgment t¤ n¤wings

all quantons c¤¤bserve amd c¤¤bsfect their sens¤ry bandwidth's ensehmble prec¤nditi¤nings amd select what tentatively appears bætter t¤ them (in Quantonics, based upon Pirsig's tutelage, we call this "quantum moral choice;" this notion will recur endlessly in our multi-month feuilleton Chautauqua; it is a crucial meme for omnistinguishing better among classical individual and society and quantum individual and society)

Aside 13Dec2008:

Please fathom several nexii here of utmost import re quantum~philosophy vav classical philosophy. Classical lies in a stigma of cause-effect determinacy (worse). Quantum evolves in redemptive affectational processings of quantum~indeterminacy and quantum~uncertainty (better). Two of our favorite (unacknowledged) mentors speak of this eloquently (Doug italicizes both mentors' uses of 'the' below since the tends more to determinism than to uncertainty. Lingually, we refer 'the' as a definite article; we do not call 'the' an indefinite article.):

    • William James - "Indeterminism [affectational quantum~uncertainty] is the only way to break the world into good parts and into bad, and to stand by the former as against the latter." William James in a letter to Shadworth Hodgson, December 15, 1885.
    • Paul Pietsch - "In a determinate system, where the calculations have already occurred, we know which points along a curve connect with independent dimensions. In our indeterminate system we never know just which points will suddenly sprout new axes or discard old ones. Indeterminacy is the principal feature of intelligence!" By Paul Pietsch, p. 223, Shufflebrain, Houghton-Mifflin Co., Boston, 1981.
    • Doug's Subjective Evidentiary Proof (SEP) is another way of phasementing James' concision. Doug - 10Sep2012.

What our two mentors are saying, and we agree, is that evolutionary REIMAR affectational uncertainty is moral reality. Juxtapose classical state as radical immorality! Big deal, folks!

Gnostics have been attempting to tell humanity this for millennia, since several millennia prior Essene Jesus' quantum~teachings.

Quantum~affectation is better, naturally moral.

Classical cause-effect is worse, anthropocentrically immoral.

Doug - 13Dec2008.

End aside 13Dec2008.

th¤se quantum c¤mposite quantonic v¤ting pr¤cessings aræ ch¤¤sings, both affectihvely amd qualitatively realihty's nextings ensehmblings ¤f "whatings happenings nextings"

quantum~affectation issi up to Planck rate QLO quantum~subjunctive~ensemble a priori REIMAR QIG (n¤n CSG) aspirational QIC (n¤n DIQ) exigencyings

apparently ihnsignificant quantons' affectati¤ns can have en¤rm¤us quantum umcærtain affects, e.g., quanton rubber O-ring quantum fluxors, especially temperature, amd Challenger disaster

see quanta

see meme¤ryings

see MoQ I Reality Loop

see quantum ontology

certain

'what happens next' is certain

'what happens next' is analytically predictable and determinate

See certain, DIQ.

umcærtain

all ¤f self- amd ¤ther-aware realihty quantally amd up t¤ Planck rate ihncrementally ensehmble st¤chastically ch¤¤ses "whatings happenings nextings," s¤ ¤utc¤mings aræ always quantum umcærtain

quantum umcærtainty issi cl¤se kin of Bergsonian durati¤n, Bell's ihnequalities, ihndeterminati¤n, amd "ihnexplicable accihdents"

See uncertain, QIC.

change

classical change is unitemporal analytic motion

Analytic motion is stoppable. Analytic motion is "movement via immobilities." Analytic motion is state, motion, state, motion, state,... Analytic motion is classically indescribable as process, since "process is not analyzable." Analytic motion is perpetual state-icity, and denies any notions of motion as perpetual process.

'Scientists,' most of them at Millennium III's commencement, consense absence of perpetual motion and try to 'outlaw' any memes of perpetual motion. Twidlows all...

Our quotes are Bergsonian memeos.

Doug - 19Aug2004.

changæ

see change

Quantum reality issi perpetual change, perpetual flux, perpetual motion. Quantum reality always changes and changes all.

Nature builds reality using perpetual motion quantons called variously, "protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, etc."

See perpetual motion.

Pendula, AKA fermions, quantum monitor quantum reality's perpetual motion. Click blue pendulum update box for specific text. See duration and monitor.

Doug - 19Aug2004. Rev. 1Jun2005.

closed

classical reality is ideally closed and absolutely mass-energy conservative

no new (previously 'nonexisting') mass or energy may be created in a classical, closed universe; mass may only be converted into energy and vice versa; total mass-energy is a classical constant

¤pen see close
context See OGC. comtext See comtext.
determine classicists claim future events may be predicted thus determined epect

quantumists claim future ævæntings aræ pr¤babilistic amd have pr¤bability distributi¤ns whose m¤de issi a bæst expectati¤n ¤r anticipati¤n ¤f any ævæntings

thus all ævæntings, t¤ bæ quantum-c¤rrect, aræ umcærtain

s¤me ævæntings' pr¤bability distributi¤ns may bæ unkn¤wn amd unkn¤wable

See our What is Wrong with Probability as Value for extensive detail. Doug - 1June2005.

dialectic

see dialectical reason

dialectical reason is like an intellectual Alzhimer's dis-ease

Alzhimer's emplaques neurons

dialectical reason emplaques thought and thing-king

Doug - 19Aug2004

rhet¤ric in Quantonics, rhet¤ric issi quantum reasonings
either-or see either b¤th-while-amd see both
excluded-middle see Aristotle ihncluded-mihddle see Aristotle
fact see fact hermeneutic

quantum realihty issi hermeneutic; quantum realihty issi heter¤gene¤usly c¤rrectly-ihnterpretable; as such iht issi pred¤minately affective, qualihtative, amd subjective amd ¤nly apparently effective, quantitative, and objective

If Doug has a label, iht must bæ quantum hermeneuticist

false

see false

see proof

see Negation is Subjective

see Is Proof by Contradiction Proof?

classical falsifiability depends upon classical contradiction which depends upon classical objective negation; but negation is n¤t classically objective; negati¤n issi subjective

easiest way to classically show negation is subjective is to experience Feynman's avatar of

-1 = ei

then realize that -1 is i and thence

i = ei

which is a recursive and thus subjective 'definition' of i in terms of itself, a quantum sophism, quantum self-reference

students of Quantonics may now see a glaring exemplar of a need for our animate quantonics equals semiotic in place of that classical equals sign; too we need to replace that classical mechanical square root symbol with our quantonics animate EIMA quantum version:

negati¤n see negate
general or
specific

classicists take what appears general and make it specific by turning it into a 'law,' 'rule,' 'principle,' 'axiom,' corollary,' etc.

classicists specify genericity; they analytically define generality; see SOM's Box; see law

classicists call their notion of 'specificity' "general;" to them specific is general; this is one of classicism's greatest failures of thought

classical specificity AKA definiteness values logically dichotomous thingking

classical specific genericity is stoppable; classicists have no means of modeling durational process without stopping it, so classical genericity implies classical stoppability

as an example social common sense is general and specifiable

e.g., classicists refer drug clones and duals as 'generic'

b¤th gænæral amd
spæcihfihc

quantum genericity is unspecifiable, e.g., that which changes absolutely

quantum genericity values omnivalent, holographic, heterogeneous, animate, EIMA, stochastic thinking

quantum emergent change~process is unspecifiable; this is what Bergson means when he says process may not be analyzed

any quanton's quantum cohera are quantum~genæral

any quanton's quantum islandicity and autonomy are quantum~specihfihc

quantum change is animately monitorable and quantum process m¤dalable

see general

global

classicists see their 'proven' laws, rules, axioms, and principles as true globally

see OGC

herent

see coherent

see cohera

see entropa

see quantum coherence - dwell here; brain soak here; allow your quantum stage's SONs to energy~well reorganize novel quantum memes, memeos, and memeotics - Doug - 9Jan2006

see Millennium III Map of Reality

homogneous see homogeneous heter¤geneous see heterogeneous
idea

classical ideas are immutable and perpetual concepts

see idea

see concept

meme

memes are animate EIMA quantum thoughts which compenetrate and interfuse DQ with both thoughts and their ultimate significates

this quantum notion is an axiomatic impossibility in classical reality; we call it "tapping reserve energy" and "It being in us and us being in It"

a meme is a quanton of quantum thought "deep role playing" on a quantum stage

memes are perpetually-changing quantons

ihn Quantonicsese, "memes aræ pærpætually-changing quantons"

see fact

immutable see immutable changing see state, change, stoppability
independence

see independent

see excluded-middle

ihncluded-mihddle-ihnterrelati¤nships

see coinside, Bergson's classical delusions

see included-middle

interactive classical formal interactions are objective, with objects' middles excluded ass¤ciative quantum quantonic interrelationships are memetic with quantons' middles included via EIMA probability distributions of quantum flux
know-ledge classical concepts and ideas are immutably static, pastistic, perpetual meme¤ryings

quantum meme¤ryings aræ anihmatæly EIMA amd OEDC-ev¤lving amd -emerging; we view them as isobeing memes which may partially 'hide' yet quantum-comtinue their emergence in reserve energy

students of Quantonics learn h¤w t¤ establish ihnterrelati¤nships with reserve energy's meme¤ryings

Heraclitus said, "Nature loves to hide."

via ihntenti¤nal emerqancy of EIMA quantonic ihnterrelati¤nships with Nature's meme¤ryings wæ partihally uncl¤ak (quantum measure; partially uncloak, desnouer) He-r

Bergson tells us we must "...accustom ourselves to think being directly," and "...install ourselves within [He-r meme¤ry durationings] straight away."

see affectation

local

classical reality is:

  • localable
  • isolable
  • separable
  • reducible

see local

n¤nlisr

quantum reality issi:

  • quantons(n¤nlocalable,apparently_localable)
  • quantons(n¤nisolable,apparently_isolable)
  • quantons(n¤nseparable,apparently_separable)
  • quantons(n¤nreducible,apparently_reducible)

those four bullets precedent (used as a verb) what we mean by n¤nlisr

we are mixing con(m)texts in those four bullets

for example apparently_localable may be replaced by our QELR'd l¤calable; ideal classical 'localability' is an apparition amd d¤es n¤t eist ihn quantum realihty

mechanical

Classical mechanics depends upon Parmenidean, Platonic, Aristotelian, Newtonian concepts of material substance, objective reality, radical finalism, radical mechanism, formalism, etc. Classical logic is mechanical. Classical maths are mechanical. Predication and predicability are mechanical.

see EPR's mechanics

see mechanics

emerqant Quantum reality is emerqant. Quantum reality is not classically mechanical.
object

see object

see dichon

see SOM Connection

quanton

see quanton

see sobject

observe

classicists assume that reality is unilaterally observable

classicists assume that observables 'hold still' while being observed

classicists assume that observables are analytically and objectively independent of one another

see observable

c¤¤bsfect see obsfect
property

classicists assume that ideal classical objects have stable lisr properties which are state-ically measurable

classicists assume that stable classical properties may be stoppably measured and captured as scalar numeric magnitudes

classical objects 'own-possess' their enclosed properties

classical objects' properties may mechanically EEMD 'interact' with properties of other classical objects

see number

Value

from a Quantonics perspective, this is quantum reality's all-encompassing term

from a Pirsigean perspective, this is his MoQ's all-encompassing term

Pirsig's MoQ says reality iso Value iso Quality iso Good iso both DQ and SQ (as SPoVs) commingling one another

in Quantonics' script we show it like this:

quantum_realityValuequantons(DQ,SQ)

quantum real Value expresses itself in SQ (SP¤Vs) via n¤nmechanical transemerqancies of quantum analogues of currently mechanical probability distributions and probabilities; a n¤vel quantum scripting 'language' must be invented to tentatively subsume this issue

see OEDC

see Map of a New Reality

see MoQ I Reality Loop

see MoQ II Reality Loop

quantity see quantity qualihty see qualihty
rational see rational s¤phist

see Sophist Connection

see What are Sophisms?

see A College Student Asks For Help Sophisms?

see coquecigrues

reason

see reason

classical reason can take its form in a wide variety of ISMs

most common agencies among various forms of classical reason are dialectic and society, and classical societal reason is cliche as 'positive'

societal reason as positive, is a crucial issue for our feuilleton Chautauqua; it claims classical society reasons better than 'classical-minded' individuals

one of our goals is to demonstrate that classical societal reason (a 'property' of S-SPoVs) is inadequate for Millennium III

reas¤n

see reason

ihn Quantonics reas¤n issi quantum amd quantum reas¤nings aræ happenings ¤n y-¤ur quantum stages which naturally c¤mpenetrate amd tap reserve energy via everywhere-ihncluded-mihddle-ass¤ciativity, quantum tunneling, quantum n¤nl¤cality, quantum c¤herence, quantum superluminality, quantum superp¤siti¤nings ¤f all quantum abs¤lute flux, etc.

quantum reas¤nings place quantum ihndihvihduals ab¤ve quantum s¤cieties; wæ explain ¤ur 'reas¤ns' f¤r this appr¤ach starting with feuilleton Chautauqua segment I (October, 2003 News); our 'reasons' are based on Robert M. Pirsig's inversion:

  • from Object excluded-middle above Subject
  • to Subject included-middle above Object

¤ne ¤f ¤ur g¤als issi t¤ sh¤w that quantum ihndihvihdual reas¤nings aræ ab¤ve classical societal reason amd that quantum s¤cietal reason issi an agent amd pr¤p¤nent ¤f quantum c¤hesive massively heter¤gene¤us quantum ihndihvihdual reas¤ning aut¤n¤mies (a la Mae-wan Ho)

stable

classical reality, except for analytic unitemporal objective motion, is stable

Henri Louis Bergson, in his Creative Evolution claims that classicists suffer two delusions:

  1. reality is stable
  2. objects in reality are independent

Semper stux

anihmate

see animate

Semper flux

stop

Classical reality is stoppable. Classical time and space are stoppable. All classical measurables are stoppable.

Semper stux.

Quantum reality is unstoppable. Quantum reality is absolutely animate.

Semper flux.

subject

see SOM Assessment of Value

see How SOMites View Reality

quanton

see quanton

see Quanton Primer

truth see truth umcærtainty see uncertainty

Though our table may appear comprehensive, it is n¤t! In general, countless other terms need comparison. Our QELR is in an emerging pr¤cess of accomplishing that. Specifically, though, what we need here is a smaller, working ensehmble of comparisons which will offer superficial — still and yet pedantic and pedagogic — semantic and hermeneutic means of making our comparisons and answering our questions. Too, we wish not to overwhelm our readers, especially those who may be just learning Quantonics. If you feel overwhelmed just now, take a look at our How to Become a Student of Quantonics. Also take a look at our suggestions for browsing this site. Most important, persist. Keep re-reading. Our quantum stages aræ quantum ass¤ciative EIMA quantum pragmah¤l¤graphic avatar¤ns (coined here 27Nov2003 - Doug) capable ¤f stindyanic emb¤diment ¤f alm¤st any n¤vel QTMs. C¤¤bsfective pattern repetiti¤n binds amd reinf¤rces y-¤ur memeoryings' quantum reserve energy ass¤ciati¤ns.

If you skipped our table, at least be sure to go back and carefully study our avatar (reembodiment) of classical cause as quantum affectati¤n. Also take a look at our commentary under false.

In our first, October, 2003, feuilleton installment we said we did n¤t want to talk about DQ in great detail yet. That still holds here, but we need to put our table of grammar and all of our QELR remediation work in a quantum DQ perspective before we proceed. Stindyanicity begs a quantum real BAWAM balancing of quanton(DQ,SQ). We have never done it or said it like this before here in Quantonics, amd n¤wings aræings G¤¤d tihmings f¤r d¤ings thatings.

Remember, in Quantonics realihty issi quantons(DQ,SQ). We use our graphic 'equalings' semiotic to show that analogously: realihtyquantons(DQ,SQ). In all our work here we are using both DQ and SQ grammatically, so we need to put some memetic (QTM; quantum thought) qualifications on our grammatical, written, lingual usages of them:

That quantonic script is mixed con(m)textually. Our classical use of 'predicable' is in single quotes to tell you, our reader, that we want you to interpret its meaning, its classical semantic, classically. Those other three words are quantum comtextual. DQ issi absolute quantum isoflux, by memetic and empirical presumption. N¤ classical word n¤r classical symbol n¤r set of classical words n¤r classical symbols can 'predicate' n¤r 'capture' DQ's quantum essence. Why? Classical words and symbols 'analyze' and 'stop' DQ. But quantum DQ issi umst¤ppable. So our bullet issi saying also, "DQ issi absolute process, DQ issi memetic, n¤t 'analytic,' n¤t 'analyzable.'" Wæ aræ saying, "...that DQ may ¤nly bæ parthially quantum-SQ-stindyanically-descrihbed via quantum metaph¤rs, ihntuiti¤ns, ihnstincts, amd heuristic ihnferences." Plus as Heraclitus said 2500 years ago, "Nature loves to hide." Nature issi Quanton(Jekyll,Hyde). Quanton(wave,particle). Our bullet issi also saying "DQ issi n¤t 'stoppable.'" By inference and by quantonic avatar, quantum memes AKA quantons aræ n¤t 'stoppable.'

Our script shows us that DQ may n¤t be classically ESQ- 'predicated.' Our use of issi acknowledges DQ's absolute quantum animacy. Our use of n¤t acknowledges that quantum negation is subjective, which allows us to say, with QELR:

"But, Doug, when we write words and sentences, aren't we creating SQ, and isn't that classical 'predication?'"

Yes, and SOM's, classicism's, Aristotle's, Newton's, Einstein's predication problem arises when they say, "That which is uncloaked is all there is. That which we have axiomatized in classical language is...all there is."

When we use classical words and CTM-interpret them classically, yes, that is predication. When we use QELR'd words and QTM-ihnterpret them quantumly, n¤! That is an exegesis of why we are offering our table and our QELR in stead of classical grammar and language.

Allow us to offer an example which is as real as we can make it.

Classical Aristotelian syllogistic predication says (identity, contradiction, and excluded-middle):

Allow us to make them classically real:

Allow us to make them quantum real:

Aghast you ast, "How can our quantum script possibly be describing quantum reality? That's just plain nuts!"

A chicken's DNA is ~86% human! A human is, based on intracellular DNA mapping only, 0.86 chicken! Expressed as phenomes humans and chickens classically appear hugely "di fferent," but genetically they differ by only 14%, regardless what classical fundamentalists say. Apes match humans even more closely, genetically. Humans share at least some genetic (bionon) SP¤Vs with all known Earth life emerqants. John Gribbin describes finds of hemoglobin genetics in plants!

Aside:

Plants mixing with animals?

"By 1981, a meeting on evolution held at King's College in Cambridge came out loud and clear with the message that the genomes of higher organisms are in a state of dynamic change, with considerable rearrangement of the genes among the chromosomes being the norm on an evolutionary timescale, and perhaps being a driving force of evolution. It had become clear that just as human intervention using recombinant DNA techniques could take artificial genes and insert them into chromosomes, so viruses might transmit genes from one host to another during their own life cycle. This is straightforward enough to understand when a phage that has insinuated itself into a bacterium causes copies of itself to be manufactured and these copies invade other bacteria — a simple error could tag on a bit of bacterial DNA to the copy of the phage DNA. It is far more startling when evidence for this kind of sideways translation shows up in totally different species. At that meeting in Cambridge, Alec Jeffreys of Leicester University, drew attention to a protein called leghemoglobin, which is used by the plants known as legumes during nitrogen fixation. The gene for leghemoglobin looks very much like the gene for globin, an animal gene coding for the protein in hemoglobin. Jeffreys suggests that this animal gene was translocated into the ancestral form of the plant, relatively recently during evolution, as a passenger on a virus. And that possibility opens up dramatic evolutionary possibilities, even if it only occurs rarely." pp. 311-12, In Search of the Double Helix.

End aside.

We claim that QTMs and their QELR'd grammar and language are better than CTMs and their classical grammar and language. We claim we have demonstrated that betterness using quantum real exemplars.

How can we use our table? To better make those comparisons we introduced at top of this installment!

For example, is it better to treat species' individuals as classical phenome objects vis-à-vis quantum genome quantons? Notice we did n¤t ask our examplar question classically, e.g., "...is it right (or wrong) to treat individuals as either classical objects or quantum quantons?" Quantum reality asks us n¤t to assess 'absolute verity.' Iht asks us ¤nly t¤ assess bætter, amd while d¤ing s¤ realihze that bætter issi tentatihve while iht issi an agent ¤f ihts ¤wn emergence.

Now we want to apply October's groundwork, laying out a proposed evolution of Pirsigean SQ SPoVs into quantum SQ SP¤Vs, and this month's limited vocabulary comparison table t¤ prelihmihnarihly c¤mpare th¤se f¤ur bullet items amd t¤ partihally answer th¤se ass¤ciated questi¤ns which appear at top of this month's feuilleton installment.

Caveats: we are n¤t against society, we are against classical society and in favor of evolution toward quantum s¤ciety. We are n¤t against individualism, we are for quantum ihndihvihdualism in preference above classical individualism. Finally we favor quantum ihndihvihdualism monitoring and guiding quantum s¤ciety over our current (apparent to us) situation of classical society hegemonously above and controlling classical individualism.

Let's do another table for our bullets. Our classical descriptions of individualism and socialism using our vocabulary comparisons above will be ideal, not as practiced. In spite of that, readers will be able to see much similarity among our idealities and what Western culture practices débuter-de-siècle:

This table is necessarily wide to permit full left-right comparison of four omniffering ways of viewing 'individual' and 'society.'
Use your browsers default font size to make all text in cells below compact. On MACs use <command, -> and on most Wintels use <control, [> to decrease default font size.
All bullets' texts below should fit on single lines.

Caveat: this table is incomplete, needs-requires extensive tuning and upgrading.
However, it is still and yet an indispensable quantum and Quantonics pedagogic learning and teaching aid.
Doug - 2Dec2003.

©Quantonics, Inc. 2003-2028

Individual

Society

Classical Individualism
From I-SPoVs

Quantum Ihndihvihdualism
To I-SP¤Vs

Classical Socialism
~Where Western Culture Is: S-SPoVs

Quantum S¤cialism
~Where Western Culture Could Be: S-SP¤Vs
  • absolute
    • I-SPoVs believe in truth
    semper fi
  • abs¤lute
    • I-SP¤Vs bælieve i
    hn tentatihve changings
    semper flux
  • absolute
    • S-SPoVs dogmatize one truth
    semper fi
  • abs¤lute
    • respects many I-SP¤Vings, S-SP¤Vings trut
    hings
    semper flux
  • action
    • I-SPoVs act causally on theory
  • pragmafluxings
    • I-SP¤Vs adapt t¤ comtextings
  • action
    • S-SPoVs control 'society' using 'laws'
  • pragmafluxings
    • S-SP¤Vs balance
    heter¤gene¤us quantum comtextings
  • add
    • I-SPoVs accumulate property and ideas
  • superp¤se
    • I-SP¤Vs seek memetic 'Nash' equili
    hbria
  • add
    • S-SPoVs accumulate people and concepts
  • superp¤se
    • S-SP¤Vs emerscitect
    herent aut¤n¤mies
  • analytic
    • I-SPoVs plan y=f(t) unitemporally
  • memetic
    • I-SP¤Vs i
    hncrementally ch¤¤se better
  • analytic
    • S-SPoVs manage many y=f(t) plans
  • memetic
    • S-SP¤Vs c¤
    here ensehmble aut¤n¤mies
  • and
    • I-SPoVs analyze and synthesize objects
  • amd
    • I-SP¤Vs superp¤se quantons
  • and
    • S-SPoVs manage by objective
  • architecture
    • I-SPoVs design and build static structures
  • emerscitecture
    • I-SP¤Vs ev¤lve emerscent quantum SONs
  • architecture
    • S-SPoVs revere celebrity and locus as status
  • emerscitecture
    • S-SP¤Vs adapt s¤cietal SONs acc¤rding I-SP¤Vs
    • S-SP¤Vs emerscenture s¤cietal SONs via I-SP¤Vs
  • cause
    • I-SPoVs use past experience to predict-act
  • affectati¤n
    • I-SP¤Vs m¤ve selectings-ch¤¤sings t¤ n¤w
  • cause
    • S-SPoVs manage using historical evidence
  • affectati¤n
    • S-SP¤Vs ense
    hmble defer t¤ I-SP¤Vs ch¤¤sings
  • certain
    • I-SPoVs want predicted results
    • I-SPoVs' unpredicted results are failure
  • umcærtain
    • I-SP¤Vs anti
    hcipate st¤chastic nextings
    • unexpected nextings point to success
  • certain
    • S-SPoVs plan for a determinate future
  • umcærtain
    • S-SP¤Vs c¤
    herently adapt t¤ quantum pr¤babilities
  • change
    • I-SPoVs view change as determinate
  • changæ
    • I-SP¤Vs view c
    hangæ as st¤chastic
  • change
    • S-SPoVs use S-SPoVs to mint analytic change
  • changæ
    • S-SP¤Vs quantum-supp¤rt I-SP¤Vs t¤ emersce bætter
  • closed
    • I-SPoVs: resources and potentia are limited
  • ¤pen
    • I-SP¤Vs: nature ¤ffers ~unli
    hmited p¤tentia
  • closed
    • S-SPoVs: nation and state are bounded
    • S-SPoVs: perimeter is sacred, inviolable
    • S-SPoVs: disassembly disallowed
    • S-SPoVs: cessation, seceding disallowed
    • S-SPoVs: sunset, apoptosis disallowed, avoided
  • ¤pen
    • S-SP¤Vs ¤n quantum reali
    hty: b¤undless-umlihmited
    • S-SP¤Vs supp¤rt QTM n¤ti¤ns ¤f I-SP¤Vs' vast p¤tentia
  • context
    • I-SPoVs: worship and obey OGT in OGC classical ESQ 'laws' and 'disciplines'
    • I-SPoVs: hate those who do not agree
    • I-SPoVs: "...either for us or against us"
  • comtext
    • I-SP¤Vs: wit
    h respect f¤r multicomtextual Values aræ takings, pragmatizings amd practicings their multic¤mtextual free wihllings
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantons(respect,(havlagah,Haganah))
  • context
    • S-SPoVs over I-SPoVs
    • S-SPoVs: e.g., classical, objective 'principles' and 'laws' drive out individual free will
    • S-SPoVs: democratic will, demos will, village will all deny individual free will
    • S-SPoVs: OGC disciplinary systems enforce classically ESQ causal judgment
    • S-SPoVs: classical society worshiping state-ic S-SPoVs
    • S-SPoVs: despise, attempt to destroy pioneers

Geertz paraphrased: "...social absolute
objectivism removes judgment from history,
and social relativism disables judgment."

  • comtext
    • I-SP¤Vs ¤ver S-SP¤Vs
    • S-SP¤Vs n¤uris
    h quantonic heter¤comtextual s¤cial balancings via free wihll ch¤¤sings am¤ng many quantum comtexts
    • S-SP¤Vs: quantum s¤ciety wit
    h¤ut ESQ classical OGC-OGT S-SPoVs
    • S-SP¤Vs: Mae-wan Ho-esque quantum i
    hndihvihdual aut¤n¤mies c¤within quantum c¤hesive (per intera, EIMA) ihnterrelati¤nships
  • determine
    • I-SPoVs: we must control what happens next
    semper stux
  • expect
    • I-SP¤Vs aræ anticipating emergent c
    hangæ
    • I-SP¤Vs: wæ cann¤t 'control' nextings
    semper flux
  • determine
    • S-SPoVs believe status quo is the way to go
    • "stases are our societal bases"
    semper stux
  • expect
    • S-SP¤Vs nurture QTM expectati¤ns ¤f bætter nextings
    semper flux
  • dialectic
    • I-SPoVs: reality is excluded-middle opposites
  • rhet¤ric
    • I-SP¤Vs view 'opposites' as c¤mplementary
  • dialectic
    • S-SPoVs: laws can retro-decide right or wrong
    • S-SPoVs: laws' retrojudgments effectuate future
    • S-SPoVs: laws' ideally control all future behavior

At Millennium III's start,
Western cultures carry
this enormous burden
of S-SPoV hegemony.
It is ESQ of highest
degree and is, long
term, a non ESS.

Doug's opinions - 4Dec2003.

  • rhet¤ric
    • S-SP¤Vs say 'classical notions of 'law'' aræ i
    hnvalihd
    • S-SP¤Vs say QTM n¤ti¤ns ¤f 'law' as ¤pini¤n aræ vali
    hd
    • S-SP¤Vs aræ v¤tings: "w
    hatings happenings nextings"

Appraise h¤w desirable quantum S-SP¤Vs' v¤tings aræ
vis-à-vis classical S-SPoVs' 'legal' mandates for controlled,
provincial, parochial, dogmatic future behavior.

T¤¤, S-SP¤Vs' v¤tings aræ all reali
hties' quantum-wide
dem¤cratic, up t¤ Planck-rate, c
h¤¤sings amd selectings ¤f
"w
hatings happenings nextings."

T
hat issi, g¤vernment n¤t just by pe¤ple,
but g¤vernment by a respected amd respecting
herent quantum realihty.

We mig
ht even garner:

1. Less-classical,
uniquely-anthropocentric,
induction on history.

2. Fewer classical negatives like: immutability,
objective independence, cause-effect,
1 to 1 correspondence, mechanics,
"no action at a distance,"
radical formalism, radical finalism,
conservaton, closure, either-or,
excluded-middle, absolute truth,
predicability, quantitative analysis, etc.

Doug's opinions - 4Dec2003.

  • either-or
    • I-SPoVs: we adhere Aristotle's syllogisms
  • b¤th-while-amd
    • I-SP¤Vs' reality: animate EIMA quantons
  • either-or
    • S-SPoVs: teach, learn, practice dialectic
  • b¤th-while-amd
    • S-SP¤Vs affect (~expect) ani
    hmatæ quantum s¤phisms
    • S-SP¤Vs teach I-SP¤Vs QTM-ani
    hmatæ EIMAs aræ real
  • excluded-middle
    • I-SPoVs: objects are independent
    • I-SPoVs: objects' signifiers are independent
  • ihncluded-mihddle
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantons c¤inside, c¤mpenetrate
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantons' semi¤tics c¤mmingle
  • excluded-middle
    • S-SPoVs are either independent, or
    • ideally share one global cultural system
  • ihncluded-mihddle
    • S-SP¤Vs superp¤se, amd aut¤n¤m¤usly c¤here
    • S-SP¤Vs aræ quantons(n¤nlisr,lisr), quantons(DQ,SQ)
  • fact
    • I-SPoVs: facts are 'true'
    • I-SPoVs: reality is determinate, OGT in OGC
  • hermeneutic
    • I-SP¤Vs pr¤cess heter¤gene¤us bælievings
    • I-SP¤Vs' beliefs: many i
    hnterpretati¤nings
  • fact
    • OGC fits all societies and S-SPoVs
    • OGC solves all S-SPoVs' problems
  • hermeneutic
    • S-SP¤Vs ally
    heter¤gene¤us S-SP¤Vs amd ISP¤Vs
    • S-SP¤Vs all¤y QTMs' n¤vel i
    hnterpretati¤nings
    • S-SP¤Vs' I-SP¤V islandicities pr¤t¤s¤lve l¤cal pr¤blems
    • Exemplar:
    human-b¤dy, -bæihng harm¤nizing ihts affairs
  • false
    • I-SPoVs assess radical falsity
  • negati¤n
    • I-SP¤Vs i
    hntuit negati¤n issi subjective
  • false
    • S-SPoVs control via falsity assessm'ts
  • negati¤n
    • S-SP¤Vs i
    hntuit negati¤n issi subjectihve
    • S-SP¤Vs: blame, hate, war spawn of classical negation
    • S-SP¤Vs: classical negation wastes societies' energies
    • S-SP¤Vs: classical negation is SOM's wall, its either-or
    • S-SP¤Vs: classical negation is SOM's Sheffer stroke
    • S-SP¤Vs: classical negation is binary alternative denial

"We have no black looks
or angry words for our
neighbor if he enjoys
himself in his
own way."
Funeral Speech of Pericles
c. 495-429 b.c.

  • global
    • I-SPoVs: "local to experiment" means global
  • herent
    • I-SP¤Vs: reali
    hty issi EIMA quantum c¤herent
  • global
    • S-SPoVs: "local to society" means global
  • herent
    • S-SP¤Vs: all s¤cieties aræ quantum c¤
    herent
  • homogeneous
    • I-SPoVs' reality: a stable analytic continuum
    • I-SPoVs' reality is an n-spatial extensity
    • I-SPoVs' time is a space-identity & -proxy
    • I-SPoVs' reality is numerable-measurable
    • I-SPoVs' reality is objectively lisr
    • I-SPoVs' space-time is differentiable
    • I-SPoVs' space-time is integrable
    • I-SPoVs say culture is analytic
    • I-SPoVs say individuals are analytic
  • heter¤gene¤us
    • I-SP¤Vs' reality issi quantum
    • I-SP¤Vs' quantum reality issi plural fluxings
    • I-SP¤Vs' ti
    hmings: heter¤gene¤us fluxings
    • I-SP¤Vs' spacings:
    heter¤gene¤us fluxings
    • I-SP¤Vs' massings:
    heter¤gene¤us fluxings
    • I-SP¤Vs' gravityings:
    heter¤gene¤us fluxings
    • I-SP¤Vs say fluxings aræ quantum pr¤cesses
    • I-SP¤Vs say pr¤cessings aræ n¤nanalytic
    • I-SP¤Vs say cultures aræ quantum
    • I-SP¤Vs say i
    hndihvihduals aræ quantum
  • homogeneous
    • S-SPoVs design-maintain analytic culture
    • S-SPoVs treat individuals as analytic objects
  • heter¤gene¤us
    • S-SP¤Vs emerscenture amd OEDC cultures
    • S-SP¤Vs aræ quantons ¤f quantum i
    hndihvihduals
  • idea
    • I-SPoVs' ideas are stable material concepts
    • I-SPoVs' ideas are analytically objective
    • I-SPoV ideas can signify any 'existing' thing
    • I-SPoVs use classical thing-king methods
    • I-SPoVs' ideas reside inside SOM's box
  • meme
    • I-SP¤Vs' memes aræ ani
    hmatæ flux quantons
    • I-SP¤Vs' memes aræ pr¤bability distributi¤ns
    • I-SP¤Vs memes aræ ¤mnivalently qubi
    htal
    • I-SP¤Vs memes use quantum t
    hink-king m¤des
    • I-SP¤Vs' memes superp¤se DQ amd SQ
  • idea
    • S-SPoVs observe reality as classical ideas
    • S-SPoVs use CTMs to define 'new' S-SPoVs
    • S-SPoVs use CTMs to control society
    • S-SPoVs use CTMs to interpret cultural 'law'
    • S-SPoVs assmume 'idea' resides in OGC
  • meme
    • S-SP¤Vs assume reali
    hty issi plural quantum memes
    • S-SP¤Vs use I-SP¤Vs' QTMs t¤ emersce n¤vel SP¤Vs
    • S-SP¤Vs use I-SP¤Vs' QTMs t¤ assist s¤cietal adapti¤n
    • S-SP¤Vs use I-SP¤Vs' QTMs t¤ apply s¤cietal ¤pini¤ns
    • S-SP¤Vs assume memes aræ c¤herent superp¤siti¤ns
  • immutable
    • "abysses of staysses are our bases"
    semper stux
  • changing
    • I-SP¤Vs' pr¤gress: endless emergent gr¤wth
    semper flux
  • immutable
    • social security maintains status quo
    semper stux
  • changing
    ESS society embraces-educes change
    semper flux
  • independence
    • I-SPoVs: objects' middles are EEMD
    • I-SPoVs: objects are locus-specific
  • ihncluded-mihddle-ihnterrelati¤ns
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantons' mi
    hddles aræ EIMA
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantons' aræ l¤cus-arbihtrary
  • independence
    • S-SPoVs are EEMD
    • "we are not in It and It is not in us"
  • ihncluded-mihddle-ihnterrelati¤ns
    • S-SPoVs are EIMA
    • "we are in It and It is in us"
  • interactive
    • I-SPoVs' mechanical objects interact
    • I-SPoVs' people interact
  • ass¤ciative
    • I-SP¤Vs' quantons EIMA QTM-i
    hnterrelate
  • interactive
    • S-SPoVs view societies and cultures interacting
    • S-SPoVs view sentients and objects interacting
  • ass¤ciative
    • S-SP¤Vs: quantum-s¤cieties amd -cultures i
    hnterrelate
    • S-SP¤Vs: reali
    hty, s¤cieties, amd cultures aræ quantons
  • know-ledge
    • I-SPoVs stop reality and store it on ledges
    • I-SPoVs view data as immutable leverage
    • I-SPoVs: classical 'mind' recalls state-ic data
    • I-SPoVs: mind models ideas from past stux
    • I-SPoVs: mental analytic manufacturing
  • meme¤ryings
    • I-SP¤Vs emersce memes w
    hich lihve ihn realihty
    • I-SP¤Vs view memes as agents ¤f creati¤nings
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantum stage affectings n¤wings
    • I-SP¤Vs-QTMs: ense
    hmble affectati¤nal sweep
    • I-SP¤Vs: Planck rate OEDCings ¤f
    k-n¤w-ings
  • know-ledge
    • S-SPoVs teach state-ic "know-ledge is power"
  • meme¤ryings
    • S-SP¤Vs QTM-teac
    h deep quantum r¤le-playing
    • S-SP¤Vs QTM-teac
    h that th¤ughts aræ meme¤ryings
    • S-SP¤Vs: quantum stages OEDC emersce meme¤ryings
    • S-SP¤Vs QTM-teac
    h "wæings aræ bæihngs k-n¤w-ings"
  • local
    • I-SPoVs believe thoughts are local to a brain
    • I-SPoVs believe 'here' is Cartesian locus
    • I-SPoVs believe 'where' is ideally localable
    • I-SPoVs believe 'when' is locally stoppable
    • I-SPoVs believe 'what' is locally measurable
    • I-SPoVs believe 'why' is locally decidable
    • I-SPoVs believe 'who' is locally observable
    • I-SPoVs believe 'how' is locally methodical
    • I-SPoVs believe objects stop at 'locations'
    • I-SPoVs believe locality induces globality
    • I-SPoVs believe province can be catholic
  • n¤nlisr
    • I-SP¤Vs bælieve quantons aræ n¤nlisr
    • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(b¤th_all_while,amd_many):
    • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(n¤nl¤cal,apt_l¤cal)
    • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(n¤nis¤late,apt_is¤late)
    • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(n¤nseparate,apt_separate)
    • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(n¤nreduced,apt_reduced)
    • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(n¤nl¤cus,l¤cus) (de Broglie)
    • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(is¤flux,flux)
    • I-SP¤Vs: quanton(gl¤bality,l¤cality)
  • local
    • S-SPoVs: I-SPoV CTM locality notions are 'law'
    • S-SPoVs: dichon(either_one, or_the_other):
    • S-SPoVs: dichon(nonlocal, local)
    • S-SPoVs: dichon(nonisolate, isolate)
    • S-SPoVs: dichon(nonseparate, separate)
    • S-SPoVs: dichon(nonreduced, reduced)
    • S-SPoVs: dichon(nonlocus, locus) (Descartes)
    • S-SPoVs: dichon(motion, stopped) (0 momentum)
    • S-SPoVs: dichon(global, local)
  • n¤nlisr
    • S-SP¤Vs respect amd teac
    h I-SP¤V n¤nlisr QTM n¤ti¤ns
  • mechanical
    • I-SPoVs say classical reality is 'mechanical'
    • I-SPoVs say a mechanical reality is analytic
    • I-SPoVs say a mechanical reality is formal
    • I-SPoVs say formal reality can be modeled
    • I-SPoVs build formal models using objects
  • emerqant
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantum reali
    hty issi emerqant
    • I-SP¤Vs say quantons aræ emerqancies
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantonics aræ m¤delings reali
    hty
    • I-SP¤Vs bui
    hld emerqants using quantons
  • mechanical
    • S-SPoVs view societies, cultures as mechanical
    • S-SPoVs teach I-SPoVs' mechanical CTMs
  • emerqant
    • S-SP¤Vs view s¤cieties, cultures as emerqancies
    • S-SP¤Vs teac
    h I-SP¤Vs' quantonic QTMs
  • object
    • I-SPoVs view reality as objective
    • I-SPoVs discard subjective reality
  • quanton
    • I-SP¤Vs view reali
    hty as quantonic
    • I-SP¤Vs superp¤se S-O as SQ c¤wit
    hin DQ
  • object
    • views people and org's as objects
    • manages subjectivity out of society
  • quanton
    • views society as quantonic
    • teaches quantonics
  • observe
    • I-SPoVs: reality is unilaterally observable
    • I-SPoVs: observables do not coobserve
    • I-SPoVs: observables do not coaffect
    • I-SPoVs: observables are EEMD
    • I-SPoVs: observables are stable-immutable
    • I-SPoVs: observation is non solipsistic
    • I-SPoVs: observation is a CTM paradigm
    • I-SPoVs: observation: repeatable, verifiable
    • I-SPoVs: observation 'proves' science
  • c¤¤bsfect
    • I-SP¤Vs: realihty issi quantum c¤¤bsfective
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantum ¤bservables c¤¤bserve
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantum ¤bservables c¤affect
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantum ¤bservables aræ EIMA
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantum ¤bservables aræ anihmatæ
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantum ¤bservation issi s¤lipsistic
    • I-SP¤Vs: c¤¤bsfection: a QTM pragmadi
    hgm
    • I-SP¤Vs: any tw¤ ¤bservati¤ns ¤mniffer
    • I-SP¤Vs: classical 'science' is a deign to feign
  • observe
    • S-SPoVs: I-SPoV CTM observe ideas are 'law'
  • c¤¤bsfect
    • S-SP¤Vs respect amd teac
    h I-SP¤Vs' c¤¤bsfection memes
  • property
    • I-SPoVs: classical objects have properties
    • I-SPoVs: classical properties are repeatable
    • I-SPoVs: classical property is paradigmatic
    • I-SPoVs: 'science' distinguishes properties
    • I-SPoVs: 'science' observes properties
    • I-SPoVs: 'science' measures properties
    • I-SPoVs: 'science' verifies properties
    • I-SPoVs: 'science' proves properties
    • I-SPoVs: 'science' validates properties
    • I-SPoVs: believe property is quantitative
    • I-SPoVs: believe property is predicable
    • I-SPoVs: believe property is causal
    • I-SPoVs: believe property is effective
    • I-SPoVs: believe property is exclusive
  • Value
    • I-SP¤Vs bælieve reali
    hty issi Qualihty
    • I-SP¤Vs: Quali
    hty issi Value
    • I-SP¤Vs: Value issi quali
    htative
    • I-SP¤Vs: Value issi affectati¤nal
    • I-SP¤Vs: Value issi ense
    hmble pr¤babilistic
    • I-SP¤Vs: Value: ¤ntic emergence-deemergence
    • I-SP¤Vs: Value issi quantonic

  • property
    • S-SPoVs view societies, culture as property
    • S-SPoVs teach I-SPoVs' propertyesque CTMs
    • S-SPoVs say I-SPoVs possess properties
  • Value
    • S-SP¤Vs respect amd teac
    h I-SP¤Vs' Valuation memes
  • quantity
    • I-SPoVs say classical reality is quantitative
  • qualihty
    • I-SP¤Vs say quantum reali
    hty issi qualihtative
  • quantity
    • S-SPoVs teach reality is quantitative
  • qualihty
    • S-SP¤Vs teac
    h realihty issi qualihtative
  • rational
    • I-SPoVs view reality as logical, ratiocinated
    • I-SPoVs view reality as other-referent
    • I-SPoVs say recursion is mechanical EEMD
  • s¤phist
    • I-SP¤Vs view reali
    hty as n¤nmechanical
    • I-SP¤Vs view reali
    hty as self- & ¤ther-referent
    • I-SP¤Vs say recursi¤n issi quantum EIMA
  • rational
    • S-SPoVs view society as rational
  • s¤phist
    • S-SP¤Vs view s¤ciety as quantum s¤p
    hist
  • reason
    • I-SPoVs say reason is analytic, analytical
    • I-SPoVs say reason is objective, lisr
    • I-SPoVs say reason depends on S-O schism
    • I-SPoVs say reason is mechanical, formal
    • I-SPoVs say reason is logically positive
    • I-SPoVs say reason is classically naïvely real
    • I-SPoVs say "throw away quantum reality"
  • hs¤n
    • I-SP¤Vs ræ
    hs¤n: mæmæs, mæmætihciy, mæmæotihcs, quant¤l¤gy
    • I-SP¤Vs ræ
    hs¤n: sæmpær flux
    • I-SP¤Vs ræ
    hs¤n: ¤mniplex værihtas  (QELRed Latin)
    • I-SP¤Vs ræ
    hs¤n: quantum stage pr¤cessings
    • I-SP¤Vs ræ
    hs¤n: quantonic, n¤nlisr
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantum ræ
    hs¤n sutures S-O 'schism'
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantum stagings tap reserve energy
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantum stagings superp¤se reali
    hty
  • reason
    • S-SPoVs: classical reason demands consensus
    • S-SPoVs: classical reason is "common sense"
    • S-SPoVs: "one church of reason fits all"
    • S-SPoVs: normal ("great") minds reason alike
    • S-SPoVs: correct reason is state-ically verifiable
  • hs¤n
    • S-SP¤Vs: t
    here aræ many physial ræhs¤nings
    • S-SP¤Vs: s¤cieties' ræ
    hs¤nings may ¤mniffer
    • S-SP¤Vs: extra¤rdinary quantum stages freely i
    hmagine
    • S-SP¤Vs: quantum ræ
    hs¤n adapts anihmatæ comtext
    • S-SP¤Vs: i
    hndihvihduals ræhs¤n; S-SP¤Vs cann¤t
  • stable
    • I-SPoVs delude classical reality is stable
  • anihmatæ
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantum reali
    hty issi anihmatæ
  • stable
    • S-SPoVs delude classical reality is stable
  • anihmatæ
    • S-SP¤Vs teac
    h, respect quantum realihty issi anihmatæ
  • stop
    • I-SPoVs delude reality is stoppable

  • • I-SP¤Vs: quantum reali
    hty issi unst¤ppable
  • stop
    • S-SPoVs delude reality is stoppable

  • • S-SP¤Vs teac
    h, respect quantum realihty as unst¤ppable
  • subject
    • I-SPoVs: subjective reality is illogical
  • quanton
    • I-SP¤Vs: quantum reali
    hty issi quantonic
    • I-SP¤Vs: SQ issi quanton(S,O)
    • I-SP¤Vs: reali
    hty issi quanton(DQ,SQ)
  • subject
    • S-SPoVs denigrate subjective reality
  • quanton
    • S-SP¤Vs revere reali
    hty as quanton(DQ,quanton(S,O))
  • truth
    • I-SPoVs say truth is ideally static
    • I-SPoVs say truth is practically provisional
    • I-SPoVs: truth alters only via contradiction
  • umcærtainty
    • I-SP¤Vs bælieve trut
    h changes
    • I-SP¤Vs: trut
    h issi agency ¤f ihts ¤wn changæ
  • truth
    • S-SPoVs assess 'truth' via 'laws'
    • S-SPoVs say truth applies to law, ethics, morality
  • umcærtainty
    • S-SP¤Vs bælieve I-SP¤Vs adapt quantum umcærtainty

Now let's use our two tables' study efforts to answer those five questions:

  1. What is an individual and what do we mean by individualism? (either-or individual? both-and society? mu?)

    Classical individualism is EOOO(classical_society, classical_individual). Classical individualism and its I-SPoVs appear material, objective, mechanical.

    Quantum individualism is BAWAM(quantum_society,quantum_individual). Quantum individualism and its I-SPoVs appear more natural, physial, quantonic, and better.

  2. What is a society and what do we mean by socialism? (either-or society? both-and individual? mu?)

    Ditto our remarks under question 1, individual.

  3. Are individuals and societies natural organizations and if so, how does quantum nature appear to create, grow, change, diminish, and discreate individuals and societies?

    To us, classical individuals and societies appear formal, manufactured, contrived, and artificial. They appear incapable of natural ontology, or perhaps we might better say, "They appear in opposition to and in utter disregard of natural ontology." Why? Primarily due their shallow formal mechanical role-playing. They appear to us as what we refer humorously, "SaS-ERPs."

    To us, quantum individuals and societies as we have heuristically depicted them appear more natural, physial, wholistic, and real. They appear to be enthusiastically involved in deep quantum playing. They appear compatible with quantum reality and nature's OEDC. They appear as emerscents, as emerscitectural, and as emerscenturable.

  4. How may we omnistinguish among individuals and societies which are more natural and those which may be less natural?

    Simply by comparing I-SPoVs to I-SP¤Vs and S-SPoVs to S-SP¤Vs. By learning and using our SPoV comparison table above.

  5. Are quantum individuals and societies more natural than classical individuals and societies?

    Simply, according to our Quantonics analogies and heuristics, "Yes!"

 

Feuilleton Chautauqua to be continued...

...

This month, during our stay in Oregon, we watched Chinook and Coho salmon run. We watched them attempt passes at shallow waters. We watched 1.25 meter long salmon beach themselves. Some escape safely back to water. Some are attacked and eaten by gulls, crows, and ravens. Some (we saw at least one) are saved by humans who pick them up and put them back in brackish waters so that they may continue their journey to spawn.

We watched river otters playing and feeding as close as 7 meters to their larger ocean seal brethren.

We listened to stories of Bald Eagles pouncing on stranded salmon while chasing all other comers away. Adult eagles scare hell out of gulls, ravens and crows! An adult eagle weighs about four kilograms. Gulls vary above and below that weight, but without eagles' talons, powerful legs, neck and beak. Ravens are about one kilogram, and crows are roughly half a kilo. In reverse order ratios are roughly 1:2:4.

We saw a couple of fisherfolk catch Chinooks. A pretty red-headed lady landed a 0.8 meter Chinook. She was absolutely thrilled and grinning almost full circle. We were able to get up-close and eye-filled. Spent some time talking with locals about fishing. Lots of oldtimers here with countless fascinating stories. "A little old lady, couple streets over, has an iron ring in her garage floor from WWII when gun turrets were mounted hereabouts..." And so it goes...

Beth apparently passed her Central Coast Aquarium volunteer test. She now has a jacket and an official badge. 'Course Doug is now para attending volunteer at-will assistant. (A title which, however shallow, is at least long. :) (AH calls Doug Earth's "Premier Quantum Hermeneuticist." So we sing an old song, "I'm the top, I'm the bottom..." Quantum, indeed. And two titles are enough, thank you. :)

This morning there was a 7.5 quake in Alaska. It produced some minor and odd water affects in our bay. Incoming tide waves appeared accentuated and more powerful with a much greater dynamic coverage and water depth with each surge. A violin tentatively becoming chello...

Beth transfixes when gulls and crows cantilever their wings and apex spiral from sea level to 1500 feet on ocean affected thermals. Any naïve classicist would claim their free ride impossible. All steering and n¤ flapping for 10s of minutes. Stunning. Quantum normal. An anihmatæ tornado of gulls and crows in maximal free will and quantum c¤hesion. Synchrony and individuicity all superposed and entangled in a massive inverted and invisible isocone.

...

We are really enjoying our new (almost a year old) MAC Titanium, 1GRAM, 1GHz cpu, 60Gbyte HD. Superb technology. More cost effective than Wintel by eons.

Recently on MACOSXHints.com someone recommended OPENOSX Wintel 1.0.1 ($34.95) to run-emulate MS OSes (either 95 or 98) on OS X 10.2 or later. OPENOSX is just an installation assistant which makes installing Bochs' 586 emulator ('free' OSS ware) easier. If you are technically savvy, you can do this without OPENOSX. We are not that good, so we found OPENOSX very efficient for its price.

We want to share our experience with our Quantonics community. It took 8-12 hours to install OPENOSXWintel's whole package. First we had to install Bochs 586 emulator. We had to create a c: drive image on our MAC HD. We had to image copy 98 CD to another d: drive. Then we commenced our install of 98. It takes about 6-8 hour to do this. It is very slow and lots of interactivity required. If you are unused to doing OS installs, this will be challenging. If you are used to that, it is easy though slow. (If you try it, follow OPENOSX instructions to THE letter. For us it is not a wholly intuitive process. Using a nonCDROM CDROM was confusing for us. Also, once you partition and activate c:, you have to go there then cd to d: and run format on c: to prepare for OS installation. After that just type d:setup /m /nf /ie /iv /c /im /is /iq /it /p b;g=3 and you're off on a 6-12 hour MS98 installation jaunt.)

Once we got it running, we opened 98's Control Panel. After about 30 seconds it opened. Ugh! It works folks, but it is sorta slow (just what one might expect for an emulator: remember, Bochs 586 is emulating a microprocessor's very complex hardware architecture in software!). Nothing a faster cpu won't help immensely.

Our guess is that this emulator might work reasonably well on a 10GHz cpu, but even then it may be about 1/10th as fast as our 1.6GHz AMD tower(we are guessing at a 100:1 penalty for this 586 emulator on our MAC's 1GHz cpu). So this young fella (Jeshua) in San Fran has a great product for future high power cpus. He is just a tad ahead of current single user cpu resources though.

Not yet...wait awhile...

We'd like to hear if anyone has done this on a "dualie" G5. Email Doug at NOFLAMEqtx{at}earthlink{dot}netNOSPAM. Thanks in advance for any comments... We are weighing a dualie or better in next 1-2 years.

That's about it for November, 2003...in Oregon ("Loss of freedom," Or a gun. )

Thank you for your patronage in Quantonics.

This is our last feuilleton installment for 2003! We wish all of you incomparable holiday happiness!

See you again, from Oregon, with our December, 2003 installment in January, 2004,

Doug.

October, 2003 News:

2003-2004
Feuilleton Installment:

  October,
2003
November,
2003
December,
2003
January,
2004

February,
2004

March,
2004

1st installment:

   a prerequisite to:  a prerequisite to:   a prerequisite to:   a prerequisite to:  

Move to any Installment of our feuilleton Chautauqua
(
says, "You are here!")

Commencing this month's news we shall offer a feuilleton lasting several months whose purpose is examination and examinings of social patterns of value in their complex interrelationships with individual patterns of value. As Boris Sidis might put it, "Demos Will vis-à-vis Individual Free Will."

 

 "[Shelley, Percy Bysshe] does not believe that the reformation of society can bring this beauty, this divine order, among men without the regeneration of the hearts of men."

by W. B. Yeats,
The Philosophy of Shelley's Poetry.

 

We ask that our readers of October's 2003 TQS News installment heuristically regard Hesse's-Knecht's Castalia as: USA, Japan, China, England, EU, etc. Then juxtapose Hesse's Magister Ludi with his Steppenwolf.

Heed cultures and their vast interrelationships with individuals: are cultures above individuals and are cultures respectfully Valuing individuals? Do our 'Castalias' have Individual Free Will and do our Castalias have Demos Will? When is assertion of Demos Will over Free Will apropos? When is assertion of Free Will over Demos Will apropos? Are our Castalias' Demos Wills above Castalias' Individual Free Wills? Is common above extraordinary? Are cultures intentional entrapments of and hegemons over individuals? What should individuals do to escape and prevent "Hans Solo in Jaba d'Hut" entrapment? Is Civil a synonym for Individual? Should it be? Is it a political-linguistic trick? Should we allow it?

We ask our readers to ponder:

  • cultures as societies
    (as, e.g., pastistic
    'traditional' viscosities),
    thence

  • cultures as individuals
    (nowistic, pushing futuristic,
    emergence-agencies).

Then fathom societies and individuals as:

  • SOMites - classically mechanical, then

  • MoQites - quantum non mechanical.

Doug - 30October2003.

Millennium III's quantum tsunami "...need 'not' be irrational and violent..."

(Our bold, brackets and color.)

"...Joseph Knecht shows that the only true culture, is that which responds to the social requirements of the times. The Glass Bead Game, finally, makes it clear that Hesse advocates thoughtful commitment over self-indulgent solipsism, responsible action over mindless revolt. For Joseph Knecht is no impetuous radical thrusting non-negotiable demands upon the institution and demanding amnesty from the consequences of his deeds. He attains through disciplined achievement the highest status in the Order and commits himself to action only after thoughtfully assessing its implications for Castalia and the consequences for himself. Above all—for the novel is not a philosophical tract or a political pamphlet, but a work of art—Hesse suggests that revolt need not be irrational and violent, that indeed it is more effective when it is rational and ironic. This is the value of the temporal distance, the double perspective vouchsafed by the fiction. In the Introduction, looking back at our own civilization from the vantage point of the future, we see it in all its glaring self-contradictions. At the same time, we look ahead to the Castalia of the future, where the problems of our age are displayed in a realistic abstraction that permits us to consider them rationally and dispassionately. Castalia has more than a little in common with the intellectual and cultural institutions of the sixties, to the extent that they have become autonomous empires cut off from the social needs of mankind and cultivating their own Glass Bead Games in glorious isolation. And Knecht’s conviction that a State ruled without the tempering influence of Culture is doomed to brutishness reflects a prevalent contemporary concern: our computerized [i.e., mechanized, rational: "it's the mechanics stupid"] society has become so bureaucratically impersonal that it is no longer guided sufficiently by forces that are in the highest sense humane. The longer we consider Hesse’s novel, the more clearly we realize that it is not a telescope focused on an imaginary future, but a mirror reflecting with disturbing sharpness a paradigm of present reality."

From 'Forward,' p. xv, Magister Ludi. (Latin for "Master of games.")

'Foward' written in 1969
By Theodore Ziolkowski
To Magister Ludi AKA The Glass Bead Game, 1943.

Magister Ludi was awarded a 1946 Nobel Prize for Literature.


This month, and for several months hence, we want to spend some serious time on detail of SPoVs. What do we mean by SPoVs? SPoVs are Static Patterns of Value. Our first exposure to this phrase was through Robert M. Pirsig's development of his Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ) in his 1974 Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, his 1991 Lila, and his 1995 Einstein Meets Magritte conference paper, Subjects, Objects, Data and Values.

Issues: Do social SPoVs serve individual SPoVs? Do individual SPoVs serve social SPoVs? Should they? H5W?

Our approach involves laying extensive foundation, which we do here, in preparation for our impending months' ongoing quantum feuilleton Chautauqua. For October, 2003, allow us to proto focus on putting Pirsig's SPoVs and their emergent ontologies in Quantum Lightings.

Pirsig's SPoVs are his anthropocentric hierarchical subdivision of what he calls "Static Quality," AKA SQ. He says in Lila that this hierarchy represents all that is known and knowable in [classical] 'reality.' SQ's [inferred: humanly-] -unknown and -unknowable complement he calls DQ AKA "Dynamic Quality."

Please be careful here... Pirsig's static is n¤n classically state-ic. Pirsig's static issi quantum b¤th static (~tentatively "latched") and animate, what we mean in Quantonics when we say "stindyanic." Similarly as some quantum physicists say an object is both particle and wave, Pirsig's static is both apparently_static and absolutely_variable_rate_dynamic. (See QTP and QVP.)

Students of Quantonics should immediately recognize our Quantonics foundations here!

quanton(dynamic,static)
quanton(DQ,SQ)
quanton(subject,object)
quanton(wave,particle)
etc.

Pirsig's DQ corresponds our "quantum nonactuality." His SQ corresponds our "quantum actuality." In quantonics quanton(DQ,SQ) issi quanton(nonactuality,actuality). We call them, in Pirsigese, "MoQ." We say, "Quantum MoQ issi m¤delings ¤f quantum realityings."

For our discussions here, in our October, 2003 feuilleton Chautauqua's installment of Quantonics News, we want to defer any detail discussions of DQ and its ontic interrelationships with SQ while we spend much effort on Pirsigean and Quantonic details of SQ, particularly SPoVs and how we evolve Pirsig's own evolution of them into quantum SP¤Vs.

If we reverse-engineer Pirsig's SPoVs so they appear as Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle might have viewed them, those SPoVs' four levels, classically, could look somewhat like this:

It is unlikely ancient classicists viewed reality using these four levels, but parts of those levels do correspond, e.g., top two are roughly classically 'objective,' and bottom two levels are roughly classically 'subjective.' We admit to oversimplification here, swayed by our need to map ancients' bases for thought onto Pirsig's SPoV levels. Pre- and post-socratic Greco-ancients (starting very roughly twixt Homer's Iliad — ~800-900 b.c. — and Parmenides — ~600 b.c., with this period forming a foundation for what we today refer as Attic dialectic and its spawn which appeared commencing ~500 b.c.) placed 'objective' thought above 'subjective' thought and essentially attempted to ignore latter as "sophist." That simplification jibes any reverse engineering we proffer here.

Aside on more recent c. 2005-2028 understandings of an approximation of Pirsig's "ancients:"

If you will offer us leeway in what we mean by 'ancients' we can offer an ancient hierarchy which partially corresponds our reverse-engineered hierarchy above.

Let's use approximately 10,000 b.c.e (before christian era; we use lower case here since 'christ' in Greek is a 'social manager,' 'not' a messiah-saviour, rather more like a 'high class' politician; of course 'Jesus' means light), in other words from about 12k years ago through about 2k years ago, that era. Further, allow us to focus on classical aspects of gnosticism. Keep in mind this is all pre Jesus and pre Mohammed. More...keep in mind that some other oriental and non occidental ancients shared some beliefs with classical gnosticism.

According to Elaine Pagels, author of several texts on gnosticism and relevant topics, gnostic analogue of our reverse-engineered hierarchy is called, in Greek, topos (topos). It looks like this:

Gnosticism's
topos
MoQ
Inverted
Classical
Terminology
MoQ's
SPoVs
Quantum
(n¤n classical)
hylic inorganic
biological
material
objective
ESQ & SQ n¤ncomcæptual
due semper fluxio
psychic social
intellectual
analytic
literal
ESQ & SQ actuality
(perceptual latched flux)
pneumatic Heraclitus'
logos
spiritual DQ
(martus aritos)
n¤nactuality
(is¤flux)

©Quantonics, Inc., 2007-2028 — Rev. 7Jan2007  PDR — Created 7Jan2007  PDR

Alignments shown are imperfect, but offer fair approximations. Quantum column is most problematic in that regard. For example ESQ can't be in quantum reality due absolute flux. Too, classical notions of negation are impossible in quantum reality since all flux and all quantum waves and their quantum stochastics are energy positive phase~relative phlux~encodings.

So you may choose to see that a hierarchy (topos) similar our reverse engineered one did 'exist' prior our current era.

Doug - 7Jan2007.

End aside.

In Lila, and in, we believe, a genius maneuver, Pirsig innovatively rearranges SQ's subdivision hierarchy of SPoVs like this:

We are asked by Pirsig, in Lila, to imagine those levels embedded in and (stindyanically) commingling DQ.

Those levels, top down, are SQ's four subcategories. Pirsig claims, in our view arguably and too specifically and anthropocentrically, "...they are complete, that list is all there are." On Earth, they are approximately adequate and we can use them in our discussion here.

You ask, "What is novel about Pirsig's hierarchy embedded in DQ?" To us, simply, it is very quantum. It is blatantly n¤n-classical. It offers a way of viewing Earth's individuals, societies and cultures in Quantum Light that drives out human darknesses of hatred and war. We think and believe that it offers cultural coobsfective respect, cooperation (havlagah), and defense (Haganah) vis-à-vis inter belief hatred, attacks, and wars. This month's Quantonics News feuilleton commencement is about showing you why we think and believe that way.

Of course you ask, "How can MoQ do that, how can it provide Quantum Lightings?" Again, we can answer rather simply, "MoQ eliminates SOM's schism." We both assume and presume that SOM's dialectical schism is normatively, prescriptively, and putatively source and agency of all Earth's hatred, its ideal versuses and oppositions. We believe and quantum-self-proselytize that. We believe, that when we eliminate SOM's schism, we eliminate hatred's major source. We believe that quantum EIMA c¤mplementati¤n of SOM's schism is key to Shelley's "...regeneration of the hearts of men." When Quantum Light of MoQ shines upon and c¤herently sutures and heals SOM's schism, it mostly disables, by taking away control of, social patterns of Value like group warfare and inter group-herd-gregarious social hatred. It promotes quantum ihndihvihdual patterns of Value which abh¤r classical 'social value patterns' of group opposition, war, and hatred.

Quantum Ihndihvihdual Governance - HotMeme - Simply, SOM's herd instinct and its consensual and objective 'social patterns' of behavior cann¤t control let alone survive in any ontolgy governed by MoQ's quantum ihndihvihdual patterns of Value.™ End QIG HotMeme

"What is SOM?"

Pirsig teaches us that SOM is an acronym for Subject-Object Metaphysics. For detail on Subject-Object Metaphysics see Pirsig's Birth of SOM. Our site covers in great detail why SOM's S-O schism is quantum-scientifically problematic. What we are attempting here, in our multi-month quantum feuilleton, is to explicate why SOM is also quantum-socially and -culturally problematic.

Let's illustrate Pirsig's MoQ classical SPoV hierarchy unsutured with SOM's Subject-Object schism intact:

 

Intellectual

Social

} Subject
 schism:


 

Biological

Inorganic

} Object

"What is innovative about that hierarchy?" As practiced in Earth's Western cultures after Millennium II's end it looks like this:

Inorganic

Biological

} Object

Social

Intellectual

} Subject

Aristotelian, Newtonian, classical mechanics teach us that we live in a substantial, material, concrete reality. Material objects are hierarchically above immaterial and insubstantual subjects. Both Pirsig and quantum science (i.e., both soft and hard sciences with Bergson's philosophy and biology, William James' philosophy and psychology, Robert M. Pirsig's philosophy and Clifford Geertz' anthropology as quantum proto cursors of quantum science) show us otherwise. Pirsig's innovation was to rearrange that hierarchy more quantum physially!

What did he do? He moved Subject above Object. He moved biological above inorganic. He moved intellectual above social. Why? Simply: intellectual SPoVs are more highly evolved than social are more highly evolved than biological are more highly evolved than inorganic SPoVs. However, Pirsig did more. SOM treats its categories as mechanical objects while absolutely denying any 'objective rational utility' of subjective reality, and denies any DQ 'existence.' Pirsig treats his levels as commingling patterns of Value and he immerses and commingles them as ~quantum islandic class SPoVs absolutely in his Dynamic Quality. We show it like this: quanton(DQ,SQ). We say it like this, "DQ is in SQ and SQ is in DQ." Latter claims reality's middle is quantum-included. Pirsig's Lila parable says it less technically describing one of his protagonist characters, "Lila has Quality and Quality has Lila." That quantum statement is a paradox — a sophism — in SOM!

SOM shows it like this: dichon(DQ, SQ). SOM says it like this, "DQ does not 'exist' and only material objects 'exist.' Material objects obey Aristotle's three syllogisms." SOM would say, "Lila either has quality, or she does not have quality, and to say 'quality has Lila' is absolute subjective nonsense and absurdity." SOM believes that reality is classically stable and classical objects in reality are independent (i.e., Aristotle's excluded-middle),..., people and their ideas too.

In Quantonics our view is that MoQ is demonstrably better than SOM. We attempt to show that in this web site. Our con(m)clusions are: SOM believes that reality is stable, objective, quantitative, everywhere-excluded-middle-dissociative (EEMD), etc. MoQ believes that reality is animate, quantonic, qualitative, everywhere-included-middle-associative (EIMA).

Quantonics' views, bottom line: when we believe SOM we divide, attack and offensively destroy that which is di-fferent from us. When we believe MoQ we embrace, respect, and cooperate while restrainedly defending (i.e., quanton(havlagah,Haganah); thanks to AH for this moderating Israeli insight) our omnifferences. In Quantonics, we believe, in order to accomplish Shelley's "...regeneration of the hearts of men," we must learn to quantum EIMA embrace our individual and cultural omnifferencings.

Those quantonic bottom lines show why Pirsig places intellectual SPoVs above social SPoVs. SOM is warlike and hateful. MoQ is more respectful, restrained (havlagah), quanton(cooperative,while_capable_of_self_defense) (Haganah), and peaceful.

"But what does that have to do with Pirsig's intellectual over social inversion?" In SOM, war and terrorism are classical social SPoVs (ScA-SPoVs)! In MoQ, peace and cooperation and mutual respect are quantum intellectual SP¤Vs (IqQ-SP¤Vs). Pirsig teaches us that quantum intellect is vastly more highly evolved and evolving than classical society. Former is agile and closer to now. Latter is viscous and always trapped and anchored in past's stasis (i.e., classical pasts' abysses of staysses).

Caveat: Pirsig did not emphasize quantum aspects of his hierarchy to an extent that we do here in Quantonics. Indeed, we extend MoQ significantly, hopefully for better. To us our quantum MoQ is MoQ, but Pirsig might n¤t con(m)cur. Some of his followers believe that Quantonics is all wet. So please recognize that our interpretations and quantum hermeneutics of Pirsig's MoQ are themselves evolved and evolving beyond where that great man "left off."

In interim summary then, Pirsig's MoQ inverts SOM's O-over-S hierarchy to S-over-O. Too, MoQ inverts SOM's inorganic-over-biological to biological-over-inorganic, and MoQ inverts SOM's social-over-intellectual to intellectual-over-social.

We want to do two more things here: offer acronyms, and quantum-remediate some n¤vel acronyms for those terms we just used above. In doing so, we need to substitute "atomic-inorganic" for Pirsig's "inorganic."

Pirsig's Classical Aristotelian Uninverted Value Hierarchy Static Pattern of Value acronyms:

O

{

Atomic-Inorganic

AcA-SPoVs

Biological

BcA-SPoVs

S

{

Social

ScA-SPoVs

Intellectual

IcA-SPoVs

From now henceforth let's call this hierarchy "ABSI."

Pirsig did not talk (at least we do not know about his writing) of our following hierarchy...rather, we infer it experientially.

Pirsig's Classical Aristotelian S-O Inverted Value Hierarchy Static Pattern of Value acronyms:

S

{

Social

ScP-SPoVs

Intellectual

IcP-SPoVs

O

{

Atomic-Inorganic

AcP-SPoVs

Biological

BcP-SPoVs

From now henceforth let's call this hierarchy "SIAB." This depiction of Pirsig's hierarchy only inverts Object-over-Subject while leaving original classical inorganic-over-biological and social-over-intellectual sub hierarchies intact.

Let's show that one with Object level Pirsigean partial inversion:

S

{

Social

ScP-SPoVs

 
Intellectual

IcP-SPoVs

 
O

{

Biological

BcP-SPoVs

 

Atomic-Inorganic

AcP-SPoVs

 

From now henceforth let's call this hierarchy "SIBA."

Let's show that one with Subject level and Object level Pirsigean full inversions and all SPoVs 'Tao-sutured' cowithin DQ:

Intellectual

IcP-SPoVs

 
Social

ScP-SPoVs

 

Biological

BcP-SPoVs

 

Atomic-Inorganic

AcP-SPoVs

 

From now henceforth let's call this hierarchy "ISBA." This is what Pirsig innovated and showed without our intermediate SPoV-hierarchy evolutionary steps. Here we see Pirsig's vertical, upward evolution of levels "next up" evolved from and invented by "previous lower." For greater detail, see our MoQ Emerscitecture graphic. This is Pirsig's MoQ's version of SQ. Absent is any depiction of DQ, and DQ's commingling of SQ. We must imagine DQ animately surrounding and commingling SQ. In Quantonics we like this hierarchy (our first exposure to it was, personally, an epiphany...a quantum avatar). Five years ago we animated it as SOM to Subject-Value-Object to Subject-Object-as-Quantum-Class-SP¤V-cowithin-Quality and then ræværsibility of all. Purpose of that animation was to show what this month's feuilleton first installment evolves in text, but it mistakenly left 'Object' above 'Subject.' We left it like that for its pedantic and pedagogic Value. Good students enjoy finding flaws. Flaw is Walf backwards. J Doug - 3Nov2003.

In our own evolutionary process, we find it useful to quantum English language remediate (QELR) Pirsig's innovated hierarchy. Ditto our version of Pirsig's SPoV acronyms.

Let's show our quantum Quantonics version of Pirsig's full n¤n-classical SPoV inversion quantum sutured as a Quantonics quanton(DQ,SQ):

 DQ AKA Quantum Nonactuality

----------------------------------------------
------Quantum Included-Middle------
----------------------------------------------

SQ
AKA
Quantum
Actuality

Ihndihvihdual

 IqQ-SP¤Vs
S¤cial  SqQ-SP¤Vs

Bi¤n¤n-l¤gical

 BqQ-SP¤Vs

At¤mic-Ihn¤rganic

 AqQ-SP¤Vs

From now henceforth let's call this hierarchy "IhSBA." (Say "eeshba." Also "eezshba.") This is Quantonics' quantum evolution of Pirsig's Static Quality SPoV hierarchy. We retain Pirsig's hierarchy. We change his intellect and remediate its replacement as ihndihvihdual. Why? To distinguish individual intellect from social intellect. Also to distinguish quantum intellect (QTMs) from classical intellect (CTMs). We should say "omnistinguish" vis-à-vis "distinguish." We show quantum actuality as a light violet with SOM's purely objective (black (in How SOMites View Reality graphic it is red) circle, Bohr classical orbit, as SOMites view reality) "Church of Reason" in yellow as a tiny subset of quantum actuality. Our quantum version of that yellow subset, as shown above, includes both 'unknown' and 'unknowable' SOM actualities which are 'outside' SOM's "Church of Reason." We show DQ AKA quantum nonactuality in light blue. Our quanton semiotic links to a more quantum detailed version of this IhSP¤V illustration. Students of Quantonics should note that our "Ih" QELR is a crucial quantum memetic remediation. Ih, usually illustrated ih, issi quantum uncertainty, Bell inequality, Bergsonian duration, EIMA, etc. See our use and description of ih under our What Is Wrong With SOM's Logic?

So now we have a taxonomy of five kinds of SPoV/SP¤V hierarchies:

  1. ABSI - Classical Aristotelian Uninverted Hierarchy (predominate as-practiced classical Western culture, philosophy, science, religion, etc.)
  2. SIAB - Classical Pirsigean S-O Inverted Hierarchy (Pirsig's primary Subject-Object inversion)
  3. SIBA - Classical Pirsigean AB to BA Inverted Hierarchy (Pirsig's secondary inorganic-biological inversion)
  4. ISBA - Classical Pirsigean Pre-Quantum SI to IS Inverted Hierarchy, and (Pirsig's secondary intellect-social inversion)
  5. IhSBA - Quantonic-Pirsigean Quantum-Remediated Hierarchy. (Quantonics' quantum remediation (Ih replaces 'I,' i.e., with 'ih' as quantum uncertainty) of number four. This latter hierarchy is what Doug wrote about in his 1997 Lila Review, "I see world legal structures eventually adopting this [quantum-]ethical system.")

A superb question to ask near end of our October, 2003 feuilleton installment is, "Is IhSBA incrementally better than its antecedants?" This is a major issue which we shall address in subsequent installments. An easy, simple, and manifest answer for students of Quantonics is that just remediating from classical to quantum makes IhSBA better.

As readers may choose to interpret, Pirsig did much of this hard work, and we only quantum-remediated it. We use (our sources of inpiration, among others) Heraclitus, Giordano Bruno, Johann Georg Hamann, Henri Louis Bergson, William James, Robert M. Pirsig, Niels Bohr, Erwin Shrodinger, Werner Heisenberg, Shin Itiro Tomonaga, P. A. M. Dirac, David Bohm, Thomas Kuhn, Philip R. Wallace, Irving Stein, Clifford Geertz, Mae-wan Ho, quantum science, Quantonics students, personal evolute-empirical experience, et al., as benchmarks for our quantum heuristic hermeneutics.

Doug, "Why is this important in Quantonics? Why should we spend our valuable time and energy attempting to understand it?"

We believe our work here is part of a cure for any dialectical cultures' ailments of anger, opposition, and hate.

We now can use these hierarchical acronyms and comparisons of our remediated and unremediated terminologies to exegetically demonstrate how and why. We believe Pirsig's anticipated cure is underway now and is part of what we call a Quantonics "quantum tsunami." We want to express anticipative memetic expectations of possible affects and outcomes. We think those expectations, shared among our larger Quantonics community, offer great potential for improving humankind's Millennium III Earth life experiences.

 

"Life advances away from [social] security and towards [individual] freedom."

Showing Durant's inspiration at reading Bergson's
Creative Evolution., p. 132

Heavily and Interpretively Paraphrased from Will Durant's
The Story of Philosophy,
2nd ed., 1933, p. 501.

Durant seems appropriate here after
all our conjecture last month regarding
quantum ihndihvihdual freed¤m juxtap¤sed
classical societal confinement in Demos will.

We use a feuilleton installment of this month's news to lay foundation for ongoing discussions about Quantonics' quantum tsunami and how we see Millennium III as a period of enormous adjustment, one aspect of which is quantum ihndihvihdual Static Patterns of Value (SPoVs) achieving m¤ral amd ethical precedence over classical societal SPoVs. But before we do that, permit us to put that entire evolution of SPoVs above, into a single five-windowed table, and more explicitly expose their apparent evolutionary progress:

Quantum vis-à-vis Classical
Static Patterns of Value
Evolution

See our MoQ Emerscitecture Graphic.

IhSBA ISBA SIBA SIAB

ABSI

T
O

B
E

E
V
O
L
V
E
D

IqQ-SP¤Vs

Ihndihvihdual

IqP-SPoVs

Intellectual

S
Q

V
A
L
U
E

I
N

D
Q

ScP-SPoVs

Social

S

ScP-SPoVs

Social

S
AcA-SPoVs

Atomic-Inorganic

O

S
O
M
'S

M
Y
T
H
O
S

V
A
L
U
E

E
M
E
R
S
O
S

SqQ-SP¤Vs S¤cial SqP-SPoVs  Social IcP-SPoVs Intellectual  IcP-SPoVs Intellectual BcA-SPoVs Biological
BqQ-SP¤Vs Bi¤n¤n-l¤gical  BqP-SPoVs  Biological BcP-SPoVs Biological O

AcP-SPoVs
 Atomic-Inorganic

O
ScA-SPoVs Social S
AqQ-SP¤Vs At¤mic-Ihn¤rganic  AqP-SPoVs  Atomic-Inorganic AcP-SPoVs Atomic-Inorganic  BcP-SPoVs  Biological IcA-SPoVs Intellectual
quantum-
Quantonic
Ihndihvihdual
¤ver
S¤cial

quantum-
Pirsig
Intellectual
over
Social
classical-
Pirsig
Biological
over
Inorganic
classical-
Pirsig
Subject
over
Object
classical-
Aristotle
Object
over
Subject
Evolution——————————— ©Quantonics, Inc., 2003-2028 — Rev. 26Oct2003 PDR — Created 17Oct2003 PDR ———————————Devolution

It is our view, following Pirsig's lead, that classical social SPoVs, historically, have had precedence over classical intellectual SPoVs since at least Homer's Iliad. It's a kind of Greco-Roman intuition, an intuition that groups are above individuals.

It is our view that a cusp ihn our Quantum tsunami issi happening now, amd ævænts like Arnold's big win over Gray Davis aræ quantum tells of that cusp. By 'cusp' we intend "b¤th increase in frequency of quantum tells amd their ratæs ¤f changæ." For examples of our quantum English language remediation see our QELR.

Feuilleton Chautauqua to be continued...

That's about it for October...in Oregon ("Loss of freedom," Or a gun. )

Thank you for your patronage in Quantonics.

See you again, from Oregon, in December, 2003,

Doug.

September, 2003 News:

Whew! Busy month! Spent most of first two weeks getting ready for Beth's arrival. On 17Sep2003 she arrived at Eugene's superb airport.

We really enjoyed seeing each other after about 13 weeks apart. That long delay is due transition issues in Carmel, Indiana. It's a one time problem and now it's behind us.

It's been a riot here with readjusting to two people competing for space and resources and attention. But it's fun. Beth is like a buzz saw. Doug prepared our living quarters, a second apartment, by mult-pass cleaning carpets, then moving furniture, dishes, etc. Beth came in and finished unpacking and arranging. In two days it was essentially 'done.' That would have taken Doug two weeks!

Beth's logistics, operations, management, decorating skills and aesthetics exceed Doug's by eons.

We picked out a new leather love seat which matches chairs we purchased last December, January. And Doug pre-ordered as a surprise for Beth a new sound system just for her. It has 'Magnaplanar' speakers with a decent receiver and CD carousel, plus a paradigm subwoofer. She loves it. Doug found a pair of 14" Jensens here about six weeks ago, and uses them for his sound system in our 'laboratory' apartment. Both systems sound very good but those Magnepans are simply incredible. You can turn volume up to unbearable levels and clarity holds. Cone speakers simply cannot do that. (Our subwoofer's technology is unknown at this point. We think it is a folded cone. We keep its levels just detectable to assist Magnepans on low end. Doug enjoys just a little extra base, not like rap, but just good solid base, "when it's there, you want to know it's there," base. Our cheapo systems always come up short on base and really crisp highs. Magnepans sparkle in both regions, plus.)

AH helped Doug select a good system. He was right-on!

Since Beth arrived we have been to our local marketplace multiple times. Fresh veggies. Shrooms here are excellent. Beth and Doug are on a path of becoming shroomers. Rain forests offer abundant, year-round supplies of a huge variety of shrooms. You can be driving on a back road and see them growing, ready to pick. Amazing. In Indiana they are seasonal and tough to find.

From Doug's initial arrival on 1July, weather held until just now. We have a few cloudy, misty days now. It will steadily change into almost daily rains and storms, with few sunny reprieves.

You may recall Doug's encounter with three otters two months ago. Beth and Doug decided to take a walk along a local river yesterday. Guess what? Beth saw our three otters playing on a huge downed tree at river's edge. One big, one medium, one small. They play and play. When we continued our walk and returned they moved to our side of their river and appeared to curiously be waiting for us. Again, they performed and played for us and gradually moved away. But we were able to look at them closely, almost intimately.

This is really good for Beth. She is volunteering at Newport's aquarium and marine life research center. An eight week course is like being on an end of two fire hoses turned on full: hilt force feeding and almost unlimited information to absorb. She loves it. Too, she is volunteering in Newport's hospice. It is much smaller than Indy's hospice, but still lots to do.

On her arrival, Doug had a great dinner prepared. He ordered a superb toffee cheesecake from a local baker, plus we had excellent salmon filets, a veggy and salad. Champagne before and after. Timor Dark, strong, buttery coffee with dessert (from a great roaster on Florence's Siuslaw riverfront: 4•Beans, Inc., Coffee Roasters (no Quantonics affiliation), 1240 Bay Street, POBox Y, Florence, Oregon, 97439, 1-541-997-3443; they have a website, but we do not have their URL handy, ship anywhere; we like their Columbians too; great with brandy and brandy and Benedictine; buy a good brandy separately and Benedictine separately and mix your own B&Bs; much superior to premixed B&B liqueurs).

We're headed for McMinnville (sp?) to see Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose this week. Our first travel adventure day trip.

...

Beth's volunteer work has exposed us to additional information which helps fill in some of Doug's observations since 1Jul2003, here in Oregon. Here is some text from a volunteer paper titled Upwelling:

 

September2003

UPWELLING

NUTRIENTS FOR THE VOLUNTEER MIND

Newsletter of the Oregon Coast Aquarium Volunteer Program

Volume 11, Issue 9

[This text segment by Wayne Hoffman, volunteer interpreter; quoted without permission – Doug.]

"This month I will change gears a little and write about some interactions between baitfish and birds this summer. We are very aware that baitfish are an important food source for many of our seabirds, but observations this summer have shown other birds eating them as well.

"On or about July 20 huge numbers of Northern anchovies entered central coast estuaries (no, I am not writing about the Toledo Summer Festival). Off the coast of Yachats, many became trapped in a pool by the receding tide and died. This is fairly common in other places along the coast (e.g., Brookings). The fish swim in such dense schools that in enclosed water, they quickly use up the oxygen and suffocate themselves. Large numbers of gulls and other birds gathered to feed on the dead and dying. Several smaller kills occurred over the next few days. I was not able to visit until later that week. By then the anchovy survivors had apparently moved on, but I found a different baitfish interaction.

"When I arrived in Yachats the morning of July 26, in addition to gulls I saw a pair of Northern ravens and at least fifty American crows walking around on the exposed sand. I walked out near the water’s edge and watched the crows, ravens, and a few of the gulls, digging in the sand. They were pulling out slender, live fish, up to 7 inches long. Eventually I figured out that these were sandlance. Apparently they had buried themselves in the sand at high tide and were stranded. The crows were much more industrious at digging them out than the gulls, and several gulls took to following the crows around and displacing them whenever they began digging. The crows acted like robins pulling worms out of a lawn, cocking their heads and appearing to listen before digging, so I suspect they were hearing the fish move around in the sand. Gulls swallowed the fish whole, but the crows pecked them apart, a longer process that left them vulnerable to numerous attempts at theft. Several times I saw birds swoop down and pick fish off the surface without digging, which seemed odd, because the exposed sand must have been scanned by hundreds of beady bird eyes already before these fish were found. I saw a sandlance pop out of the sand about fifty feet from me. I suppose the fish became stressed from lack of oxygen, or perhaps temperature, as the sun warmed the sand. A crow noticed it and grabbed it within a minute of its emergence.

"During this same period of time, in the northern part of Lincoln County, I noticed another bird/ baitfish interaction. Immense numbers of anchovies moved into Siletz Bay and up the river a few miles above the Highway 101 bridge. A couple of days later, birders in Lincoln City noted an immense concentration of gulls at the mouth of Siletz Bay, including over 15,000 California gulls and over 5,000 Heermann’s gulls. I visited the mouth a week later, on August 2nd and 3rd and the gulls were still there. The California gulls were roosting in immense flocks on the sand flats off the Cutler City area of Lincoln City, and the Heermann’s gulls were in huge flocks on the beaches at the north end of Salishan Spit, just across the channel from the pier in Taft. They were mostly roosting and acting not the least bit hungry, (thank you very much).

"Late on the morning of August 3rd, on a Siletz low tide, a lagoon formed between the narrowest part of the mouth, and a series of sand bars were exposed several hundred yards to the west. Several hundred Heermann’s gulls, a few other gulls, and brown pelicans fed on anchovies there, but by their behavior, it appeared the anchovies were quite spread out. Oddly, no diving birds were present anywhere around the mouth of the river - no cormorants, no murres, no grebes, no loons, no ducks.

"Finally, on August 7th, I watched as an adult bald eagle flying above Moolack Beach swooped down, and without landing, picked a small, slender fish off the exposed sand. I have seen an eagle in the same area three times in recent weeks, so perhaps he has leaned about stranded sandlance popping out of the sand. No doubt, his presence was keeping down the competition from crows and gulls!"

Wayne Hoffman, volunteer intetpreter

Hopefully we'll get a chance to meet Wayne and he'll share more of his Oregon stories in Quantonics. Thank you Wayne!

...

Quantonics activity has been minimal, but we have managed to start a comprehensive dictionary list of countless QELR'd words, including those not shown in our remediation page (yet). It is clear now that we have to develop, soon, our own Quantonics font. We work on this aspect of Quantonics, part time, on a continuing, evolving basis. We have many font prototypes, but we have long term considerations. Our 'static' fonts will become animate fonts in coming years, and those fonts will go through another phase of evolution into what we call "emerscents." Those are fonts which are emerscenturable, emerscitectural, and can self-emerse quantum coobsfectively. By now, you may see that we are on our way to a whole n¤vel technology which literally blows past what we have and take for granted now.

...

Recently we had a great dialogue, a brief dialogue with AH on Sartrean "existentialism." Assuming AH agrees, we shall publish that dialogue during October. It is a genuine learning experience which will (we believe) expand your quantum stages significantly.

...

That's about it for September...in Oregon ("Loss of freedom," Or a gun. )

Thank you for your patronage in Quantonics.

See you again, from Oregon, in November, 2003,

Doug.

August, 2003 News:

This month's News is VERY LONG...

First, some unhappy news. Don Howard declined our request to publish his Holism and Separability paper here. We sense academic condescension, even though Howard's paper was done with US federal grant money. Odd. We were sure Howard had deep and sincere quantum intuitions.

...

As promised, our Martha Stewart popover recipe appears at end of this month's very long news. We saw her do this on a food network program. We simply cannot say enough good about this fine woman and her example for all of us.

...

Still sunny and beautiful here in Loss of Freedom Or a Gun's Pacific mid-coast. Only one day of rain since 1Jul2003. But we detect cooler nights, so weather is notably in a quantum st¤chastic pr¤cess of changæ. Typical highs now are 70°F. Lows are 60°F. Comfy and great sleeping.

Last couple of weeks we have had big rollers. Early in morning when it is quiet we can hear and feel crashing of those waves. If you can imagine, it is like Dynamic Quality washing all concern away. In our personal case, it puts all concern in n¤vel quantum absolute change perspective and shows us how to alleviate and mitigate state-ic concern. We have driven US's northwest coast from Seattle to northern California. This part of Oregon's pacific mid-coast, to us, is where that crashing DQ is US northwest's greatest. Hawaii, Australia, England, and Ireland offer greater intensities, but there is a uniqueness here, a metaphysical uniqueness. Much has been written about that.

We are seeing whales, sea gulls, sea gulls chasing both smelt and smelt spawn, cormorants, ravens, and just last week (mid-August) we were filled with delight at seeing three otters fishing and playing. They are a treat to coobserve. A joy. As we watched, they would lose one another, then rediscover, and celebrate! Hugs and nuzzlings, rolls, spins, and twists!!! Big celebration (after only a few minutes apart), as if it had been years. Otters intuit Value: free will, happiness, emotion, living, celebrating their local pack and its procreation. Otters do n¤t go around analyzing and synthesizing reality!

By comparison, 'scientists' really just don't get that do they? Why? They throw Value away in favor of Parmenidean-Aristotelian-Newtonian-Einsteinian 'enlightened' analytic-synthetic substantial 'objective properties.' When one looks at 'science' like that, it shows how ignorant and arrogant 'science' genuinely is. Scientists intuit classically passé 'objective reality.' They deny otterian-quantum reality.

For our Quantonics community, we suggest life is better when we are more like otters: intuit Value. Quantum reality is Value.

Blackberries and Marionberries are ubiquitous here. We walk and pick and eat, walk and pick and eat. Other folk and critters, some of whom fly Air Quantum, do too. Have yet to see rose hips and sassafras, but there are loads of myrtle, bay, etc., so there should be some sassafras around.

A family of squirrels lives in a cliff nearby. They are different-omnifferent midwest squirrels. Their backs bear a crucifix of white stars, surrounded by white star dust. Gorgeous! Cross is a symmetric shoulders-spine pattern. Beautiful. Metaphysical! These guys are chunky, well fed. Coast here offers bountiful food supplies for wild life.

Speaking of food, we had dinner at one of our favorite local haunts Thursday evening. It's a little place called The Drift Inn. Superb. We are unsure, but think this is where many locals hang out. Toward better, i.e., for locals, tourists tend to prefer some other places. We had their scallop and wild rice dinner with a nice tossed salad (very fresh and crisp). We had their tap Rip Curl Copper: local Oregon brew. Fantastic! They have several local brews on tap ranging Pilsneresque light to Guinnessesque dark in colors and flavors. Copper finds that spectrum's middle. We're gonna try 'em all. Staff are friendly and competent. Linda owns and manages it well! Great place to eat and offers mostly local entertainment almost every night.

Just watching people is entertainment for Doug. But remember, these coastal places tend to roll up between nine and ten PM, so adjust and adapt. Ocean air just wears one out, so you probably are going to want to bed down early anyway. It's OK to evolve...Nature says-shows so, despite what some fundamanthros may say.

Beth says Christa and Brent are coming to visit soon. We'll share those adventurings with you.

...

You know Oregon adjoins California's north border. As a result, we hear more about California's opportunities, problems, policies, and politics.

Politics! Ugh! Ughly! But fascinating. Another Pirsigean "fat man and refrigerator" situation.

A unique political situation has arisen in California. Most Californians are exhilarated by it. Let's talk about what that situation is and why it is so exhilarating for Californians, especially California voters.

Governor Gray Davis, a Democrat (n¤t a democrat!) is in legal recall. Why? Essential incompetence, alleged. California is in big financial and budgetary deficit-near-bankruptcy difficulties. Apparently Davis is incapable of fiscal management and CEO-CFO responsibilities and directions in a state which is in desperate need of such leadership and statesmanship.

What are California voters so exhilarated about?

Value!

They are exhilarated about what's Valuable to them as individuals, as individual intellectual patterns of Value, what Pirsig calls SPoVs.

Bergson says it somewhat like this:

Value issi better issi actionings issi "assessing-expressing what one has-ings in terms of what one want-ings" (~paraphrased)

Pirsig, in ZMM, says, "Value is, just, what you like." This concurs Bergson, in our opinion. (That Pirsig quote changed Doug's entire life and made possible extra-life journeys into Quantonics and quantum reality.)

Students of Pirsig may recognize his "just" issi what issi moral co-with-in local quantum reality.

However, we must add a Bergsonian caveat. No individual is independent in quantum reality. This is stuff of John Forbes Nash's Nobel prize winning Nash Equilibrium. Actionings on our valuings potentially are affectings all of quantum reality, both wanted and unwanted, expected and unexpected, etc.! We are quantons, n¤t classical objects!

Distilled, Californians' recall of Davis is their, as individuals co-with-in a California community, Valuation-assessment of their own local quantum moral Values. A quantum ensehmble distribution, of their personal wantings based on their current havings, offers a greater probability of better for all. Our description is quintessentially an Earth ~global quantum-anihmatæ analogue of Nash's equilibrium.

In our view, Californians' recall of Gray Davis is, in their view, that kind of Value.

We also can commence a n¤vel perspective using Quantonics' script:

Value quantons(wantings,havings), and generalized, and scalable:

quantum_actioningsquantons(wantings,havings). (profound fathomings here)

If you noticed our Walter Bagehot quotes near page top, you should already have a sense of California voters' evocateur. Bagehot says, "Under a [Governorial] government, a [state] has, except at the electing moment, no influence; it has not the ballot-box before it; its virtue is gone, and it must wait till its instant of despotism again returns." Bagehot refers a nation. We used brackets to adapt his comments to apply to any state.

Readers should note that Quantonics' view is that nations and states are "social patterns of Value," n¤t "individual patterns of Value." That distinction is crucial to fathoming our August News.

Bagehot's remark is, in our opinon, a brilliant and prescient political observation.

Many of you are insatiable readers of our William James Sidis material. We offer a n¤vel Sidis nexus, to Californians' Davis recall, apropos our discussion here.

First, some background. AH has been pushing Doug to commence a fathoming (shallow, or otherwise) of Quantonic interrelationships twixt Pirsigean individual intellectual SPoVs and group social SPoVs. Doug has been resisting, but like that fat man and that refrigerator, Doug has weakened.

Attendant recent AH-Doug email dialogues, Doug has been doing some research, and, wouldn't you know, he fell into a marvelous hunk of text which fits right here and registers beautifully AH's recent persistent queries. Doug asked Beth to ship him our 1st ed., 1922 copy of Boris Sidis' Nervous Ills, 'Their Cause and Cure.' Doug's intentions were to garner more background on Boris' version of reserve energy. In a process of seeking those nexi, Doug found this in Chapter XXX of Boris' Nervous Ills:

   

(It is simply fabulous four score years old reading, and begs some further pondering which Doug plans to offer as we go. Big nexuses here are California's Davis recall and our Bagehot quotes at top of page. Another is how Pirsig's prediction of individual intellectual SPoVs extracting hegemony from group social SPoVs is underway and has been underway apparently for 100s of years and perhaps even millennia. Of course Doug observes, i.e., quantum r-evolutions are now emerging, that extraction accelerating in what he calls a "quantum tsunami cusp." Read this and ponder... It's a very big issue. We expect imminent radical societal change...Gray Davis is but ¤ne quantum tell; GWBush, we expect, is in a quantum pr¤cess of bec¤ming an¤ther...his probability distribution isn't looking good for his side...Dean may take it all to his bank...)


Boris Sidis' Nervous Ills Chapter XXX Text
(Most quotes verbatim Boris Sidis, some paraphrased.)
(Page boundaries do not perfectly align original text. We rounded paragraphs.)

Doug's Comments
(Relevant to US Culture, William James Sidis, and
Quantonics Thinking Modes.)
 

Nervous Ills
By
Boris Sidis
1922
Transcribed & Interpreted by Doug Renselle, starting 20Aug2003.

In Quantonics, we interpret what Boris has to say here as directly relevant to phenomena occurring in California's Gray Davis recall. Read these 26 paragraphs and see if you agree.

Please review our Walter Bagehot page top quotes.

This is part of what Quantonics calls, "a quantum tsunami," and its Millennium III cusping pr¤cess.

page #  para #  Chapter XXX - 'The Herd and the Subconscious' Readers may view 'Herd' as Pirsigean social SPoV.

See our Chapter XXX review here.
It is short, so please read for fascinating nexi to California's Gray Davis recall and to rejection of William James Sidis by US society.

Doug is incrementally (gradually, and part time) reviewing chapters of Nervous Ills.
Partial goal is to uncloak Boris' semantics for his versions of 'reserve energy.'

During Davis' elected term, California voters have apparently lost their virtue. Bagehot means, except for that moment of votership, Davis is in control. Essentially, except for recall, voters can do nothing. But recall allows them to do something! And it is a BIG something! That is why they are exhilarated. They are sending a powerful message that social patterns of Value like term presidencies and term governorships and dyadic-dichonic political parties are waning. Voters are exhibiting their desire for control, coming not from social patterns, rather from individual patterns: you and me and our kids and our families. Individuals are waxing. They recognize authority boundedness is how social patterns exert and coerce individuals to fit. When it should be that individuals, directly and without latency, exert and coerce social electees to perform as individuals' servants. "We individuals insist. You social servants shall do our bidding."

Now you may be able to understand Californians' glee, their "exhilaration."

Bagehot offers a subtle meme. Democracies coerce voters, sometimes maliciously. Bagehot subtly hints it should be other way around. We agree, assuming that is what he intended.

It may be clear to you that whoever wins in a democratic vote, by classical definition, at least coerces any losers. Said coercion lasts at least one election term. Sometimes those coercees are a minority of votes, but sometimes, like Slick Willard's win over GHBush in 1992, a majority defaults as coerced. Of course it is much more complex than that. Using liberal-socialist-speak, democracies, as Bagehot appears to hint, are innately 'unfair.' And there are those who will insist that USA is not a democracy, correctly rather, USA is a federated republic, and thus even more 'unfair' than any democracy. To good, federated republics can be somewhat dissociative disassemblies. To bad, federal republics are extreme classical social patterns of Value.

What is happening in California is a tiny hole in democracy's and our federal republic's dike. Californians have eliminated, at least temporarily, Davis regime's 'unfair' social coercion.

Of course, we do not know what will happen, but it looks like Californians want Davis out. From what we know, similar Slick Willard, he should have never been elected.

What we see as very, very, very important here is that individual voters must be allowed continual control over any elected official. Further, recall should be an efficient and verifiable process, without any legal razmataz and chicanery with intent to delay. Petitioning as a process needs quantum secure automation. We can do that now. From start to finish any recall should be done in a month or less.

All elected officials need that threat of individuals' rights to replace them, quickly, within a month. We need and shall achieve, elected official, then appointed bureaucrat, termination of them and their ilk at our individual free will. Of course this mandates voters' voting process automation. Classical socialists shall resist that. (We are distinguishing: 1) social groups here as real and quantum groups of individuals vis-à-vis 2) politically ideal herds of cud-chewing consensuses (unions, churches, talk show host communities, etc.). Our mantra is inverted: be unique individuals (from a political perspective, classically divided) and win rather than united as unthingking herdable cud-chewers and lose.) Of course cud chewers 'win' in a political-social sense. But they definitely 'lose' in any individual sense.

Slick probably would have been recalled if a virtual, automated process were available to real-time, just-in-time voters. Both Bushes too. (Clinton AKA "Slick" is leading an attempt to recall GW. And Hillarious is thingking about a run for presidency in 2004. We see great humor there, but Value those notions as more generally applicable and apropos, from an individual intellectual Value perspective. Bush appears to us at this juncture, much like his father, a cud-chewer from way back, as significantly lacking individual leadership adeptness (both their skills as 'social leaders' is n¤t in question here; both skillfully exhibited their skills at societies' most inhumane of social patterns: war). That said, if our choice is classically either Slick or GW, latter is preferable in our personal locale. But even better from our way of seeing reality is a BAWAM of their better quantum c¤mplements, a quanton(Slick's_better_c¤mplements,GW's_better_c¤mplements). Boris Sidis was attempting to achieve that manner of c¤mplement with his son William, in our opinion. Boris' mode was aimed in a good direction: subsumption of social Value under and within individual intellectual Value.)

Republican and Democratic machines which place these con artists in positions to get elected would lose much of their power. Politics could become a quantum ensehmble of all voters. Elections could be about individual patterns of Value (acting-pragmatically in natural quantum coherent social groups), not radically formal and mechanistic social patterns of Value. (One radical social pattern does n¤t fit all! Societies have to be flux, n¤t abysses of stasysses. Societies have to be quantum n¤t classical!)

Most individuals in USA today simply do not care about social patterns of Value which politicians impose on them (abysses of stasysses). We do not care about race, sexual preferences, abortion, religion, self-euthanasia, global warming (it is a predominately natural phenomenon; human affects are relatively and chrono-inertially insignificant; i.e., fossil fuels will not even be in our resource picture 20-50 years from now), competition, smoking (Doug does as an individual due extreme allergies to tobacco smoke), SUVs, who uses which drugs, absolute right and wrong, etc. What we care about is our individual free wills and our abilities to exercise them in harmony with everyone else in our nation and our world. Politically and 'legally' leave us alone as individuals! Politicians who fail to grasp this issue are already becoming extinct. They have already signed their political death warrants.

Social patterns of cud-chewing value are innately inharmonious! Example? War! War is a herd social pattern of value. War is inharmonious. Another. Law. Law is a herd social pattern of value. Law is inharmonious. It, as Boris and Latin thinkers suggest above that 'law' creates criminals, creates disharmony, unfairly and unevenly stochasticizes meting. (AH wrote to us that about 2 million citizens are locked up in USA today. One out of every 150 people! Now that's what herders call 'human rights.' Some American Dream, eh? Land of free, home of brave: cud-chewers, that is...) Wake up! Change! Quantum change!

Each of us has a right to our own family culture and rights. If our family believes in abortion, it's OK. If not, a woman has to make a choice whether to do it or not. Politics and government have nothing to say about this. It is none of their concern. Stay out. Ditto smoking, drug use and abuse, religion, what kind of vehicle we drive, whether we decide to seek a physician's assistance in self-termination with cause, whether our skin color is black...brown...yellow...white, whether..., and so on...

That said, there are some things which we do want and need government to do. But they need to stay out of individual contexts and family cultural contexts. And in general, they need to stay out of other nations' affairs. 'Foreign policy' is an oxymoron. National policy, to us, is a better semantic. Of course there are countless issues here. We know that.

Let's say it another, perhaps simpler way. Corrupt governments are about governments, not about individuals. Social patterns are about social patterns not individual patterns. People in government are about government and for government. They worship government. They worship social patterns of Value. People who worship governmental social patterns place those patterns above individual patterns of Value. Placing social patterns of Value above individual patterns of Value is corrupt, evil, and tends toward what Pirsig calls Exclusive (anti-quantum) Static Quality. Worship of government and social patterns of Value is a passé achronistic classical notion.

Our approach, following Pirsig's lead, is that individuals should use social patterns of Value for their convenience, but they should not worship nor attempt to become those social patterns of Value. For example, we use roads (a social pattern of Value) but we do not try to become roads, we do not worship roads. Individuals use national government. Government is a servant of individuals. Individuals are not servants of national or state social patterns of Value! Similarly, taxation, war, welfare, education, religion, corporations, unions, states, nations, and on and on and on... Ashcrofts, Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Davises, even Reagans become and worship social patterns of Value. They are in their social patterns of Value. And their social patterns of Value deny individual patterns of Value as reigning and dominant over social patterns of Value. We say and show and believe their thing-king is wrong, evil, bad, and in desperate need of correction. That, among other memes, is what our quantum tsunami is about.

John Lukacs shows us a similar concept in his comparison of Hitler and Mussolini. Hitler told his people, "people make the state." Mussolini told his people, "the state makes people." But in both cases the state is above people. People are expected to worship and abide social patterns of Value. It's called "socialism."

Hitler and Mussolini got it wrong! Socialists got it wrong! Individual people must worship and adhere their own individual, local, familial patterns of Value above and in preference to social patterns of Value. That approach naturally, physially preempts social pattern of Value corruption and evil. (Doug's opinions.) You as an individual are more important than all Earth's social patterns taken together. Use those social patterns. Make them your servant. Do n¤t serve them, worship them, become them, n¤r abide them as absolutes. Treat social-pattern-of-Value officials as servants, not reigning kings and queens. When they forget their roles, rebuke them, recall them! To do that, you have to know your roles and rights as individuals. Too, you have to understand that no social pattern of Value can or should give you your rights. As individuals who believe in our roles and rights, we take them; we own them.

We just found this appropriate John Stuart Mill quote in Newport, Oregon's News-Times, September 17, 2003 issue editorial page:

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

A recent OBSERVER topic in Financial Times, Thursday, 21Aug2003 makes our point quite nicely. It is titled,

 

Being patriotic—for your own good

"Traveling the US to promote the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft has followed the president's lead: he's launched a website to coincide with his tour.

"Naturally, the attorney-general believes the act is, well, patriotic, and he wants www.lifeandliberty.gov [Asholy removed his notorious site...Doug] to dispel any concerns that the act infringes civil rights. [not civil rights, rather individual rights; in Quantonics civil rights are a social pattern of Value]

"Fittingly, the site opens with an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, in fine 18th century script: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted...'

"This left Observer's team of colonial historians perplexed. The last phrase in its entirety is: "That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

"Since more than 150 US towns and cities have passed resolutions opposing the Patriot Act, which increased surveillance powers to pursue suspected terrorists, the governed have not entirely consented.

"But then maybe that's the point of Ashcroft's tour: the man who lost his last Senate campaign to a dead man is on a charm offensive."

Page 10, Leaders & Letters page
OBSERVER
Financial Times, Thursday, August 21, 2003

Our bold above.

We view that quote as another quantum tell. Individuals are taking their individual rights back. Individuals are putting social patterns of Value in their proper place: subservient to individuals. Ashcroft and Bush think it's other way around... And they try to mislead us as FT's OBSERVER shows us Ashcroft did above.

In our opinion, currently, our USA government is a government by the government for the government. Social patterns by social patterns for social patterns, when, by our individual Declaration of Rights, it should be: individual patterns by individual patterns for individual patterns. Our founding Fathers understood this, "That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Wo-Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." However, elected officials do not understand that Declaration of Rights, and have become intra-social-pattern self-important. They are elevated by their leadership of groups, their social patterns of Value. Their social agencies and Babel like 'The Patriot Act' pontificate social patterns of Value over individual patterns of Value and proliferate themselves while fighting systemic apoptosis, a process which Nature sees as vital. If government and governors refuse sunset apoptosis, then we voters must do it for them. And if they attempt to deny us that right, we TAKE it. That is what we like in California. That is what exhilarates us too. An example for all other states and individuals to see: individual voters taking back their power, "regaining their lost virtue."

...

USA's political situation mid-2003 is, generally, a dichotomy of EOOO Republican-Democrat; dichon(Republican, Democrat). Also, generally, people tend to view other dichotomies aligning that particular dichotomy. Let's make a list:

Yes, yes, we agree with you those dichons are inexact. We should expect that given our learning in quantum aspects of reality.

But, what we are talking about here, is not what is real, rather, is what people thingk and believe. Worse, how people assess other people as EOOO our list of classical appellations.

Is there anything good about thingking someone is either a Republican or a Democrat, either a Conservative or a Liberal, etc.? Classicists might say, "Yes, it makes it easier to identify individuals. When you identify individuals using ideal dichotomies, you can decide more quickly whether you want to warm or cool any interactions with that individual. It makes it easy to decide which 'side' to take." All of which assumes a classical naïve realism. Specialists also call naïve realism "local realism." Locality is a classical analogue of exclusion. So when we use dichons to describe people we include them in one specific category and exclude them from another. Further, classically, we assign another dichon to each category, somewhat like this:

depending on whether one is attempting to either include or exclude someone or a group from, for example, either side of one of our dichonic categories in our long list above.

When we listen to fundamentalist talking head pundits and their followers, this is typical, stereotypical behavior.

Now notice what Doug just did. Think about that last sentence. Notice it's implied dichons and categorizations and resulting 'principled' judgments! It is full of dichons. Doug, too, can be a good classicist just like you.

We, most folk of Western culture, among others, have been carefully taught to write sentences like that using language like that while thingking like that. We tend to Aristotelian-categorize all. We have been carefully taught to thingk like that.

But what does quantum reality show us about people and groups in general. Is anyone you know just conservative, just liberal? Just Republican, just Democrat? Just federalist, just socialist? Is any group? Now we are not speaking of how any individual or group labels, appellates themselves, rather we are speaking of what they do and what actions they take in everyday living experiences. Are there any ideal Republicans? Democrats? Federalists? Socialists? Conservatives? Liberals?

If those ideals do not exist, why do we talk about them as though they do?

We have been and are taught to do that!

It is called logic. It is called reason. It is called judgment. It is called ratiocination. It is EOOO, classical 'enlightened' thingking.

So USA politics, when it thingks like what we have shown above, isn't real. It is a synthetic, artificial game played by carefully taught and trained synthetic, artificial minds.

Real humans, quantum real humans are quantum beings. As such they are ensembles of all those descriptors. All those descriptors plus countless others are changing and being assessed omnifferently in all of us from moment to moment, from situation to situation.

But if we all think as free individuals with individual free wills, how can any political party control our votes? Don't we all need to thingk alike, communis vitæ, in order to vote? No, political parties (a few leaders) realize that they cannot influence win-lose outcomes if they cannot influence both waning group thingk and waxing individual free will think. When they realize what a novel conundrum they are in, they have to speak to those individual wants and needs...and then perform to them. Now we see, individuals become quantum pragmatic agents of change. Absolute change which waxes individual, over change averse and viscous social, patterns of Value.

A Millennium III Mantra for politicians: Change or be Changed. Perform or be Recalled!

Politicians can no longer hide behind social pattern viscosity.

...

As promised, Martha's popover recipe as recalled by Doug from her TV presentation of it.

You need two bowls. 1-2 quart bowls are plenty big. Scale ingredients for larger batches. This recipe makes nearly 12 small, alternatively 6 large popovers. You need a popover pan to do these properly. (a cupcake pan will work, but not nearly as well) Popover pans look like a heavy 'wire' grid with smoothly rounded and edged deep cups at each grid intersection.

Bowl 1 - 1 cup flour, 1/2 tsp. salt. Mix

Bowl 2 - 1-1/4 cup cold milk, 2 eggs, 1 tbs. unsalted butter. Mix.

Pour bowl 2 liquid into bowl 1 dry mix.

Wisk slightly. Do not over mix. Should be a ~pea sized lumpy liquid.

Fill cups 2/3 full. Doug fills them 1/2 full and then goes back and touches each up to evenly distribute mix. Otherwise some cups are short.

Next step is important!

Bake in preheated oven 450° F for 15 minutes, then leave popovers in oven, reduce heat to 350° F and bake an additional 20 minutes.

Popovers should be golden brown.

Serve hot with fresh butter (we use Fleischman's olive oil margarine; works as butter substitute above also). Popovers are not nearly as good cold, but Doug still snacks on them. Our Oregon (Loss of freedom, Or a gun... ) ravens and gulls devour cold popovers happily (Gulls'l eat damn near anything. ).

Your popovers should be essentially hollow.

Doug likes to fill them, sometimes. Puddings. Hot mashed veggies. Mashed potatoes. They are great with a breakfast of eggs and your favorite meats and and jams-marmalades. Use your quantum stage's imaginings!

Best and bon appétit!

PS - Beth just sent a recipe for flour tortillas. Doug's gonna try that during September, 2003. Let you know how it goes.

...

Thank you for your patronage in Quantonics.

See you again, from Oregon, in October, 2003,

Doug.

July, 2003 News:

HotMeme - Putting DQ back.

Can you believe...30+ days of sunshine...maybe 3-4 days of slightly overcast, one day of early, heavy thunder, lightning and rain.

It is gorgeous here. It is Quality here. Almost no bugs. No mosquitoes, so no West Nile virus and all our ravens are still going strong. Sleep with windows open, no screens unless we want them. Breathe better, more clearly. Gentle, cool breezes at night. Great sleeping! Similar to St. Maarten and nearby islands, except being near equator, they are much warmer. It is cooler here. Natural air conditioning. Cooler summers. Warmer winters. How's that for a quantum paradox?

Beth decided to go ahead and rent a second unit next to this one so we will have more room. It doubles our viewing space plus gives us a southern view of 101. Doug's 'lab' will be in original unit. Beth's will be in more recent one which we shall also use as our primary living and space-sharing quarters while/when we are in Oregon.

Your site author has always been a decent cook, not great, just decent. But recently we've been coming up with some, to us, really tasty grub. We love Challah and do it in several styles and recipes. We use a breadmaker. In Indy a Black and Decker, here an Oster. You may want to try it. If so, here is a recipe:

All liquids should go in your breadmaker pan first; make sure its stirring paddle is in and mounted properly. Use:

Make a notch in top of flour for yeast. If your breadmaker doesn't delay for 30 minutes automatically, allow all that to set at room temperature for 30 minutes prior to putting pan back in bread maker. Our B&D does (2 hour cycle), but our Oster does not (1.5 hour cycle).

Set your breadmaker for dough (e.g., pizza dough). You can let your breadmaker bake for you, or you can take your dough out and put it in a bread pan and bake it in your oven. We like latter since we (remember to do this) can take stirring paddle out of bread. Nicer loaf results. Also, Challah is superb when you braid it and baste it with egg white. Beautiful! We like Challah straight so we seldom braid and baste, but for company it's fun and appetizing.

Get a flour sprinkler. Fill it with flour. Keep it near your baking accoutrements. Sprinkle a thin layer of flour on your clean counter top. Dump dough from pan onto counter top. Remove paddle. (One in our B&D stays in pan. Oster is loose/free for easy cleaning, which we like.) Use a standard bread pan and spray with PAM (we like their olive oil version best; we use only olive oil in all our cooking).

Turn paddle side of dough down and place it in pan.

Next step is optional.

Handling Challah dough sometimes causes it to deflate a bit. Doug puts it in pan and sets oven on low (~150-170 degrees F.) and lets it rise another 30 minutes. Take pan out of oven. Heat oven to 350 and bake for 25 minutes or until golden brown.

If you skip previous step heat oven to 350 and bake for 30 minutes or until golden brown.

Sometimes Doug is lazy and just wants some quick bread so he just puts dough on a baking sheet and bakes it for ~25 minutes. It spreads out a bit and makes a flatter loaf which is good for high aspect ratio sandwiches.

Oregon Ravens just love Challah bread scraps.

Remember, lots of things can go wrong baking bread. Don't expect your first loaves to be perfect. Practice at bread making as you practice at Quantonics and soon you will be baking all kinds of breads and enjoying fresh bread smells wafting your entire abode.

Next month we'll share a Martha Stewart popover recipe which makes for great breakfasts and beef gravy dinners. Martha-baby is a GREAT cook!

...

We've been here one month today. Arrived at noon 1Jul2003. It is now, four loaves of Challah, one loaf of French bread, and one loaf of coffee cake later, 08:30, 1Aug2003.

We've had many emails with Beth, several with Jeanne, and some good ones with our students. Since we changed to new email addresses to eliminate SPAM attacks on our emails, our volume is way down, but that has offered us more site work time. Good! If you need to email us, use this with appropriate adjustments NOpdrSPAM@NOon-net.FLAMESnet. Too, we will very likely be using another email provider soon. So we will probably change again. That's why we have not updated all site email addresses, yet. End of 2003 site maintenance changes will include all email corrections.

...

Beth is coming 17Sep2003. Can't wait. We plan lots of day trips and weekenders. We want to see Snake river and some Eastern Oregon territories. Beth loves to travel. So we're gonna do lots of traveling.

Doug subscribed to a 'global' newspaper titled Financial Times. A good aspect of this paper is that we receive views of USA from other countries and other countries' journalists. Not all of it is complimentary. Bush takes a lot of (we think appropriate) heat. So does US policy. But when we do something really good, FT blesses us. Their breadth of global financial reporting is excellent. We can see our whole Earth's picture from a larger anthropocentric perspective. We recommend this paper. There are NO Dimbaughlbs, Either-O'Reilleys, Hannaties, or other SOMwitted Savage troglodytes here.

...

Progress on our QED-QCD efforts is trudging. Need a huge amount of background to proceed. We just finished reviewing Don Howard's excellent paper on Bell's Inequalities. We will write to him this next week to ask for permission to publish his paper here. If you want to see our mini-review of his paper take a look at our page top of our Bell Theorem Study. Howard's mini-review is third down after some quotes of Jarrett and Baggott.

A sparkling and refreshing meme which Howard offers is his interpretation of Einstein's relativity as "(geo-)metric(-al) interval" invariant. What we can uncloak here, and so late in our progress of study, is that Einstein, in his theories of relativity, was using classical mechanics to innovate a very unique kind of middle, an invariant and relative 'middle' as a dichon of two objective positions/loci in four space. We had not fathomed relativity this way until we read Howard's paper a second time. If you have time to read it, pay particular attention to what Howard says about Einstein's intercourse with Leibniz.

Also, Howard apparently recognizes many issues of classical theory which we broach here. Near his paper's end, he hints about a need for admitting a unique kind of nonformal dynamics (we intuit quantum emergence) into his and our thoughts about quantum reality.

We hope to be able to offer and link to our markups of Howard's paper on our site soon.

...

In our latest email with AH, part of Doug's response to AH seemed appropriate to share with our Quantonics community of readers and students. Here it is:

Begin HotMeme - Putting DQ back.

AH,

On amplifiers... In our view records, CDs, DVDs, videos, are Bergsonian cinemato-, repro-graphic.

Is any recording real? Does any, end of Millennium II, playback technology 'reproduce' that which was recorded? Can it? Was what was recorded 'complete?' Can it be 'complete?' What was recorded? What is reproduced? What do we hear when a reproduced (factory formal mass production) CD plays back on any classical audio system? Is any playback of recorded music emerging? How? (I.e., ¤mnifferently Doug's and AH's prior descriptions and discussions. We both agree SQ-SQ music gains a kind of ex post facto, a posteriori emergence via our quantum stages' additions of our own b¤th l¤cal amd n¤nl¤cal DQ) But from ¤mniffering perspectives could CDs be living (Bergsonian durational) pr¤cessings? If n¤t, how can they, per se, be naught but ESQ? Is preservation ESQ? Dirac says ideal classical preservation is classical reality's only ideal form of determinacy (that which does not change is reality's only determinate). I.e., ESQ is ideally determinate (what classicists seek as utopian). Is predictability-determinacy ESQ? Is repeatable expectation ESQ?

Aside:
  

AH, imagine Led Zeppelin doing a series of say 99 concerts. Each concert 'Whole Lotta Love' is similar to other concerts, but omnifferent too. (E.g., swinging microphone in a circle cannot be duplicated each performance.)

Imagine further a quantum-CD which could emerse all those variations from a single recording. Further imagine your quantum stage being capable of affecting those variations while they are replay-emerging.

Technology is in basic research stages now which will permit this to 'exist' in various emerqancies.

How? Spin glasses are only one of countless examples. They can auto-morph music as well as Harley gas tanks. Spin glasses would have to gain their emerqancy schemas by ~training them at say 99 concerts. Schema 'sequencing' might be formal, original sequence, coobsfective, Nature affective, plus, and combinations of all those. SQ gaining and retaining DQ (in this example, only as mimicked quasi-emergent variations on-of SQ)... Both formal and emerqant.

Now, imagine Led Zeppelin using this quantum 'technology' to emerscitect future comcerts and emerscentures of those comcerts... And AH using...

What we just described is but a small part of a Millennium III quantum tsunami which is now cusping.

Adding Value... Adding DQ...
  

 End aside.
 

Classical innate 'designs' of reproduction equipments seek 'perfect' 'fidelity.' This is ideal classicism at its best (worst). SOMites want reality to be like this. SOMland: "That utopian paradice where truepers rule over the bad Goods." 1998, Doug.

We think what we just described is what Pirsig saw and called ESQ, truepers in power, truepers ruling.

What puts DQ back? What eliminates truepers' hegemony? Quantum interpreters and hermeneuticists. Quantum free-will.

Quantons (can) put DQ back. And, in our view again, this is where Mae-wan Ho's magic is. Biologicals are loaded with (horns of plenty of) DQ. When they sense, and interpret, and act, they put ESQ (e.g., inorganics as apparent ESQ) in their comtext and quantum-add their own DQ (more and less).

So ability to put DQ back (? Add Value ?) may be a crucial quantum-meme to ponder. That is a Quantonics HotMeme: learning how to put DQ back; learning how to quantum-add Value. It's a tad like "Pay It Forward."

Too, we think putting DQ back is related to those aging issues we mentioned, but we are unready to discuss that yet in great detail.

As you mention, amplifier 'design' is problematic. It is extremely difficult (just pondering power supplies alone) to 'control' 'noise.' Amplifiers, classical ones, do not know how to 'di' stinguish noise, except for non-zero latency negative feedback which induces its own perturbations. Too, making an amplifier which is linear with frequency, gain, volume, transformer matching, speaker impedances and capabilities, and dynamic range is exceptionally difficult.

Many comtexts here. What sounds 'good' to AH, very likely is not what sounds 'good' to others. Doug finds audio quality in less bass and more highs, but his sensory linearity is changing with age, so... Bass which is there, Doug wants to know it's there. Better amplifiers do that. To seek 'perfection' in sound reproduction must, like seeking 'perfection' in a mate, be a matter of quantum-hermeneutic opinion, vis-à-vis classical dichonic-hegemonic judgment, do you agree?

Manhattan Transfer has a CD titled 'offbeat of the avenues.' It is one of Doug's favorites. We saw them do it in Toronto. Last ten years Doug has had opportunities to play this CD on at least 10 different systems. Few do it justice.

AH, you said, "Music is extremely dynamic." We agree with that statement re: live music. Live music is never identical, performed any pair of sessions. Wasn't Pirsig's point that recorded music and its reproduction processings and contexts are innately, by intentional human design, extremely static? Pirsig despises that word, 'design.' It smacks ESQ. (For readers who are interested, some comtext is absent here. AH's original comments are in regard Pirsig's description in Lila, pages 116-118, Bantam, 1st ed., 1991, of how repeated listening of a recorded tune seems to degrade its DQ and increase its SQ. AH calls near ESQ "SQ-SQ," i.e., SQ which has lost its Quality, and "DQ-SQ" SQ which retains its Quality. In Quantonics we show former as dichon(SQ, SQ), and latter as quanton(DQ,SQ).)

We see profound philosophical issues here.

Have you seen light shows which pseudo randomly 'interpret' sounds? What other ways can we interpret music? Should music be semper fi? Or would a "n¤vel order of quantum-music" emerge? How can music emerge on its own? This is what Richard Powers wrote about in his descriptionings of Bach's 30 Goldberg Variations and aria in his The Gold Bug Variations. E.g., Powers, "Ultimately the Goldbergs are about the paradox of variation, preserved divergence, the transition effect inherent in terraced unfolding, the change in nature attendant upon a change in degree. How necessity might arise out of chance. How difference might arise out of more of the same. By the time the delinquent parent aria returns to close out the set, the music is about how variation might ultimately free itself from the instruction that underwrites it, sets it in motion, but nowhere anticipates what might come from experience's trial run."

As that Powers quote suggests, real stuff emerges, is emerscent. Real music issi emerscent, n¤t semper fi!

(Is state-ically recorded and reproduced music emerscent? Is your "metamorphosis" reproductive? Emergent? Does recorded music and its playback "...participate any longer in Lila's eternal dancing?") Note: AH offered a specific description, in our view, of metamorphosis of music as a classical, and thus n¤nemergent, manufacturing method. However, he also described how music which keeps its Quality always participates in Lila's eternal dancing.

Due its general utility to our readers and students, we are adding portions of Doug's side of this email to our July, 2003 TQS News.

Best,

Doug.

PS - Readers and students might wish to take a look at AH's two 2002 dialogs with Doug. See our index page, about half-way down.
===

End HotMeme - Putting DQ back.

Thank you for your patronage in Quantonics.

See you again, from Oregon, in September, 2003,

Doug.

June, 2003 News:

(We assume readers of this month's news are familiar with Quantonics' language problematics, remediation, coined terms and acronyms.)

Views here are just incredible!

We arrived at noon, Monday, 30Jun2003. We plan to stay until 1Apr2004; however, radical happenings are imminent in Indiana early in 2004, so we may have to return there sooner. For sure, we shall come back to Oregon as quickly as possible, later in 2004.

Oregon's (Or-uh-gone and Or-gone; kin and ken Loo-uh-ville vis-à-vis Loo-ee-ville;) coast is rugged (anagram of Dugger ) and rough and attractive-magnetic and dangerous. It is both static-viscous and dynamic-animate: stindyanic quantum tentative-variable persistence. Very quantum.

Aside:

More on Oregon and virtual threats: Dugger likes to say, "loss of freedom OR a GUN;" In ORaGUN you can carry, in plain sight, anywhere; n¤t many muggers in ORaGUN; we do n¤t love guns, but we certainly do n¤t like fundamentalist terrorists and muggers, and we believe in virtual responses to virtual threats, so... Folks, this is one of our few ORs... North American Firearms makes a superb little 25:20. Shells look like shrunken M-16 ammo. Muzzle velocity is just shy of an M16's. Big stoppability! Slightly larger than a pack of cigarettes. One of police officers' favorites for ankle backups.

End aside.

Walking this AM, 4Jul2003 near our local bay, Doug watched Nature's physial emergence pr¤cess. He-r pr¤cessings are both slow and fast, both gradual and catastrophic, both evolutionary and r-evolutionary. We believe Nature is our multiverses' emerscitect! S-he k-nows whatings, whenings, whereings, whyings, whoings, and howings (H5W) S-he issi doings. We believe we are in Nature and Nature issi in us: Nature issi in reality and reality issi in Nature. Again, very quantum.

Perhaps most evident to Doug is how Nature uses (usings) He-r emerqants (emerqantings, emerqancies) as agents of He-r creation. Here, where we are, tentatively now-ings and k-now-ings, He-r most apparent, profoundest and most relentless agents are sun, wind, and water all in fractal, animate network included-middle everywhere associative interrelationships with us and all of Earth's extant reality. N¤ beach is ever identical to itself here from day to day. Similar and self-similar, yes. Identical, n¤! Just like paint. Just like rocks. Just like eggs. Just like you and me — you and us — you-ings and us-ings. Nature appears to us as quantum pr¤cessings absent any 'ideal' classical: immutability, 1-1 correspondence, identity, independence, cause-effect, monotemporal determinism, etc. N¤ classicism, just pure Bergsonian duration. Pure Pirsigean Quality, pure quantum reality.

Some will tell you that humankind are Earth's greatest enemy. But they, just as they did with their 'Kyoto Accord,' did n¤t counsel Nature when they issued their edict!

In our view, Nature's current Earth-borne iteration of humankind are He-r locally ultimate agents of quantum changæ. Surely that is what we observe. Nature appears to show little desire for status quo, for yucky-stucky. S-he appears to be telling us "stux sux!" Immutability and ideal classical stability are, to He-r, in our view, anti-utopian. Nature shows us that if we seek stability and sameness, in a very physial sense as Pirsig warns us, we seek an unNatural exclusive static quality (ESQ). Several Natural pr¤cesses inevitably happen to ESQ: impositional mandated change, extinction, static hell, etc. Nature, in our view, says "flux is crux." Quantum flux is crux! Semper flux! Ad oculos flux!

Choices: act, take action/pragma, make dynamic efforts, take prudential chances, change, live, emerge — be changed — alternatively become extinct.

When someone tells you, perhaps implies, that humankind are evil — say "N¤!" Say, "We are Naturally live n¤t Naturally evil." "We are in Nature and Nature issi in us!" On Earth, as far as we k-now, humans are Nature's most highly evolved (ev-loved) and evolving (ev-loving) agents of He-r intentional changes to our Solar locale. Nature created us (among countless other multiversal sentients) to act, to perform pragma-action on her behalf, indeed, we believe to improve, make better, and accelerate her means to evolve creation. Nature did n¤t give He-r creation quantum free-will and choice perfunctorily.

One final point on Nature's works. Every actual creation we can possibly k-now was and is being GM'd by Nature. We would say less classically "Nature genetically emerscentures all." All is GE'd by Nature. (GM: genetically modified; GE: genetically emerscentured.) GM notions are mostly classical notions based upon Bergson's classical delusions of 1) stability and 2) independence.

...

We brought our MAC Titanium, plus a new tower with 200G of HD space, and two legacy laptops with us. We used System Commander to install multiple legacy OSes and two Linux OSes all on that one tower cpu. Switching OSes requires a restart, but it is very dek to have convenience of all our OSes in one place. Left to do is to get MAC's Unix talking to our Linux OSes. All that is netted and situated to allow Doug to work and observe our gorgeous Oregon coastline. ("At the corner of close and soon..." Harry Connick, Jr., from his recording of Forever, for Now. For Doug, finally, soon issi arriving...)

As we said, we arrived Monday at noon, and by Wednesday AM we had everything furnitured, installed, and running. That included re-assembly of a book case with a robot arm, a mobile computer cart workstation, and a Relax the Back motorized leather recliner. So we really are back in operaton now! We did basic furnishing of this place last January, so it was already partially set up for living. Beth is shipping some stuff which took too much room to carry plus some things Doug missed. She's winding activities down in Indy and will come to Oregon mid September.

We continue our gradual migration away from Micro$lopt and Wintel. Working with M$W, in our view, is a nightmare. Especially when compared to working with Apple's gear. Apple works! Apple-easy! M$W stux sux!

Apple's latest G5s have h¤t and n¤vel IBM 64 bit PowerPC cpus. "Dek." And have you noticed that IBM and AMD are building a plant, we think in Fishkill, to build advanced cpus. Rumors have it that AMD and Apple are in cahoots too. Hmmm...

...

We are getting back on track with our QED and QCD efforts. We are part way through at least half dozen texts...gonna take some times...

For reestablishing foundation, we just started re-reading Baggott's The Meaning of Quantum Theory. We are transfixed by his Appendix A on Planck's derivation of 'the quantum.' Unsure, but it looks like we will be able to do something similar with it as we did with Riemann's zeta Hypothesis and Hamilton's Quaternion. Certainly, from a Quantonics quantum perspective, Planck's quantum is EIMA with both Riemann and Hamilton, among others. As a hint, substitute Planck quantons for e and U and all constants in his N-oscillator and unit-oscillator final notations there. What amazes us is that those substitutions distill to mixentropy transactions always involving both quantum square and quantum square root. That fits superbly with our own independently innovated quantonic ontologies. It is profoundly important to realize that Planck saw only one class of entropy: posentropy with only one 'class' of Maxwellian gradient (i.e., positive, a discreation only entropy gradient). Students need to reach beyond that conspective and recall what Prigogine and Stengers showed re: productive (positive) and dissipative (negative) posentropy gradients. Ponder how Maxwell saw quantum posentropy as the only (one-ly) classical entropy. Then add other quatro 'classes' of entropy including zero, negative and mixed. Now imagine their countless EIMA interrelationships and ontologies.

We'll offer more Quantonics News next month. Hopefully we'll be more settled-in by then.

Thank your for your support and thank you for reading.

See you, from Oregon, in August, 2003,

Doug.

May, 2003 News:

SOM, CR & MoQ compared again...

As regular visitors in Quantonics know, we seldom do movie reviews except as they offer potential to support our goals to assist our community in learning Quantonics Think-king Modes.

Beth and I recently watched a DVD called Rabbit Proof Fence. Not only is it a good movie, but it shows what Pirsig was talking about when he explained to his readers (ZMM and Lila) that Classical (SOM and CR) Thing-king Methods (CTMs) leave much to be desired and leave an intellectual vacuum which Pirsig's MoQ attempts to (and we believe, mostly does) fill.

CTMs are what folk at 20th century's opening called "enlightened" and "Victorian."

Rabbit Proof Fence depicts a time in Australia near year 1931. It is about Victorianism's treatment of three aboriginal girls (and many other aborigines). We do not want to disclose RPF's essentials, but we can summarize by saying it shows how SOMites literally destroy cultures thoughtlessly. Other examples are native American Indians, native Africans, Hawaiians, Javanese, Sri Lankans, Tibetans, and so on.

We think you will enjoy this flick. We hope it helps you grasp one of SOM's great cultural illnesses: "One culture fits all. You have to (we insist that you) believe that. You're either for us or against us."

...

Last month we showed graphics comparing how classicists (SOMites and CRites) view reality vis-à-vis how quantumists (MoQites) view reality.

In those graphics we show our Quantonic perspective of a brick wall blocking SOMites' and CRites' views of reality. For MoQites, Quantonics removes that wall. MoQites can see a larger reality. SOMites and CRites are blind, blinded, blindered to that larger reality. Why? Why are SOMites and CRites blindered and brick-walled against seeing that larger quantum reality?

A good example of how classical blinders disable SOMites and CRites from being able to see a larger quantum reality is their notions that reality is stable, invariant, constant, unchanging, objectively immutable, etc. We just found a great example in our recent readings of a reference Pirsig used to write his Einstein Meets Magritte SODV conference paper: The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, p. 163, by Max Jammer, Wiley, 1974.

In Jammer's chapter on quantum complementarity we find, among countless others, this fascinating quote, "Though an electron does not behave like a grain of sand in every respect, it has enough invariant properties to be regarded as just as real." Jammer is quoting Max Born's Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance, pp. 104-105, OxfUP, 1949.

What we see here is Born's blatant belief that one of reality's chief metrics is that what is real is "invariant." I.e., by classical observation, real classical objects do not change! Born is, we believe, unambiguously saying that objective/invariant classical 'properties' of an electron are real.

Of course that belief runs counter what quantum reality shows us, by more careful observation.

Intentionally, what we are attempting to exemplify here is that some great and famous people (SOMites and CRites) actually believe that objective reality is stable and invariant. Indeed, and more deeply problematic, that belief is classical science doctrine. And even worse, it is "as-practiced ontology" for most of Earth's people at Millennium III's commencement.

Again, why? Why are SOMites and CRites blindered and brick-walled against seeing that larger quantum reality?

You may recall that is what Henry Osho, PRC, wants to know. He tries and tries, but he cannot understand why he cannot see MoQites' larger reality.

Mr. Osho believes (has been taught and disciplined and acculturated that) reality is objective and he believes reality is classically invariant. He wears classical blinders.

Our answer to why? is incredibly simple, but its simplicity is but a tiny visible tip of a titanic and mostly cloaked iceberg of quantum complexity.

Simply: it depends upon what you believe.

"But Doug, what does that mean?"

It means that if you believe reality is Aristotelian, Newtonian, and Einsteinian classical, then you are wearing classical blinders.

Allow us to again compare "wearing classical blinders" to what that means in Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality. Pirsig teaches us that Quality issi Reality issi both Static Quality, SQ, and Dynamic Quality, DQ, together. Oversimplified, Pirsig's SQ is what classicists call "reality." To classicists, AKA SOMites and CRites, reality (e.g., per our Born quote above) is only SQ invariant. However, to quantumists AKA MoQites, Reality issi both SQ and DQ together.

Given their belief in only invariant SQ as reality, classicists blinder themselves to DQ! In defense of their absolute SQ reality, they belittle DQ as "subjective." They call it (quite correctly) "qualitative." But they denigrate qualitative reality as "variant" and thus "nonobjective and unreal."

That is how Aristotle was able to say "A is A." His classical blinders kept him from seeing that in Reality "A issi both A and DQ."

OK! Aristotle says, then, that "an apple is an apple," right? Is that correct? Is an apple just an apple? Or is an apple both an apple and DQ? How can we Really tell and learn to see a n¤vel way of viewing a more quantum, MoQ reality?

If "A is A" and "apple is apple" are syllogistically veracious, as Aristotle claimed, they must be tautologies: always classically 'true.' Are they always classically 'true?'

Leave an apple on a shelf for a week. Take a look. Is it still an apple? After two weeks? After a year? After 10 years?

Is Aristotle's "apple is apple" a tautology? Why?

Is Pirsig's "apple issi both apple and DQ" a better description of what happens to our apple?

SOMites and CRites (classicists) believe that Aristotle's "apple is apple" is classically veracious and tautologous.

MoQites (quantumists) believe that Pirsig's "apple issi both apple and DQ" is quantumly pragmadigmatic.

As a further example try this one: "you is you."

Are you classically objectively 'true?' Do you change from second-to-second? How many of your body's cells apoptose and reemerge each second? Are you you from second to second?

Try "Jupiter is Jupiter." (Recall, e.g., Shoemaker-Levy.)

Which way do you believe? Which way do you want to believe? Is "you is you" a valid description of you? Or is "you issi both you and DQ" a better description of you?

If you want to change from being a SOMite/CRite to being a MoQite, you must change your beliefs from "reality is SQ" to "Reality issi both reality and DQ."

Henry Osho has yet to understand this. Do you think it is difficult to understand? Do you think it is apparent? Let us know (remove flames and spams).

Doug - 27May2003.

...

What's happening with our MAC PowerBook?

Our new MAC has a 1G Hz cpu, 1G RAM, 60 G HD, airport (wireless net), USBs, firewire, ethernet (Cat 5), OS X 10.2.6+, OS 9 (legacy compatibility, i.e., we can run our old non-cocoa DreamWeaver on it), scads of software, and on and on and on... We added fink and some fink tools. We added Apple Developer, and are just now starting our first cocoa application development. We are writing lots of Unix scripts and aliases to handle routine weekly and yearly Quantonics site management tasks.

For those of you with MACs we found several useful tools we can mention: Cocktail, Locator, Encyclopedia Britannica, PlumbDesign's Thesaurus, etc. We bought Micro$lopt's MACOffice, but it is not written to enamour users to MACs. In our view it is pretty crummy, but we do not like MS, their OSes, nor their products. We are looking for alternatives, e.g., we do not use IE, rather we use Netscape's 7.x. It works pretty much like our legacy Netscape browsers in our legacy Wintel boxes. We will move to MAC's native cocoa browser (it's bloody fast) later this year — there's just too much to learn right now. We're not sure, but we think MAC's OS X browser is a separate package from its email app. We are used to Netscape's embedded app's., but we are willing to change. Netscape on OS X is not native and as a result is much slower than what we are accustomed to under Wintel.

Matt Drudge recommended PD's Thesaurus. It is great! Of course, as writers, we need as many references online as possible. Encyclopedia Britannica's CD from our local Apple store is awesome (we did find some misleading text there on Dirac, though). We have a legacy MS ad hoc network in-house. We tried several products to get our MAC connected to that net. We tried Thursby's DAVE to no avail. They offered to help and then didn't. When we tried to uninstall DAVE and their uninstall process did not work at all and we ended up with a pathological product in our MAC which wouldn't allow us to delete those obnoxious DAVE files. We looked and found both Cocktail and Locator. Locator made it easy for us to find all those DAVE and Thursby files (seemed to be all over...), and Cocktail makes it trivial (and potentially dangerous) to delete 'undeletable' files. Needless to say, our DAVE and Thursby files are gone, along with their obnoxious nagging. Highly recommend both Locator and Cocktail!

Fink is cool for adding Unix capabilities to your MAC. We still have a lot to learn here.

Unix has made it so easy for us to convert our weekly access logs to tabbed field files which are compatible with spreadsheet applications. We also used Unix to easily and quickly reverse access log domains. For example, say a domain looks something like xxx.yyy.zzz.qqq.server.user.domain. We wrote a one line alias which calls gawk to change, e.g., that to: domain.user.server.qqq.zzz.yyy.xxx for every domain in every line (of thousands of lines) in our weekly access logs. Sorting reversed domains in an access log spreadsheet is a handy approach which we had no way (that we knew of) to do in Wintel under a MS OS without installing a peer Unix on our Wintel boxes.

We also downloaded wwwstat-2.0 which is public domain software you can use to 'reduce' your access log data to a nice format. Our MAC's UNIX OS made it possible to have that app up and running in less than half an hour. It processes our multi-megabyte access log in seconds. If you do not have this app, you might want to try it. Unzipping it requires extra steps: it's a "tarball." If our recall is correct we needed both tar and gzip. Then all you have to do is stream edit some local system dependencies which occur in several of WWWSTAT's perl executables.

Some tools we want to add, but are not yet available as Apple cocoa applications are: PovRay, Freeway (wysiwyg HTML website editor ~like PageMill), etc. Cocoa is a big deal in Apple's new OS X since it offers long file names. Cocoa's predecessor, carbon, only allows 31 character file names. We routinely use long names to eliminate ambiguity among thousands of similar files. Native cocoa app's are gonna be HOT and we are anxiously awaiting imminent announcements of key app's availabilities in cocoa.

To learn cocoa app development under Apple Developer we are making a fairly simple little tool which will segregate site users according to dwell times. Should be cool... We'll let you know. Three whole months of quiet time in Oregon should allow us to proceed more rapidly. Only a month until we leave for our hide-away in Oregon...YEAH!!

We've now had our MAC six months and it has never crashed! With MS we had blue screens several times each year on each of several boxes. And Wintel is very buggy, virus-prone, and one has to go through a service pack nightmare to update a system. Apple's update process is essentially automatic. We tend to do updates late at night when www bandwidth is more available.

...

Beth and I just went through that rending process of purchasing a new automobile. We have had large Lincoln's and Mercurys previously and Beth thought we should check out Consumer Reports. They told us to stay away (our ~recall of their comments: "noisy engine," "too big," "environmentally unfriendly," etc.) from those big cars and try Toyota Avalons, Lexi, et al., instead. We did. UGH! Those itty-bitty things are overpriced and ride like rocks. We have heard that they are high quality, but they just seem cheap to us.

We got a 2003 Merc Gr. Marquis. Lot less than an Avalon, and can haul 3-4 times as much luggage in road savvy comfort. We love it. (It has a frame, too! :) Our 1995 Merc Gr. Marq is well over 100k miles and going strong. I may paint it candy apple red, lower it, put some crome wheels on it and pretend I'm a teenager again. :)

So much for Consumer Report and Toyota...heh, heh, heh...

Thank your for your support and thank you for reading.

See you, from Oregon, in July, 2003,

Doug.

April, 2003 News:

We have hinted on several occasions recently that a (Quantonics innovation, a) n¤vel quantum politics is a mandate for Earth's 21st century. But is anyone listening? Has anyone grasped essence of this mandate? Has anyone recognized this mandate on their own? Are there any tells?

Yes, in early May, 2003, we heard Joe Lieberman (US Democratic presidential candidate) say that we must give up (Joe is giving up) "either/or" in favor of "both/and," and we must give up "one size fits all" in favor of cultural omniversity. Wow! A quantum tsunami is commencing its cultural emendations of US politics! Watch for more tells.

When and if Joe tells/shows us he grasps essence of Bergsonian (i.e., essentially quantum) durational animation and included-middle we may infer that he really grasps what a n¤vel quantum politics is about. If Joe accepts n¤vel notions of quantum animation and quantum included-middle, and if Joe intuits that current classical politics is wrong when it deludingly propagandizes:

  1. reality is stable, and
  2. objects in reality are independent of one another,

then we believe he grasps genuine essence of what we mean when we say "quantum politics." Go Joe! Good for you! Go Joe!

See Bergson's theoretical exposure of those two classical delusions. For an innovative and appropriate 21st century perspective, see our two world views just above.

...

April's Quantonics Society News has some very important teaching materials in it. As a result, we plan to edit/evolve those materials over time as we have been gradually improving January, 2002's 'How to Become a Student of Quantonics.' We need to expand in great depth our descriptions of Figures 1 and 2 below. At this juncture, we offer only an exiguous fathoming of each. But that is good, since you can start out in shallow water, and learn to swim more deeply as we add materials under each figure. Watch for frequent extensions and changes to this month's news during 2003 and 2004. To say it simply, Figures 1 and 2 below give you a great way to omnistinguish among classical objectivism (viz., hand gesture, thumbs-down EEMD fist banging) and newer quantum pragmatism (viz., hand gesture, thumbs-up fingers EIMA entangled/enfolded).

For months now, we have been talking about politicians and conflicts with terrorism. Let's get back to Quantonics and our work and "whatings we-ings aræ doings."

In Quantonics we study and observe primarily Western culture and its progress, with minor toe-wettings in Buddhism. We see Western culture in a more recent, multi-century perspective as a process of evolving from Victorianism, through cultural relativism, and now in a cusping transition-overlap from cultural relativism to what we call "quantum pragmatism." Latter's accelerating high-rate change (manifested by tells similar to our "Lieberman tell" above) we call a "quantum tsunami." Victorians we refer as "classical SOMites." Cultural Relativists we appellate "classical CRites." And quantum pragmatists we call "Pirsigean MoQites."

Our purpose in Quantonics is to distinguish among those simplified categories of cultural belief systems and describe how they are changing and evolving and why each evolutionary cultural genre is an improvement over its predecessor, while placing all of that on both a physial/natural and a quantum "~scientific and philosophic" substrate. (We use a tilde on "scientific" given our assumption that classical science is currently French-'enlightened'-formal: radically mechanical. Millennium III perspectives and memes of quantum reality, we believe, will prove to be quantum non mechanical as David Bohm suspected and anticipated.)

You may choose to examine a summary overview of some of our recent accomplishments in that effort here.

On 9Aug2003 we moved pedagogic text and graphics from here to near page bottom of our How to Become a Student of Quantonics.

...

Experiences with our new Apple Titanium 15" Powerbook are simply superb. It has 1G RAM, 1GHz cpu, 60Gb HD, airport, huge video processor and video RAM, and runs OS X 10.2+. Doug watches DVDs, and listens to Paula Cole on it regularly now, and he has some of Quantonics' web site maintenance work already converted to Unix scripts. Quantonics' site now has ~600 HTML and ~400 graphic files. One year-end project which used to take days to weeks on Wintel (using WNT4.0) now takes three minutes on Aqua! No kidding! Processing our weekly site access logs on Wintel took 20-30 minutes and our system often failed during that intensive work. Now it takes 10-15 seconds on Unix-Aqua and NEVER dies! If you have ever set up a Wintel laptop on your own (assuming you do not image your drives), it can take a whole week to get a Wintel laptop installed and configured. No such waste of precious time on our Powerbook. Basically it comes ready to go. If you need any new applications, they install or download-install, usually without trouble. Installs, for us, on Wintel are always a chore.

M$ software is crap, in our view. It is poorly designed and seems to break frequently. Their OSes are big jokes! Their security paradigm is a tower of Babel with so many covert channels any hack can whack your system at will. After so many years and so many $s one would expect them to be the best. Unfortunately, not so. To keep up with Wintel's massive technical problems see www.theregister.com.

Another positive note for Apple is they now may have a pathway away from Motorola and IBM for their PPCs. According to The Register, Apple is talking with AMD (our favorite underdog) about using AMD's new and HOT 64 bit cpu. Its front side bus is about 10 times faster than anything currently available (in a ~GHz realm). Watch The Register for breaking news. You may recall that Apple's strategy back in ~1986 they called "3G." One gig RAM, one gig cpu, and one gig I/O. They are almost there on all counts. Apple currently has a slight internal I/O bottleneck: its FSB I/O rate. AMD can fix it! Let's hope it happens...

If you are thinking, "Well Matilda it's time for us to switch to Apple," you might want to think a little more carefully though. OS X has a steep (at least for us) learning curve unless you have a modicum of Unix background. And Unix is where Apple's power and speed are. Aqua shares a lot of conceptual (Xerox Parc) space with all windowing GUI environments, so you will find it pretty easy. But an upside of Unix is that it is fun to learn and watch your personal repertoire of Unix skills grow. (Unix offers a neat heuristic filter called "echo." You can self teach some commands like tr, ch, grep, and sed using echo. Folks at MACOSXHINTS sometimes use echo to teach us how to fix our problems.) A downside is that you pretty much have to do this on your own. Apple does not offer easy learning for you at www.apple.com. We have found several sites which are superb and which will help if you are willing to help yourself. Our favorite just now is called www.macosxhints.com. Try this site out. Read their forums. If that turns you off, you may want to stay in your M$lopt environment until Apple builds a GUI or equivalent on top of Unix which makes it unecessary to memorize all those Unix command lines.

Another thing about Apple. Their products are built to last. We still have and use (mostly to record and edit sounds, click Doug's logo just below) our Apple PowerBook 140. It still works just as well as ever. Doug received it as a gift in March of 1992! Our new Titanium 15" laptop appears just as well built. Its a superb piece of engineering...a marvel to behold. No Wintel laptop we have purchased was useful after about three years of Doug's esubabuse . Since his 140, Doug has gone through six laptops and a Micron tower. It feels good to know that in about 2015 Doug probably may still be praising his first Titanium 15" laptop.

We also like how Unix and Linux are so close to one another conceptually. Our in-house approach is both Apple Unix and AMD Linux. Currently, we only have one Linux box, but we are learning it and expect to network it with our new Apple stuff. Yes, AMD boxes suffer same maladies as Wintels. They have a very short service life. But if Apple and AMD team up, watch out.

If you decide to go this way, run both of your systems in parallel until you are confident Apple is doing everything you used to do on Wintel. Then trash Wintel.

We will share some of our experiences with our PowerBook here in futurings.

...

Beth and I just saw a movie about Arturo Sandoval (from Cuba) and his experiences escaping Castro's infidel grip. We bought a couple of his CDs. Just superb! (Doug is a trumpet-player wannabe. Go imagine! :)

Also, did you see (we think on MSNBC) that 10 year-old video of George H. Bush and Barbara with Jordan's King Hussein and Queen Noor? It shows those Bushes as hateful SOMites — in spades. Personally it made Doug ashamed. Queen Noor who is now an unqueen mother, has written a book about their experiences and some interesting Bushesque classicisms. You may want to read it... Beware classicism's inbred evils! George W. learned all that classical bilge from Mom and Dad... Ugh!

Thank your for your support and thank you for reading.

See you in June, 2003,

Doug.

March, 2003 News:

How we arrive comtemplatively where we are for this month's news --

Can we justify USA's attack/war on Iraq? How?

If we follow Pirsig's (our interpretations of his) teachings one of our conclusions is very simply: War is a Social Pattern of Value (Social PoV). War is a social program! Given that, then we have to ask ourselves when are Social PoVs predominately good/better and when are Social PoVs predominately bad/worse. (Our slashes distinguish classical either/or dichon(good, bad) vis-à-vis quantum both/and quanton(better,worse).) Pirsig teaches us that Social PoVs are better/more-moral when they exhibit these pragma:

In USA our Social PoVs regard individual rights more highly than do most Arab nations. Saddam Hussein's Iraq, under his brutal leadership, has little regard for individual, let alone Intellectual, freedoms. Left at that, we can peacefully co-exist. If Iraqis want to live in a regime of brutality, that's fine. Problems arise, however, when some Arab nations declare our USA way of life "Satan," and then act on that declaration by attacking our hard-won PoVs. Pirsig's MoQ tells us that we have a moral right to defend our USA PoVs. We agree that we have that right. We agree that we must defend that right. Our position only takes issue with how we do that.

Is a classical notion of 'war' apropos for dealing with terrorism? To us, 'war' implies an intention to destroy an entire Social PoV, perhaps an intention to destroy a whole nation. That is a classical, anachronistic, tired, worn, useless notion. We, et al., did that in Japan, Germany, etc. Some Muslims want to do that to "the Great Satan" USA now. If they were able and capable they would destroy our entire nation ASAP.

We believe that terrorism and its constituents must be eliminated and destroyed as a metastatic cancer of Earth societies, just as we attempt to eradicate small pox, leukemia, etc. But when we destroy those 'dis-eases' do we destroy their hosts intentionally? No, we intentionally attempt to destroy those dis-eases while protecting said hosts! Our approach is what we might refer medically as "Hippocratic." Our only harm is to that which harms its hosts.

But right away we have a severe problematic. Our use of "harm" here is a moral issue in itself. What is "harm?" Who decides? We discuss this issue in other venues here in Quantonics, but for our local morality here in this March, 2003 News we declare harm as death of a host. Terrorists harmed USA! That is inarguable. When we view those terrorists as pathogens and USA as host it becomes patently clear that it is our national (social) PoV duty to do our best to destroy those pathogens and any "petri dish culture" host which nurtures them.

Given that examination and consideration it is Doug's belief that we, USA, have a moral right and obligation to eliminate, within limits of our abilities and capabilities, terrorism which acts against us and intends to act against us.

But now another problematic arises. And it is a bigger problematic than any we have encountered before: How can we Hippocratically destroy terrorism?

It is our view that we cannot eliminate global terrorism which threatens our USA using classical 'war' machine techniques! Worse, to do so, in our view, puts our own USA's survival at risk. To miss that point is one gravest mistake. In our view, George W. Bush and his administration do not fathom what we just said. To us, they live in a past which has anachronistically passed.

We have said in previous news letters that we think terrorism should be dealt with in its own way: virtually. Notably, Operation Iraqi Freedom is incredibly more virtual than 1991's Gulf War. But its massiveness is nonvirtual and blatantly classical. Its massiveness appears to us as what has caused a global anti-American reaction which we have seen. Its massiveness has garnered massive global hatred against our USA, regardless whether we destroy Saddam's regime. In our view, that is how nations become agents of their own destruction! We worry that our wonderful homeland, by uncareful acts by George W. Bush's administration, has commenced its decline.

We do not agree with views of those who believe we should do nothing! That is "action in favor of terrorists, via inaction, by those who do not care." We have to act, and we did, and we shall continue our pragma. Unfortunately, under Bush's doctrine, we argue that we have acted against terrorists and against US too. Times will tell if we grasp this issue well. If we are incorrect, good for USA and its friends and allies. If we are correct...

Until now, after prosecution of said 'war' has commenced, we rejected out-of-hand any rights of USA to attack Iraq unilaterally without concord from UN or an equivalent majority vote of UN and other nations. To us UN is flawed in its fundament1, in its intellectual and social bases2, so we include nations outside it having voting powers.

But let's look at Doug's list of globally known potentially justifying affectors:

  1. Is global peace and freedom threatened by presence of Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime?
  2. Can we expect more or less world terrorism if Hussein's regime is replaced with a presumably democratic one?
  3. Is an international 'war' against Iraq a war against Saddam Hussein?
  4. Is it a 'war' against Islam?
  5. Is it a war against freedom?
  6. Should a simple majority of nations vote for 'war' against Iraq?
  7. Do USA and international allies choose to prosecute said 'war' virtually3?
  8. Does Iraq have WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction)?
  9. Does Iraq support Al Queda, Hamas, Hisballah, Arafat and other terrorist organizations?
  10. Does (can, should) USA/UN have moral authority over any or all other nations on earth?4
  11. Does George W. Bush and his administration act as though USA has moral authority over other nations on earth?

But...can you imagine Daschle, Gephart, McDermott, Slick, Hillarious, Teddy, et Al., prosecuting 'war' on Iraq? Pondered individually we cannot help but feel pure comedy and belly-wrenching eruptions of laughter. Imagine what would be happening today if Al GaBore had been elected president...?!! Wouldn't he and his consensual Democrats have given Al BoQueda a pass on NYC's Twin Towers? Wouldn't Hussein's regime still be "status quo is the way to go?"5

Did you hear Daschle in his latest expression of Democratic meltdown? He essentially called President Bush (Bush's UN efforts) "A major diplomatic failure." That's like saying "Guns kill people." But people kill people. Analogously, United Nations is the "diplomatic failure."6 As we have said before, UN depends upon consensus (but isn't it curious how any notion of a member power of 'veto' disables consensus). In quantum reality consensus is impossible. Thus we should be able to see that consensual diplomacy is impossible. France and Germany demonstrate unambiguously that UN consensus is generally impossible. So if UN's purpose is to reach consensus, we might as well end our support of UN. However, we are not in favor of that. As much as we dislike UN and what it claims to stand for, we see its presence and its water cooler liaisons as much greater value than their absence.

If we view consensus as 'normal' common sense AKA normal, democratic sense then we may choose to view Bush's actions as a leader as "extraordinary" sense. But all sense whether common, normal, extraordinary, etc. is always quantumly "provisional sense." No sense is ever absolute. Every issue always has plural, pragmatic (i.e., action), culturally comtextual/local, provisional senses. Further, each of those is absolutely animate, and always changing. (Enter John Forbes Nash's 1994 Nobel Prize-winning thesis on Social Equilibrium.)

Have you noticed that Fox and MSNBC refer Bush's prosecution of war as USA-approved "Operation Iraqi Freedom," while CNN calls it "Strike on Iraq," and "War in Iraq?" Very telling. We surf all three (in our view, legacy netnuts Blather, Bendings and Brokencaw are an absolute waste of our times) to sense variations in viewpoints. To us, Fox, which claims balance, is actually SaS-ERP hawkish to an extreme, but most of those folk are catholic/universalist religious fundamentalists, so what can one expect. Foxnuts evoke in us feelings of 'catholic Inquisitions,' and 'the Crusades' resurrected 'in Christ's name.' Ultimate ughly! Antithetic godly love and caring. MSNBC appears more balanced to us, while CNN is stuck in its dovey, liberal fundamentalist, anti-war schism/chasm. Funny that CNN's journalists were kicked out of Baghdad, probably saving their lives. Recent reports say multiple other journalists are Iraqi captives/worse. And New Zealander Peter Arenutte appears to us as essentially working for Saddam Hussein.

Do we know chary of war? Yes! Do we believe con(m)flict is part of humans' foreseeable futures? Yes. Quantum Nature achieves progress via unending conflict! Without con(m)flict, there can be n¤ harmony! Without well-tempered confinements, there can be n¤ well-tempered freedoms! Our every-day lives depend, extensively, for their own goodness, betterment, and progress, on our personal and group management of natural con(m)flicts.

But what is war? In our view classical war is large groups of people fighting one another classically/massively over ideological differences (e.g., our war of freedom from Great Britain, Britain's war with Germany, 'the' Vietnam war, USA's (un)civil war, and so on...).

We believe that those kinds of wars are passé. We believe a n¤vel millennium of quantum p¤litics and quantum comflict-management is emerging.

We believe that in our not too distant futures we will have comflicts, but not classical wars. Comflicts are much more of an individual nature (treating terrorists as individuals) vis-à-vis national patterns of social/cultural values.

What we are seeing as a conflict twixt Saddam Hussein and USA when viewed as a 'war' is just plain nonsense. As we understand our current situation at commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom we do not need to send 300 hundred thousand troops and spend upwards of half a trillion dollars to take out Saddam. All we need do is use humint and virtual pinpoint remedies against individual terrorists. Treat terrorists like metastatic pathogens. Destroy them locally with minimal affects and absence of fear on their surroundings. Ponder that morality vis-à-vis terrorist morality of local destruction with maximal affects and intentional superposition of fear.

...

Re: Operation Freedom Iraq: Are our USA military people superb or what?

What an incredible time to be alive and see natural evolution's imperatives for absolute change. What courage our young people show us...and they are all volunteers. We are proud of you young folk. We pray for your success, wellness, and safe return. Our spirits are with you and for you. We support you!

Have you been noticing that this 'war' is, compared to 'the' gulf and previous 'wars,' a more virtual conflict? It has a computer gamings feel to it. Our troops and senior staff prepared using gaming emulators and virtual percepts. Our kids have grown up playing incredible gaming technologies and implicitly learning real time, full flux, semper flux defensive and offensive techniques. We are seeing how all those experiences, when combined with awesome novel military training-practice and technologies, simply overwhelm most threats.

Our fears have been that 'war' prosecuted by USA would be too classical. Our fears are partially unwarranted!

Too, our fears have been that national static patterns of social value might become corrupt and fully deny USA peoples' individual rights and freedoms (we have seen USA apparently moving in those directions via Ruby Ridge, Waco, 'Homeland Security,' etc.). Any nation's government imposed monocultural and monosocial patterns of value, as we have seen with totalitarian repressivists Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Kaddafi, inFidel Castro, et al., are both corrupt and evil. Our sensibilities have seen indications in our USA of a drift away from individual freedoms and toward national monistic patterns of social and cultural value.

As individuals we must be vigilant and never allow what Russians, Germans, and Iraqis allowed to happen in their nations. We must 'take' our freedoms and be proud of protecting them. Whenever our nation prevents us from expressing our freedoms (including peaceful "anti-war" demonstrations), we must realize that a process toward absolute corruption and evil (by evil we intend absolute Exclusive Static Quality, ESQ, patterns of nationalized monocultural and monosocial repressivist patterns of value) has already commenced. Some of President Bush's early SOMitic dialectic told us that he encouraged this process of eventual total government control. Examples, "You are either for us or against us," "Arafat is no terrorist," and paraphrased "You are either a patriot or a traitor." Of course none of those dialectical dichotomies is real, and certainly none of them is nor can they be 'true.' That dialectic is ESQ, evil. Bush, beware.

But as we have watched Bush act we see his intuitive pragma. Bush in action is no SOMite! He sounds and talks and walks like a SOMite, but he acts like a MoQite!!! Incredible! We have noticed this in many other brilliant folk like Robert M. Pirsig, Henri Louis Bergson, William James, Thomas Kuhn, Clifford Geertz, Werner Heisenberg, PAM Dirac, Hermann Hesse, and so on... It is, more generally, a human comdition — but so few of us are aware of it. We are n¤t ideally monistic, either/or, mechanical, formal, dialectical machines! We aræ b¤th/amd, probabilistic, emerqant, c¤mplementary, quantum beings!!! And our quantumness expresses our intrinsic nature most exquisitely whenings we aræ actings. Our quantum human nature is plural present participle, not singular active/passive voice. Bottom line, Bush, like you and us, is a quantum being!

But there is more... Bush, unlike his predecessor (and that predecessor's slimey comrades: Daschle, Gephart, Toricelli, McDermott, GaBore, Teddy, and so on...), is a leader. He has proven that. He makes us proud to be citizens of our great USA. But there is more... Bush, unlike his predecessor, is a statesman. And there is more... Bush, unlike his predecessor, has character which understands how important it is for a leader and statesman to care about and try to be what a majority of citizens would call "a model leader and statesman." Bush's predecessor is wholly antithetical that model. Bush's predecessor brought us personally and in our view he brought our nation great shame. Bush's actions bring us pride, but his dialectic is terrible. That combination of human traits is a quantum both/and. That is partially what it means to be human. We'll choose Bush's quantumness over his predecessor's. At this juncture we, again, offer Bush our vote of con(m)fidence.

We are making other progress in Quantonics, but this 'war' imposes itself on our psyches in ways which we cann¤t, must n¤t ignore.

Thank you for your patience!

See you next May, 2003.

Doug.

March Note 1 - Any view that notions of consensus are valid, let alone actionable/pragmable; we assume concord's view is always historic thus inductive and depends, as does any notion of affirmative pragmatism, on an invalid belief in classical scientific cause-effect and one-one correspondence.

March Note 2 - Libya's UN 'humanitarian' agency, Canada/Germany/Hungary/Russia anti-US stances, France/Germany's filibusters and powers of veto, UNESCO's cultural ideocies, etc.

March Note 3 - I.e., non-classically, in small scale, perhaps apparently unrelated increments; e.g., start by simply "disabling Iraqi leadership." Now, since war has started, we see that this almost happened on day one. We have no way of knowing what might have transpired if that, for example, had been all that we did.

March Note 4 - Other affectors which (as far as we know) have not been discussed/weighed globally: Does (can) any nation, organization, religion, science etc. possess decidable moral authority over any nation or group of nations? Simply, who decides when what is "right/righteous?" This, in our view, is one of the, if not the, most important issues for nations and unions of nations to resolve during Millennium III. Specific case: who is moral USA/Christianity? Iraq/Islam? Either? Both? And most important: Who decides? Can anyone/anygroup/anynation/anyunion decide absolutely? Ponder: Does Iraq kill its own and other nations' people? Yes! We can offer countless examples. Does USA kill its own and other nations' people? Yes! Other people prosecute: countless 'wars.' USA people have prosecuted: 'Civil' war, Waco, Ruby Ridge, 1.5 million 'Supreme' court Roe v. Wade-approved, government sponsored and funded abortions annually! Choose: is Iraq moral? USA? Either? Both? Why? How? Who? When? Where? What? Is consensus possible? Is classical certainty possible? Does one judgment fit all for all futures? In our view, as long as we treat these issues classically, using CTMs, we are doomed to failure. In our view, we shall achieve progress and success only when we commence treating these issues quantumly, using QTMs.

March Note 5 - In Quantonics, we view that list of Democrats as SaS-ERPs all; we use "role-player" here in a Pirsigean-identified classical sense that if one is not playing a role which is identifiable within a given culture then that culture politically presumes one is outside that culture and maybe equivalently "insane;" a good example is Daschle's recent early March, 2003 political role-play calling Bush diplomacy "a failure," with an implication that Bush is politically outside Democratic culture; from a Quantonics perspective, clearly, role-playing is at best SQ and at worst ESQ.

March Note 6 - In our view mostly due France and Germany. Of course their world stature and as a result EU's world stature is now greatly diminished. But so is our USA's.

February, 2003 News:

It's good to be back home, but Doug misses Oregon already! We spent our whole month of February in Sedona, Arizona. Stayed in a gorgeous home, one whole side of which is floor to ceiling glass with a 180 degree view of Sedona and red rock in background.

Upside of Sedona: it is dry and warm. It is a valley at about 1300 meter elevation with red rock mountains, mesas and buttes rising another 1000 meters from there. Sedona is named after a woman who moved there about two centuries ago with her husband to start a new life. Sedona's valley protects it from ills of higher elevations, so it is warmer and less affected by snows and bad weather. Flagstaff, just 50 kilometers north, is sometimes 10 degrees C colder with lots more snow and ice and unfriendly weather. Phoenix is only two hours south and Grand Canyon is only 1.5 hours north. Sedona is a fairly well-to-do town and it reflects in lots of quality in food, services, etc. A nice home there, like one we stayed in, which would cost about $300k in Indy is roughly double in price now in Sedona. A small lot with a view equivalent to what we had is about $200k. Of course, only ten years ago, prices were much more reasonable. A similar lot was only a third of that.

Sedona is still wild. Beth and Doug watched three female deer browse just off our deck. Doug saw a male and female quail waddle past his office window. Coyotes serenaded us early morning and just prior to bed time. Beth got to see one saunter past our deck. If you have ever seen a coyote in motion, they have a kind of bouncy lope. It's a little like a horse's gait except all four feet are up together/synchronously quite frequently. Fascinating. They run with head down and non-alphas run with tail tucked.

We didn't see any, but our neighbor across our street, said Javelinas ("havaleenas") are regular visitors to help themselves to garden goodies, especially potatoes and root crops. They have very nasty tempraments and will take on full grown adult humans without hesitation, especially when they have wee piglets. Sedona also has Stellar jays which we fed and big-big ravens which were too careful to come and feed while we were watching. Once we started feeding those jays they came by each day and insisted we put out more. Doug bakes marvelous bisquits which became their favorites. Beth put out 50/50 sugar water prepared in our microwave for Sedona's wide variety of humming birds. Indiana humming birds are unafraid of humans. Sedona humming birds are more like those ravens. If they see you watching they zip off into a Juniper tree and wait till you go away.

Speaking of Junipers, they offer one of Sedona's few downsides. Junipers emit their pollens in Spring. 2003 Spring came early in Sedona and Juniper pollen was every where. Worse, Doug found out that he is terribly allergic to Juniper pollen. Juniper pollen allergies are not uncommon as we learned subsequently. So we recommend you visit Sedona between June (hot) and December (cool). Best months are September thru November, but rents are maximum then too.

We arrived back in Indy on 1Mar2003. Doug will return to Oregon in July for an nine month stint there.

...

While we were in Oregon we took delivery of new MAC hardware and software.

We are fed up with Micro$lopt's greed, FUD-PR, and single-source hegemony-products. We are moving to Aqua, (back to) unix (on Apple hardware), and to linux (on AMD hardware). We max'd out our abilities to process site data each week on Wintel. As an example, processing our weekly site access logs, what used to take 20 minutes to do on Wintel only takes 10 seconds to do "better" on a 15" MAC G4 laptop, 1GHz cpu, and 60Gbyte HD. Nearly everything we need is open source in that environment and essentially Linux compatible. We are learning Perl, so anything else we need we can just do ourselves. An example here is our own Quantonics English Language Remediation co(n)mtext-associative editor.

Also, our full site annual changes which in prior years took days on Wintel, now take three minutes under Aqua. Amazing!!! Our site is growing in size, so that kind of efficiency leaves us with more time for site development. Of course we have to spend time learning this new environment, but it is fun and relatively easy. Any files which can be rendered HTML or plain text are 'compatible.' That covers nearly all Quantonics work thus far.

One more note. We hadn't learned Unix ftp tools so we purchased and downloaded Oxygen online. It is a tad different from WSFTP, but it works fine on our MAC. It is inexpensive, too. Now we are learning Unix ftp, so we can go either way. Next is finding a really good/simple HTML editor for MAC.

We anticipate a day, not too far away, when we are M$-free.

...

We also changed all of our email addresses. As of now, our personal, corporate and society email addresses are no longer published. We simply got tired of all that unsolicited email. We want to receive your emails, though. Too, we want to continue and support dialogs with our students. By this time next year, students should be able to have separate (free) accounts on Quantonics which will allow unique access to Quantonics' resources. Between now and then if you want to establish a private link with us, send us a snail mail (see our index page bottom) with one of your current email addresses and we shall contact you. Tell us whether you want to receive email from Quantonics. Tell us who you are and about your interests in Quantonics. Students and those of you who have been recent contributors will receive an email address change notice. We just saw on TheRegister.com where technical 'fixes' are underway to siginicantly reduce WWW's email problems. But that's a couple years away, and we have to deal with our email problems now. We understand that it isn't a very friendly approach, but neither is unsolicited email.

See you next April, 2003.

Doug.

December, 2002 — January, 2003 News:

What an incredible Chautauqua for Beth and Doug! We are now two thirds through our journey, and our rest. It has been a ride beyond any of our previous imaginings. More on that a tad later...more urgent news just now...

We were on our way from Las Vegas to Sedona and just past Boulder Dam when we heard 1Feb2003 FM news regarding shuttle Columbia and its crew! Ugh. Double ugh. Personally, Doug's quantum stage reverted to immediate recall of 1986's Challenger demise. We can recall where we were, what we were doing and how we felt when Challenger fell. We also recall vividly Richard P. Feynman's startling and telling classical cause-effect modular induction explanation of why Challenger failed (brittleness of booster rubber 'O' ring seals at temperatures near freezing).

In Quantonics we k-n¤w that both those crews did n¤t classically "die." They transitioned! Each of us transitions in a larger system similarly to our bodies' own cellular apoptosis as subprocesses of our own bodies; we emerse a whole n¤vel us about every 170 days. But apoptosis is 'not' classical radical finality. From a quantum perspective, apoptosis, like all reality, is animate pr¤cess. N¤r were those crews' (n¤r any¤ne's) 'deaths' radically final. Instead, we view them as quantum process. So, in our view, that perspective — a perspective, for us, mitigates Columbia's tragedy.

Which brings up an interesting issue regarding coverage of NASA's Columbia incident.

Do NASA personnel view reality as classical or quantum? How can we tell? Doug found out while watching NASA's 2Feb2003 briefing.

Ron Dittemore said it like this, while he was describing potential for booster insulation to damage Columbia's port elevon, "...the cause." Dittemore's use of both 'the' and 'cause' tell us that NASA regards what happened to Columbia and its crew as a classical event with a single, discoverable, radically final cause.

But is that so? Is what happened to Columbia a single predetermined 'A caused B' event. Or can we better describe it as quantum (plural present participle) pr¤cess outcomings "Bings Value preconditionings Aings?" We believe a quantum perspective is higher Value here. We believe it offers a better description of a complex ensemble of quantum pr¤cesses which merged to select what we call a "tragedy."

Classicists believe that we can always blame a static cause for singular-what (plural-?) happens singular-next. But that view is not quantum physially (n¤t 'physically!') real. SOMiticism is alive and well in NASA!!! Sad... Were their classical analytics valid, why did Columbia's tragedy happen on 2Feb2003 and not sometime prior during Columbia's 20+ year life. If classical determinations are analytically y=f(t) cause-effect then why has it only happened, like this, one time? If it is deterministic, shouldn't it happen every time? See, classical analysis simply does not work, is n¤t viable, in quantum reality! Reality is not classically deterministic! Reality is n¤t classical! Yet NASA, ostensibly, is doing its analyses classically...

But for Doug there is a huge quantum bottom line here: macroscopic quantum uncertainty1. During an interview with a NASA cognizant person, that person said that we had arrived at a stage in shuttle flights of considering them "routine." What we saw instead is that reality is quantum real, and that quantum ensemble uncertainties arise, sometimes quite strikingly, in macroscopic ways. This is very important for Quantonics since most classicists deny quantum uncertainty above subatomic, atomic and mesoatomic scales. But Columbia and her crew just showed us, by Pirsigean Direct Experience, otherwise. Of course, we deny validity of most of classicists' views as they apply to a more general quantum reality.

1See child's baseball/window gedankenment at end of our Quantonic remediation of 'uncertainty.'
Substitute NASA for 'child,' Columbia for 'baseball,' and mesosphere for 'neighbor's window.'

...

Here it is...early February, 2003. And, in Quantonics, it is timings for celebrations. Please join us in celebratory thoughts and spirits. February 11, 2003 is our Quantonics web site's fifth anniversary! Yeah! "Come on. It's a celebration." Thanks to your steady support and follwership we made it this far. We intend to proceed.

Please, on your own quantum stages, wish us a happy 5th anniversary.

...

There is much (in a seemingly unending list of Quantonics projects) to do. But too, we k-n¤w that Joseph Knecht, in his resounding poem Stages, was correct:

"...Serenely let us move to distant places
And let no sentiments of home detain us...
"

We doubt Hermann Hesse would be angry with us were we to rededicate Knecht's Stages to our, Israel's, and India's fallen astronaut heroes. May you all experience Knecht's Stages as portrayed in Hesse's very quantum Magister Ludi (AKA The Glass Bead Game, 1946 Nobel prize for literature). Knecht transitioned to Turu, thence to Josephus, thence to Dasa... And we hope that we, USA, rededicate ourselves to our only sure and immediate saving grace: space exploration and discovery. (Using Quantonic Think-king Modes we believe that Nature holds in store for Earth a macroscopic quantum uncertainty event of proportions which may eliminate all humans and most life. NASA is USA's only current organization which can put us on a path of saving at least a fraction of humanity. We need to do this ASAP. Our opinion. And would not USA have a better image and reputation were we to take upon ourselves that goal and diminish many forgiveless/godless desires of those nutcase reactionary conservative hawks who want to get even with Al Queda by taking their angers out on Iraq. Ugh.) Would that at least half those dollars spent on classical and oxymoronic "Homeland Security" (what we see as a "goose killer" due its classically ineffective misdirection and misuse of large capital resources) be dedicated to space opportunities. NASA needs sponsorship now of important projects like quantum antigravity, quantum computing, and quantum spin-doctoring of space-capable materials.

...

Beth and I just finished ~nine weeks on Oregon's rugged coast. We stayed in a beautiful rented home there, and during our stay there we found a n¤vel and stable place for us to stay in futurings. Latter has a bay and ocean view which is, for us, spectacular. We plan to stay there about half of each year. And when Doug arrives at an opportune set of affective conditions, he will use that location to work on his next book. (We have about a half dozen texts either in planning stages or actually underway. We anticipate Gershwinian Rhapsody in Bluesque motivation.)

We had a grand nine weeks in Oregon. Now we are in Sedona, AZ for a month. Our place here is beyond words. We are at an elevation of 4500 feet. Our residence has floor to ceiling glass across its entire north side which gives us almost 180 degrees of ~10 mile distant red rock mountains which rise another ~3000 feet. Gorgeous! Yesterday, our first day here, we had a high of 74F. It was a chilly 40s last night.

We are going to keep this short. If you want to see our recent accomplishments, just look at our top page. Some changes are not shown there since we consider them minor, but if you want to track all changes in Quantonics there are several free services which will permit you to do that. Also, some integrated programs in some browsers and internet tools will permit you to monitor and even download only our site changes. Many of you have automated this process on your own systems, and it is a great way to watch our progress as a living, evolving, emerging quantum web site. Imagine what web sites will be like in a 100 or so years when they will be capable of self-evolution and text itself will evolve to offer compound comtextual hermeneutics and keep up with rapid language and semantic emerscenturings. See emerscence and emerscitecture.

...

Another ill omen lurks... If G. W. Bush pulls an anti-Iraqi military trigger twixt now and our next newsletter, expect a Dugger Diatribe on uglies of Conservative Nationalism. Inquisitions of a genuinely catholic nature did not work in sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and they will not work now. Shades of Giordano Bruno and Pope Clement d' 8th. USA needs no reputation as Earth's Millennium III Grand Inquisitor. We need to re-think our leaders' anti-Iraq "road rage." We need to virtually chase down and virtually eliminate guilty individuals, not blame and take on whole nations. If we want Saddam out, let's take just him out and leave other Iraqis to their individual affairs. Do unto others...

Thanks again for your persistent patronage in Quantonics, and thank you for reading.

See you here again in early March, 2003! We should be back in Indy by then.

Doug.


 

Arches


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., 2002-2028 — Rev. 8,16Feb2015  PDR — Created 2Dec2002  PDR
(31Mar-1Apr2003 rev - Correct some March typos and extend some remarks.)
(2Apr2003 rev - Typos.)
(2-8May2003 rev - Add April News. Add page top Roosevelt quote.)
(21May2003 rev - Minor April edits.)
(1Jun2003 rev - May News.)
(11Jun2003 rev - Typos.)
(13Jun2003 rev - Add April News Figure 3 animation.)
(14Jun2003 rev - Minor edits to 13Jun changes.)
(20Jul2003 rev - Upgrade How to Become A Student of Quantonics links to new separate web page.)
(31Jul-3Aug2003 rev - July News.)
(9Aug2003 rev - Repair some spelling/typos. Move April Quantonics pedagogic text to How to Become a Student of Quantonics.)
(10Aug2003 rev - Update links to our review of A Beautiful Mind.)
(20-29Aug2003 rev - August News.)
(4Sep2003 rev - Typos. Mostly key bounces causing multiple-extra strokes.)
(20Sep2003 rev - Add JS Mill quote to August News.)
(1Sep2003 rev - September News.)
(31Oct2003 rev - October News.)
(2Nov2003 rev - Change colors in SPoV evolution table; October News.)
(3Nov2003 rev - Repair typos. Add link to SOM_to_sVo_to_SOQ animation. Add reversibility link.)
(6Nov2003 rev - Repair "Hanagah" typo to "Haganah." Add more clarifying red text.)
(8Nov2003 rev - Add quantum stage link to 'MoQ sutures SOM's schism.')
(9Nov-7Dec2003 rev - Add Chautauqua feuilleton installment 2.)
(18Dec2003 rev - Add 'context' and 'comtext' to November feuilletion installment tables.)
(25Dec2003 rev - Minor typos in November News.)
(30Dec2003 rev - Add 'thingk' links.)
(4Jan2004 rev - Add SPoV Evolution anchor to October's wide 5-step SPoV evolution table.)
(5Jan2004 rev - Extend November table's classical 'cause.' Extend table's 'reason.')
(6Jan2004 rev - Update December, 2003 feuilleton links to 2004 News.)
(5Feb2004 rev - Update Oct & Nov Feuilleton links.)
(13Feb2004 rev - Add anchor to first occurrence of ScA and IqQ.)
(29Feb2004 rev - Update Chautauqua links.)
(13Mar2004 rev - Typo. Update Oct and Nov Feuilleton links.)
(25Mar2004 rev - Update November Classical Terms table under 'cause;' add link to Bases of Judgment.)
(18Apr2004 rev - Add November News anchor to table comparing Classical vav Quantum Individual vav Society. Repair some typos in that table.)
(22Apr2004 rev - October feuilleton: minor changes of red text and anchor on Quantonics 'bottom line.')
(27Apr2004 rev - Add anchor to 'false' in November News' table of terms.)
(12May2004 rev - Add anchor to our "be careful when pondering 'SQ'" caveat.)
(1Jun2004 rev - Delinked Ashcroft's www.lifeandliberty.com website.)
(20Jul2004 rev - Update November quantum I-SPoVs' 'Reason.')
(19Aug2004 rev - Update 'change' and 'dialectic' in our November news table.)
(10Sep2004 rev - Remove height and width restrictions on Feuilleton tables. Extend copyright dates.)
(12-18Oct2004 rev - Add 'general, specific' row to November's Chautauqua table. Fix 'history' typo to 'history.')
(20Dec2004 rev - Add 'Quantum Pragma' anchor under August News discussion of quantum agents of change.)
(13Feb2005 rev - Upgrade our discussion of quantum
affectation in our table under our November, 2003 News.)
(31Mar2005 rev - Update affectation re: quantum~exigencyings.)
(1Jun2005 rev - Update 'change' and 'expect' cells in quantum vav classical table definitions & descriptions.)
(1Jun2005 rev - Update 'affectation' cell in quantum vav classical table definitions & descriptions. Links to 'select,' and 'quanta.')
(21Dec2005 rev - Add 'subject' QELR link under October News describing "as practiced" Western Cultural S-O schism. Update Classical vav Quantum table under November News.)
(9Jan2006 rev - Repair grammatical error: 'makes' to 'make.' Update November table's 'coherent.' Add some red text links.)
(25Mar2006 rev - Typo under 'cause' near 'affectation.')
(20Apr2006 rev - Reset legacy red text. Adjust colors. Many respellings.)
(6-7Nov2006 rev - Adjust colors. Remove legacy email addresses. Repair all GIF links.)
(7,31Jan2007 rev - Add Gnostic topos hierarchy to October, 2003 Feuilleton Chautauqua installment. Minor reformat.)
(26Mar2007 rev - Minor edits to August, 2003 News.)
(21Dec2007 rev - Add 'Pirsig's Ancients' anchor to update in October, 2003 TQS News.)
(23Aug2008 rev - Reformat.)
(2Nov2008 rev - Replace wingdings and symbol fonts with gifs. Reset legacy markups. Reformat.)
(2,13Dec2008 rev - Fix another wingding font with a gif. Add morality aside to 'affectation.')
(28Feb2009 rev - Update 'cause' in this page's first table near page top.)
(17May2009 rev - Add 'SPoV Evolution' anchor under October 2003 TQS News.)
(20Apr2010 rev - Make page current.)
(27Jun2010 rev - Add John Stuart Mill anchor.)
(30Apr2012 rev - Repair 'lightening' to 'lightning.')
(10Sep2012 rev - Add SEP under 'affectation.')
(24Nov2012 rev - Add two 'latch' QELR links.)
(4Dec2012 rev - Add two QuPo primer links. Adjust colors.)
(19Feb2013 rev - Make page current.)
(29Nov2014 rev - Add 'Ziolkowski Forward' anchor. Make page current. Adjust colors.)
(8,16Feb2015 rev - Add 'quantum~ensemble' link under 'affectation.' Minor highlights to Ziolkowski Forward.)